Peter Solarz
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
🪼
PR's Tumblrdome
DEAR READER
pixel skylines
taylor price
oozey mess
Jules of Nature
KIROKAZE
⁂
Misplaced Lens Cap
if i look back, i am lost
tannertan36
d e v o n
wallacepolsom
YOU ARE THE REASON
seen from Romania
seen from Norway
seen from Italy
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Uruguay
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
@vitunrunollista
also while I'm at the whole topic, I've been thinking about this for years now, but I really don't think that the lack of trans masc HCs of characters that are girls in canon is a matter of trans men and trans masc nonbinary people just hating women that much.
I can't HC every Weird Girl as trans masc without making it sound like girls have to be all prim and proper to be girls, and you can be any way you want to be and still be a girl which is something I'm very keen on aknowledging.
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
something I've noticed is that a surprising amount of people seem to treat things like "urge to please people" and "wanting to take up as little space as possible" as innate features of womanhood rather than something you learn. or I guess the logic is not that but rather that if you are a trans masc, especially if you are a trans man, you are somehow immune to the influences that make you learn these things. I've never understood the idea that trans men supposedly grow up internalising everything about gender roles as applying to themselves the same way cis men do. if you are taught to shut your mouth and not take up space, that's what you are taught to do even if you grow up to be a man. and a lot of us* are, additionally, taught that men are rude and never know when to shut up and take up too much space and then one day we are adults who are perceived as men by the people around us and our inner understanding of how we should occupy space is "don't" while there's also this idea that since we are seen as men, we occupy more soace than we should anyhow, and thus we should occupy less space regardless of what we are doing. and maybe my perception is shaped by the fact that I'm ND and in a way that has gotten me a lot of feedback on how I talk endlessly and am too much and how I "pretend I know everything" back before transitioning or coming out, but I'm also not the only one in that position. I really don't know how to explain that certain self consciousness that's ever present. you are sitting there, thinking you are having fun with other people, and then it hits you that maybe you are too loud and too talkative and too much everything and oh, why would these people want to hear about your experiences on the matter when you could just shut the fuck up and leave more space for the others.
a lot has changed over the years, but like... back in the day, for several years, I lived under the impression that the only possible way to be trans is to be a trans woman. I saw a documentary on how marginalised trans women are [in some specific region, but I forgot which] and the transmisogyny they face, and I saw trans women mentioned here and there, but I must have been 11 at youngest before I ran into any mention of trans men being a thing also. maybe if I was a smarter person, I could have figured that out all on my own, but I'm not. it's curious to think back to that time, because the documentary, for example, just fully defined being trans as being a trans woman, and I can only assume that stems from the same transmisogynistic TERF-y shit we see nowadays where the focus is often on trans women only specifically because of transmisogyny.
Asexuality and aromanticism being defined as "little to no sexual/romantic attraction" is crazy to me. Imagine if they redefined being a gay man as "little to no attraction to women" and you had to, like, figure out for yourself that liking men was a part of it.
Personally, I define my aroaceness not as a lack of romantic or sexual attraction, but as an orientation towards relationships that are neither romantic nor sexual. Redefining my orientation this way has helped me find a lot of peace I didn't have before.
hey so there's been some confusion here and there in the tags about exactly what is meant by this post and I feel like I should clear it up.
Every time I make a post about how "little to no" is an inadequate definition, I get more than a few variations of this response:
"but I don't feel attraction, so little to no attraction is an important part of the definition!"
I don't feel attraction either. Like, at all. And I never said it wasn't an important part of the definition, or that it was irrelevant. I said that I was unable to find peace within myself while my orientation was based on lack, and that I have learned to focus on what I want rather than what I don't.
I think it is an injustice that I had to figure out for myself that there were any positives to being aroace at all, and that for a while, every time I tried, someone came out of the woodwork to abuse me for it.
Two things can be true: "little to no attraction" is an important part of the definition, AND the focus on lack and absence to the exclusion of everything else is psychologically harmful to many of us.
All I'm saying is that maybe, instead of only asking "What's missing from the way we relate to others?" we should also ask "What possibilities become visible when you take those things off of the table?"
So I get thst this is a definition that brings joy to whole lot of you, but I would like to ask what's the part the uniting quality to all ace ppl or all aro ppl? Is it the presence of other forms of attraction or is it the lack or one type of attraction? I understand you are proposing everyone adapts a new way or defining asexuality and aromanticism so in that sense it's pointless for me to even say this, but I wanted to still point that out. Not all aroace folk have interest in relationships that are neither romantic or sexual but all aroace folk have limited interest in relationships that are romantic or sexual.
As for homosexuality that you used as an example: it is often defined through exclusion rather heavily. I'm not saying I agree with exclusion based definitions when it comes to orientations that are defines by varied, gender based attraction, but it's what a lot of people do. It's not something I have to imagine as a hypothetical.
