#stances

sweetqueer ~ a blankqueer stance that relates to the idea that all queer labels are social constructs and, therefore, can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

This means not harassing people for having different definitions of certain definitions so long as they are not racist,transphobic,homophobic,ableist,ect.

sweetqueer people may enjoy learning about why other people believe certain definitions rather than others,without judging but also without believing this above their OWN opinion

this term values inclusiveness and the idea of believing whatever you want !

Recovery and Stance Updates last updated 25/5/26

May 24th, 2026:

changed radqueer to mostly anti radqueer.

notes: it's really difficult for me because being transmurderer IS a huge part of who I am, but ive been trying to do some research online as promised. i realized I cannot fully consider myself 'radqueer' if ive realized how blatantly harmful the community is (accepting of transracial and transnazi labels) but I don't really know what to call myself. if anyone has any alternative labels other than 'transid' I could use it would be great . . . I also haven't found any resources for recovering radqueers or proshippers that haven't gone inactive. this is hard. I shouldve just not made a Tumblr account bruh

May 25th, 2026 (midnight lol):

changed mostly anti radqueer to anti / recovering radqueer changed neutral endo /willo to anti endo / willo

notes: I really wasn't expecting the immediate support but I appreciate it so much. was introduced to the 'desirdae' community that I like significantly more. . .thank you everyone

im neutral on most things because I really just don't care, but I'm very explicitly:

anti-endogenic/willo

anti-proship/darkship/whatever

anti t.r.a.s.h

pro palestine / anti zionist or "neutral" you cant be neutral on a fucking genocide

anti-radqueer

HEAVY anti-harassment. block and move on skull emoji

anti-twitter yes this is fully deadass no twitter users don't have to "dni" that's just stupid

pro going outside and getting a job and touching grass

feel free to ask what my stance is on anything else is in my asks but keep in mind Im a minor and wont answer any stances regarding nsfw topics cause I just don't fucking care bro

pro: queer, mogai/liom, kink (including cnc), good faith transIDs, paraphilias, consent, recovery, alterhuman, factkin/factives, “contradictory” or “confusing” labels, non-traumagenic systems and created plurality, transspecies, abortion, researched self-diagnosis

anti: MAGA, ICE, genAI, harassment, censorship, non-con, arespunk, abuse, xenosatanism, bad-faith transIDs, winterqueer

" MediaStances "

A term for people whose stances on (sex, romantic, etc.) relationships change whenever they interact with or see media that includes those types of relationships.

" MediaStance-Fav (top left), MediaStance-Rep (top right), MediaStance-Ave (middle left), MediaStance-Osc (middle right), MediaStance-Ind (bottom left) and MediaStance-Amb (bottom right) "

A term for people whose stances on (sex, romantic, etc.) relationships change to favorable/repulsed/averse/oscillating/indifferent/ambivalent whenever they interact with or see media that includes those types of relationships.

Romantic and sexual versions of this coming out soon!

920: Pro-attraction

PT: 920: Pro-attraction /end PT

DEFINITION ⦂⠀A stance that is in favour of attraction. This is an inherently pro-recovery term, that is intended to separate from the section of malicious pro-para blogs. This term holds a firm stance against "contact stances", and believes that harmless engagement in fetish, kink, and/or paraphilia, should not be lumped in with harmful, non-consensual actions, nor romanticised under the easier-to-pallet term of "contact", when what it is is harmful and non-consensual; abuse and assault.

PT: Definition: A stance that is in favour of attraction. This is an inherently pro-recovery term, that is intended to separate from the section of malicious pro-para blogs. This term holds a firm stance against "contact stances", and believes that harmless engagement in fetish, kink, and/or paraphilia, should not be lumped in with harmful, non-consensual actions, nor romanticised under the easier-to-pallet term of "contact", when what it is is harmful and non-consensual; abuse and assault. /end PT

I coined this because there is so much focus on contact stances, so much of the discourse around non-conventional attraction is repeating similar arguments of what queerphobes would say about gay, bi, lesbian, etc. orientations, where they talk about the semantics of "you can't feel x, or else you'll hurt vulnerable groups", particularly toward children.

