If I've Said It Once, I've Said It A Thousand Times: The Hate Halsin Gets Is Confusing And Undeserved.

Actually, I do think it's an interesting topic talking about other biotics and how their development would be affected. Since people are comparing biotic abilities, why wouldn't other examples be used?

Is there some sort of forbiddence on people adding to the discussion that helps round out what makes someone more "powerful" than an Asari? Does only raw power matter or should versatility be included? We see Jack using her biotics to leap over enemies and yank the guards into the air with her momentum. We've seen Samara yank a skycar back to herself biotically. We've seen Kaidan admit he can't float down like Falere nor have the minutae of control to unlatch a hatch on the other side.

I'm never really certain what exactly people mean when they say Kaidan is as/more powerful than an Asari. Does that mean he can overpower someone like Morinth even though he says he'd be a goner to an Ardat Yakshi? Can he punch down a YMIR and keep running? Cutscenes of him make that hard to guess because his biotic abilities are rarely ever demonstrated if they're acknowledged.

Mass Effect really just left out the part about Kaidan being as strong and powerful as an Asari when it comes to his biotics. I had to find that out from google and I don’t remember it being mentioned in the game that a Kaidan is actually that powerful. Like I knew he was powerful and skilled but I didn’t know he was Asari level. I don’t know if I just missed that information or what

He’s literally the perfect man oh my god. I couldn’t ask for another. Why is he so perfect ? And like not meaning to shade Ashley but it makes me want to choose Kaidan over her more because he seems to be more of a valuable asset than her with his biotics.

A kiss in Bloomington Park

I have yet to see one straight man have a correct opinion on Halsin

I feel like, we as a society, don't talk enough about people messing up needle felting.

I've come to describing it as: What we need to find out if we'd want sex with someone is what others complain of as "friendzoning" (aka You must be this friend zoned to have a chance to go on this demisexual ride). Which is NOT an endorsement of being friends in hopes of getting sex. No one owes anyone sex. No one should be friends with an ulterior motive. But it's hard to describe demisexuality without finding an anchor point to something we live with in society. And all too frequently, I've experienced how swiftly friends stop being friends when sex is confirmed to be off the table. Friendly greetings turn cold, plans become empty promises, and laughter becomes silence when you're not interested in sex. How do people find anyone willing to do that attractive enough to fuck?

Sex without attachment is far more prevalent I think than society is willing to acknowledge. Otherwise, we wouldn't have jokes about sex on the third date, the shame of friendzoning, the "expiration date" theme as we age, or the dreaded "frigid" label. There'd never be emphasis of "If you liked it, ya shoulda put a ring on it", "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" And all sorts of "fun" colloquialisms that imply that the temptation of sex is present without the urge to commit to a relationship. Because, why caution others in acquiring commitment first if it's in our nature to only want sex when there are emotional bonds?

Ironically, I think we ought to be de-stigmatizing casual sex and instead be emphasizing consent, safety for health and generally not being a douche to your partners. I get the sense that this sex shaming causes a kind of sociopathic treatment of each other if we're not doing it for the "right" reasons (insert disclaimer about appropriate age being needed to discuss this topic), because it doesn't take long before I'm hearing a tone of disrespect towards anyone who likes casual sex as though they're unworthy of marriage material.

demisexuality can be so hard to explain because it’s misconstrued as you just wanting to trust the other person before you have sex with them. and I get why the misconception happens. But demisexuality differs in that there isn’t sexual attraction at all before that bond forms.

I think what people have difficulty with is the idea that there are people out there who aren’t experiencing sexual attraction at all until a certain point, if ever, because we’re taught that sex, libido, and sexual attraction are all the same, both in and out of queer spaces.

And when you’re learning about asexuality and demisexuality, you may learn that people have romantic and aesthetic attraction separately from sexual attraction, and that sexual and romantic attraction aren’t necessarily intertwined, and that may challenge your worldview on sex.

But “I trust you enough to have sex with you” isn’t the same as “I’m not sexually attracted to anyone but you, and the reason I’m sexually attracted to you now after we’ve established this close bond is literally because of the bond of trust we’ve been able to form”.

It’s easy to see how those can get conflated. On the surface, if you’re unfamiliar with asexuality, they may sound the same. But it’s important to acknowledge the difference between “no sex until I trust you” and “no sexual attraction unless I trust you and maybe not even then”.

Demisexuality is housed under the asexuality spectrum. It’s part of the gray area between being allosexual and asexual. It’s part of why the definition for asexuality includes “little to no sexual attraction”. It’s a mostly asexual experience with an asterisk.

While being demisexual may have impacts on a persons sexual activity, even demisexuals have a varied relationship to the act of participating in sex. Libido and sexual attraction are not always intertwined either, which can make telling the difference tricky.

I think of sexual attraction as libido that has a compass. Since I rarely ever experience sexual attraction, but do have libido, it’s noticeable for me when that libido actually has a direction to go, rather than being a floating, nebulous, independent thing.

Remember, not everyone is demisexual. There’s a difference between waiting to have sex and not having sexual attraction at all until a certain point. This also inherently ties demisexuality to romantic attraction and relationships, and not all demisexuals are alloromantic.

But if you read what demisexuality is and think “everyone is like that” or “that’s just being a woman”, you either 1) are demisexual 2) don’t understand what it is or 3) both. And it’s okay to not know. Just as long as you’re willing to try to learn.

Fans: I can't stand Halsin because he's racist to Drow!

Me: I see. Quick question, who's your favorite character?

Fan 1: Shadowheart, who hates all Githyanki, of course!

Fan 2: Lae'zel, who hates all non-Gith, of course!

Fan 3: Astarion, who hates all gnomes, of course!

Fan 4: Minthara, who hates all surface elves, of course!

Me: ...... I see.

Unless you're diabetic

‘bread is bad for you’ ‘rice is bad for you’ sorry im not subscribing to the idea that staple grains that have been integral to cultures for centuries are evil. i love you carbs

You have been lied-- THIS is Snow White

As usual, prints are avaible here <3

fully do not get the thing about halsin coming on too strong at the tiefling party bc like...that's the party where you can flirt with *everybody* and at that point halsin turns you down too.

even before the party lae'zel asks you very up front if you wanna bone and i dont hear ppl saying lae'zel is too pushy (btw i don't think so either, her bluntness is part of her charm)

also when you actually can get with halsin in act 3, he's very respectful abt it, including if you turn him down. i do think some ppl are overthinking things and just aren't ready to deal with their negative ideas about polyam ppl 🤷

I can't stress enough how much I miss StumbleUpon