erin

I’m pretty certain that comic is edited and that isn’t what she said. She didn’t make it a fetish thing, and bringing up her leaked nudes for no reason is super weird.

Chiming in as another poly person, having been poly and monogamous in different parts of my life (currently poly). A lot of people that want to be in a poly situation do not fully comprehend the responsibility involved. It can be easy and casual, but I’ve seen multiple polycules fall apart (dramatically) due to insufficient communication and poor management of expectations. It’s totally possible to be poly, and in a serious, committed relationship. I was. It’s also very very difficult. It takes a lot of work, communication, and trust.

Like you said, I’ve been in relationships with people that truly believe they have infinite love to give, which even if that were true, no one has infinite time and emotional bandwidth. I’ve had a longstanding rule that I’ve set for myself, that any committed relationship I am in must have a rock solid foundation of communication and trust before polyamory is possible, and I always close off my poly relationships until I am at that point in a relationship (obviously assuming my partner is okay with that). People need to communicate their desires going in, and should regularly check in and discuss boundaries, expectations, and hopes for the future in any relationship, and much more so in poly ones.

Fucking talk to each other, people. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and extend the same level of honesty and trust that you wish to receive. If I and my past partners always approached relationships with a communication-first perspective, we would’ve avoided a lot of pain and heartbreak.

I can’t speak as to why people like strangulation porn, since porn has never done anything for me, but I can elaborate a bit from the perspective of someone who is into being choked and other BDSM stuff. How it feels is definitely part of it, but a lot of it is playing into a power dynamic and exploring otherwise risky behaviors in a safe and consensual manner. I have no interest in being hurt by a stranger, but pain enacted by someone I trust in a safe environment where I am in total control is both fun and cathartic, as someone who has been assaulted. I suspect those that watch porn with choking watch it because they enjoy it, or wish to, themselves. If I was to watch porn, I’d probably prefer to watch something that I relate to and enjoy in my own sex life. The reasons to enjoy watching it are surely as varied as the reasons people enjoy performing it. Knowing that everyone involved is consenting and have layers of safety precautions in place probably helps as well.

It’s a culture thing. A majority queer group hanging out vs a majority non-queer group is a totally different vibe, to the point that like the original post, it feels weird to me to hang out with a bunch of straight people, as the slang, mannerisms, and social code are just totally different. As the other commenter said, neurodivergent people are also more likely to question other aspects of their identity, so there is a lot of overlap between the two groups as well.

Could not disagree more. Nudes don’t have to be “jerk of material.” That’s not why my partners and I send them to each other. They’re more for mutual appreciation. We like looking at each other’s bodies because we’re attracted to each other, not because we’re expecting to rub one out. Also, sounds like you/the people you share nudes with need to take better nudes lol. We take excellent photos with excellent lighting (when the mood strikes us). Taking a “photo of your gooch” from the same angle is the woman equivalent of the right side of the meme. We all should know better.

Pose, angle, and lighting, people!

Good skincare and a tinted moisturizer would go a long way. All the hottest guys I know wear “makeup.” Don’t get hung up on a label.

That would be groupies. Groypers are people that feel up others without consent.

I would love to hear the argument for banning pitbulls despite being less risky than other commonly accepted risks.

What’s the margin? Where do we draw the line between breeds that are okay to allow to reproduce and which aren’t? Pitbulls are statistically very safe, as all dogs are, when treated and trained well. If we banned everything with similar levels of risk of injury or death as pitbulls, we’d have to ban a LOT. Let’s start with guns, cars, and hell, why not smoking and drinking for legal guardians of children, too. In-ground swimming pools can go, and let’s revamp electrical outlets.

Obviously, it’s a sliding scale of propensity, probability, and likelihood, as you said, but pitbulls are much lower on that scale. Just as with everything else on that list, the risk of harm to others, especially children, falls on the responsibility of the owner. This isn’t to say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” as obviously guns enable easily killing many people quickly, but rather to contrast the realistic risk to family and community. Pitbulls have been excessively demonized for their relative risk. I can’t take anyone calling for pitbull bans seriously unless they believe in authoritatively banning all the other aspects of our lives that pose similar levels of risk to ourselves and others.

My aunt has lived with two pitbulls for almost a decade now. Raised two small children in the same home. Nothing but sweethearts. Dogs are individuals, just like people. Just like having another person around your baby, you need to be responsible with any dog breed.

