My productivity is shit!🍍

And the thing that made it absolutely terrifying was that Hamlet was the only one who reacted. He was cowering, and covering his ears with both hands, and yelling to be heard over the noise.

And no one else seemed to know why he was doing that. The other actors didn't even raise their voices.

(via bsky)

In 2021, Swarovski (the company that makes the very sparkly crystals you see in certain jewelry, on figure-skaters' twinkliest outfits, on red carpet dresses), decided they didn't want the grubby fingers of small-time jewelers, clothing designers and costumers and crafters on their shiny beads and rhinestones anymore. They decided to limit their sales to "luxury" and couture creators, not girls who sell stuff on Etsy. The tenor of their press release on the subject was snide and insulting. Resellers (like your favorite bead shop) would no longer be allowed to carry their product; the average Jane on the street would not be able to purchase them. You could only get them if you had an authorized business agreement that bound you to very strict brand behavior. And those of us who still had good stock of the crystals would no longer be "permitted" to use the brand's name in our listings for sale.

Every bead shop and craft supply place and many, many small clothing makers--wedding shops, prom and dancing dress suppliers, the sort of salt of the Earth mom and pop time machines of shops that are the backbone of the field--scrambled to find something that could replace them. The last of the stock dwindled quickly, all of us grabbing what we could get while there was any chance of it, and then it was gone and we no longer had any access.

I was Big Pissed about it at the time. It was just so goddamn stuck-up, when wholesalers and indie jewelers had made them so much money, when some people I knew--when *I!*--had been brand-loyal for decades. But with no recourse, everyone pivoted fairly quickly, most of us to Preciosa Crystals. Those are Czech, quite sparkly, and considerably less expensive than Swarovski. The faceting method they use is different, but not worse; any differences are hardly noticeable when you're seeing them as a hundred pinpoints of light.

Well, out of nowhere, Swarovski just dropped this: https://www.harmanbeads.com/swarovski-brand-policy-update

"Effective June 1, 2026, Swarovski updated the distribution and brand usage policies introduced in 2021. Businesses may now purchase Swarovski Crystals without signing a Brand Control Agreement, and Authorized Distribution Partners may once again sell Swarovski Crystals to resellers, including bead stores and online retailers. Businesses may also use the Swarovski brand name when following Swarovski’s Proper Use Guidelines. Designers, manufacturers, artists, brands, retailers, and resellers are now eligible to purchase Swarovski Crystals through authorized distribution channels."

They want us back. A lot of the companies who could have kept a brand relationship with them also have swapped to Preciosa, over the last half-decade, in solidarity with indie creators and out of a sour awareness that it could be them, next. And it doesn't hurt that Preciosa was able to expand their line quite a bit now that everyone who wanted sparkle had no choice but to go to them.

And I'm not seeing nearly anyone who intends to return. The feeling is, "Y'all told us to fuck off! Off we fucked! And now, that's what you can do, too!" I'm seeing a lot of "How many of us did you stab in the back?" comments from the people whose money they're hoping to attract.

In this world where women are already subjected to the sexual whims of their male partners and their own desires are often ignored or belittled, I very decidedly don’t wish to read about that exact same thing happening to the FMC. Now, if the FMC is living her best life whilst being subjected to these tropes and shadow-daddy MMCs, then good for her!

I just really wish that the FMC’s pleasure and desires would be centered, rather than just assumed to be submissive and then executed as such without first asking.

But for things happening between the characters, if the FMC is scared-AND-horny or whatever, that's what the fantasy is supposed to be and you as the reader are expected to do some basic suspension of disbelief in order to engage with the idea that (just like in a kink scene!) this is not real, this is just for pretend, everyone is safe and no one is actually getting hurt. On account if it is fiction.

Now, if you're not into that, that's perfectly fine, I am not saying you have to be into reading things that you don't like. If you want to see some kink negotiation, that's cool. Sometimes, there are books that are about diagetic kink, and they do include those negotiation scenes. But for non-diagetic kink (aka the thing you're "taking issue" with), I don't think that it's fair to say that it's wrong for those books to be written that way. A woman's desires ARE being centered -- either the author's own desires or what the author is envisioning the reader will desire. If you're not into it--again, that's perfectly fine, it's just not the right book for you or the right genre for you. Read something else.

