Ppl seem to forget that like minors have sex, and do indeed get horny, its not just something that happens as soon as you turn 18
Too many people will pass around "always trust your gut!" and "your intuition never lies" content when actually your "intuition" isn't immune to either propaganda, bigotry or trauma reactions. Which is important to be aware of actually
Remember kids: one of the punkest things you can do right now is to look out for your neighbors and make sure they are safe
"guys we're so cooked" "it's wraps" "the end is near" shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up. i say that with love because you are probably saying it out of distress and hopelessness, but for your own well-being and for everyone else's, please stop saying this shit.
no we are not "cooked." and by saying that, by the way, you are giving more power to the neo-nazi oligarchy in charge.
they want you to abandon all hope of a better life. they want you to believe "oh well, it's over, we might as well stop trying to fight back and just resign ourselves to despair forever."
every time you get on tiktok and comment "guys we're so cooked haha it's over," you are feeding into the mindset of hopeless compliance. you are, unknowingly, spreading this infectious idea that just because we've lost one battle, we've lost the entire war.
your words matter. i am saying this out of love and concern for our future, but please stop choosing words of defeat.
Consent, as described by the Oxford Dictionary, is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
Consent applies to many stuff, not just sexual advances. From letting someone borrow your pen, to drinking tea, to hugs. I will be using the tea comparison for this.
Consent does not simply mean "both parties love each other". One can love someone but not consent to certain stuff, or may consent to stuff with those they don't particularly care for on an emotional level. If you ask someone if they want tea, and they say "Hell yeah, I love tea!" then great, that is active consent. They do indeed want tea. If they respond with "I'm not sure, maybe?" then you can still make that cup of tea if you want to, but don't be mad if they don't drink it when you offer it to them. And if they don't drink it, don't make them drink it. Just because you made it doesn't mean you are entitled to have them drink it.
If they respond "No, I don't want tea." then don't make them tea at all. Don't be mad at them for not wanting tea, don't annoy them until they give you until they tell you "Fine I want tea". That is coercion and it doesn't change their actual mind about whether they want tea or not. It is not consent.
If they say "yes, sure! thank you." but when the tea arrives they don't actually want the tea, don't make them drink it. They may have changed their mind. Sure it can be annoying because you went through all that effort to make them tea, but they still have no obligation to drink the tea just because of that. They did want tea, now they don't. It's okay for people to change their minds, don't make them feel guilty of that.
If they decide while drinking that they actually don't want tea, then don't make them drink the rest of it. Again, it's okay for people to change their minds, do not make them feel guilty of that. And if they're unconscious, then don't make them tea at all. Unconscious people can't answer the question "Do you want tea?". You may have asked them when they were conscious and they may have agreed, but now they're unconscious. make sure they're safe, and, this is important, don't make them drink the tea. They may have agreed then, sure, but unconscious people don't want tea.* If they were conscious when they started drinking it but then passed out, don't make them drink the rest of the tea.*
If they're not in the right mind, say, mentally unwell, then don't offer them tea at all, even if they say they want it or deserve it. They need safety, and comfort, not tea. You can offer later when they feel better. If they said yes to tea once, don't expect tea time always forever whenever you want. Don't come up to them unexpectedly and make them drink tea saying "But you wanted tea once!". Just because they wanted tea one day doesn't mean they want it anytime forever.
For both parties involved:
Are they actively saying "yes, I want it"?
Do they know to the fullest extent what they're in for? What they're agreeing to?
Are they allowed to change their mind at any given time and have it be respected by the other party?
Is there safety precautions? (such as safe words)
Are they on an equal level with no power imbalance that could put either party in jeopardy should they change their minds or say no
If the answer to all of these is yes, great! That falls under consent. If the answer to any of these is "no" or "maybe" then that is not consensual.
*Some points in the first part are more nuanced, like in the case of a contract for example. In such a case, if everything in the contract fits in the checklist above, awesome!
just found this while scrolling and it seems remarkably similar to consistent progressivism but with contrasting values; wanted to ask what are the core fundamentals of quidditism and how does it compare to consistent progressivism; what would be some key differences between the two stances /neu
We could be considered similar for 2 aspects.
First one is, we're radqueer adjacent, and so are they. That means being pro-para, pro-bodily autonomy, pro-transid, and profiction for example.
The second similarity is that contrary to the radqueer community, that is closer to the MOGAI community on this point, we are not just a community for people to be themselves. We would like to do some activism as well, a trait we share with consistent progressivism.
However, the similarities stop there, and thank goodness.
I am working on an article about this, but they are basically fascists that covered themselves in rainbows. For a quick explanation, I reblogged this post (link) that explains the basics pretty well.
But let me give you the three main differences.
First: science denial. They redefine words and consider using Google and dictionaries as being conservative. Here is a screenshot of their Discord server.
In the thread linked to this, they list words that are conservative to use in their opinions. These words include parent, family, adult, anarchy, biology and age, amongst others.
Second: they believe everyone can consent to everything. Here is their resources about this. We quidditists have much needed nuance on this subject.
Third: to preface this, I'll start by sharing a screenshot of their definition of conservatism.
In short, they define anyone who holds discriminatory views as a conservative.
In practise, anyone that does not fully agrees with them is labelled a conservative. I won't get into it here, but it is one of the few cult tactics they use: the "Us vs Them" mentality.
Now, the bigger problem with this, is that they wish to violently genocide and torture everyone they see as conservative. They talk about this quite often in their Discord server, and even asks new members to describe how they would torture and violate a conservative in order to get verified.
Here is proof of them wanting to unforce this violence on everyone they label a conservative.
(other than their graphic & Discord sticker, the black & white images are quote pics made with a bot from messages on their servers, that they keep in a special channel)
Quidditism advocates for violence to only be used if you need to, as a last resort, and strictly as much as necessary and humane. Aka no torture, rape, slavery,...
I hope this clears things up! And thank you for your good faith question! /g
If anyone has any more questions, please send them my way! I'd be happy to answer them! /g
“It is not so much for its beauty that the forest makes a claim upon men’s hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air that emanation from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit.”
― Robert Louis Stevenson
Source: Grow Your Garden Instagram page