As someone that has had relationships with people that have very unstable mental health, do not stay with someone for fear of their reaction. It’s a method of control and abuse, even if they aren’t aware of it. If their views aren’t compatible with yours, then you won’t be happy long term.

Why would representation make her uncomfortable? That’s a personal problem, and is homophobia. Being bi is no excuse. It’s not being shoved in her face, it’s shared cultural identity. Those flags and queer people in art give a symbol for us to rally around and help normalize acceptance. It sounds like her own insecurities are getting to her.

There is no respectful disagreement with bigotry. If it’s not hurting her, she shouldn’t care.

If that seems good to you, please stay out of education. Also, I’m not your friend, please don’t call me that. It’s patronizing. I brought it up because it was relevant to my greater point and was an amusing anecdote about the wrong way to teach dated literature, not because I’m still stuck on a minor event a decade ago. I’ve had far worse experiences with teachers that actually were formative, in the sense that they were traumatic. Traumatizing kids isn’t “pushing them,” it’s just hurting them in their formative years. That teacher didn’t traumatize me, but for someone less confident socially or in their opinions, it easily could have been. Imagine forcing a shy, neurodivergent kid to argue against 20+ other people for 45 minutes about something as divisive as human nature and morality, while simultaneously shutting down any discussion of the author’s racism, which is very relevant to that discussion. That teacher didn’t know me at all. That could’ve been me.

Well, I’m glad you have a such a broad picture of my psychology from a one off Internet comment about an event that I hadn’t thought about in years. It didn’t make me who I am, the people I chose to spend time with and the excellent teachers that taught me did. Encouraging a lopsided debate about a topic where even discussing the racist bias isn’t allowed is not something that teacher did to help teach or form me.

No amount of substantiation can justify bigoted worldviews. There is no amount of research that makes standing against equal rights more justified, it’s the opposite. How could you truly understand any opposing worldview if you still remain in opposition to the basic human rights of others? That person is either dumb, misinformed, or malicious.

What a weird technicality to get caught up on. Disintegrate destroys wall of force. RAI over RAW any day. It makes absolutely no sense that you can’t shoot a disintegrate wherever you want. If you’re so worried about the wall being invisible, then target something behind the wall. It’s a ray, and it hits the wall, and both spells explicitly say the wall is destroyed. Disintegrate also explicitly can target walls of force, even though it has the “target you can see” caveat. If a player tries to use the explicit counter to wall of force against it and you catch them on a technicality, you’re harming the collaborative story.

Don’t exploit poor wording when the intent of both spells is clear. No one wants a DM rules lawyer.

Oh god please don’t eat horse chestnuts. Eat regular, non-poisonous chestnuts.

When Piggy drops racial slurs in reference to the barbaric behavior of the other boys. Essentially, “We’re white! We’re better than this. Stop acting like [slur].”

My problem is not with reading something I disagree with, it’s how it is taught. It was not taught in a way to demonstrate bias, and the author’s views were never even discussed. There was nearly no critical discussion about the validity of the book’s message, it was taken at face value. That’s not teaching.

The majority certainly doesn’t choose the active misery of others, and on the scale of the Lord of the Flies setting, humans have consistently shown collaboration and mutual aid. We’ve documented many instances of stranded groups, and even some people that volunteered to be stuck on a raft together for months, and they always choose to work together, despite their differences. Capitalism, fascism, and radical individualism/nationalism are the root of the societal scale evils, because they’re ideologies that propagate in the hands of the few that are willing to benefit at the cost of the many. Humans have not always lived under capitalism.

Intelligent, compassionate, and a vessel for the author’s racist worldview.

Don’t mind me. I hate that book, and I hate that it’s taught in every school as if it has anything important to say. We’ve run the Lord of the Flies experiment, both accidentally and very intentionally. Every time, we’ve demonstrated that humans are better than that, and the author’s beliefs about human nature were both very incorrect and very racist.

I still resent being forced to debate my classmates about whether human nature was intrinsically “good” or “evil,” directly after reading that book, even though it was 25 years ago. I was the lone voice on the side of “good,” for lack of a “good and evil are subjective terms, but nonetheless humans are empathetic and this book is horseshit” team. I got dogpiled by 20 some other students for about 45 minutes. Fuck you Ms. Brown, and fuck you William Golding. That book has nothing important to say other than exposing its author’s racist insecurities.