Question: How Did You Get The Link To Agree With The Claim? This Is A One Question Quiz. Naturally, That

in mesopotamia there were no 'cover letters' or 'curriculum vitaes'. there were just, pots.

is that garnets hair

When this bug is triggered, each reblog is counted as a seperate post, @lesbianhouseplant . (And anyone else who may see this, but I'm not sure if this will give proper notifications if I don't @.)

bungus

Figured I may as well discuss this matter since I see it come up a lot - high support needs autistics often say that the talk of lower support needs is framed in such a way as to invalidate them.

Firstly, before I get into this, I think what I've heard is reasonably true, and a conversation around it is needed. I feel that I need to declare this, because I feel these groups aren't communicating (much at all), and while I'm trying my best, its likely that how I'll say things is still bad, and everyone's constantly up in arms about the due and proper virtue signalling.

To be clear, we're considered "Mid support needs". It seems to be the category of folk who are actually clashing with high support needs autistics the most, although we are wondering if the diagnosis may be in error, likely with the original diagnosis that was 'upgraded' to autism and then mid support needs autism being correct instead.

The primary purpose of this post is to bring clarity to what others are trying to go on about, as communication errors are entirely too easy, especially as so many people are using slogans rather than more words, and for many of those cases forgetting and not forgetting is distinguished by at most three words in a larger sentence.

The most commonly upsetting topic, about support levels in the autism diagnosis, has two reasons behind it, which combining frustrates understanding.

The one I suspect will be more relevant to most high-support needs folk is that by placing support needs in the autism diagnosis, one sometimes avoids labeling the overall person's support needs, and sometimes rolls other conditions, deserving of their own labels to target treatment, into the autism diagnosis.

As a consequence of these two factors, many folk at all official autism levels fail to receive the supports that they need.

The other one is - the official boundaries of "Mid support needs" Just Sucks. Its being visibly autistic and sufficiently accommodated.

As a consequence, firstly, it ranges from 'stims with chair texture and otherwise just quirky' all the way to 'significant support needs being handled by family'.

And secondly, its possible to fall below it onto low support needs through a wide variety of measures that have nothing to do with support needs at all, such as having of been traumatized out of displaying overt symptoms, or, if the doctor isn't paying enough attention, or isn't asking the right questions and you stim less than displaying other symptoms, having of developed social skills due to an applicable special interest, such as psychology, or a major aspect of society.

This is getting a little long (and I don't recall how to do read mores), so I'll end it here for now, although I expect to come back to these matters.

Well - you kinda asked two questions here, and the answers to each of them were different.

CRTs are quite dangerous. However, they aren't dangerous in a way that implies that there's any (additional) danger in sitting close to the screen. Hence, we've a yes/yes pair where the phrasing has implied either a yes/no pair or a no/yes pair.

Extended answer is therefor needed.

Hey are those bulky old tvs dangerous to be around or is that just something my mom told me so I wouldn't sit too close to the screen

Just so folks may know, it seems you need to go to the original post by memories in order to get a tag generated for you personally!

Pour one out for #*snickers*.

"Which one of you", well, omegaverse-anesthesiologist, that winds up sounding kinda sus.

why is ao3 is blocked on the hospital wifi????

... Which, like - I should probably of given some more context here - I can't hold the i in kit, big sing, it, hit, and both is in historic any better than I can hold a t. This is based on how it goes when I try to hold the letter as I say it - I suspect I'm making a slightly different sound when I try to isolate it, through that also doesn't hold for very long.

Been looking at things and thinking about how I say things as a result, and - if trying to hold a sound in a word causes one to not hold that sound, and also not breathe in until one stops trying, it can't be a vowel, right?

I think I know what you mean? Like, you can theoretically breathe in while producing an /i/ sound but not while producing an /r/ sound? Although that might just be a lack of practice on my part. Anyway I'm not sure what the big phonology heads might have to say about that as a definition.

But yeah as it turns out the definition of vowel is a bit less clear-cut than it might seem. Or like there is generally a consensus as to what a vowel is, but it's hard to define a clear boundary for what isn't a vowel. This has to do with there being two different definitions of vowels: one is phonetic and defines vowels as sounds produced with an open vocal tract, and the other is phonological, defining them as sounds that form the peak of a syllable. Now, it's easy to say that, for example, /iː/ is a vowel in pretty much both ways. But then you have shit like the syllabic consonants of English (the /l/ in the word "table" and the /n/ in "button") and other languages which do similar things, and the latter definition is no longer quite as useful. The semivowels /j/ and /w/ are a bit of a mess in this regard because they generally won't be syllabic but they also involve less constriction of the vocal tract than the other consonants. But more than vowels.

