the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability

- making a post and people tagging it with "sorry op im sorry for being cringe but this reminds me of [EXACT CHARACTER YOU HAD IN MIND WHEN WRITING THE POST]"

Beee whooo you areeee for your prideeeee

Live laugh love Semiu

Note the objectification aspect, not even to referring to any hypothetical black man as as man in this fantasy but simply cutting him down to his penis.

Simultaneously de-gendered and desexualized but also fetishized and believed to have an insatiable libido. We're incapable of being viewed as beautiful, handsome, sexy or worthy of romantic pursuit or attraction that isn't based in objectification. This all gets compounded more when you factor in fatness, queerness and transness. Its a very complex topic for sure and not every black person has the same ideals or opinions. Some black folks can easily engage with nonblacks no matter the sexual dynamic and see no issue with it. There are a myriad of black people out there, black women with white male partners and black men and with white female partners that may engage with certain sexual dynamics. To each their own. Its a hard topic for sure. On one hand if you consistently have your black characters being 'dominant' or 'aggressive' one you can run into racial stereotyping that regards black sexual desire as inherently domineering or violent. On the other if you have the black character being consistently submissive in a way it could read as wanting to see black people as subservient, especially when you through white people in the mix.

From the very quick research I did, I see a lot of black cis women with a casual interest in BDSM have a desire for submission whereas mostly the women who do it professionally are dommes. It really depends, some black women see being submissive not just a representation of their sexuality but also an affirmation of their femininity and womanhood. They may not feel comfortable being forced into a sexually aggressive/dominant role because it mirrors the jezebel/sapphire trope of black women being angry and domineering, beliefs that led to again justifying their degendering and dehumanization. To regard black women as not really women, not feminine enough, not worthy of protection, not worthy of help and doting on etc. Additionally some black cis women prefer to be in a dominant role, especially involving white or nonblack partners. They feel that being sexually submissive/bound in scenes harkens back to ideals and imagery where black women were forced under sexual slavery and systemic rape, so they see being dominant as a reclamation of power from past subjugation.

it gets compunded even more when you take transness in regard. within transfeminity and trans fem sexuality there's a term called comptop, similar to comphet (short for compulsory heterosexuality, the psychological phenomenon of gay men and lesbians experiencing not genuine attraction to the opposite gender but this being a symptom of homophobia forcing them to deny their real desires) comptop being short for compulsory topping where a trans women/fem feels she always has to be the top in whatever sexual situation she is because of her assigned gender at birth. Additionally you add blackness with perceived maleness, and black trans fems are overwhelmingly expected to always act in a similar manner regardless of her own sexual desires (especially within the realm of sex work). Kat Blaque is a black trans women writer, activist, artist, public speaker and video essayist whom i've been subscribed to for at least 10 years. She also someone who is actively vocal about being polyamorous and and into BDSM. I do also know that her partners are nonblack and she is submissive and has talked before about having to navigate racial and gender dynamics in the relationships she's had.

This is not me comparing trans women to men btw, its just me noting the similarites in which Black AMAB peoples sexualities are regarded. Similarly, like i mentioned the homothug stereotype previously; black cis queer men are always expected to be aggressive/dominant tops. Even in content not made by or featuring black men, be it yaoi/bara/porn etc the darker skinned male character is always larger than the lighter skinned one and always the top. That is a symptom of antiblackness. Similarly, masculine lesbians/studs are also seen as hyper aggressive and expected to be the top as well.

Im gonna try to wrap this up cause this answer is already long answer thats all over the place. But TLDR, just go about it in a respectful way. Be aware of tropes. Also please dont use food as descriptors of black skin tones (coffee, cinnamon, chocolate, etc.) it always comes across as fetishtic when nonblacks do it im sorry. But lastly raceplay is 100% racist no matter what way you invoke it, so please do not engage lbs.

some further resources and writing that you can read to further educate yourself on modern racial dynamics in regards to sexuality and kink.

