Total Trash

For me, a major draw to your work is that there is always a degree of self-awareness of how fucked up the situations are, which serves the dual purpose of assuaging guilt of having the sort of fantasies described, and of distilling what makes them appealing. Graphic rape scenes are usually a turn off for me, but I'm quite enamoured with Sayla as perhaps the quintessential predatory trans girl. The scourge of women's locker rooms and bros clubbing for an easy lay, whose STDs are less virulent than the psychic contagions her body carries, problematizing the sex and gender of her victims. I'm hoping for a sequel in which she is recruited by queer militants to use her seductive powers for good. Or she could redeem herself through a bashing back scene with Oaklee's dad. You also perfectly capture the powerlessness, confusion, and ineptitude of adolescence, the omission of which too often kills my suspension of disbelief when reading high school romances. Mac && Oaklee's conversations are incredibly frustrating to read, as they should be.

Personally, I wouldn't feel meaningfully safer in a state where 49% of the population was homophobic than I would in a state where 51% of the population was homophobic.

I'm sure you're not a racist, though. 'Cause only Blacks can be racist, right?

Here's what Asher Bauer has to say about radfems:

It's really quite simple to figure out someone's gender identity: 1. Ask said person how they identify. 2. Respect this self-identification.

Here's a proposition for those of you concerned about the perceived gender gap on this forum: make posting shit like this a bannable offense.

Good luck. You're braver than I am.

I make it a habit to neg any posts complaining about post ratings.

I wouldn't think anything of it, and would see it as a major red flag if someone I wasn't sexual with were to interpret it as anything more than playful cuddling.

I just want to chime in to say that I kind of liked the switching back and forth between narrative voices, so instead of telling you to choose one and stick with it, I'd suggest thinking about how you can maximize the effect on the narrative of retelling events from different perspectives.

To reiterate: And where did I make any judgment that anyone was behaving in an "unhealthy" way? "Projection" is pretty recognizable in colloquial speech as just the assumption that other people are motivated by the same kind of things you(pl.) are. Nothing more, nothing less. In this case someone with a diaper fetish might assume that anyone taking diapers out of a trash can was also a fetishist, even though there are any number of reasons people go through trash, not all of which are undertaken with the goal of finding something useful.

Your readings of Samuel Delaney obviously didn't include any of his critiques of "urban renewal" under Giuliani, or you would understand how the "public health" argument is a weapon of class warfare. You would also hopefully understand the intersection between psychology and law enforcement via the pathologization of "undesirables." The only thing in my post that I could possibly imagine being construed as "psychological terminology" was my use of the term "projection." Seeing as my post was addressed to anonymous internet denizens with whom I have no personal experience, it seems pretty clear that I was not making any sort of personality judgment, but merely commenting on what was said. I also never attacked your credentials, nor do I care what they are. Show your credibility through the persuasiveness of your arguments, not by waving your penis* (er...I mean diplomas, sorry) in people's faces. And thanks for providing a perfect example of how to combine "You're not being intellectual enough" with "You're being overly intellectual." You even dismissed me preemptively as "out of place in a non-professional setting" just in case I did show some background in psychology (never mind that I wasn't the one psychoanalyzing the guy; I was just pointing out that it takes a pretty big leap to get from "some guy's going through people's trash" to "he must be a closet fetishist"). *You list your gender identity in your profile as "male," so I'm making the assumption that you consider "penis" an acceptable term. Please correct me if this is not the case. By no means do I want to condone using misgendering as a debate tactic.

There seems to be a lot of projection going on with the assumption that this guy must be some sort of sexual deviant. My first thought is't "he must be a pedo;" it's "he's probably an obsessive hoarder." Also, pics or it didn't happen (sorry, couldn't resist).

Spell check wouldn't help in this particular instance...