I Really Hate Proshipper V Anti Discourse, Not Because I'm Like, A Centrist On The Matter, But Because

I really hate proshipper v anti discourse, not because I'm like, a centrist on the matter, but because "anti" is a term I've never actually seen someone self identify with and seems to be just a general conglomerate strawman of every argument and opinion a proshipper could disagree with, and "proshipper" covers everything from "making suggestive comments about a character who's age is so ambigious/irrelevant you'd have to google it to know they're a minor" to "drawing snuff porn of feral animals", which means that identifying as a proshipper either means you're comfortable writing/drawing the zoophilia porn, or you're comfortable using the same labels and arguments as the people who do.

I see a lot of definitions of what exactly constitutes a bug, so I want to know what you guys think makes a bug.

So if you think that earthworms are bugs but spiders aren't, you'd click "An above definition + land worms" and then say "insects only" in the tags.

I wish I had one more option so I could just have a "see results" button but I won't. 😭 Please reblog so the rest of bugblr can see it!

I went to OP's blog thinking "surely, surely they can't be THAT stupid, right?".

One of their top posts is blaming a 6 year old child for commiting a sex crime. A 6 year old. For being male. I cannot imagine being that miserable of a person.

“There are reports that, even when the facts about conception and birth were made known to primitive peoples, they refused to accept them as true. Some were inclined to view the information as a defect in the intelligence of the white man. Malinowski relates how the Trobrianders went to great pains to explain to him that sexual intercourse had nothing to do with the birth of a child.

Their attitude to their own children also bears witness to their ignorance of any causal relation between congress and the ensuing pregnancy. A man whose wife has conceived during his absence will cheerfully accept the fact and the child, and he will see no reason at all for suspecting her of adultery. One of my informants told me that after over a year's absence he returned to find a newly born child at home. He volunteered this statement as an illustration and final proof of the truth that sexual intercourse has nothing to do with conception. . . .

My friend Layseta, a great sailor and magician of Sinaketa, spent a long time in his later youth in the Amphlett Islands. On his return he found two children, borne by his wife during his absence. He is very fond of them and of his wife; and when I discussed the matter with others, suggesting that one at least of these children could not be his, my interlocutors did not understand what I meant. (Sexual Life of Savages, pp. 193-94)

Frazer points out that the biological facts of life we take for granted could not have been known to primitive peoples. While the part played by the mother in the birth process is obvious, he wrote, how could people in the prescientific era "perceive that the child which comes forth from the womb is the fruit of the seed which was sowed there nine months before?" (Totemism and Exogamy, vol. IV, pp. 61-62).

Margaret Mead makes the even more important point that to the primitive mind children were not the fruit of a momentary act of sexual congress but of years of patient nurture and care:

The Arapesh have no idea that after the initial act which establishes physiological paternity, the father can go away and return nine months later to find his wife safely delivered of a child. Such a form of parenthood they would consider impossible, and furthermore, repellent. For the child is not the product of a moment's passion, but is made by both father and mother, carefully, over time. (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, p. 31)

Mead here puts a finger on the most essential characteristic that made the husband the father of a woman's child, namely, that he now had the right to assist his wife in the care and protection of her child. From this standpoint, a new "male mother" makes his appearance in history—the "husband-mother"—as against the former male mother, the mother's brother. Thus fatherhood as a social institution did not begin on the basis of sexual intercourse between a man and woman but as a set of maternal functions performed by the man for his wife's child.”

-Evelyn Reed, Woman’s Evolution: From Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family

Doorstop (affectionate)

I know every animal has their own personality and boundaries, but overall which reptile breed enjoys or tolerates handling the most?

Hello hello - great question! You're right, it does very HIGHLY among individuals, but generally if you want a reptile that tolerates handling very well, you won't go wrong with a big lizard.

Lizards like bearded dragons, blue-tongue skinks, and Ackie monitors are all a reasonable size for keeping and tolerate handling very well. The emerald tree skink might be the all-around winner here, though, as they often seem to actively enjoy handling. I used to work with one who would quite literally be on your hands the second you opened his enclosure.

As for snakes, most snakes, if they are consistently handled gently and treated with respect, will learn to tolerate handling. If you want a very handleable snake, look for a bigger, heavier-bodied animal instead of a very small species, as those tend to be flightier. Medium-sized pythons (like children's pythons and ball pythons) are great contenders, but boas stand out here. Boa constrictors tend to be the champions when it comes to snake handling, they move slowly and have easy-going but curious temperaments so usually enjoy coming out to explore and hang out.

Wait how do other people pronounce "our"?

hm actually i made a joke poll like this a while back but now im genuinely curious