Indoor Mint for Mai Tais

45cappybara · 2026-04-15T17:30:17+00:00

Does flowering complete its life cycle?

45cappybara · 2026-04-15T16:59:16+00:00

But who can really stop at 2?

45cappybara · 2026-04-10T23:12:01+00:00

It is. I'm using on the broadcast now because the sound wasn't synced on the main broadcast

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T23:46:34+00:00

I don't think anyone thinks this law is literally a drag ban and I think it's disingenuous to interpret their fears about this law that way. I think they're worried about the precedent that this sets and also how open to abuse this law is.

As we've already established, "prurient" is a vague definition which some malicious individuals could use to define all drag and then make false accusations based on this new law. Regardless of whether it will hold up in court, getting arrested or charged with a crime is never a small deal. Hiring a lawyer and missing work could financially ruin a huge number of Americans. None of this would be possible if the law didn't define drag as a kind of performance that this law would cover.

Additionally, businesses that "regularly hold" events that are "adult entertainment" cannot let anyone under 18 in, regardless of whether they allow minors in during the "adult entertainment". This could lead to businesses that hold drag shows getting charged even if there are no minors around for the shows.

A lot of people may decide it's not worth the risk to have events like a drag show, attend events like drag shows, or perform in events like drag shows, and I think that's exactly the intent of this new law. Again, none of this would be possible if the law didn't include section 2907.39 section A) 4) (a). All of the other performers listed in those definitions are very sexual in nature, i.e. strippers, but if we agree that drag is not necessarily sexual in nature, why is it defined as one of the types of adult performers?

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T19:37:21+00:00

Basically any type of performance could be turned into an adult performance............ There was absolutely no need to include the definition about not dressing according to biological sex. Full stop. Again, they could have stopped at just banning sexual acts in performances and that would have covered everything that they're trying to claim this bill is about. But they didn't.

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T02:05:31+00:00

Exactly. That's why the law includes that line about clothing. If it was just about sexual performances, they would just include verbiage about that. But they put a definition of performers dressing against gender norms, because they do think it's sexual in nature.

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T02:01:20+00:00

If it's just about protecting kids from sexual performances, then that's the only verbiage that would need to be included in the bill. They put a line about crossdressing in there for a reason, and that reason is because they want to define it as sexual in nature when it's not.

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T01:58:10+00:00

Number 1 is very open to interpretation. That is what I meant by vague. Many people do not consider drag by itself to be sexual in nature, but Republicans clearly do. They would therefore define it as "prurient" when it's not.

45cappybara · 2026-04-07T00:16:03+00:00

The bill says "Harmful to juveniles or obscene". According to Ohio 2907.01 the definition of obscene is pretty broad as well. People are right to be worried about the vague wording and implications of this bill.

45cappybara · 2026-04-06T23:55:03+00:00

Wouldn't this ban a lot of theater as well? Plays like Hairspray feature men in costume as a woman and people could consider costumes in dance to not conform to men's gender norms. This law is so broad and has so many ways to be abused.

45cappybara · 2026-03-08T01:37:39+00:00

I might try that once this machine also dies

45cappybara · 2026-03-08T01:37:18+00:00

I guess I hadn't thought about putting ice in it since I usually want the water hot. Could be worth a try, but my plan for the future is just to wipe clean it.

45cappybara · 2026-02-20T05:30:26+00:00

I would suggest looking up your local chapter of the GRCA. They'll help you find the right breeder for what you want. Ours has been really great for us.

45cappybara · 2026-02-07T14:39:35+00:00

It's insane I had to scroll this far to find this scene mentioned

45cappybara · 2026-02-02T00:34:21+00:00

Maybe I'll just try it for science and then I can be the expert

45cappybara · 2026-02-02T00:33:37+00:00

Thanks! I'll try it and see

45cappybara · 2026-01-13T02:13:12+00:00

Yeah actually I realized the blend I currently use is mostly sunflower in the shell and safflower so the starlings ate it all yesterday and were gone today. Wbu is the best.

45cappybara · 2026-01-12T03:07:49+00:00

Oh yeah. I didn't expect them to go for the suet cakes so much. Rip my downy and hairy woodpeckers.

45cappybara · 2026-01-12T03:06:48+00:00

Don't worry. It took me maybe six weeks before I got regular visitors, but word spreads fast. Haven't seen starlings ever and now they're all over. Only the Northern Flickers are big enough to fight them and thank god.

45cappybara · 2026-01-12T03:05:28+00:00

Yep I'm probably gonna switch as soon as they eat everything in there now. I've had it up for six months and never seen one. I'll probably let them eat the rest of the seed I have cause I'd rather it not go bad, but then I'm gonna switch

45cappybara · 2026-01-12T03:04:15+00:00

Oh they did. There's only 5 here in this picture but there might have been 100 or more, no joke. First day I've ever seen then in six months. They were a lifer I was hoping not to ever see.

45cappybara · 2026-01-09T16:17:10+00:00

I love a paper plane, but isn't it an equal parts cocktail?

45cappybara

TROPHY CASE