ysabetwordsmith: Cartoon of me in Wordsmith persona (Default)
[personal profile] ysabetwordsmith
This article talks about attachment to places, and the lack thereof.  The more people move around, the harder it gets to form and maintain attachments, both to places and to people.  Without attachments, there is little incentive to take care of anyone or anything.  If they stop being fun, you can just leave and find another.  Then everyone wonders why they feel unfulfilled.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-09-30 10:39 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Default icon)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
Indeed, this is true.
The behavior scheme "if something doesn't suit you, just cancel everything/give up and try the same in another place" is actually something that should be concerned in why do the younger generations throw in the towel so quickly, if they don't succeed in an instant or don't get that what they want from a subject.
It's something which they don't get born with, it's something they learn.

On the other hand, regarding this subject, I know it so very much myself if you don't feel like home anywhere. But that's not necessarily due to changing locations a lot.
It's rather... finding no-one to rely and to lean on. It's "you're not important enough to anybody so that he voluntarily skips something of his life to (even) just look after you". It's the constant absence of someone reaching out for you - and not just a facade or something you can do for them or a habit because someone might be related by blood to you and "families ought to stick together" (such forced nonsense).
I think inside a part of me aches from that for more than half my whole timespan of existence already.

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-09-30 12:48 pm (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
My standard is that families are groups who choose to move through life together. They might or might not be related. A functional family makes life easier; a dysfunctional one makes life harder.

By that standard, I know I am on my own. Totally on my own.
'Cause - those people which show signs of "bond" to me, it seems to me like they do that just because of practical reasons (like living together) and then just because of relation by blood. I know for myself how unwelcome I'd be if I'd be really open with a lot of things of my life and my thinking. (I even notice it myself that their talking and thinking isn't really good for me...)

I for myself define "family" similarly like you said it here; it's the people who I choose to be with and it's the people who chose me to be part of their life - not from habit, not from sharing genes, but just because they want me and I want them.
And in this point, there is no-one there. There's just a big void.

...It's not like my brain doesn't know that kind of existence from the school period, but one thing about it is: If you're a school kid, you hope, wish and expect it to become different once you're grown up.
But if that doesn't happen and as an adult you're still as on you own as you were since then, then...
...then you get quite asking what the heck is there still to look up to in life. If things just keep going on as they always did.

I have to say it like that.

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-01 12:43 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
Certainly there are relatives who purport to love me and want me around, but hate pretty much everything I am or stand for. It's like they have a little puppet of me in their heads that is totally different from the real me. Very creepy. I prefer to avoid them as much as possible.

That certainly is so throughout my whole existence...
I'd like to get away from that 'cause I notice how toxic it is, but I fear of being not able to make it. As I'm completely on my own then, with physically fucked up health from chronic disease on top of it...


But "It gets better" remains vicious advice.

It wasn't an advice from other people back then. Already then it was the individual hope to create oneself a reason to stick to life. To believe there is a way out and a different kind of life.


Then they are shocked to see skyrocketing rates of things like suicide and shutins who refuse to swim in the social sewer. The problem with forcing most people into detachment is that, if they don't like their life, they're much more inclined to dump it or dump society because they don't have several dozen anchors holding them back.

People who think like the first sentence can't be saved anyway... They are just minded like that to run around with their eyes shut or their sight blinded by a lot of pseudo-happy crap. And to refuse what darkness exists throughout the world right beside them. Some of them maybe even need to protect themselves from something in their own life which they think they couldn't cope with.

The second sentence - I have a very idea in mind what it means...
At the end of my school time, my former life (that's why it's called "former") already ended up in such a final stop. Back then, it was called that.
So, if you wanna say so... my brain already knows a form of "bottom" in this context.


So consider what is the source of your unhappiness, and is that a rock problem or a clay problem?

Frankly, I think I got too many rock problems present all at once.
And the "feeling no attachment" is something which I find it could be fixed only to a very limited extent - because this zeitgeist and people themselves are so much full of shit, so much full of US-SJW-ideology and the categories and terms US-sexual-minority-scene, including turning it all into the exact opposite; there's like no space for people who are factually positioned fully inside this spectrum, but disagree with this way to structure the world because they are no Americans and see the world functioning differently from that.
There's... literally no space for you, if you say, for example: "Mental sex isn't changeable or formable. And "gender" is something different than the neuropsychological embodiment of one's sex inside one's brain." - even if you harbor that position from being affected yourself. All over the place, it's just "gender" here and "gender" there... But "gender" isn't one's mental sex. And one's mental sex isn't something to play around with like some (I think: inexperienced) people want to make believe.
Edited Date: 2020-10-01 12:44 am (UTC)

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-01 09:30 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
The abuse rate is much higher for people with disabilities, around 90%, because it is harder for them to defend themselves and/or escape from abusers.

In that point, I wouldn't have so many concerns as I'm not the one to decline the invitation to a dance (call that "old instincts").
But things you got on your radar are finances, logistics and so on - and possible future logistics that may emerge along the timeline, like having to go to a new specialist.


Take sexuality. (...) Intelligence is another.

Ts... Those two are already problems in my case.
And not just the only two.


I would be interested in hearing your definitions in this area, especially the distinction between mental sex and gender.

Very recently, I wrote a piece in my journal on that topic: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/262809.html

The TL;DR-Version: There's physical sex, there's mental sex, and then there's gender.

The first is the visible physical manifestion - the "fleshly" part, so to say.

Mental sex is the neuropsychological embodiment of this - in short: The conviction inside of your head which sex you belong to. Also, the instintice ways you behave that people didn't teach you, but which come out of your all by themselves. (That is predetermined by the shower of hormones inside your mothers body; when you "come out" - get born -, this quantity is already determined. Living is just the process to make it unfold to what this quantity had been set in you.)

"Gender" is the role you decide to take yourself when being among other humans.
This can be anything that you want, anything that your character qualifies you for. Gender doesn't exist outside of human society.

The common mistake people make between "mental sex" and "gender" is because there once was a pedophile "scientist" called John Money who did experiments with humans (the "David Reimer case") who was convicted that sex identity is something that you raise a person into. So to say, in the 50s and 60s where he became the guru about the topic "sex identity", he was a popular slave to the fallacy that babies get born "blank" - and everything they become is just a result of outside input after birth.
Not only that this has been proven to be scientifically wrong meanwhile - babies do get born with a legacy of the brains of their parents; this contains talents, cognitive weaknesses, predispositions to mental problems, temperament, sometimes even strong prevalent character traits etc. -, I do seriously wonder why, after all those decades, still the whole social sciences world, especially the part that is ideologically dominated from the US, clings to this conviction of John Money as well as the terms he coined. Why they haven't moved any step further and still spread this proven nonsense. Why they haven't made the cognitive step yet to differentiate between a neurological embodiment of sex in one's brain and the social roles one picks.

I think I can sum this up pretty well: If biological and mental (neuropsychological) sex don't match, then this is like you have the wrong manual for a technical device you must/want to operate.

As the neuropsychological part can't be changed anymore (unless maybe very, very unhealthy lobotomy - and even that bears no guarantee), you've got to choose the option "hand the correct device that fits the manual".
That is the part of "body modification".


(I must admit, discussions in this sector are hard to do with people in English as it's so poisoned with the speech that Money coined; so people often don't really understand when you pick a different wording and why and that this is not born from intolerance or a convervative misunderstanding of the topic.
I think I myself may be still at the very beginning to use a wording that puts the records straight, but due to being a native in German, I think this is doable. German has a good orginal set of words for this topic section, so... just let's have a look if you can implement this into English similarly in linguistic meaning.)

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 12:34 am (UTC)
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)
From: [personal profile] snippy
I am attached to places. I'm just attached to too many of them, from being moved around so much as a kid. I still drive by the place I lived in kindergarden, the place I lived for grades 1-3, the place I lived for 5th and 6th grade and the first year of junior high, the place I lived for 8th grade, the place I lived while I raised my kids. There are some I don't care about, and a lot that are too far away to visit.

I'm attached to my hometown. I've been all over it on the bus by the time I was 16; I've driven all over it. I'm attached to the geography and the streets, the neighborhoods and the buildings. The swell of the hills and the sweep of the river, the traffic, the train horns, the birdsong, the trees everywhere and the restaurants and bars.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 12:51 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
This sounds like you have spent a lot of life time in the same surroundings on the macro level, do I interpret this correctly?

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 12:52 am (UTC)
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)
From: [personal profile] snippy
Yes, after age 16 I've lived in the same town, and through my childhood we returned to this town after every time we moved away for a period. That makes a big difference, even though every time we moved, we were told it was "for good."

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 01:07 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
Hm... This makes me ponder...
...I think, to me, "feeling home" isn't dependent on a certain place, but rather "Who is in that place?".
Meaning, the social groups and the individual people matter more to me.
(Technically, you can erect a tent in every forksaken place of the earth - as long as you have "you people" with you, and surviving is somewhat secured, even the material poverty doesn't appear as drastic.)

Re: Yes ...

Date: 2020-10-01 08:26 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Default icon)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
It was more of a theoretical idea - I think, in that point, I prefer to live in a constant place. But, as a result of thinking things through, I'd guess my attachment was stronger if there was the certainty inside that "my people" would be with me, which would neither mean harm, nor boundary violation, nor disrespect against me.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 01:35 am (UTC)
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)
From: [personal profile] snippy
People were never home for me, because starting at birth I was handed around to different relatives (aunt, grandparents on both sides, father) for a week or a month or a season at a time, depending on what my mother wanted that week. Finally when I was 13 she started settling down and kept me (and my siblings) with her; I moved out a month before I turned 18.

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-01 02:57 am (UTC)
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)
From: [personal profile] snippy
Agreed! My ability to attach to people is disrupted; I tend to leave rather than fix things in relationships. Self-knowledge is valuable, at least.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 08:28 am (UTC)
matrixmann: (Thinking)
From: [personal profile] matrixmann
Well, that explains it very well that people aren't your focus.
I have to say it like that from a psychological point.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-10-01 11:50 pm (UTC)
snippy: Lego me holding book (Default)
From: [personal profile] snippy
Yeah, I get it.

(no subject)

Date: 2020-09-30 05:19 pm (UTC)
arlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] arlie
I'm probably a poster child for lack of attachment; there's even a psychological term for me - though when I googled today I found a different set of terms I don't recognize. The one I remember is something like insecure-avoidant attachment style/disorder. I'm told I spent the first year of my life in the care of social services, and I actually remember being back in foster care for a year at the age of 6 or 7. Message received: people go away, en masse, and you can't control it. Conclusion: so you had better concentrate on things you can control, or at least influence, which are unlikely to involve other people.

From where I sit, the big advantage of modern willingness to dump it all and leave, is that people can get themselves out of some pretty bad situations, without having to accept being socially stigmatized and relatively disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. I was a lot better off three thousand miles from my birth mother. My gay ex-Mormon friends were a lot better off a long way from their families. The offer of "we'll tolerate you, and only pick on you a bit (once you reach adulthood), provided you accept that you are subnormal" is not worth accepting, however much it allows the weird to survive in traditional societies.

The alternative to abandoning a bad situation is fighting back - and I mostly mean that quite literally. If I can't escape the local bully for whatever reason, my best choice is for some person-unknown to do him in; I just need to avoid being either caught or blamed. I don't think that this is an improvement. (For every person who gets away with a justifiable homicide, there will be some who get caught, and others whose homicide really wasn't justified - a custom of getting the hell out of dodge [instead] means the ones who are overreacting will do less harm, and the ones who are unskilled or unlucky will themselves receive less harm.)

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-01 05:59 pm (UTC)
arlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] arlie
>> It depends on the context, and the people. Sometimes running is better, sometimes fighting is. Most humans have a complete 4F survival toolkit.

That link was interesting. I'm pretty clearly a combination of fight and flight, in those terms, but wouldn't have thought of using such terms at all. But my goal has been control, generally via not needing anyone else's help, or being able to acquire that help in the marketplace. And when people infringe on me, I fight back.

Since I moved to California 20 years ago, I've somewhat had fawn forced on me. To gain the money and status to better take care of myself, I need to demonstrate "social skils", aka pretending to believe and be excited by managment's latest brilliant take on the strategy that I've already repeatedly seen fail, among other all-important skills required to be rated "meets role requirements" as an engineer.

Fawn kills my morale. After praising the brilliant leader, it will be hours, perhaps days, before I'm able to motivate myself to do more than trivial engineering. After supressing the urge to give feedback about yet another piss poor user interface "improvement", or to admit that I regard the people making those decisions as somewhere in the space that contains incompetence, knowingy acting to destroy the product, and fixation on increasingly tiny improvements for a subset of users, at the expense of everyone else (aka complete unawareness of the concept of "trade off"; see "incompetence") - I'll probably feel exhausted, and now that I'm WFH, indulge that by taking a nap during working hours, and not make up the time later.

And on the flip side, if I get excited about my work, and feel competent and with it, rather than too old and tired etc., I'll probably forget to be sufficiently deferent, and get more negative feedback from my manager. (Who hasn't figured out that the two problems are connected - but to be fair, I only noted the connection myself recently - when I'm in my normal lead-and-take-charge mode, I expect all my input to be equally valued and equally good; when I'm avoiding "being negative" I'm also quiet as a mouse and basically invisible.)

Of course it doesn't help that I'm also on the autistic spectrum. We almost certainly have a multi-generational trauma situation in my birth family. None of us are "real people", aka "normals", and we've all developed coping strategies that aren't great for building relationships. My mother did borderline personality disorder, with a lot of extreme acting out. That's how she came to conceive me while on day pass from a mental home, which is of course how I ended up in the hands of social services as an infant. One half-sister specializes in "flee".

>> However, humans are not really designed to live alone, and most fare poorly in that mode. Modern society leaves a lot of miserable people as a result. This is a problem.

I'm very much not looking forward to becoing old and frail, particularly if I lose a degree of mental functioning. I currently have a very comfortable (for me) living situation with a fellow weirdo, probably smarter than I am (extremely rare - I'm off the charts myself) but with different specialization, who has enough less "fight" in her that we don't end up in routine conflicts. (I may be infringing on her though, which worries me. I don't want to ill treat people i care about.) At any rate, she's convinced she'll predecease me, and if that happens I'll be back to my older less satisfactory pattern of living totally alone, complete with grief and the resulting poor judgment, plus some degree of age-related disability. Not appealing, but it's pretty much the hand life has dealt me - or that hand modified by my best efforts to upgrade a few of the cards.

For now though, I'm very comfortable. My solutions ahve worked well for me.

>> Flight works best as a strategy when there is something better to flee toward, when people can find a home, family, friends, job, etc. elsewhere. This is rarely true today. For all the "get help" yammering, very little help is available and most has strings attached; there's never enough for those who need it, and many who need it find it untenable or inaccessible. If society really wanted people to stay alive and healthy, it would provide no-strings support for everyone fleeing a bad situation. Instead we see a lot of deaths in the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" pattern.

I recognize that humans, particularly those not on the autistic spectrum, often sincerely desire what they claim to desire, while at the same time acting in ways that reduce their chances of getting it, even in actions explicitly taken to pursue that particular aim.

But at the same time, it's often useful to deduce the real goals from what the choices made actually acheive.

And in this case, I think societies want the misfits to go away, and is reasonably OK with them dying, and more than OK with them not reproducing their own kind. This includes but is not limited to weirdos. Surplus poor people are misfits, as are those incapable of learning the skills required for the majority of jobs in that society. It's good to have a few people on skid row, to point at to motivate those whose compliance is slipping, but not too many, as that would impose costs on the normal people/society as a whole/the society's controlling elite.

This is made more complex, because societies need a few weirdos, the way organisms need mutations - both provide potential adaptations when conditions change. But just as with mutations, most either have no visible effect, or reduce the affected entity's chances of surviving, reproducing, etc. But also much like organisms, societies have immune systems, to reduce infestation by nasty potentially dangerous mutant cells/weird people. (Yes, I mixed my metaphors, between mutant organisms and mutant cells within an organism. Not enough time this morning to write better.)

Note also I'm not blaming US society in particular, or modern societies in general. Weirdos have had problems with their society approximately forever. Exactly what traits make you "weird" have changed somewhat, but not the basic pattern. Some folks are less useful to the PTB, and more disruptive - or simply less pleasant for the common type of person to be around. If there's not enough to go round, those folks get less. If a scapegoat is wanted, those folks are it. etc. etc.

And starting with a disadvantage that's not your own fault is generally enough to put you on the "weird" side of resource distribution, unless you are lucky enough to also spring from the local elite.
Edited Date: 2020-10-01 09:17 pm (UTC)

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-02 04:25 pm (UTC)
arlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] arlie
>> This is all painfully true, although they actively murder some categories. Just look at police statistics for black or disabled people, not to mention the lethal effects of commodity foods on Native Americans or unhealthy food subsidies on the poor. If they really wanted people to eat healthy food, they'd quit subsidizing sugar and subsidize apples and spinach. For fucksake, this is not rocket science.

A lot of the incidental abuse I experience isn't intentional, it's just that something else is (always) more important than fixing my problem. I think this applies to a lot of the examples you suggest, where "making money", "getting elected", and "giving advantages to donors" are examples of goals more important than non-elite people's health and safety.

Yesterday I had an economy sized blow up at my manager, in a performance review, because she's once again stressing me not doing anything that other people consider to be socially inappropriate, and doesn't get that the only way I can avoid that risk is to do nothing at all. (This is pursuant to an incident where her manager texted her that I was about to go off again, a few days ago, and she texted me; she can't see that I was completely blindisded, and since I can't see what was wrong about the style of my message, any message I might send would be equally likely to be "bad" behaviour.)

For what it's worth, she was trying to congratulate me on not having any public blow ups with official reprimands in the past year. But "must only talk to your manager about complaints" and "manager is very busy" add up to "must not talk today" - every day, as long as the relationship persists. It's also notable, though I didn't get a chance to mention it, that the year I got "exceeds expectations" in a technical area" along with "fails to meet expectations" for "teamwork" I got a much better annual bonus than this year with "meets expectations" across the board.

As for the incident that got me down rated for "teamwork", well I suggested after 3+ months of being unable to fix a situation that was impairing my health, that since it clearly happened on his watch, and because of policies he presumably supports, the CEO deserved to be fucked with a splintery telephone pole and no lube. I was in an impaired condition at the time, as a direct result of the situation in question, FWIW. At any rate, someone reported it to HR - with the result that I had a very frank - and loud - private discussion with my boss' boss, the problem got fixed within the week, and I got a bad rating on my performance review. (I did manage to emphasize to my manager yesterday that making a public comment extreme enough that I got written up with HR was the best strategy I could find to fix the problem at the time, though unintentional. (That incident also resulted in my autism being officially disclosed to management, for the first time in my life.)

At the time, I was exploring the possibility getting my doctor to give them a choice of accomodating the health problem, or paying me disability; I'd run out of better options because while almost any manager in my reporting chain could get me exempted, they were always too busy doing something more imporant (to them). (Problem, in a nut shell - wasn't allowed to park near the building, because of red tape, and couldn't physically handle the sun and heat exposure I was getting walking from the nearest place I was allowed to park. I'd discovered I could get a ride [for the disabled] for half the route - but that was the part that I could otherwise have done indoors, which was merely physically a bit much for my aging body, rather than the more serious bad interaction of excess sun exposure with my prescription medications.)

>> Have you ever seen a fully matured, static society with <1% weirdos get hit with a major upheaval? It's hilarious, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off. I confess, I usually loot and run. Fuck 'em. (Okay, usually I'm the one on the horse with the torches, but oh well.)

At the moment, I'm coping with yesterday's stressful interaction, and the expected result of insomnia (which didn't materialize, yay!) by actively fantasizing about e.g. what a disaffected weirdo with biological skills could produce by way of an assymetric plague that kills off primarily the less weird and most powerful. Since it's just a fantasy, the effects can be unrealistically precise, and the real world ethical conflicts can be elided. (In the real world, most weirdos have a few normal people they care about.. sometimes they even give both to normal children...) It wouldn't make a decent novel, or even a short story - it's a complete self-indulgent Mary Sue - except I call the ones with an over-the-top violent streaks "Murder Sues" ;-( But it's helping me manage my moods, so I'm happy enough with it.

I like your image too. And being the one on the horse with the torch right now is very appealing.

What I'm probably going to do relatively soon is declare myself retired. That's scary - no expectation of anyone else looking after my interests - but as long as the investment markets don't crash and stay crashed, a lot worse than covid + Trump has made them do so far - I've got appropriate savings to maintain my current lifestyle more or less indefinitely, and the fallback if things go wrong of moving to a lower cost area. At this point though I'm following my 3 day rule after yesterday's blow up - never make a big or unrevocable decision within 3 days of the incident provoking it.

>> That sounds like a PASS problem, which can be very dangerous.

The high functioning autistic community has its own terminology for much the same thing - people who are best at pretending to be normal often "crash", winding up with a breakdown. I did that approaching 20 years ago, and was off work on disability for 3 months, followed by some time working limited hours. Fortunately(?) the crash had physical symptoms, so it looked medical to coworkers and managers, but my doctor figured it, correctly, for primarily coming from the psychological side. Also fortunately, shortly after I was back working full time I got head hunted by a much more nerd-friendly company. And that led to me finally cracking the glass no-Aspie ceiling that was keeping me from being promoted to the level my technical abilities merited. (As a "principal engineer" my financial prospects turned out to be much better, though the reason I wanted it was to avoid having to carry my cap in my hand to beg higher ranked engineers to permit me to do what I knew was the right thing, being the actual expert on the topic at hand.)

Anyway, I'm rambling. Thanks for being a kind of therapist and helping me cope with my current conflicts and confusion. I'll also be talking to a professional therapist this evening, who I've been seeing since before the breakdown. (Does anyone ever recover with therapy? Or does the therapy simply function like a crutch or a prosthetic?)

Edited Date: 2020-10-02 04:34 pm (UTC)

Re: Thoughts

Date: 2020-10-04 06:10 pm (UTC)
arlie: (Default)
From: [personal profile] arlie
>> One thing is absolutely consistent: therapy cannot fix a problem driven by an ongoing cause. You have to remove the knife before you can heal the stab wound. So for instance, therapy for an abusive relationship will not fix the damage until the victim escapes the relationship or (rarely) the abuser works through stopping the abuse.

Well, my first interpretation of this was how you probably intended it - advice to get out of that job to avoid farther damage.

But then I started thinking about my relationship with "society", particularly as an Aspie, but also in any other capacity where I have a target painted on my back for being different. Those aren't good thoughts, and I'm back in a none-too-healthy anger spiral. (Not your fault; that's a very very accessible state for me, and better than falling into despair.) And of course that gets back to the post this thread is part of. I'm happier as far as possible from normal society, and the average person probably will turn out to have a knife in their hand, that I just don't see immediately, so abandoning a proto-relationship easily works better for me than trying to preserve them.

And cycling back to employers - my worst employment experiences have been when I stayed and tried to fix things. They get improved, at least somewhat, but I get chewed up in the process. I'm now better at avoiding triggering normies who have (IMO) a pathological fear or hatred for weirdos, and faster at noticing when someone I'd assumed to be reasonable is about to fly off that particular handle - but I'm also unhappily vigilant. I'd be much happier if I could associate only with my own kind, whoever they are - and given my history, not all that closely with them either. (I need large periods of time alone to be and stay comfortable; people are exhausting even when I'm enjoying myself with them, and I'm not sure whether that's introversion, chronic vigilance, or a mix of the two. One thing for certain though - if I'm conscious of being vigilant, I'm not happy in the experience.)
Edited (fixed various typos) Date: 2020-10-04 06:12 pm (UTC)

Profile

ysabetwordsmith: Cartoon of me in Wordsmith persona (Default)
ysabetwordsmith

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 2526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags