izzy's playlists!
Andulka
bliss lane
Doug Jones
cherry valley forever
Sade Olutola
titsay
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
if i look back, i am lost
RMH
Not today Justin
🪼
Today's Document
tumblr dot com
art blog(derogatory)
blake kathryn
Keni
ellievsbear
macklin celebrini has autism
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from T1
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Singapore
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Costa Rica
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Indonesia
seen from France
@wilting-flower-crown
I'm reorganizing my blogs and my tag system, so everything I want to reblog is going in the drafts for now.
This is technically my main, but (for now) my most used blog is @seriously--fangirling and I also am trying to migrate reblogs over to @seriously--fangirling--reblogs
anyone else feeling rather... annoyed at the way ppl have come to define and use queerplatonic and qprs? So many times I see ppl talk abt qprs saying they're "friendship but Deeper" or "a relationship strictly between friendship and romance" or "essentially romance lite/romance for aromantics" and like. A qpr definitely can be all that if the participants want that, but to say that this is THE definition of queerplatonic is actually going directly against the very goal for which the term was created. Queerplatonic was supposed to give us a word to be able to talk about relationships that don't fit neatly into the "romantic" and "platonic" boxes, whilst also deconstructing the relationship hierarchy and the idea that friendships are fundamentally lesser than romantic relationships. So can we please stop using qprs as a way to once again make friendships seem like a lesser form of relationship and to reinforce the relationship hierarchy? Please?
Afaik the original definition of a qpr was smth along the lines of "a relationship that doesn't fit the traditional boundaries of a friendship". By that definition? A loveless friendship would be a qpr. A "friendship" between two aplatonics would be a qpr. A friendship where they specifically feel less emotionally connected to one another than is expected of a "normal" friendship would be a qpr. Just like how queerness isn't fundamentally about love, queerplatonicism, i.e. queering the platonic, isn't fundamentally about "putting more love" into friendships. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.
in hindsight, growing up as an aromantic person who didn't know aromanticism was a thing...it woulda been really easy for me to assume that something was wrong with me, that I was "broken" or "missing" some piece of humanity.
luckily I was autistic, oblivious, and had a huge ego. it literally never occurred to me to frame it as a "me" problem. i just thought every single person i knew was a dumbass
funniest response you can give to someone telling you they love you: "skill issue"
context for this post before the self loathing comments start btw
Referring to someone as your “partner” sounds as if you are deliberately obscuring their gender and may subtly out you. “My ex”, however, is entirely unobtrusively gender-neutral. #breakupallrelationships
It really says something that a lot of monogamous people consider polyamorous and aromantic to be "opposites" but every polyam person I know took one look at aromantics and said "they're just like me for real"
Poly folks x aro folks in the sense that "alloromantic heterosexual monogamous people view love and sex as an entirely different entity than me, and that makes life kinda strange"
Soulmates as a horror concept.
You WILL love this person. It doesn't matter who you loved before; any feelings you had, any promises you made, they will become inconsequential as soon as you lock eyes with the stranger Fate has picked for you.
There's no way to stop it.
There's no way to say "no."
You will meet someone and with a single glance, both of you will become someone new, someone who's now bound to this stranger whether you like it or not, want it or not.
Trapped in a dance together until the day you die.
before my egg cracked, i had noticed that trans people were often pro-accessibility and up-to-date on the needs of disabled people, but i hadn’t seen any inherent connection between the two (other than the obvious minority-looking-out-for-other-minority thing). but now that i’m trans and medically transitioning, and i have to constantly repeat myself while talking to doctors and nurses, and explain things about my own anatomy to medical staff who should already know this, and having every single problem i might have blamed on my “condition” so nothing i say is taken seriously, all of the sudden i have a little sneak peak into the life of someone who has to deal with this all the time. like shit bro, being disabled probably sucks ass, someone should do something about this
happy disability pride month, we all deserve autonomy and respect and access to medication
conversations of amatonormativity and consent overlap a lot and should be discussed side by side more frequently. because when you live in a society that teaches you that you’re supposed to want sex and romance, that you may want to say no in the moment but you shouldn’t say no forever, any statements about consent get muddied. you cannot at once preach that consent is vital and “you can always say no” and also insist that people should give sex and romance a try, even when they express disinterest, telling them “eventually you’ll find the right person.”
