the man who spents hundreds of pages describing trees and meals and worked out the linguistics of multiple fictional languages and the entire cosmology of his fictionsl world called the Beatles’ rehearsal sounds “indescribable”
what was the first show y’all broke up with…you know like the first show you had that was your everything for a good amount of time and then it fucked up so bad that like you felt your heart breaking with sadness, disappointment and hurt and then you vowed never to see it again? i’ll start mine was shame/ess
#castle lol #after s6 i vowed to never watch another ep and i still haven't past that #only specific scenes on yt but not actual episodes #which was really sad because it was (still is ignoring s6) my fav show
although it’s not discussed–at least in my circles– as much as arguably more prominent/explicit examples (DID, psychosis, BPD, etc.), the demonization of mental illness and the cultural belief that mentally ill people are uniquely dangerous absolutely applies to PTSD as well.
I think on every single horror movie where the villain is the ghost/spirit/curse of a traumatized girl or woman. I think on every single superhero narrative where the villain’s origin story is child abuse or relationship abuse. I think of the abuse apologism in the news everywhere of men in the military coming home to abuse their families, blaming PTSD instead of the men themselves. I think of a play I saw in undergrad where [tw: csa, incest] a man with PTSD has a flashback and rapes his granddaughter because he’s “seeing the past” and thinking she’s his wife and then comes out of the flashback and doesn’t know he’s done it (not even remotely how flashbacks work, which I should not have to say, but the existence of that play shows me that I do). [end tw] I think of the constant promotion of the idea of the inter-generational cycle of abuse wherein a survivor of child abuse is destined to abuse their own children as if there is no choice involved at all and PTSD just inherently makes someone violent and controlling. I think of the truism “hurt people hurt people.” I think of the apologism surrounding mass shooters who were bullied as if the trauma of bullying just inherently makes someone into mass murderers. I think of the stories of traumatized friends who have been institutionalized and abused when they try to maintain bodily autonomy and basic boundaries because they’re assumed to be violent.
I think it’s worth mentioning how pervasive this form of ableism against people with PTSD is.
so you dated the wrong person and learned a hard lesson. you chose the wrong major and had to start over again. you cherished a friend who backstabbed you. it sucks, but it’s also going to work out. that’s life; you learn, hurt, love, cry, laugh, and keep going. you experience setbacks and you grow and it’s all okay.
domestication syndrome is one of the coolest findings from recent genetics
Basically scientists have found that if you start selecting for people-friendly animals, you see a bunch of hypothetically unrelated traits start showing up in all sorts of mammal species: floppy ears, piebald/patterned coats, etc.
This is true for everything from cows to dogs to rats! One of the coolest long term studies on this has been the Russian fox experiments.
So essentially the science goes like this:
You have two copies of every genes, one from each parent.
We tend to simplify genetics, and say that for every single gene you have it is random,l coin flip which copy you pass on to you offspring. We also tend think of genes as a 1:1 ratio of genes—>traits.
But! This is not quite the case.
Genes have a specific physical location and order relative to each other on your chromosomes, and the chance of genes being inherited together goes up the closer together they are located. This means random, unrelated traits can wind up being more commonly inherited together in specific patterns just because those genes are located close together, and you don’t get that completely random reshuffling of two parent’s traits. Some of them tend to stay “stuck” together.
This is called linkage, and it’s why you often see red hair, pale skin, and freckles together, for example.
The second factor that plays into this is that a lot of times 1 gene affects several different traits (or several different genes affect 1 trait). This means that sometimes you really *can’t* untangle two traits because they have a similar cause. For example, say genes for increased aggression are responsible both for making a spider a better hunter (pro) and making a spider more likely to eat its offspring (con). Because the same gene is the cause of both things, natural selection can’t really untangle them.
Circling back to the redhead/freckles/pale skin example, these traits are affected by a number of different genes, but also one gene in particular: MCR1, a gene that changes how your body responds to hormones promoting melanin production. Again, one gene related to pigment production can affect a BUNCH of different traits. (And also skin cancer risk. Fun!)
Domestication Syndrome in mammals turns out to be due to both linkage and genes affect by multiple traits!
See, when we domestic animals we want them to be friendlier/less aggressive, which normally translates to less FEARFUL.
And it turns out that the same genes involved in adrenal responses and other stress reactions are also involved in melanin, cartilage, and bone production. So when we domesticate animals we get these recurring changes in pigmentation (white patches, piebald costs), floppy ears (cartilage), shorter muzzles and other changes in physical stature (bone growth), etc.
We also wind up selecting for a lot of neotenic genes in general— that is, retention of childhood traits into adulthood. That’s because baby animals tend to have lots of friendly/trusting/biddable/curious traits we are looking for.
And honestly, who can say no to a face like this?
ps, since it was mentioned:
the same genes involved in domestication probably help animals form social groups in general. if you need to get along with and trust strangers you need a decrease in the panic/aggression genes.
cats, for example, probably domesticated themselves when they started living close to each other and to humans to feed off of pests in grain silos.
and yeah, some some recent theories suggest humans may have ‘domesticated’ themselves:
so basically you’re saying that when we breed animals to be friends, they become friend-shaped.
i’m too soft of a bitch to have lived when love letters were common practice. i’d get One and go lay down by a river and my friends would be like “what’s wrong?” and i’d be like “my friends, i’ve fallen ill”
Does it ever give you a nice warm glow, knowing that while Tumblr is struggling to monetize their crappy, semi-functioning website and meeting nothing but resistance, AO3 has built such a beautiful and stable website for us that when they ask us for money, we throw it at them willingly?
While stories like Nikki’s have long been cited by sex work activists and organisations as examples of how poverty forces vulnerable women (and they are predominantly women, including trans women) into sex work, they have rarely been acknowledged by official government bodies. But last month a Home Office-commissioned study by researchers at Bristol University described as “the most comprehensive overview of prostitution and sex work to date” clearly found what sex workers have long been trying to tell us: austerity is pushing people into sex work at the same time as criminalisation makes them less safe.
“It does mean a lot to see it there in black and white with a government logo,” says 28-year-old Irina*, who has been a sex worker alongside other part-time work for around five years. Irina entered the trade when her immigration status made it difficult for her to hold down traditional work. She now makes enough money to sustain her life here and send contributions back to her family in Eastern Europe, but says she has faced abuse from both clients and the police in the course of her work, as well as being surveilled under the guise of ‘anti-trafficking’ protections despite the fact that she is not a victim of trafficking.
The vulnerable position Irina outlines is, according to sex workers and activists, a direct consequence of sex work criminalisation in the UK. For Cat Smith of the Sex Work Advocacy and Resistance Movement (SWARM), the acknowledgement of this in the Home Office’s study is welcome.
“You can’t talk about the nature of sex work in the UK without talking about how the policy of criminalisation affects it,” she says, particularly highlighting the report’s discussion of increased police raids and brothel-keeping laws which incentivise dangerous lone working. “The more power you have as a worker the more safe you can be.”
While sex work activists and organisations like SWARM have long advocated for the full decriminalisation of the industry as a way to build worker power and keep sex workers safe, many of their opponents have continued to push for the Nordic model in which only buyers are criminalised. It’s a solution sex workers say increases their risk of harm and which organisations like SWARM argue has no basis in evidence – a fact they now say is backed up by the Home Office’s own research.
“We need more routes out of poverty, and we need full decriminalisation to help those of us who can’t or don’t want to leave sex work be safer,” she adds.
Previous efforts to organise around political structures have seen little success; activists say DWP inquiries into universal credit have had remits so frustratingly narrow they couldn’t include a discussion of how the benefits system as a whole operated to push vulnerable women into sex work, while an inquiry into prostitution by the Women and Equalities Select Committee operated, in practice, to gather evidence for a proposal to support the Nordic model. All this, says Smith, points to the fact that sex workers and sex work advocacy groups still aren’t taken seriously or treated with respect within traditional political structures.
“Sex worker led groups are subject to smears, discredited, not listened to. Even NGOs and academics that work with us become subject to the same,” she says. “We’ve seen time and again that politicians pick and choose their own agenda and who they will listen to. But if they came to us with a genuinely open mind and listened to the evidence and the needs of sex workers they would not be lobbying to impose the Nordic model.”
“Entering sex work wasn’t about making a good or a bad choice for me, it was just about survival,” says Nikki. “We deserve to be able to live and we deserve to live without being constantly scared and in danger. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that.”
For Irina, the political solution also seems incredibly simple: listen to sex workers when legislating on sex work. The answers, she says, lie in political and ideological changes which benefit vulnerable women of all descriptions, not in moralising about sex and sexuality.
“Actually sex work has very little to do with sex and everything to do with things like the benefits system, the hostile environment, drugs policy and the punitive criminal justice system,” Irina reflects. “It’s good to see an official report start to acknowledge the things we’ve been saying for so long. We’ll just have to wait and see if anyone listens.“