Who is to rule?

Whereas the reality is far more like

in the sense of someone categorically being uninterested dating someone for being part of some stigmatized demographic (e.g. trans, fat, racialized, disabled, etc.) even if they were fully into someone before learning they are part of that demographic

--it's always reframed as a debate around if it is prejudiced to not date the person.

I think this is such a frustrating direction for the conversation to go. obviously losing interest in someone purely for their social position within a marginalized demographic is something that emerges from prejudice. but where people absolutely lose the plot is the implication that covering up prejudice is the same as actually unlearning it. if they were to keep dating that person just to avoid being considered transphobic/fatphobic/racist/ableist/etc., that is still prejudice!

the prejudice exists whether or not they date the person. so they probably should not, because any relationship that emerges is almost guaranteed to be abusive towards the marginalized person, as it's founded on bigoted resentment.

if you lose attraction to someone because of a stigmatized characteristic, you shouldn't date them. but you are still prejudiced, and you should still work on that. not for the purpose of widening your dating pool (who cares!) but because you impact other people in the world as you move through it.

1.) the desire/disgust politics involved in proclamations of categorical exclusion of traits that stand-in for marginalized populations (esp in public in a context that obviously and explicitly builds social rapport via in-group out-group dynamics along a class line) is an important social dynamic to identify and discuss.

saying it's ''just preferences'' is literally the ideological project of naturalization again. push on ''just preferences'' and you will provoke the ''scientific'' justifications for

ableism (e.g. ''we're biologically wired to pursue healthy mates''),

racism (espousing belief in race as pre-social categorical physically differentiated races via reference to racialized bodily and facial measurements)

sexgender assignment (espousing belief in pre-social innate permanent sexgender categorization as the basis for pre-social innate permanent sexuality, e.g. "I'm homosexual therefore I am only attracted to the same Sex" which they define via equating assignment-at-birth to genital shape on a categorical basis),

and so on.

2) when we discuss desire/disgust politics we are not saying ''come fuck us uggos or we'll get you #cancelled. this is a real rape threat." anyone pretending to believe that that's what we're saying is literally just doing more of the "building rapport along a class line via desire/disgust politics" again.

they are mocking the very idea that ''undesirable'' populations are allowed to discuss this common form of social climbing at our experience via insinuating ''we'' (whatever marginalized group) are all desperate rapists whose whole lives revolve around jealousy cause they're soooo much more desirable than us (/sarcasm).

even though it's an open secret people desire every marginalized group this is done to & the "desirable" populations have to ''hide'' this desire for us & feign disgust in public to keep up this desirability kayfabe.

<<First | <Previous | Masterpost | AO3 vers | Tapas | Next(20/07/2026)>

it's still actually perfectly fine to do it

and you shouldn't stop yourself from starting just because it won't be a permanent change.

Like if starting a new daily planner gives you an amazing afternoon of planning and four days where you feel in charge of your life,

why not do it?

It doesn't matter that it won't be a permanent change - 4 good days is still worth it.

If you ever catch yourself thinking, "I wish I could pray/stretch/prep/plan/do the thing, but I always get started on that and it never lasts more than a couple of days,"

what this really means is, "hey, I can feel better for a couple of days."

if this post is making you think of things in your own life that you wish you could stick to because of how good they make you feel,

just be aware:

you're not thinking of a list of ways you've failed to commit

you are in the medieval era and you have this role!

I had like one, maybe two friends who were all like FUCK YEAH YOU PAINT IT WHATEVER COLOR YOU WANT, PURPLE BEDROOMS ARE AWESOME.

But when they actualy saw the finished bedroom, every single one of them was like, “Oh yeah, that’s really pretty.” (Well, the ones who supported me from the beginning were more like WOOHOO.)

MEAN YOU HAVE TO ABANDON

WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY.

When I bought my house, the kitchen was multiple shades of dingy white. It was dismal, but it was now mine! So went to the hardware store for paint (well, several trips, painted swatches on panel, etc — I’m very picky. But this was the final, ‘real’ trip). It was a busy day in the paint section. There were at least five people behind me in line.

Now, remember, latex paint is slightly lighter and brighter when wet than it is when dry. And I’d decided to paint my kitchen candy-apple red. The hardware store employee took my gallon off the Paint Jiggler and cracked it open to put a dab on the top, revealing the most incredibly deep pink, and behind me I hear the entire line of people say,

“Oh my god.”

…in perfect chorus.

This is the door to my garage. It used to be white. Live your best life.

Mischief the cat says “Who goes there?”

Every visiting friend says “This is so cool.”

my garage. It used to be

white. Live your best life.

not decorating trends; those have always existed. but the idea that color and decoration is inherently childish

this is the dining room at the Eustis Estate in Milton, Massachusetts, from 1878 (where I used to work, briefly). the walls are TEXTURED MICA SHIMMER on a green background. Adult Space For Adults!

A jewelry shop in Paris c. 1901. kids can’t buy jewelry!

who can forget the classic 1950s colorful bathroom? I’m not a huge fan, but still! adult space! bright colors; decorative designs!

So here’s two examples of traditional Norwegian farmhouse interiors. You know. The kinds of places peasants live in.

This type of painting is called “rosemaling” and today you usually find it on, like, carved wooden bowls and such that are only used for decoration. But back two centuries ago, it was very common to find the interiors of homes covered in it, in projects that were painted little by little over the decades. Because it’s beautiful to look at, paint is the cheapest way of decorating your house, and what else are you going to do on the long winter nights when it’s too dark and cold to work outdoors?

But mostly, they did it because it made them happy, and it was beautiful.

Aegon Targaryen in 2.01 "A Son for a Son" and Rhaenyra Targaryen in 3.03 "Rhaenyra Triumphant"

There's an intentional parallel between this scene and Aegon sitting the throne in episode one of season two where they have a very similar first experience dealing with their public. They both want to provide and are being counseled by their Hand at the foot of the throne that, well you can't really do that right now.