every time a stranger sees you they really just go ahead and decide what gender you are huh. well. i want out of it
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Peter Solarz
KIROKAZE
we're not kids anymore.
đŞź
taylor price

shark vs the universe

blake kathryn
Jules of Nature

if i look back, i am lost
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

Product Placement
Cosmic Funnies
d e v o n

titsay
One Nice Bug Per Day

seen from Singapore

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from South Korea
seen from Israel
seen from Ecuador
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil

seen from Singapore

seen from Spain

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Spain
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@uselessaro
every time a stranger sees you they really just go ahead and decide what gender you are huh. well. i want out of it

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
Are you a milkshake or a hot-chocolate aromantic/asexual?
no offense, but while ariana grande headlining at manchester pride is worth criticizing, y'all are ignoring another very real and i would argue far more important issue, which is that manchester pride costs 71ÂŁ ($93.25) to get in
this is what i mean by your words have no teeth. a lot of y'all care more about focusing your resentment at one single person and making ariana and the assimilation she emobies The Enemy instead of focusing on the inaccessibility and lack of intersectionality manchester pride (and other prides) is demonstrating, and asking yourselves how you can help to change things
Yeah I've never been to a pride event for a lot of reasons but mostly bc they're too expensive. it's a problem
Do any other aros find the concept of monogamy strange? Like I donât understand the concept of âthe oneâ? If I could Iâd do âromanticâ things with many of my friends, so having one specific person is strange to me
Yeah! Like, monogamy seems so linked to amatonormativity? And it seems unhealthy to be so dependent on a single person. Polyamory makes more sense to me because people can have more than one best friend, therefore can prioritize relationships with more than one person? Also, thereâs generally a good bit of overlap between aromantic and polyamorous communities in the sense that we both reject the relationship hierarchy and nuclear family model.
Personally, I have some trouble understanding monogamous relationships too. That said I donât believe itâs fair to imply that monogamy is unhealthy.
(sorry, my attempts to be brief often lead to me not properly communicating what I meant). What I meant wasnât that monogamy is inherently unhealthy, but that it is relatively common for people in monogamous relationships to become distanced from friends such that their significant other becomes their only relationship; this kind of isolation is fairly unbalanced. Also, tying into amatonormativity and the concept of soulmates, this kind of ideology makes it easy for people to stay in unhealthy relationships because of over-dependence or fear of being without them.
Iâm really into using frogs as an arospec symbol
[Image description: A digital sketch of a frog in the colours of the aromantic flag, on an aromantic flag background. End description.]

