These two gotta be my favorite genders
Psssst! They’re both genderless

Discoholic 🪩

oozey mess
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
🪼
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

shark vs the universe
RMH
d e v o n

@theartofmadeline

Andulka

祝日 / Permanent Vacation

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
taylor price
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

Origami Around
occasionally subtle

Monterey Bay Aquarium
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Jordan

seen from France

seen from United States
seen from South Korea

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Spain

seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Poland

seen from Australia

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Jordan

seen from Malaysia
@polystyrene-pollutant
These two gotta be my favorite genders
Psssst! They’re both genderless

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
recently saw a comment section full of people, primarily women, talking about loving living with their best friend and being sad about having to live separately one day. some people talking about missing living with their best friend, some talking about “getting” to live with their best friend “until” they find partners. saw one person mention that moving out to move in with a partner felt like a divorce. it makes me so genuinely sad… all these people recognizing the joy they can find living outside the norm, letting themself live with a friend instead of a romantic partner, but still feeling like they have to live with a spouse eventually. like it’s not even a decision, just an inevitability.
similarly, it makes me sad when someone shares their happiness from living with a friend with others and the biggest response is people insisting/assuming they must have a secret unrecognized romantic connection. just taking over a moment of joy to insist they’re wrong about their own life and feelings; all to reinforce the lifestyle everyone is already expected to conform to eventually…
my toxic trait is i believe in platonic needs and sexual needs but not romantic needs. for some fucking reason apparently
"i need friends so bad" awh :( i'm sure you'll find someone soon!!
"i need a sexual partner so bad" awh :( i'm sure you'll find someone soon!!
"i need a romantic partner so bad" ohh. umm. are you suuure you "need" a partner or do u just need affection...... :/ :/ :/
are people under the impression that aromantic people never want to have close personal relationships with the people in their lives. "oh i wish i was aro it would save me all this drama!" actually human relationships are always deep and complicated and messy and have the potential to hurt and help and change your life and being romantic is just one possible aspect of that. aromantic people want to be close to the people around them just like anyone else. and i know the real issue is that people think romantic relationships are the only way to be truly close to someone else but it's weird and off-putting to constantly hear the implication that aros are somehow fundamentally incapable of forming relationships that would impact their lives negatively cause they don't wanna go on dates with people. not even mentioning the aros who do
women have been doing the heteropessimism/heterofatalism thing at me for actual decades ("ohhhhh i wish i was a lesbian! men are so awful but i'm straight so what can you do. i guess i can just live alone boo hoo" etc. etc.) & it has always annoyed me but at this point i'm about ready to pop off the next time it happens in person. not only is it weird & disingenuous to say to people you perceive as lesbians but imo it just exposes your absolute shit taste in dudes & lack of imagination
somebody at a zine show earlier this year spent several minutes expounding to me on her zine compiling all the horrible "types" of men she's been on dates with locally & i was like "wow yeah huh. that sucks. sorry that keeps happening to you." she did the straight woman song & dance, ohhh this is my cross to bear, guys are just awful why do i have to be attracted to them! & it was all i could do not to just ask her if she's ever actually tried anything else. not even "have you ever dated a woman" - have you ever been on a date with guy who isn't straight. what about a guy who isn't cis. do you only date guys of a particular age or cultural background? only guys you find in a very specific set of places? what are your criteria for going on a first date with a man, & is it possible that the choices you're making are in fact part of the equation of "all men [in my life] are awful"?
