#highly reliability service | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

llamagoddessofficial · 5 months

Note

Hey got more aggre guy questions with you hehehe :D

How would you know if any of them had a crush on you?

Hehe... a classic cute question.

Sans: The absolute most difficult to tell. He just acts like a close pal. Honestly, if you're not Papyrus, it's near impossible to know how Sans is genuinely feeling. This guy is a master at disguise. The signs are ridiculously covert- how many words he uses in his texts, which eye he most frequently winks at you with, the kinds of jokes he uses, which side of you he sits on. He gets slightly jealous of people you like, and expresses that with veeeery subtle coldness toward them. To Papyrus Sans is outrageously flirting, and to you he just said 'heh, i'm gonna steal that joke'.

The most reliable sign that he likes you, is he would rather be with you than without you. He messages you when he's bored, when he's got a day off he asks if you want to come over and hang out together. He's casually affectionate with you; with everyone else he's very physically guarded, not really allowing any prolonged contact, but he'll sit close enough for your knees to touch and lean on your shoulder. When he's sleepy, he'll just put his head in your lap.

If at any point you're actually starting to suspect that Sans has a crush on you (ie you catch him lightly blushing or looking at your hand like he wants to hold it) that means he's already fully in love with you. If it's obvious enough for you to tell, he's planning to spend the rest of his life with you.

Red: Red is also pretty difficult to tell. Not as hard as Sans, though. He's highly flirtatious in general, but even more so with people he's physically interested in. Sometimes, it can be hard to know if he's just a super flirty guy in general, or if he genuinely really likes you.

When he's in love he switches between totally forgetting to flirt (he's thinking about more than just sleeping together) and acting more like himself, then panicking that you won't like his real self and becoming EXTRA flirtatious and swaggery. He instinctively wants you to see the real him, and like him... but he's also terrified of you not liking the real him, so he clams up and tries to play the part of the big sexy badboy that everyone else seems to like so much more. The longer he likes you the more he eases. If at any point you find out he needs glasses, or that he quit smoking out of fear that it'd impact your lungs, that's a sure sign he's fallen for you.

Another reliable tell is jealousy. Red doesn't get jealous a lot, because usually he doesn't really care all that deeply about his flings. If he shows jealousy about who you're with, it's a big flag that his feelings run a lot deeper than he wants to admit.

Skull: Skull isn't difficult at all. It will be loud & clear that he likes you. Nonstop staring, intense blushing at the slightest interaction, he drops/breaks things a lot because he's distracted just looking at you. His brain -> mouth filter vanishes, he'll be completely silent except to blurt out things like "you're so pretty" and "i like your smell". Before he drums up the courage to start talking to you properly he might even come across as a bit creepy and overwhelming, given his size and strength, the intensity of his feelings, and his love language being staring.

Papyrus usually comes very in handy. He makes Skull seem less intimidating by providing the cute real reasons for Skull's bizarre behaviour around you. He can be a great translation service for his brother- when Skull mumbles something totally unintelligible to you because you make his brain stop working, Papyrus can step in. He's also great at getting that perfect balance between encouraging his brother, and stopping him from crossing any lines; he'll help Skull approach you at a house party without teleporting somewhere completely random out of nervousness, but he'll also dispense helpful advice such as "PERHAPS YOU SHOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU TELL HER YOU WANT TO HAVE KIDS WITH HER."

#llamagines #when sans has feelings for you he always finds some way to nap around you #you sit down for 20 seconds and he teleports onto the couch beside you #its like when you realise your cat has somehow made its way onto your lap without you noticing #except you realise hes been snoozing with his legs over yours for like half an hour

641 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 7 days

Text

Paying for it doesn't make it a market

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me SATURDAY (Apr 27) in MARIN COUNTY, then Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Anyone who says "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product" has been suckered in by Big Tech, whose cargo-cult version of markets and the discipline they impose on companies.