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
âenthusiastic consentâ is an unpopular model in ace communities. Why is that? And who else might have issues with it?
Discussion Topic 4
Is your experience of aromanticism different from ace aros? And how/why? (Plus any other thoughts on the topic.)
And/or
Is your experience of your sexual orientation different from alloromantic people with the same orientation? And how/why + other thoughts?
(I'm going to be using my personal blog for personal additions from now on but to clarify I run @alloarocommunity.)
Yes I experience aromanticism differently from aroaces. It's really difficult to put how exactly into words which is why I'm hoping to hear more perspectives.
Obviously with bi people there's the SAM issue - this is a thing with aroaces (bc not all of them use the SAM although some do) as well, but a lot of aspec use the SAM, and even those who don't have an understanding of it.
I don't interact much with the bi community because I can't without being erased/ignored. That sounds negative but I don't blame them. It's no individual personal making the decision to ignore aro people it's just that for a couple of reasons it tends to happen naturally.
Aromantic awareness is pretty dire, so most people don't know about or don't think to include aros in discussions.
As well as this, when people who don't use the SAM talk about sexual orientations they tend to talk about crushes and relationships. And that's where they lose me.
It's a fundamentally different experience being aromantic bisexual and being just bisexual. I relate on a surface level. I love bi memes and the bi flag, and bi jokes. And I do relate to being bisexual, that's why I use the label. It's not just that the word technically describes me, I relate to the term and to the community. But being aromantic means that I can't relate to a lot of bi experiences.
On the other hand, as much as many of us feel erased for being allosexual in the aromantic community, I've always felt that most of the community understands and expects that we all have wildly different experiences with the way our orientations intersect with each other.
When I talk about being aromantic, my sexual orientation doesn't even really come into it. Of course, that can lead to the feeling of erasure, but it's still easier for me to interact with the community when it's not assumed that my experiences correspond with everyone elses.
Do any other aros find the concept of monogamy strange? Like I donât understand the concept of âthe oneâ? If I could Iâd do âromanticâ things with many of my friends, so having one specific person is strange to me
Yeah! Like, monogamy seems so linked to amatonormativity? And it seems unhealthy to be so dependent on a single person. Polyamory makes more sense to me because people can have more than one best friend, therefore can prioritize relationships with more than one person? Also, thereâs generally a good bit of overlap between aromantic and polyamorous communities in the sense that we both reject the relationship hierarchy and nuclear family model.
Personally, I have some trouble understanding monogamous relationships too. That said I don't believe it's fair to imply that monogamy is unhealthy.
Iâm into alternative pronouns, most types of electronic pronouns, ambient pronouns, certain folk pronouns, and in my opinion the best metal pronouns are symphonic metal pronouns
you know replacing blind reverence of romantic love with blind reverence of platonic love really Not It
okay elaborating on this a bit: this post is specifically about the aro communityâs tendency to go âWe can still love! Just not romantically!â, and the assumption that all aros have/want meaningful platonic relationships (be they in the form of friendship, a queerplatonic relationship, or something else) and that we will always place more importance on those platonic relationships than alloromantics do. Which is just⌠Not It.
For the record, Iâm not saying that you canât bring trends like this up: aros, in general, definitely prioritize platonic relationships in a way alloromantics usually donât. We can talk about that without constantly adding disclaimers for the aros that do not feel this way. We can generalize a bit. Thatâs fine.
It becomes a problem when this idea, the idea that we all place an extremely meaningful priority on our platonic relationships, becomes one central to the aro community, to the point where itâs assumed to be universal. When itâs not. Itâs just not.
And then thereâs the âwe can still love!â attitude that the community tends to have. A lot of âmainstreamâ (as mainstream as you can get with aro identities, anyway) arospec content focuses on our abilities to love platonically; comics, stories, etc. are all about how much we love our friends âdespiteâ being aromantic, about how we love our family, about all the forms of platonic love we can still feel. There is rarely any mention of aros who have a complicated relationship with âloveâ in general, of aros who struggle to form and maintain relationships, of aplatonic aros, of everything in between and beyond that. There are a million and one ways to be arospec, and yet, we are so focused on dispelling the stereotype that we canât love, that weâre heartless monsters, that weâve been pushing the same one narrative over and over and over again, to the point where weâve started to forget that itâs not the only one.
Even in the aro community, love is romanticized to the point of reaching a mythical status, when in reality, itâs nothing more than an emotion. Thatâs it. Love is not the arbiter of humanity. And I think that a lot of the aro community has unconsciously internalized the idea from an amatonormative society that love is, in fact, what makes us human, and that, since we cannot love romantically, we need to be able to love platonically in order to fill that âholeâ left in our humanity. (Or at least the hole left in our lives by the absence of a romantic partner.) When the truth is that we donât need to justify our humanity to anyone: we are human by virtue of being born human. We have nothing to prove to anyone.
This overwhelming focus on platonic love is not a new problem by any means, but during and post-Valentineâs Day itâs become prominent enough that itâs really starting to leave a very bad taste in my mouth, so I had to get this off my chest.
"Love is not the arbiter of humanity."

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
To jump off of that: The disdain for MOGAI labels means that literally any vocabulary younger than 3-5 years (and sometimes even up to 10-15 years), and ESPECIALLY any language associated with non-binary people, multi-attraction, or attraction based on factors that are not binary genders, gets automatically derided and dismissed.
And thatâs just among LGBT+ folk. Cis straight people dismiss all that language automatically as ridiculous alphabet soup stuff, whether or not they know the phrase MOGAI to mock it with.
Can you see how this is a direct enemy of NB people â a community that (in this specific contemporary iteration of that concept) has only begun to articulate itself at all in the last 20 years, and only really picked up big steam in the last 5-10 â describing themselves at all?
Like if the cut-off for respectable LGBT language was 2000, and anything more recent than that is MOGAI bullshitâŚ. modern NBs just arenât allowed to talk about themselves whatsoever, because any word coined after 2000, especially if it was coined on tumblr, is just ~snowflakey MOGAI radikweers making up ridiculous nonsense words for overspecific concepts?~
If youâre an enemy of new specific language for new specific concepts, youâre an enemy of NBs. If youâre an enemy of reconsidering the usefulness of a gay-bi-straight orientation trinary, youâre an enemy of NBs. If youâre an enemy of âmicrolabelsâ, ie newly coined labels that donât apply to you personally đ, youâre an enemy of NBs. If youâre not willing to imagine that the language NBs are coining for themselves right now can grow to be just as important and codified and significant as the language that lesbians and gay men use, and youâre not willing to lift it up, to be encouraging about its usage and include it where itâs applicable and appropriate, youâre an enemy of NBs. I donât know what else to tell you.
What is MOGAI?
Originally MOGAI was coined as an alternative to LGBT+. It meant the same thing. It stood for âMarginalized Orientations, Genders and Intersexâ, I believe?
However, it was immediately met with STRONG negative stigma because of an association with, essentially, newer or more niche identity labels. If you were Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or (binary) Trans, you were less likely to see a need for an alternative to LGBT. Therefore, it was more likely to be used by people not already totally included in that âmainstreamâ group. Non-binary folks, people on the ace and aro spectrums, people who used a split attraction model, people whose queer identities were impacted by neurodivergence, etc, were all more likely to like the phrase MOGAI.
So as a result, it became a way to colloquially refer â whether derogatorily or as a reclamation â to those less mainstream identities. Pretty much anything thatâs not L, G, B or T.
I would like to note itâs also being used against people who are L, G, B, or T, if you say anything exclusionists donât like⌠as an insult. Iâve been told âbeing a lesbian doesnât exclude you from being a mogaiâ as an insult, which⌠I mean, Lesbian is a marginalized orientation, but Iâm fairly sure thatâs not what they meant (and likely they had no idea what it even stood for).
The arguments against it are also all false. They have either falsely attributed real arguments against completely different terms, or straight up made shit up about MOGAI in order to discredit it as âsilly nonsenseâ.
As it is though calling oneself âAnti-Mogaiâ is a HUGE indicator that this person is VERY nbphobic, and generally very panphobic as well as aphobic. Typically their arguments will be heavily based too in right wing anti-gay and anti-trans arguments, or will be âby you existing, we canât pander to the cis, and youâre the reason transphobia exists as a result!!â
Marginalized Orientation, Gender *Alignment*, and Intersex, actually, but otherwise yes ^^
Thanks for these additions!! Yes!
(As a note, thanks for reminding me: Gender Alignment in this case refers to how your gender aligns with cisnormativity and assignment. IE being non-cis. Not like âwoman-alignedâ/âman-alignedâ NB vocab.)
Because of the associations I talked about, MOGAI as a concept does also end up wrapped up in far-reaching ideas about what queer identity signifies, philosophies of inclusionism (beyond mere ace discourse), anti-assimilationism, and general attitudes toward queerness that are⌠incongruent with assimilationist, gatekeeping, reductive and radfem-leaning belief systems.
So if youâre into those conservative beliefs, then yes, the sprawling queer free-for-all associated with âMOGAIâ is very threatening and gross indeed.
Wow and I was under the impression that mogai was a pedo thing, Iâm glad itâs not but pissed that my perception was so skewed. I thought when people talk about âmogai hellâ they were bashing maps but guess not.
Aksjdjdjdj lmao yep! There it is! Thatâs exactly what apersnicketylemon was talking about in referring to âmaking shit upâ and misattributing accusations to discredit it.
exclusionists falsely saying mogai was intended to include pedophiles is like the EXACT reason it didnât take off
im a person who wants to do lots of things trapped inside a body that wants to SLEEP at all times
befriend an aro who is terrible at maintaining a blog and making regular posts
crafting is aro culture pass it on
okay. i donât want to discourse on discourse. because thatâs pretty silly.
but.
the truth is we absolutely should move away from âcancel cultureâ and towards what iâm calling âgood faithâ culture. the way i propose this works will be demonstrated by calling out myself for something âproblematicâ i have done.
i have scratched a child in my care. it was not the first child i scratched, nor the last. she is worth mentioning because it was the deepest of the scratches, and, when asked if i would do it again, i absolutely would.
cancel culture: âtumblr user inkskinned literally thinks itâs okay to violently scratch children, like? she takes care of these kids and she fucking scratches them (and who knows what else if sheâs so fucking confident in admitting that) and like she has even drawn blood in a few of these instances. these are 3 and 4 year olds weâre talking about. one child she scratched while she was forcibly restraining and she is even proud of that moment. sheâs fucking disgusting and iâm sick knowing she still is a teacher. she blew off violence. cancelled.â
good faith culture: âokay, she admitted to scratching children. she did not say it was violently or on purpose. after talking to people who work/live with young kids, almost all of them admit that, at some point, you will accidentally scratch your child. this is because we are mammals with soft skin and claws, and, similar to accidentally scratching yourself with the edge of your nail, is very easy to do with a wiggly object, particularly young ones. i donât know about the restraining situation, let me go look into the source. maybe she apologized?â
me myself and i: i absolutely did apologize after it happened. i also did forcibly hold a child, who was the one i injured. she had slipped past (? how? the world will never know) three teachers and six ropes and had gotten to an absolutely-off-limits-for-children area, climbed up the very small retaining wall, and was about to take a forty-foot drop off the other side. I literally snatched her out of the air, and, in doing so, caught my nail on her wrist. she did bleed, but i obtained stickers and a bandaid to cure that problem.Â
cancel culture: âi find it extremely unlikely that a child could do that by themselves. probably she is a very bad teacher who let a child go somewhere they shouldnât and get into this situation to begin with. on top of that, if she knows she can accidentally scratch a child, why werenât her nails trimmed? no offense but she needs to quit her âactivismâ and step down. i also donât fucking believe her apology when she said right there she would do it again. bandaids donât solve the trauma she allowed to happen.â
good faith culture: âokay. children do this kind of thing all the time, because they are children. this situation is clearly one where yes, a bad thing happened, but she used reasonable care. since she actively does not try to hurt children, and she was actually trying to protect one (albeit clumsily), we can see sheâs just a normal human being who was acting in good faith.â
the reason i propose good faith culture is because i find the majority of âcancelledâ people are activists and/or minorities. these people are targeted for incredibly small altercations or behaviors, despite the fact that theyâre acting in good faith. i know for a fact mras/alt-right ppl make fake âliberalâ accounts that target these people using the language of cancel culture, because itâs easily picked up on - itâs explosive, passionate language without true sourcing (or out-of-context sourcing) that encourages knee-jerk reactions. this breeds infighting and cruelty when we need to be a unified front.
good faith culture also makes a line between âproblematicâ and âgenuinely cruel/disturbing/etcâ. you cannot abuse, threaten, or otherwise intentionally harm someone in good faith. this is intentionally to prevent the god-awful âted bundy might have been problematicâ phrasing i have seen. he was not problematic. he was the fucking problem.
meanwhile, it encourages positive behavior. okay, a person blundered. they apologized and seem to have continued to educate and rebuild themselves. they are acting in good faith. oh, actually they never apologized and continue doing this nonsense. this person is no longer acting in good faith.Â
sure, call out people who are not acting in good faith. i agree. there are plenty who deserve it. but when you pick apart all media/efforts made by activists with a fine-tooth comb looking for something you can âcancelâ the person on, youâre doing more harm than good. if the person spends their life trying to help homeless lgbt+ children get off the streets but accidentally takes in an abuser while doing so, theyâre still net-good. they were acting in good faith, the abuser is at fault here. if a person spends their life making youtube videos and not once but twice uses a racial slur, they are not acting in good faith. unfortunately, we attack the first person more than the second.
people make mistakes all the time. none of us are perfect. shows can try their best to be good and representationally accurate and take a slight misstep, books can have one problematic trope - if theyre acting in good faith, okay. like, maybe fix it in the future, but okay.
keep critiquing things. keep noticing what needs to change. but learn the difference between âthis is a mistakeâ and âthis is evidence of evil.â

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
Hi, if your only problem with radfem rhetoric is that itâs transphobic and you agree with everything else they say, youâre really not against TERFs and really not a good ally to trans people - and certainly not a good ally to trans women and other transfeminine people, especially.
if youâre only against radfem rhetoric when itâs anti trans women - youâre not a good ally to bisexual and queer women. youâre not a good ally to trans people (yes, even trans women). youâre not a good ally to nonbinary people. youâre not a good ally to people of colour.Â
Hey guys! just a PSA! If you see posts that are calling out obvious things that the vast majority of people think are bad, acting like most people actually think itâs good, thereâs a HIGH chance that post is a dogwhistle from a radical feminist.Â
Just today I saw a post that listed all these ânon-vanillaâ sexual acts and how you shouldnât be shamed into trying them. But when you look past the dogwhistles, it was an anti-porn, kink-critical post made by a SWERF, and since most radical feminists are both, they were probably a TERF too. The OP even tagged it as radical feminist and kink critical. The implication of this post was that most men (when you see a post from a radfem you can assume the term âmenâ also includes trans women) are forcing cis women in their lives to have violent and kinky sex and that if you are consenting to and desiring this âbadâ type of sex you are brainwashed and wrong.
The surface message is easy to agree with- you shouldnât be coerced into trying a sexual act youâre not entirely comfortable with. The issue though is the dogwhistle- that cis women are being coerced (whether they actually consent to it or not) into trying anything that is not vanilla sex between cis lesbians. Obviously the dogwhistle statement is problematic and the surface message is not. But really!!! This is how dogwhistles work! Please learn to recognize them.
I make it a point not to follow radical feminists or their allies, so I know you guys are being duped into reblogging and agreeing with their dogwhistles. But agreeing with dogwhistles and then layering more and more rhetoric in between the lines is how tumblr got in the predicament of becoming a site full of radfems and radfem assets. Please stop this!!! Learn to recognize radical feminist rhetoric because not all of it is obviously transphobic.Â