like...i am OBVIOUSLY not some fucking men's rights incel-apologist here, "why do women only want the bad ones, not all men are like that" lmfao nor am i going to argue that the system of patriarchy doesn't result in widespread extremely shitty behavior among a variety of men! possibly even a majority along certain other axes of identity/privilege! but at the same time i am more than a little concerned about how low many straight women's standards seem to be & also how, idk, weirdly attached most "heteropessimist" women still are to normative gender roles & their much-bemoaned status as heterosexual
i do actually think you could try dating women too. or non-binary people. or just different kinds of men! figure out what it actually is that you like - a kind of gender presentation? certain body types/parts? i don't even care i'm not trying to interrogate your preferences i'm just saying, you have probably not exhausted your options & every time you tell me i'm "so lucky" to be queer i am getting this much closer to responding "DON'T DIE WONDERING"
Ha, I just had this conversation at work where it is a woman-dominated field (of the 50 or so employees that work there, 4 are men [and that's including me as a trans man] and we also have 1 nonbinary worker) and the straight women at the reception desk were talking about how it sucks to date men and how the two bisexual women were soooooo lucky to be bi (even though one of them is literally engaged to a man??? She is literally still with a man, folks.)
And there was a lot of "men are stinky and don't take care of themselves unlike women" "men aren't emotionally mature and tend to be closed off" "men are dogs and only want sex" and I'm not saying this isn't true, because it is true that many especially cishet white men are really bottom of the barrel level partners... but I am frustrated that this happens because of a system that allows it. These dudes think the behavior is cute and continue to act this way because the world around them does not expect better of them, writing it off as just being how guys are and never once challenging them to be better than that.
While queer men and men of color have their own problems to be sure, I will say there is a reason we see overall less of these complaints in these men specifically because of cultural challenges to men who act like this and a lack of willingness to tolerate this sort of behavior from them. It's not that gay men are inherently better at taking care of themselves, at personal hygiene and emotional maturity, or at regulating sexual need with other forms of closeness in a relationship. It's that a lot of gay culture does not tolerate or write off the bottom of the barrel behaviors that are encouraged by the patriarchy itself, and thus it quickly becomes clear that this behavior is not cute and won't be allowed to continue.
And it also bothers me because never once do these women consider a third possibility to their choice of "become gay" vs "date guys they actually don't like at all" which is: consider queerplationic arrangements. Romantic friendships. Kitchen table poly FWB agreements. A roommate that you may in fact be totally nonsexual with but have a deep and profound soulmate-like bond to share. Or like. Date dudes of different races and sexualities and backgrounds and see if maybe part of your problem is the choosing pool you're in itself.
Literally the bi woman who is engaged to a man stated that actually she had these same problems ***while dating women*** and then knew that her future husband was The One after he handled the discussion of her bisexuality with far more grace than anyone else had ever before. She also stated that previously all of her relationships both man and women had been white, and the dude she's marrying is Vietnamese, and that slight adjustment for race seems to have fixed much of her problems because of, again, a cultural challenge to the behavior she didn't enjoy. AND she is not ignorant to the way her fiance's mother treats him as the specialist boy who has ever existed while being harshly critical of his female relatives- but neither is he, nor is *he* tolerant of that behavior either.
Yes, male privilege and male entitlement are both incredibly frustrating things to deal with as not only oppressive forces but also as an active problem with many women's dating lives. But also treating these as though they are inherent to the men displaying these behaviors rather than challenging those same men to be better is actively contributing to the problem, as it takes all responsibility and accountability away from the problematic men themselves and writes them off with yet more "boys will be boys" mentality.
I do not tolerate this behavior in my romantic partners nor in my friendships. Neither should you. Neither should anyone.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Sometimes aromanticism isn't "that thing is romantic and I am aromantic therefore I don't do that" it can be but in my case since I am aromantic, nothing I do will ever be romantic because I don't feel that way. Is kissing on the lips romantic? Not when I do it.
imagine if people actually took romantic consent seriously. wouldn't it be fucking awesome. i know they never will, but just. take a moment and imagine it with me
no more "just give them a chance, maybe you'll end up liking them!", no more "if you're going to reject someone, at least apologize to them!", no more shaming people for breaking up/divorcing, no more demonizing people for rejecting other peoples' romantic advances, no more shoving romance in romance repulsed peoples' face on purpose to provoke us, no more "i know we agreed to just be friends with benefits, but i thought you were going to fall in love with me eventually!", no more "i can fix them" when the only thing "wrong" with them is that they want to fuck without dating.
wouldn't it be nice?
Like to charge reblog to cast
I so so so hate the "soulmate" trope where "everyone has a soulmate." And, no, people going "oh look at these friends who are soulmates! I'm so inclusive to aspecs!" just. Do. Not. Get it. And they won't! They don't get that the issue isn't the romance or whatever of soulmates, it's the implication that everyone must partner up, even if it's with a qpp or friend or whatever. Nope! I'm not partnering! I don't care for your amatonormativity! And yes you "replacing" romance with a friend or qpp is still amatonormativity because I don't trust that you don't see those as Romance Lite(tm) in this context! And I bitterly resent the implication that I am fundamentally less human--literally missing part of my soul--because I don't want a partner. So yeah culturally it is soooo time to get over fucking "soulmates."
As always, begging people to learn that aromanticism is not inherently the "loving your friends sooooo much" identity. Aplatonic aromantics exist! I don't want anyone to be inextricably a part of my life forever, thank you very much, and I'm not any less human for it.
its also weird bc it implies monogamy in some way.
but particularly regarding aspec identities, our perspectives and needs: it very clearly establishes relationship hierarchies. it centers the one soulmate as the one and only partner regardless of the type of relationship. that is fundamentally against aspec and particularly aromantic needs, because it is often this particular status that defines the relationship more than any of its contents. qprs are not necessarily defined by containing less intimacy than romantic ones (tho they often might), but the fact that the relationship itself demands to be understood differently. if you define it as Romance Lite that defeats the point. it is neither romance nor lite.
at the same time soulmate narratives also pair people in rigid ways which goes against relationship anarchy bc you cant weigh different relationships against each other like that. apart from the fact that two people in any relationship cannot possibly feel the exact same way about each other, by pairing people so definitely it also creates a certain segregation between aspecs and allos which denies them compassion for each other and capacity to approach each other by implying that there is one particular person who already perfectly fulfills all your needs.
or DID you consider what a "soulmate" relationship between an aroace and an allo person looks like?
HAPPY FIRST EVER INTERNATIONAL AROMANTIC VISIBILITY DAY