... I suppose I have to clarify? You're at least tending to identify afferent attachment as ownership of the body in the language your using. In contrast, we've tended to identify efferent attachment as ownership of the body. This has made posts (well, post) building on these concepts come across with significant confusion that I can push through, but interpreting leaves me unsure if I should be using those terms, as I'm left with two different interpretations of what you communicated.

Dimensions of Fronting

In my Manifestations post, I used fronting as a catch-all term for any sort of physical attachment to the body.

I'd like to delve into that a bit more here, exploring language to better explain individual experiences of fronting and control over the body.

This isn't really intended for every day use, but is meant to better explain plural experiences of fronting in a more clear and more precise way.

Full body vs Locational Attachment

Full body attachment is, as expected, attachment to the entire body at once.

Locational Attachment is attachment to specific body parts such as only a hand or just the legs. When referencing locational attachment, it's usually useful to refer to the part of the body one is attached to.

Efferent vs Afferent Attachment

Besides simply being locational, attachment can come in afferent and efferent forms. Some nerves send signals from the brain to the body. Other nerves in the brain receive signals from the body.

Nerves responsible for sending signals from the brain to the body are called efferent nerves. These allow you to control the body. Nerves responsible for receiving signals are afferent. These allow you to sense things through the body.

Attachment can exist in both forms separately.

If a headmate feels like they're experiencing everything happening to the body but feel like somebody else is controlling it, they're experiencing afferent attachment with efferent detachment.

If a headmate is controlling the body but feels disconnected, as if everything is happening to somebody else, this is efferent attachment with afferent detachment.

Alternative Terminology:

The terms above are more technical, designed to help conceptualize the dimensions of fronting. For everyday use, I would recommend Possession and Attunement.

Possession referring to taking control of the body, attunement to receiving signals from its senses as if they were your own.

Solitary Attachment vs Shared Attachment and Co-fronting

Any of previous attachment types may be experienced by multiple headmates at once. Multiple headmates feel like the whole body is theirs and share control over it simultaneously. Shared attachment can also be over specific limbs, where multiple headmates feel like the limb is theirs at once.

If only one headmate feels attached to the body or limb, this is solitary attachment.

When multiple headmates are controlling the body, this is usually called co-fronting.

How to use the language?

One thing I often struggle with is putting our experiences into words.

A lot of plural language is vague and has multiple conflicting meanings. Part of an issue with having such a large community made up of many smaller communities.

What one person means when they say they're fronting may not be what another means.

This allows us to more easily describe and compare different plural experiences.

For example, a distinction for our partial possession vs our proxying.

When I partially possess an arm, I fully experience that arm as if it's mine. I experience both afferent and efferent locational attachment to that specific limb. If using possession and attunement terms, this may also be considered Attuned Locational Possession or Partial Attuned Possession.

In contrast, when proxying (typing while somebody else is fronting,) I don't feel like the hand belongs to me. I send signals through them, the words typed out are mine and coming from me, but the fronter still experiences the hands as if the hands belong to the fronter. I experience a locational efferent attachment (sending motor signals) and afferent detachment (an absence of sensor signals) to the hands, while the fronter may experience afferent attachment and efferent detachment to the hands. This can also be considered a form of Unattuned Locational Possession of the hands.

Breaking it down!

Full body Attachment and Detachment:

"I'm in complete control of the body, everything that happens to it is happening to me."

Full Fronting (full body efferent and afferent attachment.)

"I'm in control but everything feels like it's happening to someone else, as if I'm outside the body."

Complete Unattuned Possession (full body efferent attachment and afferent detachment.)

"I can feel everything but it's as if someone else is controlling my actions and making me act things out."

Complete non-possessive Attunement (full body efferent detachment and afferent attachment.)

"I'm a spectator watching while someone else controls my body. Everything that happens is happening to them and I just exist in the background."

Complete Detachment (full body efferent and afferent detachment.)

Partial Attachment and Detachment:

"I have total control over this limb, and feel through it as if it's mine."

Partial Attuned Possession (localized efferent and afferent attachment.)

"I can control this limb but I feel like it's someone else's and don't feel these sensations are happening to me."

Partial Unattuned Possession.(localized efferent attachment and afferent detachment.)

"I can feel through this part of the body as if it's mine, but I have no control over it."

Partial non-possessive Attunement (localized efferent detachment and afferent attachment.)

"I can't control this limb and I feel like it belongs to someone else."

Partial Detachment (localized efferent and afferent detachment.)

Things to consider...

While writing this, there were some experiences that were hard to categorize. This is especially true of unconscious reactions. If you tickle a headmate's mindform who is co-con but not fronting, and their reaction causes the body to jolt, do these sorts of automatic and unconscious reactions constitute a form of Efferent Attachment?

This model is still not comprehensive. But I believe it's a good starting place for understanding fronting experiences.