I'm not suggesting anyone do anything they don't want to do. I'm offering one alternative definition among many for those who want it. I'm sorry it makes you feel attacked but with all due respect that's neither my fault nor my problem.
I'm not offended. I'm simply very into semantics.
That is also neither my fault nor my problem. Please leave me alone.
Okay, I see my first response has a shit ton of typos and it SHOULD say "I understand you are NOT proposing" and the missing word changes the tone of the whole response 🫣 I'll leave you alone, I just wanted to correct that part because I'm not trying to argue here nor do I oppose people using whatever definitions bring them joy.
Asexuality and aromanticism being defined as "little to no sexual/romantic attraction" is crazy to me. Imagine if they redefined being a gay man as "little to no attraction to women" and you had to, like, figure out for yourself that liking men was a part of it.
Personally, I define my aroaceness not as a lack of romantic or sexual attraction, but as an orientation towards relationships that are neither romantic nor sexual. Redefining my orientation this way has helped me find a lot of peace I didn't have before.
hey so there's been some confusion here and there in the tags about exactly what is meant by this post and I feel like I should clear it up.
Every time I make a post about how "little to no" is an inadequate definition, I get more than a few variations of this response:
"but I don't feel attraction, so little to no attraction is an important part of the definition!"
I don't feel attraction either. Like, at all. And I never said it wasn't an important part of the definition, or that it was irrelevant. I said that I was unable to find peace within myself while my orientation was based on lack, and that I have learned to focus on what I want rather than what I don't.
I think it is an injustice that I had to figure out for myself that there were any positives to being aroace at all, and that for a while, every time I tried, someone came out of the woodwork to abuse me for it.
Two things can be true: "little to no attraction" is an important part of the definition, AND the focus on lack and absence to the exclusion of everything else is psychologically harmful to many of us.
All I'm saying is that maybe, instead of only asking "What's missing from the way we relate to others?" we should also ask "What possibilities become visible when you take those things off of the table?"
So I get thst this is a definition that brings joy to whole lot of you, but I would like to ask what's the part the uniting quality to all ace ppl or all aro ppl? Is it the presence of other forms of attraction or is it the lack or one type of attraction? I understand you are proposing everyone adapts a new way or defining asexuality and aromanticism so in that sense it's pointless for me to even say this, but I wanted to still point that out. Not all aroace folk have interest in relationships that are neither romantic or sexual but all aroace folk have limited interest in relationships that are romantic or sexual.
As for homosexuality that you used as an example: it is often defined through exclusion rather heavily. I'm not saying I agree with exclusion based definitions when it comes to orientations that are defines by varied, gender based attraction, but it's what a lot of people do. It's not something I have to imagine as a hypothetical.
I'm not suggesting anyone do anything they don't want to do. I'm offering one alternative definition among many for those who want it. I'm sorry it makes you feel attacked but with all due respect that's neither my fault nor my problem.
I'm not offended. I'm simply very into semantics.
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
Asexuality and aromanticism being defined as "little to no sexual/romantic attraction" is crazy to me. Imagine if they redefined being a gay man as "little to no attraction to women" and you had to, like, figure out for yourself that liking men was a part of it.
Personally, I define my aroaceness not as a lack of romantic or sexual attraction, but as an orientation towards relationships that are neither romantic nor sexual. Redefining my orientation this way has helped me find a lot of peace I didn't have before.
hey so there's been some confusion here and there in the tags about exactly what is meant by this post and I feel like I should clear it up.
Every time I make a post about how "little to no" is an inadequate definition, I get more than a few variations of this response:
"but I don't feel attraction, so little to no attraction is an important part of the definition!"
I don't feel attraction either. Like, at all. And I never said it wasn't an important part of the definition, or that it was irrelevant. I said that I was unable to find peace within myself while my orientation was based on lack, and that I have learned to focus on what I want rather than what I don't.
I think it is an injustice that I had to figure out for myself that there were any positives to being aroace at all, and that for a while, every time I tried, someone came out of the woodwork to abuse me for it.
Two things can be true: "little to no attraction" is an important part of the definition, AND the focus on lack and absence to the exclusion of everything else is psychologically harmful to many of us.
All I'm saying is that maybe, instead of only asking "What's missing from the way we relate to others?" we should also ask "What possibilities become visible when you take those things off of the table?"
So I get thst this is a definition that brings joy to whole lot of you, but I would like to ask what's the part the uniting quality to all ace ppl or all aro ppl? Is it the presence of other forms of attraction or is it the lack or one type of attraction? I understand you are proposing everyone adapts a new way or defining asexuality and aromanticism so in that sense it's pointless for me to even say this, but I wanted to still point that out. Not all aroace folk have interest in relationships that are neither romantic or sexual but all aroace folk have limited interest in relationships that are romantic or sexual.