Black Sexual Politics : African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism by Patricia. Hill Collins (PDF)

I periodically think my milk is filled with slugs and larvae, even though I know rationally, that's not the case. Most days, I can work through that by reminding myself that I live with other people who also drink the milk, and if there were bugs in it, someone else would have noticed, so it's more logical that I'm just hallucinating.

However, the worse psychosis gets, the ability to logic like that can become more difficult. I might start thinking things like "they're only pretending to drink the milk to trick me" or something. They're not, and the milk is fine, but... the brain fills in the gaps of the logic with whatever it can to preserve the delusion.

Delusions often sound completely ridiculous on the outside, but when you're in the delusional state, it feels completely rational, often in ways you can't fully explain.

As in, there's literally in-universe phrenology as to what counts as "human" to a society and what does not, and just like real life phrenology, it is absolutely nothing but pseudo-scientific gibberish that falls apart the moment any of the characters think about it for more than two seconds and isn't even consistent across nations. There's no Original Sin thing/"This race is Evil because in the past they did this or that blah blah blah" plot either, the closest thing to that cliche is quite blatantly in-universe genocidal propaganda made-up for colonization purposes.

To quote this post:

"Elves and Dwarves hate each other because their respective empires make up 2/3 of the imperial core and are stuck in a cold war as the planet runs out of uncolonized land to grab. Elves are able to live in pastoral paradise because they've horded most of the settings farm-able land and natural capital, displacing and mass murdering any natives in the process. Orcs and goblins are hostile to other races because there the primary targets of an ongoing slavery and genocide campaign. The dividing line between human and inhuman is arbitrarily assigned via a phrenological pseudo-science that quickly falls apart when questioned by anyone who wasn't indoctrinated into it since birth."

Like literally, you have a society that defines which races are "human" and which are "demihuman"... based on the number of bones. No Big Ancient Curse, no nothing. Just a pseudo-scientific classification that, like I already mentioned, isn't even consistent in-universe.

There are many scripts online you can follow, many ways to tweak your message to fit your senator (ESPECIALLY if they are up for reelection this year). Whether it's a recording you reach or a real person, be straightforward, don't argue, just let your rep know that you are a constituent and you oppose the KIDS act, etc.

That's Tsunami with his owner 🥹 they have finally stopped working after rescuing 350 lives.

Look at me.

Look me directly in the eyes while I say this.

You can just make things.

You can simply create something and put it into the world.

That's allowed.

People have been doing it for centuries.

They sell blank VHS tapes. They sell blank DVDs. Blank CDs. You can buy flash drives by the bucketful if you really want to. If you create a movie, an album, a game, a documentary, or a four-hour video essay about the mating habits of fictional space goblins, you are entirely permitted to put that thing on physical media and sell it.

That is not piracy.

Piracy is taking something that belongs to someone else and reproducing or distributing it without permission.

If I buy a DVD of a movie, I own that copy of the movie. I do not own the movie itself. I didn't acquire the rights to duplicate it, press a thousand copies, and start selling them out of my garage like I've become the regional distributor for Warner Bros.

The copyright, distribution rights, and intellectual property still belong to whoever created it or whoever legally acquired those rights.

If I start burning copies of Iron Lung and selling them myself without Markiplier's permission, that's piracy.

If Markiplier, who made and owns the rights to Iron Lung, burns copies and sells them himself, that's just distribution.

He's the rights holder.

He's distributing his own work.

If you made it, if it came from your own mind, your own work, your own time, your own resources, then congratulations. You own the thing. You don't need a corporation to bless it with legitimacy.

The corporation is not what makes it real.

The fact that it exists is what makes it real.

I think we've accidentally spent so many years living inside a world dominated by mass-produced media that some people have developed the strange assumption that all media emerges from a factory somewhere. As if films naturally occur in shrink-wrapped plastic cases and descend from the heavens aboard a pallet truck.

But independent artists have been burning discs, dubbing tapes, printing books, pressing records, and mailing things directly to people for longer than many of us have been alive.

That's not a bootleg.

That's just a product.

It's not "bootleg."

It's just... leg.

The normal kind.