“marriage is a legal document that protects you, you’ve gotta decouple it in your brain from romance and amatonormativity” the fact that marriage is a legal document that protects and privileges you (that, might I add, generally isn’t valid without romance+sex) is LITERALLY amatonormativity. A legal status that privileges people in monogamous long-term romantic-sexual relationships IS AMATONORMATIVITY. That is *what it was coined to talk about.*
at a conference I attended recently, a researcher pointed to the difficulty of finding material in archives because so much depends on the metadata and the terminology used to describe things changes over time. "it would be so helpful," the researcher said, "if I typed 'lesbian' into the library of congress database, it would also show me results that were categorised in the 50s, when the materials were interpreted as 'intimate female friendships'"
which is what tag wrangles at Archive Of Our Own do incredibly effectively: searching for "omegaverse" also leads to "alpha/beta/omega dynamics" and "alternate universe: a/b/o" and so on. but ao3 achieves this frankly incredible categorisation and indexing system by the power of countless volunteers putting in hours and hours of unpaid and unthanked free time, and it's completely understandable that most archives do not have that kind of infrastructure, but also how incredible that a fan-run website has better searchability, classification, and accessibility than the library of congress
bullion (gold bars) and bouillon (dehydrated soup) pisses me off so much. they aren't false friends, they both come from the same root. they arent homographs, that'd be too easy. and they arent even in meaningfully different forms! they are, effectively, the exact same word imported twice, in exactly the same way, but you're supposed to be able to tell the difference. what if grey and gray were both commonly used words but grey was the color and gray was like. a style of drinking cup. fuck you.
also i always wanna swap them in my head i guess because like. more vowels = more fancy. the humble soup cube doesnt need all that.
Bullion stitch in embroidery:
And in crochet:
the thing about "just say you have a boyfriend to make that guy leave you alone" and "just say you are a couple so you can get that apartment" and "just marry your friend for tax benefits" is that they aren't actually solutions to any of the underlying problems, and I'm tired with the discussion always ending there. No please keep going and explain why being in a relationship would solve these issues and why you think that isn't actually a problem?
I’ve had tumblr for 4 years but some of you bitches have had it for a decade. It’s time to seek penance
wait I’m curious now . Reblog this with how long u’ve been on tumblr for. Dating back to ur oldest blog ever !!!
Got here in 2010, gonna be here til the bitter end. A witch will not leave her bog so long as it exists.
Oldest blog ever was in 2010... jeez, has it really been that long? Wow.
Probably 2016. I made an account, made one post about Satan being a slug because people toss salt over their shoulders to protect themselves from him, then didn't come back for several years. I stuck to Tumblr screenshots on Pinterest. I'm pretty sure I rejoined during COVID.
dreaming of a world in which people know about aromanticism. And by "know" I don't mean "having a vague idea of it's existence", I mean know. I mean a world where an in depth article discussing people's choice to stay single will include an aromantic perspective. I mean a world where people have an understanding of why love, as an emotion, is detached from morality. A world where people will ask you "what kind of relationships do you want in your life?" instead of asking "do you have a boyfriend?". I dream of a world where aromantic people can exist without the constant underlying expectation of being dehumanized, erased and belittled by an unexpected, unassuming comment. I try to create a microcosm of this world around me. I hope it will be easier one day.
"DNI: freaks" do you realize how conservative you look
freaks please interact
this is the first time one of my posts has been tagged like this and out of all of them i think id be glad if this one got 100k. because firstly i need to find my fellow freaks but also we need to shame people who are anti-freak because like. why do you hate to live deliciously
We Are Here pt 1/?
X