As for homosexuality that you used as an example: it is often defined through exclusion rather heavily. I'm not saying I agree with exclusion based definitions when it comes to orientations that are defines by varied, gender based attraction, but it's what a lot of people do. It's not something I have to imagine as a hypothetical.
testing a theory about horror media
I am actively a horror fan; I generally find horror scary
I am not a horror fan; I generally find horror scary
I actively dislike horror; I generally find horror scary
I am actively a horror fan; I generally do NOT find it scary
I am not a horror fan; I generally do NOT find it scary
I actively dislike horror; I generally do NOT find it scary
Results/I have never been exposed to horror in my life/bald/etc
No nuance option because I don't want the results skewed by people going 'well it depends on whether it's good or bad horror' ok?
I saw "omegas have afab anatomy" as a tag on a fic on ao3 and idk. That is a terrible way of expressing what you want to say.
ohhh. i get it. these people think being transmasc is just inherently misogynistic.
someone who blocked me in my comments made me realize i should make this clear, so here. saying ANY of the following things inherently stems from the belief that transmasculinity is inherently misogynistic.
"transmascs have extra work to do in unlearning misogyny, more so than every other trans person (and/or more so than cis people)".
"transmascs must find misogyny and hating women very gender-affirming".
"transmascs are transitioning away from being women because of internalized misogyny".
"masculinity is inherently harmful and destructive and oppressive of women, so transmascs are just transitioning because they want male privilege".
all of those statements stem from the very basic idea that the IDEA of being transmasc is misogynist at its core. if someone says things like that, they fundamentally believe - whether they will admit it or not - that being transmasc makes you more of a misogynist than people who are not transmasc.
this isn't criticism towards anyone else and don't take this as any "you shouldn't do this" statement, try to take my words as literally as you can, but I don't understand how anyone can have the confidence to self DX. I don't dare to even speculate on anything. how could I ever tell the difference between different kinds of shit with enough accuracy. one person assumes I'm ADHD, another person assumes I'm autistic, either could be equally true or untrue and neither accounts for some shit that could be explained by a couple of alternative things, blahblahblah there's overlap in all directions. how do people do 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
it's interesting to see strangers online suggesting to others they might be plural/systems based on the person describing how they mask in public or how it feels to be tired. like I'm not saying a word on what these people are experiencing as I can't say shit, obviously, but if maskingmakes an autistic person a system in your mind, I have no idea what to say
in all honesty, I think the people arguing against trans masc HCs of characters who battle with masculinity or find it confining and limiting etc, simply can't imagine they might not understand everything about how trans masc people relate to masculinity and femininity and gender. maybe it only feel absurd to you because your experience is contradictory to that, not because it wouldn't make sense for someone trans masc to feel that way.
Once again I have been given peer assigned autism it seems. This time with absolutely confidence as if I had said before that I am autistic, which I haven't said because I wouldn't say that when I... haven't been diagnosed with autism?
unrelated to what I usually post about but I usually avoid socialising "for fun" because I know my brain doesn't take it too well but now I've been involved in an RP for several months and like. I've been really brave about it but I also feel like I'm reaching some limit of how much I can just shrug off. like. I've been able to ignore the "actually everyone hates me but they just don't want to say it" for a significant amount of time now but I feel like it's getting worse and idk if it counts as psychotic symptoms or not ??? and I can't tell if it's messing with my brain more generally or ??? I don't want to ditch the RP group but there's one big and insistent part of my brain that says I should because no one wants me there anyhow and I should know when to remove myself from a situation in which I'm not wanted, and another part of my brain that tells me I should because it would be best decision for me considering the problem here is extended socialising leading to all this surfacing again. but idk. I just want to be able to take part in shit like this.
I love (/s) seeing ppl kind of sort of imply that the trans men on this website are worse than the TERFs on this website
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 know I'm gonna sound like an ass for saying this to some people, but some of the things I see people say as a sex repulsed ace thing sound nothing but purity culture brainwashing to me. like. I get being repulsed by things and I actually consider myself sex repulsed as well because I don't want yo involve myself in any of that, but the way some people talk about sex and sex repulsion makes them sound like they've been taught that sex and everything related is dirty and bad their whole lives and they have taken that, not questioned it all, and decided it's just hoe they feel about sex because they are ace. Like idk if you talk about needing brain bleach because you saw something that was like. hinting at being erotic in nature, that just sounds like purity culture.
okay maybe this is just me, but I feel like I've seen plenty of weird attitude from allosexual aros towards asexual aros ever since I started paying more attention to aro oline communities. I see A LOT of talk about how all aro rep and aro talk and aro communities are only ever about aroaces or centre aroaces the most and it's almost as if aroaces were juat. intentionally taking all the space from aroallos, even when said space is dedicated to aroallos. but then I never see this centering of aroaces anywhere so 🤔