Here's the way that story goes: companies that fear losing your business will treat you better, because treating you worse will cost them money. Since ad-supported media gets paid by advertisers, they are fine with abusing you to make advertisers happy, because the advertiser is the customer, and you are the product.

This represents a profound misunderstanding of how even capitalism's champions describe its workings. The purported virtue of capitalism is that it transforms the capitalist's greed into something of broad public value, by appealing to the capitalist's fear. A successful capitalist isn't merely someone figures out how to please their customers – they're also someone who figures out how to please their suppliers.

That's why tech platforms were – until recently – very good to (some of) their workforce. Technical labor was scarce and so platforms built whimsical "campuses" for tech workers, with amenities ranging from stock options to gourmet cafeterias to egg-freezing services for those workers planning to stay at their desks through their fertile years. Those workers weren't the "customer" – but they were treated better than any advertiser or user.

But when it came to easily replaced labor – testers, cleaning crew, the staff in those fancy cafeterias – the situation was much worse. Those workers were hired through cut-out shell companies, denied benefits, even made to enter via separate entrances on shifts that were scheduled to minimize the chance that they would ever interact with one of the highly paid tech workers at the firm.

Likewise, advertisers may be the tech companies' "customers" but that doesn't mean the platforms treat them well. Advertisers get ripped off just like the rest of us. The platforms gouge them on price, lie to them about advertising reach, and collude with one another to fix prices and defraud advertisers:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/05/florida-man/#wannamakers-ghost

Now, it's true that the advertisers used to get a good deal from the platforms, and that it came at the expense of the users. Facebook lured in users by falsely promising never to spy on them. Then, once the users were locked in, Facebook flipped a switch, started spying on users from asshole to appetite, and then offered rock-bottom-priced, fine-grained, highly reliable ad-targeting to advertisers:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

But once those advertisers were locked in, Facebook turned on them, too. Of course they did. The point of monopoly power isn't just getting too big to fail and too big to jail – it's getting too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

This is the thing that "if you're not paying for the product, you're the product" fails to comprehend. "If you're not paying for the product" is grounded in a cartoonish vision of markets in which "the customer is king" and successful businesses are those who cater to their customers – even at the expense of their workers and suppliers – will succeed.

In this frame, the advertiser is the platforms' customer, the customer is king, the platform inflicts unlimited harm upon all other stakeholders in service to those advertisers, the advertisers are so pleased with this white-glove service that they willingly pay a handsome premium to use the platform, and so the platform grows unimaginably wealthy.

But of course, if the platforms inflict unlimited harms upon their users, those users will depart, and then no amount of obsequious catering to advertisers will convince them to spend money on ads that no one sees. In the cargo-cult conception of platform capitalism, the platforms are able to solve this problem by "hacking our dopamine loops" – depriving us of our free will with "addictive" technologies that keep us locked to their platforms even when they grow so terrible that we all hate using them.

This means that we can divide the platform economy into "capitalists" who sell you things, and "surveillance capitalists" who use surveillance data to control your mind, then sell your compulsive use of their products to their cherished customers, the advertisers.

Surveillance capitalists like Google are thus said to have only been shamming when they offered us a high-quality product. That was just a means to an end: the good service Google offered in its golden age was just bait to trick us into handing over enough surveillance data that they could tune their mind-control technology, strip us of our free will, and then sell us to their beloved advertisers, for whom nothing is too good.

Meanwhile, the traditional capitalists – the companies that sell you things – are the good capitalists. Apple and Microsoft are disciplined by market dynamics. They won't spy on you because you're their customer, and so they have to keep you happy.

All this leads to an inexorable conclusion: unless we pay for things with money, we are doomed. Any attempt to pay with attention will end in a free-for-all where the platforms use their Big Data mind-control rays to drain us of all our attention. It is only when we pay with money that we can dicker over price and arrive at a fair and freely chosen offer.

This theory is great for tech companies: it elevates giving them money to a democracy-preserving virtue. It reframes handing your cash over to a multi-trillion dollar tech monopolist as good civics. It's easy to see why those tech giants would like that story, but boy, are you a sap if you buy it.

Because all capitalists are surveillance capitalists…when they can get away with it. Sure, Apple blocked Facebook from spying on Ios users…and then started illegally, secretly spying on those users and lying about it, in order to target ads to those users:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

And Microsoft spies on every Office 365 user and rats them out to their bosses ("Marge, this analytics dashboard says you're the division's eleventh-worst speller and twelfth-worst typist. Shape up or ship out!"). But the joke's on your boss: Microsoft also spies on your whole company and sells the data about it to your competitors:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#clippys-revengel

The platforms screw anyone they can. Sure, they lured in advertisers with good treatment, but once those advertisers were locked in, they fucked them over just as surely as they fucked over their users.

The surveillance capitalism hypothesis depends on the existence of a hypothetical – and wildly improbably – Big Data mind-control technology that keeps users locked to platforms even when the platform decays. Mind-control rays are an extraordinary claim supported by the thinnest of evidence (marketing materials from the companies as they seek to justify charging a premium to advertisers, combined with the self-serving humblebrags of millionaire Prodigal Tech Bros who claim to have awakened to the evil of using their dopamine-hacking sorcerous powers on behalf of their billionaire employers).

There is a much simpler explanation for why users stay on platforms even as they decline in quality: they are enmeshed in a social service that encompasses their friends, loved ones, customers, and communities. Even if everyone in this sprawling set of interlocking communities agrees that the platform is terrible, they will struggle to agree on what to do about it: where to go next and when to leave. This is the economists' "collective action problem" – a phenomenon with a much better evidentiary basis than the hypothetical, far-fetched "dopamine loop" theory.

To understand whom a platform treats well and whom it abuses, look not to who pays it and who doesn't. Instead, ask yourself: who has the platform managed to lock in? The more any stakeholder to a platform stands to lose by leaving, the worse the platform can treat them without risking their departure. Thus the beneficent face that tech companies turn to their most cherished tech workers, and the hierarchy of progressively more-abusive conditions for other workers – worse treatment for those whose work-visas are tied to their employment, and the very worst treatment for contractors testing the code, writing the documentation, labelling the data or cleaning the toilets.

If you care about how people are treated by platforms, you can't just tell them to pay for services instead of using ad-supported media. The most important factor in getting decent treatment out of a tech company isn't whether you pay with cash instead of attention – it's whether you're locked in, and thus a flight risk whom the platform must cater to.

It's perfectly possible for market dynamics to play out in a system in which we pay with our attention by watching ads. More than 50% of all web users have installed an ad-blocker, the largest boycott in the history of civilization:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

Ad-supported companies make an offer: How about in exchange for looking at this content, you let us spy on you in ways that would make Orwell blush and then cram a torrent of targeted ads into your eyeballs?" Ad-blockers let you make a counter-offer: "How about 'nah'?"

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/adblocking-how-about-nah

But ad-blocking is only possible on an open platform. A closed, locked-down platform that is illegal to modify isn't a walled garden, a fortress that keeps out the bad guys – it's a walled prison that locks you in, a prisoner of the worst impulses of the tech giant that built it. Apple can defend you from other companies' spying ways, but when Apple decides to spy on you, it's a felony to jailbreak your Iphone and block Apple's surveillance:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

I am no true believer in markets – but the people who say that paying for products will "align incentives" and make tech better claim to believe in the power of markets to make everyone better off. But real markets aren't just places where companies sell things – they're also places where companies buy things. Monopolies short-circuit the power of customer choice to force companies to do better. But monopsonies – markets dominated by powerful buyers – are just as poisonous to the claimed benefits of markets.

Even if you are "the product" – that is, even if you're selling your attention to a platform to package up and sell to an advertiser – that in no way precludes your getting decent treatment from the platform. A world where we can avail ourselves of blockers, where interoperablity eases our exodus from abusive platforms, where privacy law sets a floor below which we cannot bargain is a world where it doesn't matter if you're "the product" or "the customer" – you can still get a square deal.

