Phew. This One Took, Uh A Bit Longer Than Expected Due To Other Projects Both Irl And Art-wise, But Its

Phew. This one took, uh… a bit longer than expected due to other projects both irl and art-wise, but it’s finally here. The long-awaited domestic animal infographic! Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough space to cover every single domestic animal (I’m so sorry, reindeer and koi, my beloveds) but I tried to include as many of the “major ones” as possible.

I made this chart in response to a lot of the misunderstandings I hear concerning domestic animals, so I hope it’s helpful!

Further information I didn’t have any room to add or expand on:

🐈 “Breed” and “species” are not synonyms! Breeds are specific to domesticated animals. A Bengal Tiger is a species of tiger. A Siamese is a breed of domestic cat.

🐀 Different colors are also not what makes a breed. A breed is determined by having genetics that are unique to that breed. So a “bluenose pitbull” is not a different breed from a “rednose pitbull”, but an American Pitbull Terrier is a different breed from an American Bully! Animals that have been domesticated for longer tend to have more seperate breeds as these differing genetics have had time to develop.

🐕 It takes hundreds of generations for an animal to become domesticated. While the “domesticated fox experiment” had interesting results, there were not enough generations involved for the foxes to become truly domesticated and their differences from wild foxes were more due to epigenetics (heritable traits that do not change the DNA sequence but rather activate or deactivate parts of it; owed to the specific circumstances of its parents’ behavior and environment.)

🐎 Wild animals that are raised in human care are not domesticated, but they can be considered “tamed.” This means that they still have all their wild instincts, but are less inclined to attack or be frightened of humans. A wild animal that lives in the wild but near human settlements and is less afraid of humans is considered “habituated.” Tamed and habituated animals are not any less dangerous than wild animals, and should still be treated with the same respect. Foxes, otters, raccoons, servals, caracals, bush babies, opossums, owls, monkeys, alligators, and other wild animals can be tamed or habituated, but they have not undergone hundreds of generations of domestication, so they are not domesticated animals.

🐄 Also, as seen above, these animals have all been domesticated for a reason, be it food, transport, pest control, or otherwise, at a time when less practical options existed. There is no benefit to domesticating other species in the modern day, so if you’ve got a hankering for keeping a wild animal as a pet, instead try to find the domestic equivalent of that wild animal! There are several dog breeds that look and behave like wolves or foxes, pigeons and chickens can make great pet birds and have hundreds of colorful fancy breeds, rats can be just as intelligent and social as a small monkey (and less expensive and dangerous to boot,) and ferrets are pretty darn close to minks and otters! There’s no need to keep a wolf in a house when our ancestors have already spent 20,000+ years to make them house-compatible.

🐖 This was stated in the infographic, but I feel like I must again reiterate that domestic animals do not belong in the wild, and often become invasive when feral. Their genetics have been specifically altered in such a way that they depend on humans for optimal health. We are their habitat. This is why you only really see feral pigeons in cities, and feral cats around settlements. They are specifically adapted to live with humans, so they stay even when unwanted. However, this does not mean they should live in a way that doesn’t put their health and comfort as a top priority! If we are their world, it is our duty to make it as good as possible. Please research any pet you get before bringing them home!

Not feminist as in "women should be included in the draft" but feminist as in "being drafted is a violation of bodily autonomy for any gender".

The draft should not exist. Drafting people into the military is a violation of human rights. You should not be able to force someone to risk their life. If you can't find enough people who care about a conflict to keep it going then it simply shouldn't keep going. You can't even force someone to donate a kidney using government power, why the fuck can you force them to donate their whole body and life to a cause they don't agree with or don't care about?

PSA that has been given 100 times already but needs to be said again:

The reason you, gen Z queers, need to be kink positive isn't because you support those kinks. It is okay to be disgusted by them, actually.

The reason you need to support kinksters is because "these kinks are disgusting" is the framework the alt-right is using and will continue to use to outlaw you. They don't think you're any different from the guys at Pride in leather puppy suits. They think your ENTIRE EXISTENCE is sexual. They think you holding hands with someone of the same gender, or existing as a trans person at all, is the same as a straight couple playing tonsil hockey in public.

YOU ARE A FETISH TO THEM. That is all you will ever be to the alt-right. They will never see you as human. When they talk about "our children being exposed to sexual perversion" they don't mean BDSM like you think they do. They mean YOU.

The only way to preserve your own existence is to fight for the right of kink to exist, because the instant kink becomes taboo or outlawed again*, rest assured, the alt-right will become MUCH more transparent about just what they think about your existence.

When you harp on about disgusting kinks and how they need to be hidden or outlawed and how they're harmful and everyone who does them is (insert thing here), you are giving the alt-right the tools they will use to imprison you as soon as they have unchecked power to do so.

THAT is why kinksters have been part of the queer community, part of Pride, from the start. Because the only way to keep our community safe is by truly ensuring everyone has unlimited sexual autonomy so long as the activity is taking place between consenting adults. It's just like how abortion-related laws are the lynchpin for all manner of medical autonomy laws.

The queer community can't stand without kinksters and vice versa. Even if you yourself aren't a kinkster and find them disgusting, like it or not, that is just how it is.

*Sodomy was illegal in Texas until 2003 and the law is still on the books, just not allowed to be enforced thanks to Lawrence v Texas, which SCOTUS has said they have an interest in striking down

By funglazie

Often when people talk about appearance of characters in media, especially that of women, some use an argument along the lines of "Why would I want to look at someone ugly in the games I play/shows I watch/etc.?"

From what I saw, and if I'm not wrong, you prefer to not engage with that kind of argument, but if you absolutely had to, what answer would you give that could have a chance to make those people see and maybe agree with your point?

I mean, the reason why I wouldn't engage with that argument is that it is always, universally, without exception, an argument made in bad faith, by people who are lying when they utter it. And it takes only the briefest examination of reality to determine this.

The argument they pretend to make is that "there is no reason to desire things that are not pleasurable in entertainment," in response to which I present The Concept Of Horror Media, or the success of Jackass, or South Park, or literally any subversive prank show, or sports as a concept, or the genre of tragedy, or the phenomenon of people rubbernecking. I present true crime podcasts and biographies of John Wayne Gacy and Mortal Kombat fatalities, I present unflinchingly earnest documentaries about war and disease, I present cringe comedy, I present the entire online media genre of pimple popper videos.

Human beings desire so much more than beauty, so much more than aesthetic pleasure (and indeed we can take aesthetic pleasure in so much more than beauty). We find entertainment in disgust, horror, fear, revulsion, sorrow, embarrassment, pain and, yes, "ugliness" all the time, and we have done for as long as we have had sentient minds to entertain.

So this argument "why would I want to look at someone ugly in a video game" is simply a lie. It is an argument made in bad faith by people whom I will guarantee you against a bet of real money constantly look at things which are "ugly" for entertainment.

It is a lie, it is a stupid lie, and while I'm sure that many or most of the people who peddle that lie don't realize they are lying when they do it, it remains a lie which isn't worth dignifying with a response.

And anyway, 99% of the time they don't mean "ugly" they mean "woman who I don't find fuckable" or they mean "fat" or they mean "trans" or they mean "queer" or "non-white," they mean someone or some thing which falls into a category which they feel entitled to hate, and they are trying to enforce the normality of that hate.

You cannot logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves in to, and there is very rarely anything you can say to these people to make them reconsider. They are reacting emotionally, they are reacting on the impulse towards disgust and hatred, and they will rationalize a lie to excuse it.

Okay, I've told myself I'll write a fic about this for a long time, but I don't think it's going to happen, so let's write about it here instead.

Consider: aroace Betrand Baudelaire. Specifically, consider aroace Bertrand Baudelaire along with Violet Snicket.

A Bertrand whose best friend was always Beatrice. She understood him as he was and loved him like no one else. A Bertrand who spent his whole life thinking about how lovely it would be to live with one of his friends, but knew it would never happen because they were all very alloromantic and weren't going to want that with him.

And then one day, Beatrice shows up at his door, crying. He knows what happened between her and Lemony; how she still loved him, but had to end it for enough reasons to fill a 200 page book. He knows that Lemony is now on the lam and has faked his death. So he thinks he knows what's wrong. It's that she is still mourning her relationship with Lemony.

And then Beatrice tells him that she's pregnant. She doesn't know what to do. She wants to keep the baby, but Lemony's situation is not one that would allow him to be a father. That's why she broke up with him. His circumstances are too complicated for anyone to be involved with him, especially an innocent infant. Even if Lemony isn't involved, everyone will know who the child's father is. It's obvious.

So Bertrand proposes a solution: he will marry Beatrice and act as the child's father. Beatrice gladly agrees. She has always loved Bertrand. She has always clung to Bertrand. Lemony has always been her love, but Bertrand has always been her rock, her comfort, her sanity. And after the way everything went down with Lemony, she would be more than happy to never have a romantic relationship again. Bertrand is sweet. He's smart. He is kind and gentle. He'd make a loving father. It was never the future Beatrice pictured for herself, but it isn't hard to say yes.

At first, everyone is still suspicious of the child's paternity. They know how recently Beatrice was together with Lemony, and they know Bertrand was never one to have sex. But within a few years, Beatrice is pregnant again, and there's no sign of Lemony anywhere. Clearly Bertrand is at least willing to have sex for procreation. By the time Sunny is born a decade later, no one questions their marriage.

Their marriage is real and beautiful. They enjoy raising their 3 children. They spend every day in each other's company. It is, in effect, a queerplatonic relationship. Beatrice often wonders what could have been if Lemony's circumstances were different, because how could she not, but she never regrets a thing. She is happy this way. No doubt happier than she ever could have been with a man as troubled as Lemony, even with how much she loved him.

I don't know if Violet and Klaus notice that there's something different about their parents' relationship when they're still alive. To them, this is what marriage has always looked like. Their parents are close and they love each other; that's more than can be said of some of their friends' parents.

I do think that when the books come out and they see Lemony's dedications to Beatrice, some things click into place. Their father loved their mother, but not quite like that.

I'm not sure when Lemony caught on, but I have to imagine he is respectful of it all, even if very saddened. Bertrand was always a good colleague and a good man. If Lemony's downfall was what it took for Bertrand to get the kind of relationship he always wanted, perhaps it was for the best. Bertrand would certainly be a better father to his child than messy, unpredictable Lemony, whose passion had always been his downfall. Lemony would have much preferred to be with Beatrice and raise his own child, but clearly things are better this way.

Anyway. Perhaps one day I'll write the fic. If any of you want to beat me to it, please go ahead. But that's the headcanon I've had for quite a while. I've always liked the takes on the Sugar Bowl Generation where Bertrand is Beatrice's best friend first and foremost, and this is really just an extension of that. But I love this theory so much that I'm still not entirely convinced I didn't steal it from someone else (although I've never seen anyone else say it, so I don't think I did).