noche✨🌙

🖋writing blog!✏️ 24 • they/she • chicano ao3 @lamentingmidna

[sabertoothwalrus]

you can pinpoint exactly when I gave up on drawing this comic

[allthingswhumpyandangsty]

What’s your take on a fic tagged with exhibitionism and public sex needing to be tagged with dubious consent too?

My friend says I should tag dubcon no matter what so people can filter it out because it’s sexual assault for the other people who didn’t consent to being involved as voyeurs in the scene.

I think that if people know that dubious consent in a situation like exhibitionism will upset/trigger them I don’t need to tag dubcon. Don’t like don’t read and all that.

My friend thinks don’t like don’t read doesn’t apply because ppl can’t see dubcon in the tags to know it’s dubious but I think the fact it’s public sex at all is an acknowledgment that it is dubious.

this is exactly why I say “you cannot use real-world ethics and morality on fiction”.

by your friend’s logic, they should always use non-con. not dubcon. because dubcon is actually non-con in real life. since in real life there’s no “the consent is dubious uwu”, it’s either consensual or an assault.

but on ao3 — aka a space for fiction — dubcon and non-con are not the same thing, because real-life’s moral compass does not apply to fiction.

exhibitionism / public sex alone has nothing to do with whether the fic is non-con, dubcon or consensual. because it. is. fiction.

exhibitionism / public sex can be non-con if written as such.

exhibitionism / public sex can be dubcon if written as such.

exhibitionism / public sex can be completely consensual (which warrants neither non-con nor dubcon tag) if written as such.

tagging a fic about exhibitionism / public sex as dubcon or non-con when it’s actually consensual would be considered mistagging / misleading, which is always in poor taste.

“but people who have to witness the sex didn’t consent to —” your friend is either talking about

other characters in the fic, characters who are the author’s imagination and are not real. these characters cannot “consent”, they cannot “not consent” because they are. not. real. they do not exist

or

your readers / real people who read your fic. and here’s the thing: your readers can decide for themselves whether or not they want to read a fic with exhibitionism / public sex. because by choosing to read a fic with exhibitionism / public sex, they already consent to reading about exhibitionism / public sex.

hypothetically, even if there’s no exhibitionism / public sex tag, if the author uses “creator chose not to use archive warnings” then readers already consent to reading a fic where they don’t know what’s inside, they already consent to proceeding at their own risk.

unless you force or coerce your readers into reading your fic, it always is consensual.

[gachahugs]

I'll remember the adventure in my sleep

[writing-prompt-s]

"You shall be sacrificed to our great God", the cultist activated a rune and soon enough your one night stand from a year ago appears in the flames, making this a very awkward sacrifice ritual

[zuzartii]

More art offerings of the melnem variety, whole page of stuff edition

[yananaua]

Reunion

[momoiiroo]

[frenchublog]

[minart-was-taken]

Now this is epic

[ID: A digital Hollow Knight comic set after "Embrace the Void." The Hollow Knight, with a bandaged wrapped over its broken eye, watches from the foreground as Hornet and Ghost refresh in the spiritual springs. Shocked, it thinks: "I love them" and quickly darkens, horrified at itself, "Wait—no, no, no, I can't—I—" and trails off, realizing "I can." over the imagery of the Radiance and infection dissolving, her influence lost. Its eyes are curved into crescents. End ID.]

ID by @datastate

[bastardnoodle]

tenderness blooms even in the coldest corners of the universe

[br1ghteyed]

i think i tend to forget how good boredom is for creativity because we're all so addicted to numbing ourselves with screens and stimulation. but standing in the shower or going for a walk with no music or just sitting in your bedroom without being allowed to touch any screens & all of a sudden i have multiple new projects to start, a solution to a months-long plot problem & 4 new original characters

[galileogalilai-deactivated20260]

Daily reminder that this guy gets the majority of his information from books

[frozenthoughtbox]

Visa and Mastercard have denied that they strong armed Itch.io and Steam to ban adult and horror content. They are lying. They say their policy only prohibits the use of their services for “illegal” purchases, however the rest of that same policy also allows them to restrict the use of their services on things that “may be damaging to the brand”

Visa and Mastercard want to prevent you from spending your money on whatever you damn well please

And if spending money is considered Speech in the U.S. (which is a whole other can of worms but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is) then Visa and Mastercard are not only infringing on Free Speech rights but are actively attempting to chill and prevent that speech on other platforms.

Call them and give them a piece of your mind. Or better yet, call them and be terribly confused why you can’t pay for things and waste as much of their time as possible without giving the game away.

Cost them where it hurts

[prokopetz]

Pay attention to the particulars of Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[nendracula]

they're very special to me

[ghostiezone]

*meruem voice* pouf leave me alone im hanging out with my gf (gungi friend)

[capystarring]

is this anything