The platforms used to treat us well and now treat us badly. That's not because they were setting a patient trap, luring us in with good treatment in the expectation of locking us in and turning on us. Tech bosses do not have the executive function to lie in wait for years and years.

Rather, as tech platforms eliminated competition, captured their regulators and expanded their IP rights so that interoperability was no longer a threat, they became too big to care whether any of their stakeholders were happy. First they came for the users, sure, but then they turned on the publishers, the advertisers, and finally, even their once-pampered tech workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/10/the-proletarianization-of-tech-workers/

MLK said that "the law can't make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me." It's impossible to get tech bosses to believe you deserve care and decency, but you can stop them from abusing you. The way to do that is by making them fear you – by abolishing the laws that create lock-in, by legally enshrining a right to privacy, by protecting competition.

It's not by giving them money. Paying for a service does not make a company fear you, and anyone who thinks they can buy a platform's loyalty by paying for a service is a simp. A corporation is an immortal, transhuman colony organism that uses us as inconvenient gut-flora: no matter how much you love it, it will never love you back. It can't experience love – only fear.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/22/kargo-kult-kaptialism/#dont-buy-it

#pluralistic #if youre not paying for the product youre the product #competition #capitalists hate capitalism #discipline #market discipline #the old good internet

184 notes · View notes

k0libra · 8 months

Text

Welcome Captain Anderson and First Officer Connor!

About a week and a half ago I came up with dbh civil aviation au, as I absolutely love jetliners. So I decided to combine both of my interests! :D

More details about the setting are under the cut!

In the 2020s, a new aerospace corporation emerged - “Cyberair”. Originally starting from light jet construction, but later in the 30s they introduced narrow-body aircraft to the production line, as the result of rapid growth and market expansion. However, throughout the years their idea remained the same: “Reliable and comprehensive automation”. Cyberair jets are everything, beyond what a modern aircraft can offer, and is capable of. Truly a creation of the 21st century.

The latest Cyberair venture – state of the art autopilot. Identical to humans in its appearance, yet so different in behaviour. It’s efficient, reliable and doesn’t make mistakes (almost. At least human ones). But to tell the truth, this development is expected – ever since the late 20s Cyberair started to slowly announce machine cabin crew, even gifting a unique RK200 air traffic controller model to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Delta Air Lines received their own one-of-a-kind autopilot, a RK800 (FAA approved!) model. How? Well, something about the Cyberair CEO liking their service. After a few papers signed and a few hands shaken, Connor embarks on his first real flight as a First Officer.

No plane flies without a captain though, so Connor has company. And a superior. Even if machines are better than people in piloting the plane in almost every way, human ego and fear, maybe, can’t let them be in absolute control. “Uncanny valley” or something.

Captain Anderson is a highly experienced senior pilot at Delta. Most of his career he has been flying Airbus aircraft, piloting A350-900 in the later years. Although because of Connor working with him now he has to pilot Cyberair regional or light jets from time to time. Oh, those signed papers be damned… He misses his dear A350.

Their relationship had a rough start, with the captain calling Connor “an attempt of capitalism at stealing my job”. But Hank couldn’t help but warm up to the FO the more flight hours passed. There was something so… alive about him? No, in aviation you only trust your instrument panel, and here all of the facts loudly state that Connor is simply a RK800. This is definitely some Eliza effect shit.

Why is he so interested in the A380 then? Doesn’t he have all of the aeroplane data neatly stored in his head? What surprises Hank more is something akin to confusion on Connor’s face every time he gets overly excited about the giant of the skies. Maybe he’s surprised by his new-found interest, too. At least there’s something Hank can tell him about from the old days (ah, proud A380 pilot) during long transatlantic flights.

Fucking Eliza effect bullshit.

P.S. if you want to leave an ask about this au, please do! I get asks so rarely so I’m excited hahah. But you can ask literally anything else, too lol

#art #fan art #my art #dbh #detroit become human #connor rk800 #dbh connor #dbh rk800 #rk800 #dbh hank #hank dbh #hank anderson #dbh au #dbh aviation au

432 notes · View notes

amjadastrologer · 6 months

Text

Interesting facts about the Midheaven (MC) in each zodiac sign

Interesting facts about the Midheaven (MC) in each zodiac sign:

Aries Midheaven:

Those with an Aries Midheaven are known for their ambition and desire for leadership.

They are often driven to assert themselves and can excel in competitive careers.

Aries MC individuals tend to be pioneering and unafraid to take risks in their professional pursuits.

Taurus Midheaven:

Individuals with a Taurus Midheaven value stability and material success in their careers.

They often have a practical and reliable approach to work, and financial security is a significant motivator.

Taurus MC individuals can excel in fields related to finance, real estate, or the arts.

Gemini Midheaven:

People with a Gemini Midheaven are natural communicators and often have a versatile career path.

They thrive in roles that involve networking, writing, or speaking.

Gemini MC individuals have a strong desire to keep learning and adapting in their professional lives.

Cancer Midheaven:

Those with a Cancer Midheaven are deeply connected to their emotions and often seek nurturing environments in their careers.

They excel in roles that involve caregiving, family, or hospitality.

Cancer MC individuals may have a strong sense of responsibility towards their family and home life.

Leo Midheaven:

Individuals with a Leo Midheaven have a strong desire for recognition and often excel in creative and leadership roles.

They seek to shine and make an impact on the world, often gravitating towards entertainment or the arts.

Leo MC individuals tend to be confident and charismatic in their professional lives.

Virgo Midheaven:

People with a Virgo Midheaven are detail-oriented and often excel in roles that require precision and organization.

They have a strong work ethic and may be drawn to careers in healthcare, analysis, or service.

Virgo MC individuals value efficiency and often seek perfection in their work.

Libra Midheaven:

Those with a Libra Midheaven place a high value on relationships and diplomacy in their careers.

They often excel in roles that involve negotiation, counseling, or aesthetics.

Libra MC individuals have a natural ability to create harmony and balance in their professional lives.

Scorpio Midheaven:

Individuals with a Scorpio Midheaven are driven by a desire for power and transformation in their careers.

They are often drawn to fields that involve investigation, psychology, or the occult.

Scorpio MC individuals may experience intense ups and downs in their professional lives.

Sagittarius Midheaven:

People with a Sagittarius Midheaven have a strong desire for adventure and often excel in roles that involve travel, teaching, or philosophy.

They value freedom and tend to seek careers that allow for exploration and expansion.

Sagittarius MC individuals are known for their optimistic and open-minded approach to work.

Capricorn Midheaven:

Those with a Capricorn Midheaven are highly ambitious and focused on long-term goals and success.

They often excel in leadership positions, business, or fields related to structure and tradition.

Capricorn MC individuals are dedicated and determined in their professional lives.

Aquarius Midheaven:

Individuals with an Aquarius Midheaven are innovative and often excel in roles that involve technology, social change, or humanitarian efforts.

They value independence and may have unconventional careers.

Aquarius MC individuals have a strong desire to make a difference in the world.

Pisces Midheaven:

People with a Pisces Midheaven are deeply empathetic and often excel in artistic, healing, or spiritual fields.

They are drawn to careers that allow them to express their creativity and compassion.

Pisces MC individuals may experience a strong connection between their work and their inner world.

#astrology #moon signs #birth chart #astrology observations #astrology facts #aries #taurus #gemini #cancer #leo #virgo #libra #scorpio #saggitarius #capricorn #aquarius #venus #pisces #midheaven

255 notes · View notes

raina-at · 11 months

Text

Experiments in Compatibility

When Sherlock is 16, he decides he needs to find out what the fuss about kissing is about. So he decides to conduct an experiment.

He can’t imagine kissing a total stranger — the practice sounds slightly disgusting and unhygienic with someone he knows, let alone someone who might never brush their teeth — so he decides to try it out with Victor, his one and only friend.

It turns out to be a grievous mistake. Sherlock likes the kissing fine, he also likes Victor fine. But Victor takes his academic interest in kissing and his non-hatred of Victor’s company as meaning that they’re in a relationship now. Which is fine by Sherlock up to the point Victor tries to stick his hand down Sherlock’s pants, and then it becomes decidedly not-fine very, very fast.

Victor is obviously hurt by Sherlock “leading him on”, but to his credit he tries to get over it when it becomes obvious that Sherlock wasn’t so much leading him on so much as their assumptions about their relationship just didn’t align at all. Also, they’re both sixteen and have no earthly idea what they’re doing.

But Sherlock learns two very important lessons from this. One, experiments with sex don’t mix with friendships you want to keep. Two, friends are harder to find than lovers, so prioritise the friendship.

*-*

All through his twenties, Sherlock only has sex with people he doesn’t give a damn about. He also has enough of it to decide that it’s not for him. The list of things he enjoys is very short, and most people he has sex with have expectations he can’t or doesn’t want to meet.

The few times he’s attracted to someone, the attraction never survives the first sexual encounter, and the process often leaves him either bored, annoyed, disgusted or all three.

By thirty, he decides romantic entanglements are more trouble than they’re worth and any bodily needs he can meet more efficiently by himself.

*-*

John Watson is an asteroid strike right into the center of his carefully crafted self-image.

The attraction is immediate, but he can ignore that easily. If only John wasn’t this… interesting.

John is nice and kind and lonely and abrasive, he’s a killer and a healer, he’s a loner who craves company, a soldier who defines himself by service to a higher good, whatever that may be, whose self-esteem is tied to being useful. He’s a deeply damaged, very intelligent, exceptionally capable man, wearing the skin of the everyman, deeply vulnerable yet outwardly stoic, the very embodiment of the stiff upper lip. He’s reliable and unpredictable, angry and calm, he’s the immoveale object to Sherlock’s unstoppable force.

Sherlock loves him. It’s as simple as that. He falls in love with John gradually, helplessly, with opened eyes and fully aware of what’s happening, yet entirely incapable of stopping it. He loves John intensely, honestly, deeply and — unfortunately — passionately.

He loves the colour of John’s eyes and the smell of his hair and the fine golden hairs on his arms. He loves John’s ugly jumpers and his compact strength and the shape of his toes. He loves John’s kneecaps, his capable hands, the economy of his movements, the expressiveness of his face. It’s ridiculous, and highly inconvenient, and frankly distracting.

He doesn’t know what to do about it. He has several options. He could ignore it and hope it goes away, which doesn’t seem very likely to happen. He could end his association with John, but the mere thought makes him nauseous. He could, to use a popular phrase, ‘make a move’. He’s almost sure that he would be successful — John spends a lot of time staring at Sherlock’s lips, chest and arse — but what then? What if he doesn’t like it? What if he loses interest? What if it ruins their friendship? What if John leaves?

And the worst thing about all of this is that he will never know if he doesn’t try it, but trying and failing could have catastrophic consequences, and not in the usual way his experiments fail. A kitchen fire is inconsequential, even mild chemical burns are of no consequence, but he could end up losing everything.

So Sherlock thinks, and broods, and sulks, and does nothing.

*-*

“You want to tell me what’s bothering you, or do I need to guess?” John says one evening, sitting down next to Sherlock on the sofa. He’s sitting far too close, and he’s wearing a patient expression and holding out a cup of tea.

Sherlock spent the last three days turning around the John Watson conundrum in his mind and is frankly running out of patience. So he snaps, “I’m trying to figure out whether sex with you would ruin our friendship. Thoughts?”