You missed the point of the first post, @atinymekanie, so let's read it together again:

women, especially straight women, have so few outlets for their sexual desires, especially if they have a partner who doesn't share them, and i will never understand why "someone ELSE'S private sexual fantasy makes me uncomfortable and therefore they should not be allowed to engage with it, even if i am in no way being affected by it or even aware of it at all" is such a popular party line among allegedly progressive young people.

The problem here is not on whether or not some individual should or shouldn't read those books, or have those kinks.

It's why those fantasies are so prevalent in our society. Why are dark romantasy books so popular? This is the problem and it's a societal problem. Not that the kink in itself exist or that, at an individual level, someone, and here I mean women, likes to be submissive.

This has everything to do with patriarchy and rape culture, if you're wondering. Not something that is inherent to being a woman, or an individual thing. Not at all. Because yeah, having rape fantasies, I've learned, is really common for women. I was aghast to read this, but also... relieved. Because I'm not immune to them either and it feels really shameful. Because obviously, we don't want to be raped. No one really wants to be raped. As prev said about the kink-negociation thing : a fantasy (imaginary) or a dark romantasy book, are safe for the reader /person.

So yeah, it's a good outlet.

Now, we have to ask ourselves why. Why is it so common? (Because of rape culture) Why are there just those dark romantasy books that are successful and pushed on the front scene, now? (Because of rape culture) It wouldn't be such a problem if the romance book scene was overflowing with diversity, other kinks, queerness, erotica where the FMC is in charge, where romance between two (or more) characters was truly on equal footing. But no, you have to dig to find those books (and other culture products) and some are so rare. On the front scene, right now, and especially for teens, it's romantasy. And that's a societal problem (as is rape culture).

The truth, as I see it, is that we dramatically lack good rep for true equal partnership. But rep for submissive women? We drown in it. As a society, that's all there is (rape or no rape, btw - rape culture isn't just about rape, shocking I know). Culture (books, movies, etc we consume) is both a product and a cause for the shape our society has taken for the last hundreds of years.

So, is it a problem if someone read, write, or enjoy those books? Of course not. It's just books.

But we have to think how it's shaping whole (young) generations to think about romance. What is and what is not acceptable in real life. It's how we shape our/their mind. We have to push for other (love) stories to be told, and push them on the front row too, not banning/shaming books some deem "unacceptable". It won't lead to anything. It's a trend and like every trend, it'll pass.

As someone who has sometimes fantasies of this caliber, it feels great to engage in them in a safe way (even if I can't really judge those books, I've never tried any). But I can't say either that I really like having them. I wish I didn't. I wish I could shape my mind into being turned on by less problematic things, or more like, being less turned on by problematic things. And it's possible by engaging in other fantasies too.

Because, plot twist, one's fantasies and kinks are not immutables. They change and evolve with time and the culture we're exposed to. And it's sort of our job, as a society, to reshape them. To get out of the submissive role women have been put under for centuries, not only in real life, but also in our culture products and in our fantasies.

And we'll never get there by insulting, shaming and degrading people who like and engage in those fantasies. The two can coexist (shocking, right?)

There are no "exact color" of pride flags.

I see more and more sites and posts talking about the exact hex codes for the lesbian flag, or the right purple for the ace one, and how it should be more or less saturated and I just want to say: pride flags were meant to be sewn in your kitchen. To be spraypainted and to be recognised.

Stranger Danger from an 80s - 90s kid who lived it

We talked to strangers. We talked to a LOT of strangers. We just knew how to do it safely.

"Don't talk to strangers" was not about never talking to people you didn't know. It was largely about sussing out appropriate help. For instance when I was little, I was always told that if I got lost in a store, I should go to the front of the store, find the checkout counter or customer service desk and ask for help, NOT just walk up to some random person in the store. When I was older I was taught that if I felt unsafe while walking alone I should duck into a store and ask the employees there to call my mom (remember, no cell phones).