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
My roommates got married last week and said today that they’re planning on moving to somewhere else in the city, and asked me to move with them when they do.
Which I appreciate so much, they’re both fantastic roommates and I really don’t want to try and find another place on my own, but also. Jesus Christ what a look. “Hiii we’re the Thompsons, we just moved in down the street, that’s my husband and that’s the ghoul who used to live in our basement”
Do you actually ship them or do you want them to be trapped together in a cave-in where one of them is injured and they have to talk to keep them distracted and stay sane while they wait for help, and end up opening up about their vulnerabilities and bond and then grow desperate as one starts to slip from consciousness while the other begs them to stay awake—
To all the “both is good” tags: this is an aro post asking you to question if what you really want to explore is the vulnerability and intimacy, and whether romance/sex is the only way to achieve that.
I’m in Hell
So is this post asking us to evaluate whether we mix up love and genuine vulnerability? I’m intrigued.
Not quite! I’ll rewind a bit for context.
So a lot of people realize they’re aromantic when they unravel “I want someone who will support me, care about me, and who I can be vulnerable with long term” from “I want to be in a romantic relationship,” aka what society frames as the only way to achieve this. Once we realize that romantic/sexual attraction and the need for emotional intimacy can be two separate things, and some people may have one but not the other, it’s like a light bulb goes on.
This post is a playful way to take that lens to characters and relationships we’re intrigued by. Sometimes there’s a character with a hard shell and so so many bottled up issues we just want to shake them up and make them crack so they have to confide in someone for once. Sometimes their trust issues are so profound that the idea of them being forced into vulnerability and finding care is tantalizing. Sometimes a couple characters clash but are so similar if they only knew..!
Yet with shipping being a celebrated focus of fandom, folks may find themselves embracing that social framework I mentioned earlier of “the only way to have intimacy and trust is a romantic relationship.” I’m inviting people to step outside this mold and see the infinite possibilities of this trope in a non-romantic context, and maybe even consider if some of their ships are just because they want the characters to have their barriers pulled away and talk.
(I was specifically inspired by thinking about a canonically aroace and romance-repulsed character, and seeing people who want this scenario trip over themselves to come up with reasons for why it’s a) not actually aroace and b) why it would be okay to ship it even if it wasn’t.)
I hope my rambles added some clarity, but given I am typing this up at the airport while waiting for an international flight I am only mildly optimistic
The corollary to "you shouldn't call historical people gay because it's a modern term" is "the word friend didn't always mean what you think it means".
So glad you asked, @kittycattscathy! This is the short answer – I'd be happy to elaborate once I have more time, but I think this at least gives some food for thought.
These days, we use "friend" in a very specific way to mean 1) someone who is not a family member 2) who we are close with 3) in a platonic way.
In the 18th century, "friend" is less a specific category of acquaintance (non-familial, platonic) and more a signifier of the depth and closeness of the bond between two people.
Samuel Johnson (1768) gives us this definition:
"Friend" (when used to address someone directly) is a term of endearment and affection; it's a way of indicating that someone is in your inner circle without necessarily meaning "platonic non-family-member". Thus, dismissing any kind of relationship where the two parties use this term by saying "they were just friends" fundamentally misses the point of how the word was being used.
In a way, "friend" is the highest accolade. John and Abigail Adams famously refered to each other as "my friend" in places where a married couple today might say "my dear" or "my darling". The non-exhaustive list of people John Laurens called "friend" includes his father, his uncle, his sister, his favourite tutors, the man he loved and, yes, his friends (in the modern sense).
PSA:
For gender affirming surgery in the US you'll probably need 2 letters of recommendation from psychologists for insurance - there are many who will provide this for free, you shouldn't have to pay for these.
“friend” is its own deeply important relationship. why is there an insistence on qualifying friendships as “like family” to convey significance
Here is a fun fact I would like to add to this topic. In Poland, in Polish language "friend" ("przyjaciel") has a bit deeper meaning than in English. I was weirded out how easily English-speaking people call other people friends, when in Polish I would simply call them "znajomy" ("acquaintance) or "koleĹĽanka/kolega" ("friend but not really close one").
"Przyjaciel" is a word, which isn't used as frequently as "friend" and you need to truly have a deeper bond with someone to call them a "friend" in Polish. If someone calls you a "przyjaciel" then they have a truly strong bond with you on a platonic level.
At least in Poland we see this distinction and see friends as a deeper platonic bond and differentiate it from people, who we just like but don't have stronger platonic bond.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
i hate that there's no better terms (that im aware of) for friends you have sex with . like generally that just feels kinda shitty . friends with benefits has weird implications, fuck buddy (at risk of sounding like a prude) feels a bit crass and doesn't encompass the Care in the friendship... situationship somewhat implies romantic intent... i suppose QPR works?
i guess it probably doesn't matter all that much, considering most people would probably go "well why do you need people to know that someone is a friend you have sex with?" but... it just kinda sucks. i guess. that there's no term that encompasses the care and trust there. like yeah it's sexual but it takes trust.
labels aren't important to everyone, but personally it kinda bothers me that i'll be forced to reduce a meaningful friendship to something like fuckbuddy.
in japanese there's a term "sex friends". haven't decided if i think it avoids the "primarily about sex" connotation that fwb/fuck buddy have but at least it's neither euphemistic like fwb nor kind of silly like fuck buddy
support and solidarity between aros who entierly reject Valentine's day and aros who have reclaimed it for platonic purposes and those who feel somewhere in between or elsewhere