Prefacing This By Saying That I Don't Know If This Is Going To Make Sense, And There's A Reasonable Chance

Prefacing this by saying that I don't know if this is going to make sense, and there's a reasonable chance this is going to sound weird and off-putting, so I'll attempt to explain it as best possible.

From the time that people around me starting having it up until now, there's something that's so captivating about imaging the sex lives of people I know.

Not because I'm necessarily turned on by the surface level specifics of what they do, or how they look in the bedroom bare, but rather because of how one's sexual experiences seem to be such a separate and private part of one's life, and yet they contribute so much to the overall infinite complexity of the human experience.

Fetishes and kinks very quickly come to mind when I entertain such thoughts, especially the sentiment towards not kinkshaming.

Much like you might wonder what someone isn't saying when they talk to you depending on how close you are, you might also ponder what "does it for them" when there's no need to conceal anything, and how this hidden persona potentially affects their daily lives.

I feel as though these hypothetical imaginings are possibly the reason why so many queer people often jokingly (but sometimes not-so jokingly) make claims that seemingly straight passing men and women like to get pegged, or like to "munch box" respectively.

As humans, we seek community and relatability, and fantasizing about the private lives of others, even if based in complete fiction, is a way to not feel so trapped in our own existence.

The children may yearn for the mines, but they also yearn for a "Espresso" by Sabrina Carpenter, "Say So" by Doja Cat, '70s-adjacent, Barbie-inspired pop track that transports them to an imaginary land filled with nothing but pool parties and beach trips where the temperature never dips below 70, never reaches past 85, no humidity, and everyone sips on endless iced drinks.

Listen, I'm not saying that not liking either candidate in an election and believing "both parties are the same" is grounds to not vote at all. I'm aware that harm reduction is a very serious issue and that throwing caution to the wind conveys a sort of privilege-driven apathy towards society.

That being said, the response of leftists towards people who believe that both parties are the same attempting to shame them for feeling this way is always so funny to me, because they'll say something akin to:

"Saying both parties are the same would've been profound 30 years ago, but now it just shows that you're out of touch."

not realizing the incredibly fitting irony in the fact that in the same way those who don't vote maintain the status quo by not taking action, they themselves are also contributing to it by actively playing into a system that always makes you choose the "lesser of two evils" rather than completely dismantling it and starting from scratch.

What's even more is the fact that these same leftists will always use the argument of:

"Politicians wouldn't try to take away voting rights if voting didn't do anything" as if the Electoral College and gerrymandering don't exist which stand squarely in the way of actual democracy, and as if both of these aren't just different forms of control that they've been duped into believing have any legitimate purpose behind them.

Fittingly, you'll find that their passion towards abolishing the Electoral College seems to be much quieter as well as their focus on participating and spreading awareness of local and state elections. Instances in which voting has a more immediate effect.

At the end of the day, while marginalized people will not be placed in immediate danger by choosing the "lesser of two evils", they will never truly be protected. Their fates will forever be hanging in the balance as if it were purgatory, never truly feeling secure because there will always be a potential countdown to when your existence expires.

The so-called "lesser of two evils" will not given them protection as much as it will continue to use them as a means of promoting an inauthentic message of progression and acceptance that the public overtime will come to accept as reality.

Oh, and for those leftists who are going to inevitably tell me:

"If you don't see the difference between either party then I don't know what to tell you."

Let it be known, not once did I ever say they stood for the same things, nor that you shouldn't fight against the worse reality. All I'm simply asking is, why have you become complacent with only two options, and if you are in fact not content with this, what are you doing to fix this?

I've talked about this before, but it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth whenever the character in a movie or series who is meant to be the comedic relief due to his constant flatulence is fat.

Not because — as some of you might incorrectly and sensitively assume — I think the idea of something as innocuous as fart humor should be limited to a certain body type, but because it feels so in line with the "Fat Slob" trope that assigns most, if not all unpleasant bodily functions to those characters who are not conventionally attractive.

It goes without saying that gross actions like burping, farting, sweating, etc., are things that everyone does, so I needn't write an entire think piece explaining how much more socially conscious we should be.

However, what I find funny is that if we are to employ the logic that the reason why fat people do these things more often because of their "worse" diet, there are so many food choices that thinner, conventionally attractive make that cause them to do exactly the same things.

For example, it's a commonly used joke amongst those who frequent the gym especially on social media, that in order to build muscle you have to eat a lot of protein and that this often involves adding lots of whey powder to things which makes people gassy given that it's a component of dairy products.

There's already many depictions in media of the typical douchey, frat-bro, jock gymbro who in some instances uses bodily functions as a way to convey his arrogance (namely in the form of belching loudly in someone's face after drinking a beer). How hard would it be to extend this concept to men like this that lack these antagonistic qualities?

I know subversions of the "Fat Slob" trope are already out there, but I think it would be a great way to continue this subversion as well as contributing to more range and inclusivity in plus-sized characters.

Imagine a friendship or relationship where it's the guy who's 6'2 with 6-pack abs, bulging biceps, and thick legs who blushes whenever he accidentally lets one go and people chastise him for it?

It's worth noting that the series Tacoma F.D. does a great job of accomplishing this with it's predominately male cast that has many muscled-up, in shape guys, and an abundance of fart scenes when compared to other shows.

Take notes Hollywood.

Digital Nuance, Public Discourse, and Public Approval: The Steady Decline of "Having a Dialogue"

Being on the internet as someone who operates from a place of nuance and complexity as opposed to simplistic and impulsive knee-jerk reactions feels like being a masochist because there's so much you could say but it would take too long to write out and mostly fall on deaf ears.

It also doesn't help that although there are many people out there that are happy to have these complex discussions, you're much less likely to find people who are capable of doing so in a way that doesn't convey the idea that the only perspective they're open to is theirs.

This mentality is not just aggravating to deal with as someone who wants to contribute to these discussions, but actively drives people away from having them, which is incredibly counterintuitive given how much stress and importance is constantly placed on speaking on issues.

This, if anything, calls into question why stress is even placed on having discussions about any topic. If there's supposedly only one right view and thus solution to an issue, why even start a dialogue in the first place? To talk in circles? Unless, they're not that simple...

It's a rare occurrence, but my faith in humanity is slightly restored whenever I see what could've easily turned into a heated argument about a topic beautifully and amicably resolve itself with each party respecting each others views without attacking them.

Though, I feel like the concept of "ratioing" people is what holds us back from these occurrences happening. I can't help but feel that people on the internet are less concerned about actually defending their argument, and more about whether other people will back it up.

Saying this, I can already hear people defending ratioing because of how it supposedly "puts people in their place" and makes them feel shame for what is mostly agreed to be the morally or intellectually incorrect way of analyzing a topic.

Again though, why should the focus of having an opinion be attempting to "prove" that it's the so-called "right" one through public approval which is also nothing more than simply a larger group of people's opinions?