I was taught to be very wary of someone randomly coming up to me to offer food or gifts andnot to get in a car with someone I didn't know who offered a ride, which if you think about it if you've ever been in a major city is a good way to avoid a lot of scams, not just kidnapping. It helped me at various points in my childhood learn to avoid religious missionaries on the street (no, I do NOT want that Watchtower, no, I do NOT want to come into your church, thanks). I was also taught not to open the door of our apartment for strangers, which is again a good way to avoid religious proselytizers and salespeople, as well as anyone who possibly might be casing your home.

The idea was to a) have a plan to ask for help, b) develop some discernment on WHO to ask for help, c) have some awareness that every single person you met might not have your best interests at heart. All of those things are still really important to know. The phrase "I don't talk to strangers" was an easy way to convey "I don't know you and I do not have enough information to decide if you are someone I should talk to right now," not "every stranger is going to kidnap me."

Kids in the 1980s and 1990s when "stranger danger" was a thing had a hell of a lot more freedom to interact with strangers than kids now - many if not most of us went places alone, took mass transit alone, carried out errands, stayed out with our friends all day, were sometimes home alone, and knew how to handle that. A fair number of the friends I had in my childhood were other kids that I randomly started talking to at the park, or wandering my neighborhood - I talked to strangers and made friends, in other words.

That also translated to being online. There were a lot of message boards, forums and websites for various interests, and people could and did just show up there and start talking to others who shared those interests. Some friendships that have endured 20 years or longer for me started when we both were in a forum talking about a band we both liked, or a movie we'd seen. We talked to strangers. We talked to a LOT of strangers. We just knew how to do it safely.

Being anonymous online

"Oh, we used to know not to give out personal information online and now every site wants it!" is not a misguided "stranger danger save the kids from mean adults!" thing.

EVERYONE was told that. ADULTS were told that.

A lot of the desire for you to use your real name and personal information online is for marketing and database creation. They want to know your interests and online activity so they can develop a better marketing profile for you. Why the hell do you THINK every company now wants you to use their app and tie it to your phone number? That's all valuable, sellable data for data brokers and marketers. YOU are the commodity. That data is also now potentially being used for things like ICE.

Using your real name online has led to people being fired, being rejected from colleges, etc. for nothing more than, say, being photographed drinking beer at a party or identifying as LGBT+. It's been used to take away people's disability benefits because they posted a photo where they smiled (yes, literally, this has been used against people) or didn't "look sick." Yes, it has also been used to identify people on the other side, but there's a cost to that. When your entire life is public and you have no privacy, there's a cost.

There actually IS a higher level of risk disclosing personal information online than there is in person. In your personal life you're unlikely to have literally a million people calling you or showing up at your door to scream homophobic insults, for example. That shit can and does happen online because more people have access to you. Internet trolls are a thing, and we can't pretend they are not. Things like swatting happen. If you're under an anonymous name on a fan site, that likely will not translate to being targeted in real life. If you're using your real name, disclosing where you live, your school or employer and your daily schedule as you live stream, it's a hell of a lot more likely that will translate to people harassing you offline, and that's happened.

At the time we were being told to guard our personal information, there were a LOT of dedicated, moderated places for children and teens to gather online and interact with others. Geocities, a website where you could create a free little website for yourself, had a children's section. There were Club Penguin, Yahooligans, and a lot of other websites specifically for kids and teens.

There was also software like Net Nanny that parents could install on their home computers that blocked access to certain sites or keywords, meaning it WAS taken as parents' responsibility to keep their kids safe. At the same time, with things like cable television, you could block certain stations to prevent your kids from watching them.

