May I Ask How Is Daddy's Little Toy Missunderstod? It's Not Like Genderqueer Where People Wanted It To

i think that the limited contact stance of “to consent to sex you must understand sex” is like. a little bit ableist? there are a lot of people like me, who are disabled, and want, like, or consent to sex, for whatever reason. but some of us dont have the mental capability TO understand sex, even when we are adults. that doesnt mean we arent able to not understand the possible effects of sex, it doesnt mean we cant say no or yes, it just means we dont understand it to the same level an able bodied person would.

As you said, understanding sex doesn't mean the same for everyone. Disabled people can understand sex, even if it is slightly different to the understanding of an abled bodied person.

Information on consent

📖 What is consent? 📖

Consent, as described by the Oxford Dictionary, is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Consent applies to many stuff, not just sexual advances. From letting someone borrow your pen, to drinking tea, to hugs. I will be using the tea comparison for this.

Consent does not simply mean "both parties love each other". One can love someone but not consent to certain stuff, or may consent to stuff with those they don't particularly care for on an emotional level. If you ask someone if they want tea, and they say "Hell yeah, I love tea!" then great, that is active consent. They do indeed want tea. If they respond with "I'm not sure, maybe?" then you can still make that cup of tea if you want to, but don't be mad if they don't drink it when you offer it to them. And if they don't drink it, don't make them drink it. Just because you made it doesn't mean you are entitled to have them drink it.

If they respond "No, I don't want tea." then don't make them tea at all. Don't be mad at them for not wanting tea, don't annoy them until they give you until they tell you "Fine I want tea". That is coercion and it doesn't change their actual mind about whether they want tea or not. It is not consent.

If they say "yes, sure! thank you." but when the tea arrives they don't actually want the tea, don't make them drink it. They may have changed their mind. Sure it can be annoying because you went through all that effort to make them tea, but they still have no obligation to drink the tea just because of that. They did want tea, now they don't. It's okay for people to change their minds, don't make them feel guilty of that.

If they decide while drinking that they actually don't want tea, then don't make them drink the rest of it. Again, it's okay for people to change their minds, do not make them feel guilty of that. And if they're unconscious, then don't make them tea at all. Unconscious people can't answer the question "Do you want tea?". You may have asked them when they were conscious and they may have agreed, but now they're unconscious. make sure they're safe, and, this is important, don't make them drink the tea. They may have agreed then, sure, but unconscious people don't want tea.* If they were conscious when they started drinking it but then passed out, don't make them drink the rest of the tea.*

If they're not in the right mind, say, mentally unwell, then don't offer them tea at all, even if they say they want it or deserve it. They need safety, and comfort, not tea. You can offer later when they feel better. If they said yes to tea once, don't expect tea time always forever whenever you want. Don't come up to them unexpectedly and make them drink tea saying "But you wanted tea once!". Just because they wanted tea one day doesn't mean they want it anytime forever.

📖 What falls under consent and what does not? 📖

For both parties involved:

Are they actively saying "yes, I want it"?

Do they know to the fullest extent what they're in for? What they're agreeing to?

Are they allowed to change their mind at any given time and have it be respected by the other party?

Is there safety precautions? (such as safe words)

Are they on an equal level with no power imbalance that could put either party in jeopardy should they change their minds or say no

If the answer to all of these is yes, great! That falls under consent. If the answer to any of these is "no" or "maybe" then that is not consensual.

*Some points in the first part are more nuanced, like in the case of a contract for example. In such a case, if everything in the contract fits in the checklist above, awesome!

just found this while scrolling and it seems remarkably similar to consistent progressivism but with contrasting values; wanted to ask what are the core fundamentals of quidditism and how does it compare to consistent progressivism; what would be some key differences between the two stances /neu

We could be considered similar for 2 aspects.

First one is, we're radqueer adjacent, and so are they. That means being pro-para, pro-bodily autonomy, pro-transid, and profiction for example.

The second similarity is that contrary to the radqueer community, that is closer to the MOGAI community on this point, we are not just a community for people to be themselves. We would like to do some activism as well, a trait we share with consistent progressivism.

However, the similarities stop there, and thank goodness.

I am working on an article about this, but they are basically fascists that covered themselves in rainbows. For a quick explanation, I reblogged this post (link) that explains the basics pretty well.

But let me give you the three main differences.

First: science denial. They redefine words and consider using Google and dictionaries as being conservative. Here is a screenshot of their Discord server.

In the thread linked to this, they list words that are conservative to use in their opinions. These words include parent, family, adult, anarchy, biology and age, amongst others.

Second: they believe everyone can consent to everything. Here is their resources about this. We quidditists have much needed nuance on this subject.

Third: to preface this, I'll start by sharing a screenshot of their definition of conservatism.

In short, they define anyone who holds discriminatory views as a conservative.

In practise, anyone that does not fully agrees with them is labelled a conservative. I won't get into it here, but it is one of the few cult tactics they use: the "Us vs Them" mentality.

Now, the bigger problem with this, is that they wish to violently genocide and torture everyone they see as conservative. They talk about this quite often in their Discord server, and even asks new members to describe how they would torture and violate a conservative in order to get verified.

Here is proof of them wanting to unforce this violence on everyone they label a conservative.

(other than their graphic & Discord sticker, the black & white images are quote pics made with a bot from messages on their servers, that they keep in a special channel)

Quidditism advocates for violence to only be used if you need to, as a last resort, and strictly as much as necessary and humane. Aka no torture, rape, slavery,...

I hope this clears things up! And thank you for your good faith question! /g

If anyone has any more questions, please send them my way! I'd be happy to answer them! /g

Part 8 in my weekly poster series of 2025

damselpunk as a term focuses on the strength of a person who is affected by mysogyny. this obviously isnt limited to women, but naturally theres a reference to being a princess who needs to be saved or obtained; hence "damsel".

but for the opposite forme of opression, the one bestowed usually upon men, im not sure what stereotype would apply. something that references the fact that men (and more) are forced to become leaders, macho bravo, strong soldiers, units of force— im not even sure this has a name, maybe toxic masculinity, but its the way of which patriarchy affects men. turns them into emotionless machines made for earning money and being tough.

i think i'm gonna try to coin the male version of damselpunk myself. namely for me, because my masculinity is punk in the sense is is passive and soft and chill, instead of the expected "domineering and strong" masculinity in societal standards. but first, i think stablishing a name is important.

CAVALIER and KNIGHT are the first words that come to mind, in direct parallel to damselpunk. since damselBLADE is the symbol for the other term, i thought this term's symbol should be a SHIELD instead of any weapon— signifying not how "a real man is expected to protec", but the protection of the self within cavalierpunk/knightpunk.

please share thoughts 👀 i am very interested in making more than just this term for genderpunk modalities

I made some solarpunk soda tab jewelry!! Again. And I'm making more. (Image ID at the bottom of he post)

A choker, a pair of earrings, a belt/waist chain and some bracelets using 100% thrifted/recycled materials! The choker and the bracelets have two layers so that the sharp aluminum edges on the back of the tabs aren't making contact with skin, you can kinda see it in the pictures. Here are more pictures:

[Image ID: 8 images. The first one shows a choker made out of soda tabs, with black cord weaved through it forming x shapes. There's a silver spike charm hanging from every other tab about an inch apart from each other. Im in the picture wearing the choker, my face is not in frame but my pale as fuck neck is visible and so is my dark brown hair.

The second image shows a pair of clip-on earrings laying on a sage green background. Each earring is made of 6 soda tabs weaved into a flower shape with green yarn, and three dangles hanging from the bottom. The dangles are made of a wire link with a black bead on in and a silver spike charm hanging from that. The same spike charms I used for the choker.

The third image shows a 2 ft 7 inch long belt chain made of the soda tab flowers from the earring image. Each flower is made of six tabs weaved together with the same green yarn but they yarn fades to yellow towards the end of the chain. 16 soda tab flowers are linked together with large jump rings and there are large silver clasps on each end to attach to a belt.

The forth image is my hand wearing a black compression brace and two soda tab bracelets. They are weaved together the same way as the choker, with the cord forming x shapes, but the cord is orange and not black. The bracelets are the same size, 8 inches long when laying flat including the clasp. There are two layers of soda tabs which makes the bracelet a little thicker.

The next 2 images shows a dress form wearing the belt chain from two different angles. It had a black skirt with a soda tab belt, with various spikey chains hanging from it. There's a black strip of grommet tape hanging on the right side of the belt and my soda tab flower belt chain hanging on the left side.

The next image shows one of the bracelets at and angle so the double layers are visible, and the last image shows the bracelets, the choker, and an unfinished soda tab choker with green ribbon weaved through it all laying flat on a sage green background. End ID]

We on the left have to realize that someone saying that their god is real and divine but that your god/gods aren't real or aren't gods should be seen in the same light as someone saying their gender is real and valid but that your gender isn't real or is a disorder of some sort. It's hate speech and shouldn't be socially acceptable.

Free to use printable resources stickers!

One with and without the QR code

eci.ec.europa.eu

European Citizens' Initiative

Give your support !

EUROPEAN CITIZEN INITIATIVE (ECI) : Ban of conversion practices in the European union. Just 762.726 more signatures

for this campaign to reach its goal before May 17th !!!!