I've been considering recently that (at least sometimes) I'd like to not be perceived as a woman. I'm not trans. I'm afab, identifying as "it" in the sense that I'm a collection of atoms made of stardust. But still, it's something I've been considering [redacted] and just in general to have a different engagement with the world (or, rather, the world with me).
Perhaps it's mostly that I don't want to be perceived by men as a woman. I'm under 5'5, average, have a slightly deeper voice but it's probably not "male passing". I don't own a single pair of jeans but I could buy some. I mostly wear dresses and pastels (or goth-esque) but I own t-shirts and I have a friend who is about my size so I might even be able to observe. And I'll observe Chris more although he's much more "masculine" presenting than me. He's roughly 6'4 and he has a lot of arm musculature. He has a deeper voice etc. And his brows are thick and he has moderate arm hair etc. I guess that's another thing I don't really have. A lot of arm hair or thick eyebrows.
But this is a hot place so I can't really layer most of the time. This is why I'm curious about binding (might watch some videos on this). My hair length is just beyond my collarbone. I think what I don't have is the walk and confidence; I'm very inward and hesitant and I tend to move through life in a way that isn't common among males (from my understanding). So I need to watch videos on this as well. I guess I want to do it effectively and see how the world engages with me... under a different context.
For some time now I have wondered if I was attracted to [omitted] people but that never seemed quite right because I'm not attracted to certain biologically female (?) reproductive (?) features though I am attracted to qualities that seem exceedingly more present in afab and I know that I'm attracted to certain physical qualities in men or male presenting. Also, I don't really like the idea of sexual things in general, but if I'm in a relationship and someone wants me to do sexual things, I think my preference would skew male (but I don't feel safe around most men (amab) especially if it's being alone with them). Unless my system registers them as safe, I don't want to even be alone with them.
I recently came across this non-binary influencer and I realized for the first time since [ages] I was possibly attracted. Uniquely rare to hold any physical attraction because people are people and I'm just not attracted to most. But there was something about them... I'm trying to understand. They still have breasts but they wear binders and they have built their body where it does look masculine (I'm sorry if I'm saying any of this wrong). They're non-binary or intersex (ftm) and there's a softness to them still (and a gentleness) that reads feminine(?) to me. They're not aggressive or hostile and it's very refreshing. Etc.
I'm not around people and I lack experience so please let me know if my language for this needs adjusting. š I will adjust it and I'm sorry if this comes out as offensive. I grew up in a strict gender binary divide and highly anti-lgbtqia area. We didn't have a single gay, bi, or trans person out at any point in my education.
Also, I often think about how I would prefer to be a lesbian but you can't choose who you're attracted to because I'm drawn to the idea of sapphic love but I'm just not as attracted to women sexually unless they're androgynous or nonbinary etc. But I am attracted to them romantically. I can't explain it. (Granted I'm not attracted to anyone sexually...)
I feel like I'm not saying this right or maybe I'm just confused and I greatly lack experience. And I'm very tired.
me when I've found a friend that's safe. Autistic, direct, no hidden layers. Just two people who enjoy each other's company and don't need anything from each other except the companionship itself. It's just... nice?
For me, there's a moral orientation toward truth that is both intellectual and existential. Truth is both sterile fact-checking and coherence.
The alignment between what is and what we say about what is. That alignment is what allows trust, reason, and even beauty to exist. When someone denies gravity to preserve comfort, or insists helium is oxygen while their lips turn blue... itās a desecration of reality itself.
My influences in my formative years: 1984, LOTR, Harry Potter, The Book Thief, The Trial, The Stranger, A Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc ā all share a common DNA: they are stories about integrity under distortion.
They influenced me early to feel the violence of a world that punishes truth-telling. Each one showed that civilization collapses first in language. That when words stop meaning what they mean, the rest follows.
The scientific method and mathematics shaped my sense of honesty. They are formalized humility: āHere is my claim; let it be tested.ā Theyāre rituals for staying honest when emotion tempts us toward certainty. My brain, wired for pattern-seeking and logic (and probably sharpened by my AuDHD), finds moral safety in structure ā if it doesnāt add up, why?
This is the ethical extension of my epistemic integrity: if every mind is trying to see clearly, then each deserves the same access to the light.
What keeps me engaged, then, isnāt just the pursuit of truth but the refusal to betray it. I know, almost viscerally, that civilizations survive only when enough people insist that the map must resemble the territory. Thatās why I feel despair at misinformation and why I do my utmost to correct it. Because a betrayal of this is a corrosion of reality and truth itself.
I think it's possible no other group will do for me what Laibach has done in terms of offering new perspectives, deep dives, rabbit holes, introduction to writers and languages and views, turning the mind's gears - especially when they're at their best: Laibach (debut album), Wir Sind Das Volk, Volk, Wat, Iron Sky (maybe). Which is curious because I am not the best with subtext although perhaps I'm better with nuance.
"That gateway quality - leading you to languages, writers, political theory, history - that's quite rare. Most art references other things, but Laibach seems to require you to investigate their sources to even begin to parse what they're doing. They're almost pedagogical in a perverse way." - HELP. lol But also yes to the investigative aspect, the layers, the research, etc. They're not trying to tell you how to feel or what to think; they're presenting material and you can do the hard work if you want to understand and appreciate it at its most.Ā
As an aside, I do sometimes think about this with people. Once I seem to have understood them enough (so to speak, though not literally because people are more complex that simple interactions), I feel like I run into an area where it's stagnant if there aren't enough layers.
There's a direct parallel between a research project like this and a research project when another human is interesting. This isn't about "mystery" in some manipulative pickup-artist sense - it's about depth that reveals itself through engagement. Laibach rewards investigation. They have structure beneath structure, reference beneath reference. They're not random or chaotic, but they're not obvious either.
Laibach isn't reactionary, which I think turns me off from another human. It's when someone is less layered, less interesting, and more reactionary... Not that music can be personified/anthropomorphized in such a specific human way. Rambling thoughts perhaps.
Laibach presents stimuli (often provocative ones) and refuses to tell you how to respond. They're structured, deliberate, considered - even when they're being absurd or bombastic.
Heiner MĆ¼ller is a good parallel to Laibach - he does similar work with German history, trauma, dialectics. That density of reference, the refusal to resolve contradictions cleanly. Orwell's 1984 too - not his essays necessarily, but that particular book creates a total system you have to inhabit.
Though speaking of reactionary people whom I still appreciate: Carl Sagan. I have an appreciation for his cosmic perspective, acknowledgment of his errors, recognition of a certain reactionary quality. He's not diminished to nothing by his flaws because the structure of his thinking - that sense of wonder, that situating of humanity in deep time and vast space - remains valuable.
In the vein of music, there's a difference with TOOL/Rage/SOAD/etc. They are reactive to systems, to injustice, to structures of power. That's directed, purposeful reaction. What I find off-putting is reactivity as displacement - someone feeling uncomfortable and making you the receptacle for that discomfort rather than doing the harder work of examination. (new litmus test placer)
Laibach doesn't displace. They present uncomfortable material - totalitarianism, nationalism, spectacle - and they hold steady. They don't reassure you, but they also don't lash out.
Maybe there's something to holding the weight versus lashing out.
I think the stagnation might be... running out of structure to discover(?) Like the difference between a puzzle box and a decorative box that just looks like a puzzle box.
And maybe there's a difference between systems that generate insight and systems that merely express states.