The focus should be the attraction. Contact discourse is stupid, when "contact" is a way of packaging harmful and non-consensual activity into something more palatable, which I know, as an ex-radqueer, is intended to normalise harmful and non-consensual activity. The ethics of making harm and non-consent palatable in real-life discourse should be of large concern. It is a tool for radicalisation, that cannot be allowed to survive.

Not only that, but it lumps in harmless actions, like drawing, roleplay, writing, etc., in with this. If you are utilising any of those tools or others as harm reduction for significant paraphilias like necrophilia, pedophilia, or zoophilia: this would be frustrating, to know "contact" stances group you in with corpse desecration, child molestation, and beastiality. It's unacceptable.

Summary: someone's attractions, or lack of, are fine. The argument doesn't need to go any further than that, especially if one is practising harm reduction. The subject of HOW someone should engage with certain attractions is wholly separate from the validity in its existence, as a feeling.

ADDITIONAL ⦂⠀Coined on the 9th of March, 2026. This is coined out of frustration of what I believe to be a clear tool that has been made by radicals, that is being entertained by those who are supposedly against the radical group. I want to think that it's only so clear to Me BECAUSE of My time as a radicalist, so I do not blame you if this is what makes you reconsider your stances.

PT: Additional: Coined on the 9th of March, 2026. This is coined out of frustration of what I believe to be a clear tool that has been made by radicals, that is being entertained by those who are supposedly against the radical group. I want to think that it's only so clear to Me BECAUSE of My time as a radicalist, so I do not blame you if this is what makes you reconsider your stances. /end PT

TAGGING ⦂⠀@c1rcus-of-silliness @dearestchild @goregender @radiomogai

The Divergent movies happen to be free to watch on BBC iPlayer, so I found myself finally giving them a try. One of the things that caught my eye was the unusual fighting stance the characters are trained to use in the first film, as well as some of their punching technique. If you search online you'll see a lot of people trashing the stance and punches as completely unrealistic, and I'm not going to get into that exactly (how realistic or unrealistic something is can vary depending on the individual, and honestly it's also not something that interests me a lot when it comes to movie combat). I will say this much, though -- I actually quite like seeing these unusual stances rather than the normal boxing or kickboxing approach.

The rear hand, as you can see above, is held up in the more typical style, close to the chin, but the front arm is tilted in an odd way with the elbow pointing out at the opponent. After looking into it, it seems like the stunt co-ordinator (Garrett Warren) was actually inspired by the boxing style of George Foreman, and used this for the Divergent stance. (Foreman was one of the best heavyweights in history, and famously fought and lost to Muhammad Ali.) Warren calls the guard Foreman used 'peekaboo', but this is (as far as I know) a mistake on his part, because the peekaboo style is actually something named for the stance Mike Tyson used during his prime days (high hands held straight up, while you look over the top of the gloves as if you're peeking). What Foreman used, on the other hand, is usually called the cross arm guard/stance instead. Regardless of the name mix up, it's clear he wanted to channel Foreman's cross arm stance for a cinematic fighting style, which I find pretty neat! (How useful that stance would be in a fight where you can use more than your hands and you don't have gloves is another question, but again, I'm not too fussed over realism.) One thing I will say is that Foreman's cross arm guard looks a bit different to the Divergent one. You can see that he sort of holds his arms closer to his face and body here, rather than the more angled posture in Divergent. Here is Foreman on the left:

[Screenshot from a helpful haNZAgod Foreman defence highlight video.] Looking back at Foreman in that video led me to another video, of a fighter I know very little about -- Gene Fullmer, someone who fought the great Sugar Ray Robinson. The video was about his stance and style, and watching it, I realised that it actually looks closer to the Divergent guard than the Foreman approach that inspired the movie's stance. Here is Fullmer on the right:

[Screenshot from The Modern Martial Artist vid on Fullmer's guard.] Compare Fullmer there to this below and it looks similar, although Fullmer keeps his rear hand low:

[Picture is from this interview about the fighting in the movie.] A stance with a raised elbow/pointing the elbow at the opponent also reminds me a bit of pictures and footage I've seen of the kung fu style Baijiquan: