Shadowknight12

Couldn't you get your sentence extended for bad behaviour/escape attempts/another (small) crime inside jail/etc.?

I'm SK. I have paladin tendencies.

LOL I've received worse. At least you can giggle at the fact that he takes whatever you're writing too seriously and is bursting an aneurysm over it.

Naturally, reviews get deleted when you delete a story, so I have to vote yes.

Awww. Well, feel free to type away whenever you want to! Don't sell yourself short! That's very helpful. As for the latter, it depends on whether it gets judged as an adult or not. If it's easier for your story (and the crime is particularly gruesome), have the kid tried as an adult and go with that.

Indeed, that's what I mean when I talk about sensationalist science. And knowing wench for a couple of years now (I forget how many... 2 or 3?) I can attest to the hard work and time she devotes to her children. The thought of anyone implying she's a bad parent makes my blood boil. But mass media need something to back up their statements in this era of cynicism and faithlessness. That support is science. Mass media is the mouth, but science is the man behind the curtain, and the patriatchy is the man behind the man behind the curtain. Well, obviously a sexual reassignment surgery is not going to work if hormones are not corrected! That child may have had sexual reassignment surgery, but it's not mentioned whether he was given hormonal treatment, so I think it's safe to assume that he wasn't. Without functioning testicles or ovaries, the only remaining source for his sexual hormones would be his adrenal glands, which secret low levels of androgens. A person who has their ovaries or testicles removed and is not given hormone therapy will invariably start feeling physiological changes that will make them self-identify with males. The age in the wikipedia article is also key: the "activation" of adrenal glands precede puberty by around 2 years, and that child reported started feeling male at around the ages of 9-11, which is roughly 2-3 years before puberty would hit him. Gender is a complicated thing. The problem here is that we have associated some physiological things (the things that sexual hormones cause) with the entire baggage that comes with gender. Society makes up gender roles and the characteristics that each gender is supposed to have, and then it adds the physiological characteristics to the package so that you cannot escape it. Once the patriarchy has formed a social contract where one gender rules over the other, you cannot allow exceptions or deviations, or else the fundamental pillars of the scheme collapse. The patriarchy. The ugly truths are individual. If they happen to repeat in multiple people, that's the effect of a cause, not an ineluctable pattern. If you find those ugly truths in other women, it's because society has conditioned them to think like that, not because they are an inherent part of being female. The reason why accepting stereotypes is ill-advised is because acceptance naturally leads to inaction. Sometimes it can serve as a springboard for change, sure, but if we speak in psychological terms, acceptance leads to inaction while rejection leads to action. Acceptance leads to a state of calmness and a tendency to leave things as they are, while rejection leads to stress and disquiet and a tendency to force change. Exceptions might exist, but suggesting a course of action based on the exceptions and not on what the course of action actually tends to cause strikes me as unwise. I refuse to stereotype men either. When I speak about power and manipulation, I speak about the human condition. I would say the same thing about women if the gender positions were reversed. Humans are selfish creatures who desire power over others to improve their personal well-being and obtain their goals at the expense of others. Exceptions do exist, of course, but that's the general norm. If men are the ones who hold the majority of the power in social scenarios, I will refer to "men" rather than "the humans who hold power in social scenarios." Thanks! Um, yes, I am saying that we can't measure up to fantasies, because they are unreal. Porn is rooted in fantasy, not on reality. Even amateur porn is based on a certain fantasy ("This could be happening right next door!" i.e., the fantasy of realism), and that's the only criticism you can levy on female-oriented erotica because they idolise men. Male-oriented erotica demonises or denigrates women, and that's definitely a valid criticism to levy ON TOP of the fantasy aspect. The reason I brought it up is because female-oriented erotica is not a perfect counterpart to the male equivalent because it doesn't put a woman in a position of superiority for her to denigrate a man and use him for her pleasure while he mewls and strokes her ego about how powerful she is. Female-oriented erotica, by synching up with male-oriented erotica perfectly, rather than being its opposite, continues to perpetuate the gender roles and stereotypes. Indeed! Do you want to know scary? I have read countless of stories written by female authors where rape is eroticised from the PoV of the victim. Let that sink in for a while.

I find it personally quite difficult myself, as my mother tongue is not English. I was taught British English, but I grew up watching American TV shows and movies, so my natural "English" is a mishmash of the two. Which I was apparently just informed is jarring to the reader. Welp, that explains a lot. You don't even want to know about my accent. Trust me.

You're being influenced by science in more ways than you think. Science gets thrown in as a justification for every assertion made, the problem is that usually it gets prefaced by "studies have shown..." or "experts say..." and people modulate their behaviour accordingly. If you consume any form of mass media at all, you've been exposed to this effect. And even if you haven't, the people you've interacted with have, or have interacted with those who have. The reason it's so pervasive and difficult to spot is precisely because it supports the ways "things have always been." However, one can't change what one isn't aware of. Awareness is key. And what's worse, one must never confuse awareness with acceptance, which is precisely what happens when you get told "women are like this and men are like that." It's all bullshit, if you'll pardon my French, but that's exactly what they want you to think. Aaaaaand there we go. That's exactly it. That is the type of thinking they want you to have. They want you to believe in predetermination, that the way you are (and the way everyone around you is) is set and cannot be changed, so that you don't upset the status quo. *shrug* That's just you accepting the compromise between what society has told you and what you yourself want. It's actually quite common: you can't live in a state of self-conflict for too long, so your mind naturally tries to accept a compromise (it prevents stress). That doesn't mean it's some unwavering, unchangeable, monolithic state. Human nature is fluid, but that's complicated and we like simplification, so we pretend it's rigid and unchanging. It also benefits the status quo. Raise people to think the way you want them to, then convince them they can't change what they are. It's all, of course, patently false. People can remake themselves at will, it just takes substantial effort and self-awareness. Oh, and a willingness to accept the ugly truths in ourselves, of course. We can't change the things we don't want to see, like your lesbian ex who didn't want to admit to herself she had certain desires. If she had been able to admit that, she could have figured out what psychological need was behind that, and she would have found a potential substitute or an adequate resolution that allowed her to reconcile those needs with the self-image she wanted to have. No, that's what they want you to think. They want you to think that "it's just the way things are" so that you don't fight it or try to change it. Stereotypes are the tool of the patriarchy, and some people choose to constantly and unwaveringly reject them, rather than accept them with resignation. Exactly, men are just as needy, but needing women is bad because that gives power to women over men, and the patriarchy can't have that (look at how much women's power over men is demonised in history, men hate the power a woman might have over them). Women needing men is okay, though, because that gives power to men. A needy man is going to be chastised by his peers because it's bad for him and because it might raise the idea that other men might be like that as well, and that's bad for them. I agree, but like I said above, there's a difference between awareness and acceptance. Truth is a fluid, changing thing. There is no objective, solid truth we can all see plainly with our eyes. Whoever tells you that is lying through their teeth. That would be easy and simple and if there's one thing the universe is not, is easy and simple. Your truth is yours only, and if you want to believe and accept that stereotypes are true, then you're the one bringing the consequences of such acceptance upon yourself. I choose not to accept it. Your life is under your control and it's up to you what happens in it. Stereotypes are shackles. And removing shackles is scary, I understand that. We've worn them all your life, we find them comfortable and familiar, and we're scared of what might happen if we take them off. I just happen to personally think it's better to live painfully as a free person than to live comfortably as a prisoner of society. Yeah, "men don't behaving the way they're written" falls under "can't measure up to them", sorry if I was unclear. Ugh, don't get me talking about the way female characters are depicted in the media. Another tool of conditioning, particularly when aimed at children and teenagers. I agree in general terms, but I have to disagree when it comes to the underlying assumptions in your reasoning. Men and women aren't psychologically different. Their only true differences are biological in nature, and biology is not some horrible Mistress of Predetermination that creates sweeping gender divisions. Men and women are, practically and empirically speaking, utterly identical. The biological differences (save, of course, childbearing) are utterly irrelevant when it comes to sociopsychological issues, much like the biological differences between human races. Indeed, science is entirely independent on whether something is incorrect or not. A lot of "science-backed" things can be utterly incorrect (which is my entire point about sensationalist science). As for whether stereotypes are correct or not, it's all up to you. If you think they're correct, you'll see them everywhere (selection bias!) and you'll live with the consequences of such a choice. Another excellent example of bought/sensationalist science. If something happens to your child, it's the mother's fault! Of course! Shame and guilt are very powerful tools of social control, and they're almost always exclusively targeted towards women (See: slut shaming).

That's always good to hear! Thank you, that's a great example of the point I was making earlier. That is exactly what "bought" science does. It perpetuates false assumptions in order to maintain the sociological status quo that benefits a sector of the population. Science has this "dogma" about itself, the way it cannot be questioned by anyone who's not a scientist (and has been indoctrinated by the previous generation), much in the way religion is. And I know this from experience, I'm a scientist. Men want to remain in power, dear, and they use science as a tool to do so. They tell you that you're an emotional, passive creature who can't help itself and that you're needy. You need a man in your life (and children) or else your hormones will make you do crazy things. It's okay if men are jerks to you, they can't help themselves. Neither sex has any control over it, it's the way hormones work! Biology! And you can't fight your role as a submissive nurturer while men go out and get things done because that's the way evolution made you! Evolution! Science! And you can't argue with that because you're not a scientist. This is something most cultures have been perpetuating since the dawn of time; the speech never changes, only the rationale used to support it. It used to be about might making right, then philosophy, then religion, now science. Indeed. The problem with that is that the fantasies are not power fantasies, where a woman gets equal rights with men and does the things they do. No, the problem is that those fantasies are about women being emotional and needy and where males are idolised and put in a pedestal. That's why you'll never see a man saying romance novels are a bad influence on women (other than perhaps because no man can ever measure up to the way those male characters are). Something to think about: It's based on reality because reality is like that, yes. But it's reality because you have become used to it, and you have become used to it because it's reality. It's a self-perpetuating cycle where each generation teaches the new one "how things are" and tells them it's useless to try and change because things have always been like that. It's predestination. It's God. It's Science. It's easy. It's comfortable. Don't rock the boat. Be a good girl. I say we need more Joan of Arcs.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly the sort of thing you waste money on. You pay a bunch of scientists to half-ass a study that nobody will cross-check because it's neither socially controversial nor a scientific breakthrough, and you publicise it with the intention of perpetuating a social stereotype and halt social progress. EDIT: In case it needs to be stated, this keeps perpetuating that a woman's natural state is to passively cry and hope for the best whenever something threatens her, and that her main weapons are her tears. EDIT 2: Yes, I know how the study was done. I went and found the actual published paper.

That study is highly questionable, mainly because it suffers from clear gender bias. A proper study would have had cross-references with different genders and sexualities (female tears on straight women, straight/bi men, gay/bi women and gay men; male tears on straight/bi women, straight men, gay women and gay/bi men). The study as is presents more questions than it actually answers. What is the alleged pheromone or chemical those tears have? Nobody thought to run a simple HPLC on the tears? If they had enough to significantly wet a piece of paper (several, in fact), it's ridiculous that you couldn't spare a few microlitres for HPLC, spectrophotometry, spectrometry, gaseous chromatography or anything that actually lets you figure out what chemical is causing what effect (and in the event that tears contain several unknown components, then you repeat the test with a pure sample of each unknown chemical and see which one gives you the same reactions on the test subjects). Furthermore, the study leaves unanswered whether this is a gender-specific mechanism (i.e., if only women have it), a sexuality-specific mechanism (i.e., if only those who are sexually attracted to the gender of the crying person find their arousal diminished), or if it's a species-wide mechanism (i.e., everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality, will find their arousal reduced when they encounter the tears of any other human being). And finally, there's the most gaping, ridiculously ignored fact: the effect a pheromone or volatile olfactory chemical substance has is extremely limited. We have pheromones in our hair and skin and their ranges have been repeatedly confirmed: you have to be very close in order to feel the effects. If the effect tears have is biological, then it should only work within a certain range, which is empirically not the case. There is a psychological (or sociological) component to the whole issue and trying to be simplistic/reductionist and blame it all on biology lets us wash our hands of psychosociological responsibility. That is the worst kind of science: the sensationalist kind. I'm pretty sure everyone already knew what the study was going to turn up and they simply went through the motions to publish something sensationalist. Ugh. I wouldn't be surprised if they faked or rushed the whole thing and nobody bothered to fact-check or repeat it.

That's really interesting! Though I question the science in that, since pheromones are usually lipidic, volatile compounds that need an oil-based medium, like the oils in your skin and hair, not the salty water that makes up tears. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure that sort of thing wouldn't be gender-based (as pheromones aren't) and there's the unfortunate fact that a lot of people get turned on by people crying during sex. I should know: I read fan fiction.

Basically, what everybody's been telling you: it's a Japan thing. An attempt at rationalising that fetish could be that it's a combination of bodily fluid fetish (which is a subset of taboo fetish) and a cheap and lazy way to indicate to the audience that the drooler is OMG SO INTO THE SEX. Drooling is a sign that the character is so intensely into the sex and really enjoying it and it's the best thing he's ever had and blah blah blah. Much like the incessant moaning and squealing you also see. Also crying. I really hate crying ukes, but it's there for the same reason. To show emotional/physical intensity.

I like the word "cunt" myself, mainly because I butcher a British accent something fierce and saying "You can't!" makes me giggle. Reminds me of the old wordplay "you can't say cunt in Canada" where the hilarity was that they pronounced "can't" and "cunt" exactly the same.

Hmmmm. You know, wench, I might ask you some day to give me at least a basic rundown on lockpicking, since I have a few characters who are supposed to be good at that sort of thing. However, since I know you've been busy lately (and those characters are in the back burner, after all), it's going to be entirely up to you. One day in the distant future where you have some free time and a glass of wine!

Thanks! It also helps me, personally, to keep stuff fresh for when I have to make use of them, so I welcome all sorts of questions! And don't be afraid to jump in! Some of the more interesting topics in this forum were those with different contributions by forumers, after all.

I saw something similar in another forum and I thought this'd be a good way to celebrate coming back to AFF. Sometimes we are struck with questions when we're writing and we don't know who to ask, so I figured this might be a great way for the forum to pour our expertise together. This is how it works: you ask questions and someone who knows about the subject comes in and answers them! I'm a biochem major, so I know about science-y and medical stuff, but we have all sorts of people on the forums with their own areas of expertise, so we can all help each other out when a niggling doubt eats away at us or when we need something explained to us. Without further adieu, let's get this research party started!

Usually, when I think a scene is boring, I introduce a complication that ensures the scene progresses the plot/character development/etc as it is meant to do, but in a much more interesting way. One of such events, for example, has led to a character revealing they had poisoned every other character in the story. Long story short, he failed, but boy, that made the story a lot more interesting.

I prefer to put lengthy flashbacks in an entirely separate chapter, in full italics (hard as it may be to read), just to make things neater to read.

My goodness! Your memory looks fantastic in this picture!

That ONLY makes sense in three situations: 1) Clone porn. 2) Time travel. 3) Alternate realities.

It is already rather hard to get into the sociocultural and psychological aspects of the opposite sex, much less the biological ones. That much is true. However, having said that, I think that they are obstacles just like any other. A writer might not know what it's like to be a soldier or a medieval knight or a molecular biologist, but with proper research, effort and hard work, they can become so intimately familiar with such parts of humanity that the obstacles are surmounted. A good writer will write good scenes and good characters, regardless of his or her gender. A bad writer will write bad scenes and characters, regardless of his or her gender. If I come across a poorly-written scene by a female author, my first thought is not "Women are terrible at this" but rather "this writer needs more practice and research." Which is, coincidentally, the same thought that pops up whenever I read anything poorly written. On the other hand, I know a few people who are (or seem to me) that prejudiced, so I fear I might be a minority. Still, one shouldn't let these things affect them. There are better matters to occupy one's thoughts with.

Sarcoughagas.

Rah, rah, ah, ah, ah, roma, roma, ma, Gaga, ooh la la?

I keep thinking that RECAPTCHA hates us all. Or loves us in that creepy stalker serial killer way.