ITS ME

hi my name is Rachel. one day i will have a proper website but for now i have a carrd.quick link: linktreei know that tone, intention, & heart can often be lost in text-based communication, especially in the soulless corporate hellscape of social media as it exists in its current form. recently i have decided i very much want to occupy an intersection of Deranged Shitposting and Earnest Sincere. tysm for supporting me on my journey... <3if u need a visual guide to help you understand how to parse ur interactions with me, here is a photo taken of me when i was like 17 years old in 2009 or something, posting on Facebook Dot Com:

lol i was having so much Fun. i have been in Therapy a long time & i talk to my therapist a lot about healing my Inner Child. when i was a lil kid i had sooooo much fun posting & talking to ppl on the Internet. so i think it's important for me to make a conscious effort to move past the Detached Irony that has been the norm in certain online societies for the past decade or so.i asked my boyfriend what he thought my power would be if i was an X-Mens & he said, "Rachel u would have the power to be able to consume lethal amounts of Cringe that would kill a normal human."when he told me this at first i was Offended. but the more i think about the more it makes me feel Powerful. i feel that people online, so many people (including me) interact with others in this Digital Landscape trying to navigate a deep-seated Fear of being Perceived As Cringe or Lame... but that's not fun!!! we should be having fun!!!! things are really scary Outside. theres Warso yes i think it is a very Meaningful & Important thing, to own ones Cringe. i think it is very powerful, when one is just trying to Seek Meaning, or express Thoughtfeelings, or Share Genuine Human Connection & then some jaded freak comes in like "WOW!!!!! U ARE BEING SO CRINGE RN.... #CALLTHEPOLICE"like bictch.... fuck u!!! i am not """BEING""" cringe. i AM cringe. IM NOT STUCK IN HERE W/ U, UR STUCK IN HERE W/ ME!!!!! hehehehe flips my hair in a way that's playful & sassyanyway.... i invite u to join me on my journey to be playful & whimsical & have fun on the Internet \(^-^)/ teh yay!!!!!!!!!!!111

who me be
i am just another millennial with internet access. right now i am in grad school studying library & information science. i am currently unemployed b/c my mental illness got so bad that my job was actively harming my health. grad school and trying to heal my brain from the stuff that made my mental health so bad are my major life things right now.i really like creating things. i like writing stories, and drawing, and making videos. none of my skill levels when it comes to those things are where i'd like them to be, but the process of creating (especially when it brings others happiness) is very joyful and healing to me, and my goal in life is to be able to create lots of different things one day.da basics
32, from the midwest usa, queer (i use "queer" to label both my sexuality & gender, it's the only word that feels the most "correct" to me), other labels i feel comfortable with are bisexual and nonbinary, also femme. TRUE STORY: i used to ID as pansexual but i honestly still get very confused whenever i try to explain the difference between "pan" and "bi." and also, the bisexual flag colors are my favorite colors and the pansexual flag colors ARE NOT, so i prefer bi.yes. if you're wondering how seriously i take my life, i chose my sexual orientation based on which flag i thought was prettier lmfaoooall pronouns ok but i'm most used to they & she, i am fine with any & all gendered terms (sis, bro, king, queen, anything like that, it's all fine to me)i sometimes refer to myself as a "woman" even though that makes me feel like, eeeEeEheh?!, the way i try to explain it is that, the world perceives me as a Woman and i navigate the world as a Woman, and even though i don't necessarily Feel Like A Woman, that is the Shape I Wear. does that make sense?stuff u should know about me before u follow me on twitter!!!!
if you're under 18 please don't follow me. i don't mind it if you're quite a bit younger (like 18-21 etc) i promise i am patient about generation gap stuff if you are patient with me (i don't understand all the tone indicator abbreviations still)my twitter is basically my stream-of-consciousness diary thought thing. i have hardly any filter on here, it's just my way of getting a thought out of my head and putting it somewhere else. if that's not for you then that's not for you! just a warning!i am going thru some Heavy Shit in my personal life (death of multiple loved ones, PTSD, fun stuff) and i do talk about this regularly. not in a super detailed way out of concern for my own privacy, but i make references to it a lot, especially how i'm feeling about where i am in my healing journey. if this is triggering to you i also would suggest that you don't follow me.i have a very big mouth and am very opinionated. but i try not to get into discourse too much because those days of mid-2010s tumblr still haunt me. also twitter is just not the place to have nuanced conversations about things.unsurprisingly my politics are very leftist, if you're right wing or unironically refer to things as "woke" i am not for you!!!! TERFs will also not have fun here, i have nothing nice to say to themoh yeah, speaking of my politics, i have some somewhat controversial opinions when it comes to lgbt discourse, mostly about the split attraction model and micro-labels. i don't talk about this much because i'd rather not deal with legions of people with picrew avatars harassing me, but i've written down my stance here so you can decide if i'm too problematic to associate with.i am friendly and talkative on my good days and kind of grumpy on my bad days. I CAN BE A BIT SASSY AND PRICKLY, i am aware of this lmao. but mostly i just like to connect with peoplei am NOT a fandom account, i am a person who participates in fandoms. when it comes to fandom, i do NOT participate in the proship/anti stuff at all and i reject looking at art in that way. sometimes people like effed up stuff, and that is fine, as long as they tag their work with the appropriate warnings so people who don't want to see it don't have to. if someone is doing something illegal then it should be reported. end of. honestly the pro/anti thing drove me out of fandom for nearly a decade. i have been on the internet for a long time and seen lots of stuff. i'm not going to pathologize a person because they have kinks or interests that others would deem unsavory, and people's reasons for liking that stuff are their own.in sum: i think people who ascribe morality to the way others consume or create fiction are annoying and misguided. i also feel the same way toward grown adults who think that they are on some kind of next level edgy enlightened shit because they write fanfics with rape in them or whatever. this is a very stupid false dichotomy that i wish had never happened, & i refuse to apply this line of thinking into my worldview. Art Imitates Life, Life Imitates Art, Fiction Affects Reality, Reality Affects Fiction, Sexuality Is Strange And Nuanced, Human Beings Are Complicated. we should be using our shared love of fictional media as a way to connect & share joy & art & meaning with each other, not get into pointless squabbling and moral hand-wringing.a lil more than da basics... da deep lore, if u will
my sense of humor can best be described as "brain damaged." idk how else to describe it, if you get it you get it if you don't you don't. i once tried to explain what i meant by "brain damaged" with a youtube playlist here, you can tell me whether or not you think it workedbefore i started studying library science, i got my bachelor's degree in journalism & gender/sexuality studies (double major... even if they didn't put it on my diploma...) but yes, journalism! i actually am trained as a reporter, even if you don't believe it from my general disregard for capitalization and grammar! even tho i am kind of a Silly Goober Gremlin thing, i am Very Committed to the ideas of media & information literacy, & try my best to always double check my sources & try not to spread misinformation online (in a serious way). when i got my BA in 2015, i wanted to be like, some kind of _{queer feminist writer.} times were different then! gamer gate was still, like, a thing that people took seriously instead of a joke.if that previous sentence offended you, you should probably just leave. if you're one of the sad 20 year old doomers who sometimes creep into my DMs or try to start shit with me... baby, i was cutting my teeth on /b/ and Encyclopedia Dramatica before you could even read. there is nothing you could say to me that will shock or offend me. i used to troll people by sending them gore when i was 14 years old. do not cite the deep magic to me witch, etc. you are not Da Joker, you are a weeb whose sense of humor is stuck in 2017. attack helicopter? more like... roflcopter!!!!!!but yeah, the political landscape has changed since then, as have i, & my goals for myself & my career. right now i am very much "Figuring Things Out." it is a daunting thing, to be Figuring Oneself Out in my 30s, when i thought my whole life i would have Figured It Out by now. but everything they told us was a lie, and capitalism turns our hearts to dust & makes us empty shells of who we once were. sometimes you have to go back to the drawing board and say "well. let's try something new." but i think there's something to be said in the fact that i found the strength to start over instead of sticking to something that wasn't working. i won't let those bastards hurt my heart no more 😤my philosophical beliefs lie somewhere between Existentialism & Absurdism (or both?) short interesting read: "Is absurdism just existentialism with good vibes?"when it comes to God & the Universe i am Agnostic & have recently (since 2023 or so) started to get in touch with my spirituality. my beliefs mostly fall in lie with Pantheism. i have started saying "God bless" lately & i am only halfway joking when i say it. when it say it, i mean it more like, "may the universe bless you!!" i believe there is more to the universe than human beings & scientists & numbers & things can fully understand, & i think that sometimes the universe sends us messages!! i am being completely earnest when i say this.one of the most important things i have learned in my life is the difference between being kind and being nice. i try to live a life where i place more importance on kindness than niceness. it's served me well. i am not always a nice person, but i try to always be a kind person. i do not always succeed in this endeavor, but i try.