People did talk about themselves. People had websites about themselves and their likes, they wrote about their day on Livejournal or reviews movies they liked on whatever website existed for that. They interacted. The difference was that every single thing they did, every single place they went, every financial transaction, was not posted for the world.

between friends has become a

cultural icon.

how measurements work in canada (ie/ badly)

So if it feels inescapable and like evidence of it is everywhere, whether at times or always, that might just because you're in a Western country where you're surrounded by Christians who believe that, fundamentally, in their worldview. And also they talk and make art about it all the time and run the vast majority of news outlets. And spent over a thousand years burning any art or texts that disagreed with them. Etc. etc.

If you're gonna come to as drastic and painful a conclusion as that, at least take the time first to make sure you're not working with biased evidence (surrounded by too many people and cultural products that believe original sin is real)

how often do we find human remains / burials attributable to a peaceful death of old age, or at least to disease / wild animals? and attributable to human violence, i.e. with traces of weapon impacts?

I personally am much more convinced and compelled by newer theories that, if any piece of technology made us human, it was not the weapon - it was the carrier bag, the story, and/or fire. (But not fire with the primary purpose of violence, mind you - fire with the primary purpose of heat and food and sanitation)

Here's a quote on this from one of my absolute favorite thinkers and writers, Ursula K. Le Guin:

If you haven't got something to put it in, food will escape you- even something as uncombative and unresourceful as an oat. You put as many as you can into your stomach while they are handy, that being the primary container; but what about tomorrow morning when you wake up and it's cold and raining and wouldn't it be good to have just a few handfuls of oats to chew on and give little Oom to make her shut up, but how do you get more than one stomachful and one handful home? So you get up and go to the damned soggy oat patch in the rain, and wouldn't it be a good thing if you had something to put Baby Oo Oo in so that you could pick the oats with both hands? A leaf a gourd a shell a net a bag a sling a sack a bottle a pot a box a container. A holder. A recipient. The first cultural device was probably a recipient. . . . Many theorizers feel that the earliest cultural inventions must have been a container to hold gathered products and some kind of sling or net carrier. So says Elizabeth Fisher in Women's Creation (McGraw-Hill, 1975). But no, this cannot be. Where is that wonderful, big, long, hard thing, a bone, I believe, that the Ape Man first bashed somebody with in the movie and then, grunting with ecstasy at having achieved the first proper murder, flung up into the sky...? I don't know. I don 't even care. I'm not telling that story. We've heard it, we've all heard all about all the sticks and spears and swords, the things to bash and poke and hit with, the long, hard things, but we have not heard about the thing to put things in, the container for the thing contained. That is a new story. That is news... It sometimes seems that that story is approaching its end. Lest there be no more telling of stories at all , some of us out here in the wild oats, amid the alien corn, think we'd better start telling another one, which maybe people can go on with when the old one's fin- ished. Maybe. The trouble is , we've all let ourselves become part of the killer story, and so we may get finished along with it. Hence it is with a certain feeling of urgency that I seek the nature, subject, words of the other story, the untold one, the life story.

Fire is literally the reason our brains are larger than any other species of ape's, because harnessing fire meant we spent radically less energy spent on digestion - and those excess resources instead changed the evolution of the human brain.

Also fire is probably the reason we're not fully covered in hair anymore, evolutionarily - because we evolved in equatorial Africa, where not wearing a fur coat everywhere was an evolutionary advantage due to, you know, the temperature of it all. Once we could make our own heat to survive the cold nights and winters, less insulation was a huge evolutionary advance in equatorial regions especially

Wherever humans have gone in the world, they have carried with them two things, language and fire. As they traveled through tropical forests they hoarded the precious embers of old fires and sheltered them from downpours. When they settled the barren Arctic, they took with them the memory of fire, and recreated it in stoneware vessels filled with animal fat. Darwin himself considered these the two most significant achievements of humanity. It is, of course, impossible to imagine a human society that does not have language, but—given the right climate and an adequacy of raw wild food—could there be a primitive tribe that survives without cooking? In fact, no such people have ever been found. Nor will they be, according to a provocative theory by Harvard biologist Richard Wrangham, who believes that fire is needed to fuel the organ that makes possible all the other products of culture, language included: the human brain. Every animal on earth is constrained by its energy budget; the calories obtained from food will stretch only so far. And for most human beings, most of the time, these calories are burned not at the gym, but invisibly, in powering the heart, the digestive system and especially the brain, in the silent work of moving molecules around within and among its 100 billion cells. A human body at rest devotes roughly one-fifth of its energy to the brain, regardless of whether it is thinking anything useful, or even thinking at all. Thus, the unprecedented increase in brain size that hominids embarked on around 1.8 million years ago had to be paid for with added calories either taken in or diverted from some other function in the body. Many anthropologists think the key breakthrough was adding meat to the diet. But Wrangham and his Harvard colleague Rachel Carmody think that’s only a part of what was going on in evolution at the time. What matters, they say, is not just how many calories you can put into your mouth, but what happens to the food once it gets there. How much useful energy does it provide, after subtracting the calories spent in chewing, swallowing and digesting? The real breakthrough, they argue, was cooking.

-via Smithsonian Magazine, June 2013. Emphasis mine. In the time since this article was published, what was considered a "provocative theory" in 2013 has become a matter of increasing scientific evidence and scientific consensus.

Richard Wrangham lays out his theory as a whole in his 2010 book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human.

For more current summaries on the history of fire, and scientific and archeological evidence for its role in human evolution:

Evolutionary fire ecology: An historical account and future directions. August 2023. BioScience, volume 73, issue 8, pages 602–608. Permalink: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad059, paywall-free.

The discovery of fire by humans: a long and convoluted process. By J. A. J. Gowlett. June 2016. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, volume 371, issue 1696, epage 20150164. Permalink: doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0164, paywall free.

Or, less scholarly:

Current archeological evidence suggests that humans are, if anything, defined by the hearthfire.

By cooking. By our ability to keep ourselves warm. By our ability to provide for ourselves and each other. By humanity's millennia-long quest to beat back the ravages of starvation and hunger.

Ask them how long ago we looked at wolves and saw friends. Ask them when we first tilled the soil and planted seeds so we could grow things on purpose. Ask them how long ago we began to travel simply to explore the world around us.

The Thin Veneer Theory--the Christian one, the one that says humans are inherently violent--falls completely the fuck apart when you realise that we would not have survived if we were that violent. We just would not have! If you kill someone in your very small group--because we lived in very small groups at first, under 10 people--then you've lost someone's knowledge, their hands, their legs, their eyes, their HELP. Help that you are going to need! Makes no sense. Not even chimps, our most violent cousins, are this violent to one another across their species. Because it's impractical for a social animal.

But the data says otherwise as well. Humans help. From birth. Other social animals also help--not just their immediately family or their group, but even other species of animal from them. Helping is inherent to being an intelligent animal that lives in groups, it seems.

But if you don't want to believe all those experiments and data, that's fine. Believe your own DNA then. Unless you are from Subsaharan African peoples, you have more than one species of human in your DNA. This means at some point, your grandmother and grandfather found someone of a whole other species attractive. That's a fact. And we keep finding more species hidden in our DNA even now--I think the most recent one was Denisovian! I don't know HOW you could interpret THAT information as "humans are violent and hate strangers" because it wouldn't be there if two people of two different species hadn't fucked enough to make a baby that survived long enough to make another and so on down the millions of years to now. That's incredible stuff. That means MILLIONS of humans had cross-species relationships! That means our species is SO friendly that we willing to reach across species and make babies with someone else! That is an incredibly high amount of friendliness!!!

We are a motley of many species of human being. That alone should be proof enough that we are inherently so full up with the desire to Make Friends that we will do it over and over to strangers and other animals unlike ourselves. We domesticated one of our main predators. We were so friendly and kind to cats they decided to bring us their babies and we were so friendly and kind we took care of those babies and now we make images of cats and put them everywhere and share them with one another. Even animals we eat, we are kind to and even decide that some of our gods are in their image, and make rules that say "it is Forbidden to kill this animal in a way that brings it suffering, it is Forbidden by the gods to make this animal suffer while it is alive" in MANY religions.