Quidditism - 🪷💫

Information on consent

📖 What is consent? 📖

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.

📖 What falls under consent and what does not? 📖

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!

Ice cold takes from a Transgender Woman:

Men are not inherently Evil

Everyone has the capacity for evil

Transgender Men are men

Transgender Women are women

Excluding Cisgender Men from your spaces requires Transgender Men to out themselves if they want to engage (Same for Women)

Anyone can be Non-Binary, there is no "look" or requirement

Non-binary masculine presenting people should be welcome in queer spaces, many are just treated as men and predators

Non-binary feminine presenting people should be welcome in queer spaces without being seen as "Woman-Lite"

Edited the wording on the first point because too many terfs keep thinking I'm their friend.

Tips for Defying the End of the World.

Printable version here - feel free to print out for yourself or distribute to others for free.

“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

One of the things that make us personally uncomfortable with the notion that child-appearing or young-appearing headmates can never consent:

We have a genetic condition that makes our body look a lot younger than we actually are. We didn't look like an adult til our late twenties/early thirties and even then, just barely.

But we WERE an adult when we got married. And there was no harm in anyone, including our ex, being attracted to us. Or our current partner, who's several years younger than us but looks several years older.

When we got married, our headmate Sunni Willow felt about 16, though we were bodily 21. She could give consent because our brain was that of an adult.

Our ability to give informed consent matters. And is the only thing that matters.

I wish more people would post pictures of things that are used

Backpacks with patches, well worn sweaters with darned elbows, beat up water bottles and tee shirts with more holes than fabric. I want to hear people talk about their oldest possessions with all of the excitement of influencers posting a haul. I want people to be excited about the idea of having things with the type of character that can only come from years of companionship and memories.

I wondered why green is so associated with hope and then I remembered being 8 and seeing a little plant sprout after a few days of waiting and. Yeah. I get it now.

You can judge things in multiple ways at once. Things are rarely just good or just bad.

May I ask how is Daddy's Little Toy missunderstod? It's not like Genderqueer where people wanted it to be banned because of transphobia. It's not like that. Daddy's Little Toy is not missunderstod. It's just a book where you supposed to be happy when a girl get's together with her groomer.

It's not a another Lolita. Lolita is not a romanc, and the writer of it did everything ín his power to make shure people know that. He himself was a surviver of CSA. And was a psychologist who showed in the book how awfull people justafy themself, but it's still veary clear that the main character is in the wrong when you read between the lines. Main whaile Daddy's Little Toy is a romance book, that the writer dedicated to her 3 years old dauther. The writer is niether a surviver of CSA, or a psychologist (probably doasn't know anything about it), and you are supposed to like the guy.

Wow 😑

Where the actual fuck did you get your information? 🤨

Let's start with Lolita:

Lolita was written by the Vladimir Nabokov. His life has been extensively documented by biographers and in his own memoirs, and there has never once been any suggestion that he was a victim of CSA

Nabokov was not a psychologist. Indeed, he was known for his strong and complex opinions about psychology. Most notably he openly mocked and rejected Freudian psychoanalysis

Lolita was very specifically modeled after the romance genre

Lolita is indeed written from the perspective of the abuser, but one element you may be missing is that the narrator Humbert does such a good job endearing himself and excusing, minimizing, and justifying his actions, that readers constantly fall into the trap of sympathizing, and even agreeing with him. The very term "Lolita" nowadays is used to mean a sort of precocious seductress because of this.

Continuing on to Genderqueer:

Regardless of their real reasons behind it, critics of Genderqueer always point to one or two panels that depict sexual activity. Taken out of context, they appear shocking and inappropriate. This is exactly what the critics of Daddy's Little Toy are doing. The biggest difference is that the critics actually managed to succeed this time.

And finally, as for Daddy's Little Toy:

Most people would undoubtedly consider Lolita to be the better book, but so what? Are we only allowed to read books about shocking or offensive subject matter if they are well-written? Who decides this? Why does it matter?

You have not read this book. I know that for a fact. You personally have no idea what the book is like. No one does, because the book cannot be found anywhere. You are simply parroting the incendiary claims from TikToks.

I don't fucking care if the book is one long, graphic description of a kindergarten bukkake party. It is fiction. It is not real. No one is harmed by it. It is the easiest thing in the world to avoid reading it. In fact there is no way that you can read it! So why does anyone even care?

I hope that clears things up for you.