stuff i like!!!!

my FACE!!!!!!!
when i am trying to look good, i look like this:

but most of the time, i look like this:

where else to find metwitter, instagram, letterboxd, youtube i'm all on phantasmajones. i have a linktree. you can also read some stuff i wrote from back when i had just graduated college and was trying to be a freelance writer (;_;)linktree here

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
― Richard Feynman

my stance on the split attraction model & micro-identitiesfirst of all, what is the split attraction model? if you are completely lost, you may want to read that first. i know Better Help isn't exactly the best... source, but i thought that page did a pretty good job explaining what it is in a way that's both neutral and well-organized for a layperson who doesn't autistically study human sexuality as a hobby. (it's me. i'm making fun of me.)if you want a deeper dive into the history of the split attraction model and the discourse surrounding it, this post does a really good job, you should check it out.okay, now i'm going to talk for a really long time. strap in & get comfy, because this is the culmination of my thoughts & feelings over the past... idk, ten years, that i have had a hard time putting into words. it's been very hard to have a nuanced discussion about this in online circles because of how quick it can turn into bad-faith arguments & people saying "lol fake tumblr sexualities." that is not my intention here. i sincerely want to have an open dialogue about this.i have significant concerns about the split attraction model. my first is its scientific validity. i'm not saying an orientation needs extensive research to be valid, but i'm uneasy with the idea that romantic and sexual attractions can be universally defined, compartmentalized, and separated. the human brain isn't so straightforward.from my understanding, the SAM was originally meant for ace/aro people to help understand their identities, and i support that. but somewhere along the way on tumblr, it became the de-facto, universal way to measure human sexuality, which i am not okay with.i personally know a couple of gay people who have told me how the SAM made figuring out their sexual identity more complicated than it needed to be. in addition i've read numerous testimonies from zoomers who learned about sexuality and queer stuff from the 2010s tumblr queer blogosphere who had the SAM presented to them as How Human Sexuality Works, and how it complicated their understanding of their sexuality, prolonged their time in the closet, or validated internalized homophobia, making their questioning phase more painful than it needed to be. here's one example of a twitter thread that had multiple other young (as in, late teens, early 20s) people chiming in with similar experiences

link to that twitter thread via wayback machinei am troubled by the idea that there needs to be a hyperspecific microlabel for every possible permutation of how a person feels (or doesn't feel) sexual desire or love. for instance, let's take the idea of demisexuality, which is understood as a label for people who only experience sexual attraction to those they have an emotional connection with. i'd like to quote this one post on tumblr i've had bookmarked forever, because this person said it better than i ever could:I’m pretty sure it’s a bad idea to reify our narrow cultural notions of “normal” sexual desire and behavior by positioning variations in sex drive as immutable identities. Those notions rely entirely on sexist and homophobic stereotypes and need to be destroyed, not reinforced by people accepting them as an actual standard by which to measure themselves.I don’t even know how you would begin to define “demisexual” when you’re using these ideas as your basis of comparison. Current social norms say that men are more interested in casual sex, and less interested in emotional connection, than women – so is demisexuality different for men and women according to that? What about straight vs gay vs bi and all the stereotypes attached to them? What about transfolk? And how do we even go about unraveling what goes into sexual attraction and emotional connection?I think the norms and standards at work here are damaging and baseless, and simply separating oneself from them leaves them in place. sourcei'm concerned about the trend of creating numerous niche microlabels for every variation of attraction. this can be harmful as it encourages viewing human sexuality as fixed categories rather than as fluid and complex. especially when the discourse around it so essentialist and inflexible... "if you like x, you're y. and you can't be q if you r." a good example of this in the endless, infuriating, mind-numbing discourse about bi or "mspec" lesbians, which makes me want to die. not the idea of bi lesbians— that label has existed for a long time and i wrote a twitter thread about it here.no, the thing that makes me want to die is the endless in-fighting and tribalism and prescriptivism that this rigid categorization of sexuality leads to. "THIS LABEL means ONLY THIS THING. if you deviate from HOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS LABEL MEANS, you cannot POSSIBLY USE THAT LABEL. you should use this OTHER LABEL because I SAID SO."what are we trying to accomplish here, exactly? who is this helping?and why is there so much emphasis being pushed on categorizing ourselves correctly? don't we feel enough pressure from a cisnormative, heteronormative society to fit ourselves into neat little categories no matter how much it hurts us when we don't fit inside the boxes? i've heard so many times that people have only ever truly felt "accepted" or "validated" because they finally found a label that describes the way they experience sexual attraction. and like, i mean, that's good.but why are we placing so much importance on external validation? why do we put so much importance on finding the right kind of way to be queer, of finding the perfect label to slap on the way we experience queerness, instead of recognizing that sexuality is a complex and fluid facet of identity that is unique to each person?to clarify what i mean about "hyperspecific microlabels," here's a short list of some of the ones i've seen, just to ilustrate what i am talking about:graysexual - refers to individuals who occasionally experience sexual attraction but usually do not.
nebulasexual - describes and individual whocannot tell if they experience sexual attraction or not, due to neurodivergence or intrusive thoughts/urges/images
fraysexual - refers to individuals who experience sexual attraction only in the beginning of a relationship or potential relationship, and it fades as they get to know the person more.
akoisexual - identifies a person who experiences sexual attraction without the desire for the feelings to be reciprocated or to further pursue a sexual relationship.
recipromantic - describes someone who only experiences romantic attraction once they know another person is attracted to them.
cupiosexual - pertains to someone who does not experience sexual attraction but still desires a sexual relationship.
quoirosexual - identifies individuals who find it difficult or impossible to distinguish between platonic and romantic attraction, or who question the relevance or reality of such distinctions for themselves.
skoliosexual or ceterosexual - describes a person who is only attracted to nonbinary/transgender peoplegoing back to the split attraction model, i believe that perpetuating the idea that physical/sexual attraction can be inherently "split" from emotional/romantic attraction is harmful. while this concept definitely applies to some people, it is not universal and risks imposing unnecessary constraints on understanding personal attractions. in addition i think that imposing it on gay people who do not consent to it is... pathologizing, honestly, that's the best word to describe how it feels to me.i think the thing that makes me so uncomfortable about this line of thinking is how clinically it severs sexual attraction from emotional/"romantic" attraction, treating these deeply interconnected aspects of human experience as if they were completely distinct and separable. the idea of isolating any type of attraction from the cognitive processes in our brains is misguided. emotions, particularly those related to sexuality, are complex and resist neat categorization. they are neurophysiological events. i have yet to see any kind of scientific research that suggests physical attraction and emotional attraction can be neatly severed. if you have, i would love to see it.it begs the question: how do we empirically differentiate between lust and love? how do we even begin to define what "romance" is, or what "romantic attraction" feels like for every person? how can we begin to quantify or qualify when physical desire ends and emotional connection begins? isn't it kind of fucked up that we're assuming everyone experiences attraction as if those two elements are distinct and separate entities? why are we so quick to adopt this binary way of thinking when it comes to one of the most complex things a human being can experience? i have been trying to avoid being forced into a binary my entire life.let's go back to talking about demisexuality, which i brought up a few paragraphs ago. let's dig deeper into why i have misgivings about labeling someone as "demisexual" because they need an emotional connection to experience attraction. by defining this as a distinct category, we're implicitly setting the opposite — that is, NOT needing an emotional connection to experience sexual attraction — as the norm. but why don't we have a specific label for people who experience sexual attraction without emotional connections? is that just "sexual?" why do we need this binary? how is this framework helping us?it seems like we're treating the lack of a need for emotional connection as the default. this framing makes needing emotional connection, labeled here as demisexuality, the "Other." it creates an unnecessary distinction that could alienate those who identify as demisexual by positioning them as different from the supposed standard. and i find that harmful, because instead of solidifying what is "normal," we should be questioning and breaking down these norms to foster a more inclusive understanding of sexuality that acknowledges the vast continuum of human experience, rather than boxing it into rigid, predefined hierarchies and categories.i feel like we should be spending less time dissecting, codifying, & taxonomizing every aspect of our sexualities into fixed identities. i strongly feel that we should shift toward a more holistic approach, embracing & celebrating the fluidity and spectrum of our experiences.in essence, i don't believe the split attraction model accurately reflects the complexities of human sexuality. it's a recent^† concept that, while useful in some contexts, is not at all universally applicable and often yields detrimental results when applied rigidly. adopting these labels without questioning underlying assumptions leaves harmful norms unchallenged.^† yes i am aware that the concept of split attraction can be traced back to karl ulrichs in 1879. however, i think it is entirely fair to say that the SAM, as we currently know it, in its current usage, has only been around since 2015.if the split attraction model has been helpful to you in figuring out your identity, i think that is wonderful. and i am being 100% sincere when i say that. when i was first trying to find out my gender & sexuality stuff, it was like... fuck, 2004 or 2005? things were just so different back then online, and we just didn't know what we know now. it was so painful and isolating. there weren't words like "nonbinary" or "genderqueer." (or maybe they did exist, but i sure as hell did not know about them back then.) i had absolutely no idea what to think of my gender, even the idea of coming out as bisexual at the age or 14 was so terrifying back then. i remember how revolutionary it seemed to put "Orientation: Not Sure" on my fucking MYSPACE profile!! hahahai'm saying that because i 100% earnestly feel that the more resources there are to help people understand, accept and find support when it comes to their gender & sexual identity, the better! and i know that the SAM has helped people figure it out, and that's important.i think the SAM is a good tool for aromantic asexual people if it helps them grasp and understand their sexuality more. but i feel it's important to express these concerns regarding the broader application of the SAM to sexuality. over the past decade, this has significantly influenced how our culture understands and discusses sex, and it’s crucial to critically examine these changes. like... there's a reason we stopped using the kinsey scale.and when it comes to microlabels, people should identify with whatever makes them happy. but i want to caution young questioning people against the perceived need to find a specific niche label that describes every variation of your identity. ask yourself: why do you feel this label is necessary to your self-identity? does that label make you happy, or does it make you more anxious about the ways you see yourself to be different? ^‡‡ i want to attribute this quote to an internet friend of mine, Mr. Dr. The Baby. thank you for articulating this so well!to clarify: i am certainly never going to police someone's identity, because i would not want someone to police mine. i trust people to understand their own lived experiences, and to identify as whatever speaks their truth. i do not necessarily think that anyone can cause harm by what they choose to identify as. rather, what i am critiquing is the greater online cultural movement that has not only created and popularized these kinds of micro-labels, but also cultivated a perceived necessity for them.and before you say i'm acephobic or an "exclu" or whatever: asexuality is a valid orientation and ace people belong in the alphabet people community. it's been extremely disheartening trying to have an open & honest discussion about these things when criticizing the SAM or microlabels gets you labeled as acephobic or a gatekeeper etc. i don't understand the desire to shut down nuanced discussions with accusations of "you just don't like ace people" or "you just don't think ace people belong in the lgbtqiaeieieeieieo community." neither of these statements are true, at least when it comes to me. i am aware there are people who think asexuals don't belong in the community. i do not agree with this conclusion.when i was doing research for this post, i came across a blog post that literally states "bashing on the split attraction model is inherently arophobic." the author also says it's an "act of bigotry" when people talk about how the SAM complicated their own understanding of their sexuality. this kind of "if you disagree with me, you're a bigot" rhetoric is anathema to me, because not only does it shut down critical thought, it leaves no room for nuance, oversimplifies the fuck out of everything, and creates a culture of fear where people are too afraid of being labeled as a bigot to express their thoughts and concerns.saying it's aphobic to criticize the SAM is as equally unhelpful as saying it's homophobic to use the SAM. reducing the conversation to "i disagree, so you are Unworthy" does nothing but drive that wedge between us deeper and deeper.i think people need to remember that this is not a zero-sum game, and that we have the same goal in mind: to support all members of the LGBTQIA+ community in finding and expressing their identities in ways that feel true to them, that make them feel less isolated, less confused, and more whole.i think the reason i feel so strongly about this is because my own experiences and my identity has been largely shaped by poststructuralism and postmodernism, especially with regard to queer theory. i studied this extensively in college. i personally believe that queer liberation comes from the radical dismantlement of fixed and immutable identities, not the creation of increasingly specific and numerous labels that may inadvertently reinforce the very categories and norms we aim to challenge.let me try to illustrate what i mean. a couple of paragraphs ago, i linked to the blog, A Cubed, specifically a blog post where the author (who is known as Red) was pretty peeved at the flak the SAM has been getting in recent years. i am really not trying to bully or dunk on Red, but to highlight something written on this glossary page which i think can be really useful for trying to illustrate my perspective:

ok, i think we are off to a decent start here, except that i disagree that we should view romantic attraction as fundamentally distinct from sexual orientation for each and every person. i disagree with that very much. i do, however, 100% agree with the parts i highlighted in yellow.but then things get... troublesome.

as you can see, i was at a loss for words to describe the ennui i felt at the part i notated, so i simply drew a frowning face.look, i get it. if taxonomizing every single facet of how a person could possibly experience attraction is helpful to people on the asexual spectrum, then they should do that. i think if this kind of framing were used exclusively in asexual communities, we would be having a different conversation. but that's just not how things have gone since 2015.if i were to rewrite this page to be what i consider helpful for freeing people from the chains of cis/heteronormative despair, this is how i would do it:

(also, Red, if this ever breaches containment and it somehow is read by more than the 5 people i think will read it-- i hope you understand i do not have beef with you, we are on the same side. i just thought your blog post was very helpful to help me illustrate the point i am trying to make. my DMs are open if you want to talk)okay, i think i am pretty much done here. this has been a journey for me. lolsome resources if you want to learn more about queer theory:Queer Theory: A Background (also contains a bibliography full of good reading materials if you're interested)Queer Theory: An Introduction by Annamarie Jagose (free pdf hosted on my dropbox)Wikipedia articleRedditYoutube vid: "Queer theory in the simplest form"

if you have made it this far and have actually read everything... THANK YOU. i really do appreciate it. if any of this has resonated with you and you'd like to talk about it, please reach out to me, because i would love to talk more about this in a meaningful and constructive way. if you're upset because you feel like i've invalidated your identity, please keep in mind:1. you can identify however you wish to identify, and i cannot stop you from doing this even if i wanted to2. i am not trying to be "right" or "wrong" here. i am genuinely looking to voice my long-held thoughts and concerns and am interested in talking to other queer people about how we can foster a more inclusive and less structured way of talking/thinking about sexuality in the 2020s.