Avatar

@intimatevoid / intimatevoid.tumblr.com

"Some sort of supernova queer." Over 30. Australian. She/her.
Avatar
Avatar
abimee

I hate the trope of "I refuse to hit women!! [Gets decked]" cause it's boring but I do like the trope of someone in an RPG going "hey I don't wanna hit a kid that's kinda fucked up" and the kid just obliterates them

"i refuse to hit a woman!" = Sexist, overdone, does nothing to actually empower the woman or make the guy seem nice

"I refuse to hit a kid" = valid, even funnier when the kid whips absolutely ass in one go

The ONLY exception to this is Mob Psycho where it's a kid vs woman fight, in which the kid doesn't want to hit a woman because he has been told that only scumbags hit women. And then the lady pauses the fight to explain this is a different situation and he's not bad for defending himself.

Then he proceeds to whip ass in one go.

Avatar
Avatar
aiiaiiiyo

“Belka” and “Strelka”, Soviet space dogs after landing. USSR, 1960. [1800x1295] Check this blog!

Avatar
omgellendean

The amount of people in the notes to this post (and any other space dogs related content) being surprised that Belka and Strelka or some other “dogmonaut” survived starts to concern me. Surely you guys know that most of the space dogs survived their journeys and went on with their doggy lives? Certainly you understand that getting the living creatures into the space and safely bringing them back was the point in these experiments? Like, you all get that these dogs were sent into space as part of the programme aimed at safely getting a human cosmonaut there, and Soviets weren’t just launching puppies to their deaths for the fun of it? You don’t just baselessly extrapolate Laika’s fate on all of them, right? Right?

Anyway, in case you get worried or upset looking at the space dogs’ photos, please know that most of the space dogs survived their journeys and went on with their doggy lives. They were sent into space as part of the programme aimed at safely getting a human cosmonaut there. Getting the living creatures into the space and safely bringing them back was the point in these experiments. Belka and Strelka definitely survived their flight, Strelka had puppies (one was gifted to JFK), and they both lived well into the old age.

Avatar
reblogged

A hilarious rendition of: What you read has nothing to do with endorsing it or wanting it in real life, some people simply engage with the fantasy of it!

Side-note, it amuses me SO MUCH when people take 'growled' and 'snarled' literally. They're not making animal noises!!!! These are TONAL WORDS. Descriptors! A low, graveled spoken line or a sharp, cutting statement.

'Darkened' eyes is also not literal ye hooligans. It is an intensity of emotion- areal one- where the gaze gets harder, often in anger.

They actually do literally darken - when you scowl it deepens the shadows in your eyes. It doesn’t mean that their irises change colour - like you said it’s intensity of emotion.

My pet peeve is “you can’t drop your eyes bc they’re in your sockets!” dropped as in lowered. “Dropped” is used to mean “lowered” in SO MANY PLACES STOP DOING THIS ANCJRKEKSJXNF

Avatar

I wish age gap discourse hadn't spiraled the way it has because I want there to be a safe space to say "Men in their 40s who date 25 year olds aren't predators, they're just fucking losers"

Avatar
dollblooms

... honey you just described a predator LOL

No, I said what I said. But thank you for providing an example of how this topic has become insufferable on the internet.

i am honestly burningly curious about how a 40 year old man who fucks around with college grads is not a predator

"College grad" is not a developmental stage, nor is it what I would describe a 25 year old as. I was 4 years out of college at 25. My mother had two children at 25. You can be a fucking congressman at 25.

There's a difference between a man who is immature and buys into misogynistic views of beauty and aging and one who is a predator. Also, many actual predators? Not losers and able to move through society pretty freely being seen as cool and the ideal, so conflating the two isn't helpful.

This is going to be my final response to any attempt at discourse. You're welcome to continue amongst yourselves.

also sometimes a 40 year old and a 25 year old just weirdly find each and it's a perfectly normal relationship - like all human relationships are complex and situational, it's so rarely an either/or thing let alone just one thing only

if a 40 year old dude only dates 25 year olds, DiCaprio style or something adjacent to it, then yeah he's a loser

if a 40 year old dude meets a 25 year old through social event or friends or whatever and they happen to hit it off and make a go of it, and this isn't some sort of reoccurring pattern for the guy, that's just a relationship with an age difference

being predatory means something specific, and man I agree w/ OP and really wish people just stopped ascribing it to any and all relationship dynamics they personally might not like

predator and groomer - two words that need to go up on the "can't use till you learn their meaning" shelf

Something I find really stressful is this seemingly endless creep of infantilisation and removal of autonomy from young people. Like, not to be all “in my dayyyy” about it, but… at 16, my friends and I were expected to be broadly responsible for our presence in the world. Most of us had jobs, we navigated public transport, looked after younger siblings. We were expected to make informed decisions about our future careers and our sexual partners. We were allowed to leave education and work full time (this was not necessarily good thing - I think increasing the school leaving age to 18 was broadly for the best). Most of us were smoking, or drinking, or both - again, not good things, but just facts - and many of us were sexually active. Many of the AFAB people I knew were on the pill. Legally, we could live independently, or get married with adult consent.

Legally (I live in the UK) we were not minors, although we inhabited an odd legal limbo until we turned 18, and we were certainly not “children”. Intellectually, socially, though, we were considered (young) adults, or at the most “older teenagers.” We were expected to read mostly adult books (rather than middle grade or YA), watch the news/read papers, watch mostly adult television.

And I do think we a bit under-protected, under-supported, and in some cases - neglected and financially exploited - and I’m not necessarily advocating that. But it did make us feel, I think, in charge of our own lives, capable and competent to make decisions.

At 16-17 my parents knew they could leave me alone overnight/for a couple of nights, and I wouldn’t starve or burn the house down. I felt comfortable getting cross country trains on my own, or booking and staying at a hotel (yes, with my boyfriend.)

Then there was this… creeping of sentiments that we were all Too Young to trouble our heads about certain things. A lot of it was good - more stringent licensing laws, raising the school leaving age, raising the minimum smoking age(!) - but some of the broader cultural stuff was… a bit patronising? Eg, the introduction of “New Adult” as a category of books aimed at 18-25 year olds, the way cartoons and books written for the 9-12 age group were being marketed as for the 12-15 age group, referring to late teens as “children,” etc etc.

Then, in 2008, there was the big financial crash and suddenly my generation were (broadly) robbed of all the usual markers of adulthood and success, meaning that we got ‘stuck’ in the lifestyles and modes our late teens/early 20s. And suddenly, all the emphasis shifted from social and legal protections for late teens/ younger adults, to legal restrictions on their freedoms/rights, and strange philosophical protections on the emotional states.

So, OF COURSE a 23 year old can’t buy a beer without carrying an ID card, and a 17 year old can’t have a crush on a 16 year old, but also, because you’re *children* you don’t need to live like adults. So the UK government got to save money by saying “18 isn’t a proper adult,” then “20 isn’t a proper adult,” and “25 isn’t a proper adult” because it meant they could refuse to give single occupancy housing benefit rates to people of those ages (I think they’ve raised it over 30 now.) Or by refusing to clamp down on exploitative temporary/zero hours contracts - because they’re just “temp jobs for young people!”, or by raising the retirement age because “60 is far too young to retire. You’re not a real adult until 35.”

And it means the discursive environment is such that you can claim that a 21 year old trans person is too young to make their own medical decisions, or a 15 year old is too young to consent to the contraceptive pill.

Meanwhile, they are not offering additional *protections* to these newly infantilised adults. 18 year olds are still encouraged to saddle themselves with enormous educational debt, or allowed to have credit cards, or expected to pay rent, or no longer receive child benefits. You still have to *work*. In fact, in the States, they’re looking to removed child employment restrictions - but that’s fine, because 20 year olds are being protected from making their own medical decisions, and adults get to say which books their teen kids are reading in school, and kids aren’t allowed to change their name or what they wear without parental consent.

We can see what these people are doing to the rights of children - so why are we being so complacent in expanding the definition of ‘child’?

Regardless - 25 is VERY CLEARLY an adult. At 25 I was married, had two kids, an overdraft, rent to pay, and experience of living in the world for 6 years. I had more in common with someone of 40 than I did with someone of 15. Hell, at*20* I had more in common with someone of 40 than someone of 15. Any sexual or relationship decisions you make at 25 are your own to make.

Of course there are likely to be power imbalances in a 15 year age gap - which is why most 25 year olds don’t date 40somethings - but not actually necessarily. And yeah, a 40 year old who only dates 20somethings is a skeeze - just like a 30 year old who routinely ingratiates themselves with rich 80 year olds is a skeeze.

But if any young people are reading this (doubt it)… your rights are much, much more important than your protections.

Yes, young people should be protected, but if someone claims they’re protecting you while denying you access to personal autonomy, financial stability, intellectual curiosity, or sexual self-determination because you’re “too young” to need, or understand those things… be very suspicious of their motives.

And if you’re legally an adult, ask yourself why you don’t feel comfortable defining yourself in those terms.

Avatar
traycakes

This thread is from 2023, and now with the Cass report we have seen the real, tangible danger that comes from infantilizing adults in their 20s.

Avatar

Apparently people who don't have executive dysfunction think that actually working on something is the hardest part of doing something. And that's why they get mad that you call the rest of the project "easy" after you've finally worked through doing the plan and know what to do when you're working.

So when you're through with the epiphany of how to make it physically possible to make the thing you're making, and you're sharing the plan with excitement, because the hard part is over, and now you only have to get your hands moving and do it, they get mad at you like

"it's not that easy! It's a lot of hard work! >:C"

they mean it, because

to them, working is the hardest part.

They don't have to fight their brains to get started. They don't have to fight their way through making the choices, making the plan, making yourself make the thing. People who don't suffer from executive dysfunction think that the hardest part is actually doing the thing.

when you have executive dysfunction, it’s like... you’ve just clawed your way up a long steep embankment of loose gravel, and you flop exhausted into the construction site, and you’re like “oh thank fuck, time to lay some bricks, i absolutely could do this all day” and the guy who drove to the site goes “what’s wrong with you man bricklaying is hard graft!”

not as hard as crawling up the gravel mountain bro

Avatar
roach-works

there’s also good hard and bad hard. doing the thing might be hard, but at least you’re doing it; it’s good hard. just getting to the thing in the first place is hard and it’s fucking miserable. executive dysfunction puts so many bad hard things in your way before you can get to even the good hard things.

Avatar
tygermama

sometimes i describe it as my transmission is broken, every thing else works fine but no matter how hard I pump the gas pedal, I ain't getting anywhere because I can't

Avatar
Avatar
fillielitsa

Colorized photo of Vincent van Gogh at his home in Arles in 1869.

No it isn’t you lying ass

Other ai giveaways other than the fucked up hands-

Leaves have no form or order- they’re a green mass without reasonable veins or connection points to stems. See the weird bit that crosses Vince’s arm

Same with the yellow flowers tbh they look pasted on and are all the same level of blur despite the leaves being crisply in focus, and several seem to not have stems

The metal in the window has no actual pattern and isn’t continued into the second window

The chunk of rock texture in the middle of the wood next to the window

The folds on Vince’s clothes don’t seem to fall in a natural way and seem excessive, especially on his pants.

Overall the space is… Odd. Where is he? A random corner against a plain blue wall? Why is one wall made of wood and the other has no discernible texture? Why does the stone part have that weird corner and have the foundation so high up in comparison to where Vince’s feet should be? Why doesn’t the stone wall match the geography of its base? What is the fabric thing on the lefthand side that’s conveniently the same blue as the house and jacket?

Anyway, good practice to train your eye for ai generated images

also he was 16 in 1869. didn’t have a house of his own; wasn’t living in Arles yet. he was training to work for art dealers, in The Hague

this is the only known photographic portrait of Van Gogh, age 19 (c. 1872)

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.