John blinks once. Blinks again. Sets down the tea very deliberately. Blinks a third time. “Come again?”

“Bang on the money, John, yes, we’re talking about coming. Sex. You and me. Having it.”

“I can’t believe you just made an orgasm joke,” John says, apparently still trying to process what else Sherlock just said. “So.” He blinks again. Wets his lips (definitely interested, then). “You… want? To have sex with me?”

“Obviously, otherwise we wouldn’t have a problem!”

“The problem is that I don’t actually like sex all that much, and you obviously love it, given your reputation and the number of imbecilic girlfriends you’ve dragged in here,” Sherlock grinds out between clenched teeth, the frustration of the last few months spilling over in anger that’s probably misdirected at John.

“Um…” Again with the blinking. Sherlock hates himself a bit for finding it adorable. “What’s the problem, exactly? Because you want to, and I definitely want to, so…” he makes a 'fill in the gaps for me’ kind of gesture.

John, fortunately, seems to be extremely flattered and keenly interested in getting into Sherlock’s pants, and is apparently prepared to take his irritation in stride in order to get there. “Okay. Um. So. I think… so you don’t like having sex at all?”

“I like some things fine, others not at all,” Sherlock says, suddenly very aware of how close John is sitting to him, how much of their thighs are touching, and that John’s taken his hand and is rubbing his thumb over Sherlock’s finger knuckles in a very distracting way.

“Let’s start simple,” John says, and there’s a small smile playing over his face, his voice is low and he’s watching Sherlock with an intensity that’s both sexy and somewhat intimidating. “Kissing?”

Sherlock nods, suddenly beyond words.

John leans over and presses his lips against Sherlock’s, soft and tender and oh so good. Sherlock kisses back, and before he knows it, they’re snogging. John’s really good at this, alternating deep, toe-curling kisses with soft, teasing kisses and gentle, tender kisses. Sherlock immediately loves it, wants more, knows he’ll never get enough.

After an indeterminate time, John draws back and smiles. “I think we can work with that, what do you think?”

“But what if I don’t like it?” Sherlock mutters, unsure and hating that it shows.

“Then we won’t do it.”

“But what if I don’t like any of it?”

“Then we won’t do any of it,” John says, matter of fact, as if it’s that simple.

Sherlock’s scepticism must show on his face, because John gives him a reassuring smile. “Look. I know it’s not easy, but do you think you can trust me with this, just a little?”

“Well, since I’m inconveniently in love with you, I suppose I’m going to have to,” Sherlock says,

John grins at him, and Sherlock wonders how he can be this happy when Sherlock is this much of a mess. “Well, I’m inconveniently in love with you too. I think with a bit of experimenting, we can figure the rest out.”

“But you don’t like it when I experiment on you,” Sherlock points out.

“This isn’t you experimenting on me. This is us, experimenting together. Big difference.” John pushes a strand of hair out of Sherlock’s face, a gesture so unsexual and yet so tender it makes Sherlock’s heart melt. “I get that you’re scared. Believe me, I’m scared, too. This is big, and there’s little room for error. But the reward is definitely worth the risk, don’t you think?”

Sherlock considers the logic of what John is saying and decides it’s sound. “You make a good point.”

“Wow, Sherlock Holmes agrees with me. Truly a special day.”

“Shut up and kiss me again,” Sherlock says, already looking forward to using this technique every time John berates him about setting the kitchen on fire.

“As you wish,” John says with a soft smile and complies.

Thanks for the prompt, @calaisreno! Written for the prompt Experiments.

Tagging a few of the usual suspects: @meetinginsamarra @lisbeth-kk @jrow @helloliriels @fluffbyday-smutbynight @topsyturvy-turtely @catlock-holmes @thetimemoves @discordantwords @the-reading-lemon @khorazir @hotshoeagain @keirgreeneyes and whoever wants to play!

#johnlock #bbc sherlock #johnlock fic #my fic #microfic #may 2023 prompts #experiment

313 notes · View notes