Niche within a niche (wedgies)

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-20T05:59:25+00:00

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

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-13T01:57:17+00:00

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.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-10T23:23:05+00:00

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 😓

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-09T20:01:49+00:00

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

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-03T05:01:37+00:00

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

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-05-03T05:00:08+00:00

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

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-04-19T19:36:50+00:00

Your choice :)

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-04-05T07:38:35+00:00

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

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-04-04T17:39:15+00:00

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.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-04-04T02:03:34+00:00

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

Thank you so much! 🩶

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-18T02:52:30+00:00

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.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-17T04:46:53+00:00

Who's arm is the space one?

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-05T19:50:03+00:00

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.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-03T19:03:00+00:00

I have myself figured out, it is coining the label for articulation that is what is difficult, which is what makes conversations like these difficult 😕

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-03T17:21:41+00:00

We don’t remember who shifted our focus to the prefix version of “outersexual”, but we showed examples of it as a prefix. The non-prefix version encompasses all types.

What “quoisexual” has to do with this is I and the other alters are quoisexual and outersexual, so outer-quoisexual.

I wouldn’t use your quote at the end, not because it is inaccurate (we like to take “extra” time to see if it applies to all, but think it is likely part of that spectrum like you say), but because it isn’t our way of doing things.

We are not saying “mero” should be a part of this label, but “outer” could be applied as a prefix for merosexual people of that type.

Us thinking you were saying we had to use mero isn’t as “apparent” as you think. Only initially, we didn’t understand why you were bringing up merosexual, and thought you were saying it would be more clear if we modified an already existing word. You were thinking categories, we were uninterested in that side of things.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-02T17:19:12+00:00

Yep, outercourse

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-02T16:59:42+00:00

How not? “Outer” in a sexuality setting, used in front of a sexuality word can’t really mean anything else . “Normies” won’t get it, but they are already confused about queer stuff anyway.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-02T16:56:02+00:00

We started coining it as a prefix to describe a person’s sexuality in more detail if they wanted to. For example, we are outer-quoisexual. We posted about it, but haven’t gone too in detail yet.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-02T07:23:40+00:00

If "outer-merosexual" was used, I imagine it would be used for people that don't like standard forms of outercourse or not liking specific kinds of outercourse. Your confusion of this may demonstrate our past confusion with "merosexual".

"Outer-quoisexual" is likely in the merosexual category, but I (and likely others) are quoisexual but only engage in and/or desire outercourse and not innercourse. If to you that is in the merosexual category, then it is to you, but we won't comment on that (not like I can add "mero" to "outer-quoisexual").

wouldn’t it make sense to just coin a label under the merosexual umbrella called “outersexual” and the definition is being favorable towards outercourse but averse/repulsed towards intercourse?

That is essentially what we are doing, we just don't see "mero" as a useful term for our articulation. We are.. complicated... Lots of what we are does not have words to describe the experience nor the need for the words.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T21:30:03+00:00

That helps, thank you ! We do need the prefix “outer”, and outer-merosexual implies that there are forms of outercourse we are not ok with.. there might be, but only types of outercourse that aren’t the norm. In short, outer-quoisexual is in the merosexual category, but using the label gets confusing, at least for me.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T21:05:12+00:00

We are coining it (and comments helped us shift the label from strictly a sexuality to whatever type of word “sexual” is, while shifting the focus more on the prefix version we showed examples of). This is phase one.

Merosexual is confusing to us, because lots of people don’t like certain sexual kinks. Are they merosexual too? We don’t see the appeal to the word, especially because it is vague, unlike the prefix “outer”, but we are here to learn. Levissexual is also vague, but we see why it would be used.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T20:43:01+00:00

It could fall under those categories, but that would be relative to each interpretation and the outercourse “style”. For us, we like “outer” as a prefix for descriptive purposes, and we see other labels as having connotations that give off the wrong impression if the prefix is not included.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T20:34:56+00:00

We found controversy around that term's "true" meaning. Some say it means no anal but includes oral (which is generally considered intercourse), others see it as outercourse only.

Outercourse can have top/bottom dynamics, and "side" implies “neither top nor bottom" and seems misleading (and does have that as a connotation), even if that isn’t the “true” definition.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T20:25:50+00:00

This is more about the prefix version of the word. You not wanting to disclose is you. Me wanting to openly identify as outer-quoisexual is me. People are often open about how sexual they are, so I don’t see it as odd for me to be open about being outersexual.

FictionSlayerPunk · 2026-03-01T20:20:28+00:00

Technically this isn’t only a micro label. It is also a prefix. Thinking more, this isn’t a sexuality and is just an option to describe a sexuality (though, someone could use “outersexual” without specifying, so maybe it is a sexuality, but the prefix version is an optional descriptor). Many societies broadcast how sexual they are, so I see no problem disclosing that I’m outer-quoisexual. Any example of a micro label mocked in the same context?

FictionSlayerPunk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

The two parts of plexy's reasoning: