Meet The Gang

minecraft monsters are so fucking funny weve got

zombies which look like the default player character. this has no lore implicatjons

skeletons. inexplicably they carry bows.

spiders that are two metres wide and hiss like snakes (imagine how fucking terrifying this would be in real life)

walking bush that wants nothing more than to explode while standin next to you. also theyre afraid of cats

three metre tall guy with social anxiety so bad they try to kill you if you look at them. also they can teleport

really sad ghost

zombies 2: underwater edition

spiders again but now they poison you

fish that kills you with a mind beam

for the longest time, I thought friends with benefits meant people who are friends for like some business exchange or to rely on each other financially/reputationally. IT TURNS OUT it meant something completely different.

SO THAT MEANS I'VE BEEN SAYING "Oh so in this story, you're saying the characters got a friends with benefits thing going on" AND NO ONE CORRECTED ME-

Alloaros are not inherently more sexual than anyone else, and they don’t have to have sex to prove their alloaroness. An alloaro who has never had sex or who no longer has sex — whether due to not being able to find a partner, being celibate, experiencing trauma, not being ready, or any other reason — is no less alloaro than someone who has had lots of sex or who has one or more foveo(s)/FWB(s). There is no shame in an alloaro person having sexual relationships that don’t involve romantic feelings (or even platonic feelings!), but being alloaro without having sex isn’t a contradiction either.

catfish

cats in dollhouses

new favorite YouTube comment just dropped

pure love

While separating relationships into strictly sexual, platonic, or romantic or some combination of those is fine for understanding the aromantic and asexual spectrum at a basic level, we must eventually understand that some relationships will never fit into these categories and often queer relationships are more complex than that, and our definition of queer relationships must include abstract relationships. As a community based on gender anarchy, debasing gender roles, and freedom to love how we will, we have to move away from immediately defining relationships.

I have to form my thoughts more coherently but with the discussions i’ve seen on Metaphorical vs Literal physical therianthropy / general nonhumanity, I have always thought it extended to more than just physical identities. But I don’t think it’s talked about enough nor acknowledged nor understood at all. I have a theory that a lot of therians actually identify in a more symbolic or metaphorical way,, whether that is psychological or spiritual or physical or something else, they don’t all identify as a 100% Real, Literal animal, though that doesn’t mean they don’t identify as an animal at all. Identifying symbolically is still identifying, but the experiences between that and more literal identity are different, and I think the distinction is important.

I think it’s the main source of a lot of identity discourse in the community, because we are running on two different types of therianthropy. Neither are wrong, neither are invalid, and neither are “less animal” or have less depth than the other, but there is this incongruence between discussions because of it.

I hope this makes sense, and I hope my observations don’t come off as rude (i’m scared people will misinterpret my words). But I’ve thought about this since forever, and I really think we need to start considering it as a possibility, because then maybe (heavy emphasis on the maybe) this identity will be more understood, and you can only hope for less infighting…

iirc, the definition of therianthropy has never really excluded more metaphorical/symbolic IDs either, it only makes sense that a large portion of the community falls under it. You only have to identify as an ‘animal’, not just a Real, Literal, Scientifically accurate animal (would exclude theriomythics and fictotherians anyways)

-> (additional note: I want to make it clear that I’m not saying i’m excluded from any this either, my dog theriotype comes from grief after all, to deny its existence as partially symbolic/metaphorical would be to deny myself. please don’t interpret this as some “I’m not like other therians” tangent)

Can I not break the curse?

Shrek wrote the correct ending