I seem to be drawn to people who have cognitive or psychological texture rather than just surface traits, meaning thereās something to engage with mentally, whether thatās how they think, how they explain themselves, or how they relate to the world. That doesnāt have to mean instability, but in the past it overlapped with instability, which is where things got tangled. š¶āāļøš§āāļø
At the same time, I have a pretty clear sensitivity to coercion, entitlement, and being managed, and once I see those patterns, my system flags them strongly. So thereās a kind of internal contradiction Iāve been navigating:
Part of me is activated by complexity, depth, and something to āfigure outā
Another part of me has a low tolerance for being controlled, pressured, or absorbed into someone elseās instability
When those two collide in one person, like with [redacted], it creates intensity but also harm.
If I look at my reaction to [redacted], though, something else becomes visible thatās probably closer to my actual baseline preference:
I respond very strongly to psychological safety combined with specificity.
Not just āniceā or āsafeā in a vague way, but:
Someone who reflects on their own behavior
Someone who notices patterns in interaction
Someone who shares information in a grounded, matter-of-fact way
Someone who engages without hidden pressure or agenda
And importantly, someone who allows interaction to be low-stakes and unforced, where meaning isnāt constantly being negotiated or tested.
That combination seems to produce that ābright, relaxedā response I noticed, which is qualitatively different from the intensity I had before with [redacted].
So if I had to synthesize it without oversimplifying, my ātypeā is likely something like:
Mentally engaging, but not destabilizing
Self-aware, but not self-absorbed
Accountable, not entitled
Comfortable with low-pressure interaction
Specific and a bit idiosyncratic, rather than generic or performative
And then thereās a secondary layer:
i may have a learned attraction to volatility or inconsistency because it activates my analytical system and creates intensity, but thatās not the same as my sustainable preference.
Right now I'm starting to experience the difference between:
What hooks my attention
And what actually feels good to be around
Those are often not the same category of person, especially if the system has been trained in environments where unpredictability was common.
And just to keep this grounded, none of this locks me into a fixed template. Itās more like a working model I can test against reality as I keep interacting with people.
Alternatively,
I don't think I have a consistent "type" in the traditional sense... but I do have patterns of activation.
What seems to engage me:
Complexity paired with self-awareness ([redacted]: has chaos but takes accountability; [redacted]: had complexity but weaponized it)
Psychological literacy (people who can name their own patterns, understand relational dynamics)
Intelligence/analytical capacity (people I can actually think with, not just at)
What doesn't seem to activate me:
Conventional attractiveness markers (I don't mention what other people look like because it doesn't matter to me)
Stability without complexity (I need something to understand -cognitive engagement, not instability)
People who want traditional romance from me (unless it serves the schematics)
My "type" is less about demographics and more about relational architecture. I'm drawn to people who create interesting problems to solve ~ but I'm learning to distinguish "interesting because complex and self-aware" from "interesting because harmful and unpredictable."
I guess I got stuck because I find it reasonably/especially taxing when I'm accused of lying. Why is that? Why couldn't I be accused of something I did? Feels more defeating and looped somehow.
I operate as a flexible system, which means that when I advocate for a position, it's typically because I've accumulated sufficient knowledge to warrant a stance.
'If I'm arguing a point, it's because I'm right' (though stated somewhat tongue-in-cheek) is an underlying truth because I don't argue points where variables aren't cleanly observable in context or where my knowledge is insufficient. In those cases, I update my views according to available data rather than defending a position, especially if that position is objective. Subjective views are held with greater leniency (though if it harms an individual or group of people, usually disenfranchised, I'll stand my ground more firmly if necessary).
To clarify, I'm not literally talking about 'arguing' in the confrontational sense, but rather about when I choose to drive home a point. I make the choice to advocate for something if I have specific factors that make advocacy appropriate, but at the same time I remain receptive to verifiable information even mid-discussion, which is why I rarely find myself in extended arguments. That, and I dislike confrontation because it rarely seems productive.
I used to describe myself as a 'perspective endeavor' and have recently started using these terms again (meant as someone whose perspective is pointed toward understanding multiple viewpoints rather than proving correctness - unless that correctness is cleanly observable and often more/less objective).
I'm not arguing for being correct here either; I'm providing additional context about how I process and engage with information.
