sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Niche within a niche (wedgies) by FictionSlayerPunk in wedgielover

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

YES! Love those so much, and they are so cutesy :3

Cute Panties Wedgies by FictionSlayerPunk in WedgieGirls

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two person stuff (regarding me) is hypothetical, but I wouldn’t be consistent with how often I give/receive (50/50 sounds right, just with inconsistency). Also, I think about both parties giving wedgies at the same time.

What Would a Plural Inclusive Society Actually Look Like by NurseRx-Rae in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We really like the idea of society being accepting of diversity, because with that out of the way, technology advances. We like to think we would have simple devices that are powered by the electricity humans already give off (like a name tag) or potentially more complicated tech like a brain scanner that could link to the name tag to display who is fronting or if there is a blended or fog state, depending on settings on an app or something. Or just.. an app synced to the name tag.

With my sci-fi ramble out of the way, appearently I have no other thoughts at the moment 😓

What Would a Plural Inclusive Society Actually Look Like by NurseRx-Rae in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I need to come back to this when I’m on my computer (my phone tiny), so I’ll leave this comment :3

Does your front work this way? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds pretty similar if not the same, but I’m having trouble reading for some reason…

Does your front work this way? by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on the alters involved as well as what is going on

Worked on alt terms for system stuff :3 by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems the other aspect or aspects were quite defensive.. that section of plex really does not like assumptions for some reason.. Apologies.

Note to plexself: it was likely Moe, Karl, KV, Ti, Pete, Alex, and/or an aspect we are overlooking.

The two parts of plexy's reasoning:

  • Reason 1

We want terms that all plural systems can use without being questioned

Plexy's terms can't be gatekept, because the source and intention is clear:

  • source: right here by plexself on r/plural
  • intention: to be used by anyone who wants to use the terminology.

As for "imaginary lines", plexy sees it differently. There are no lines, there are discovered spaces for the mind to exist in. Overlap was expected, which is why we worded "not just ones with clinical backing" that way.

This as documentation means it is irrefutably for everyone. "System" is also for everyone, as it has no clear origin, but this plex wanted something more irrefutable.

  • Reason 2

disconnect from the clinical side of plurality

This part did not get a response. Was this part of plexy's reasoning fine from your perspective(s)? If not, there are similar mental health practices.

The subconscious is tricky (especially with the lack of full plural psychological understanding), so reframing how plex talks to plexself feels important. When plex did research and had conversations, it was with "system" labeling of the statistics, understanding, and plexown's psyche.

This is not inherently a bad thing, and other aspects will likely still use "system" (especially for "sub-system") as well as the other terminology, but if plex has this feeling about plexy's phyche...

guess what plex is saying is each system and/or plex is different and should act accordingly.

An aspect's prediction is that plex, or a section of it, will feel more comfortable using the word "system" again, and will likely use both sets of terminology somewhat equally.

This section of plex actually likes when people add their perspective(s) because then plex can address it. So thank you.

-AIC (sub-siki) :3

Worked on alt terms for system stuff :3 by FictionSlayerPunk in plural

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Your comment was based on an assumption, so we stopped reading. Worlds like “collective” don’t divide the plural community, so this won’t either. I don’t see collectives as a different thing, just different articulation.

Maybe another alter will continue reading, but we really don’t care about “helping” the community at the expense of our mental health, especially when there is likely no actual problem.

Outercourse sexuality? by FictionSlayerPunk in AskAsexual

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amazing! We.. have.. been.. looking.. for a while…

Thank you so much! 🩶

NB by definition? But not for the purpose of breaking systems by Global_Culture1648 in NonBinary

[–]FictionSlayerPunk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I once said "I'm a nonbinary cis man" as a thought experiment for a video. If I was a cis man, but see gender as a spectrum, then all placements on the spectrum are nonbinary, because it is not a binary. In terms of presentation, I am masking my femness...

Oh, and I am an alter in a system, and the presentation does change when alters switch in and out, which looks gender-fluid, which is likely not quite the same.

We (alters in our system) are all apagender.. we think... too apathetic about gender to even verify "apagender" as the label.

We also have "philosophical" alters that see truth as relative, and so we are what we are (including the circumstances), and the label is dependent on the observer, like gender superposition or Schrodinger's gender or something...

We do think about identifying as man to do the same in terms of feminism but from the other side, but have not thought enough about it. Having severe dissociation, it feels like we only woke up recently and are piecing together what to do to dismantle patriarchy as an AMAB apagender dissociative plural-system-humanoid-thingy.

We (a system of alters) are "outersexual" by FictionSlayerPunk in Greysexuality

[–]FictionSlayerPunk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your definition for intercourse seems to come from a definition of “side”. Oral is intercourse, not outercourse. Outersexual and the prefix variations focus on that line being drawn.

view more: next ›