100 NSFW Questions Ask Me!
Here’s 100 NSFW questions we’ve come up with. Send in some numbers and you get your answer.
1. First kiss?
2. First time masturbating?
3. First sex toy?
4. First kink tried?
5. First time doing oral?
6. First time having sex?
Turn Ons
7. Biggest turn on?
8. Biggest turn off?
9. Quickest way to get horny?
10. Weirdest thing that ever turned you on?
11. What’s the most attractive part of the body?
12. Top 3 places to be touched?
13. Ultimate fantasy?
14. Do you like the idea of a three or moresome?
15. Do you send nudes? Do you like receiving them?
Preferences
16. How much kissing do you like during sex?
17. Sex or masturbation?
18. Spit or swallow?
19. Cut or uncut dicks?
20. Rough or sensual sex?
21. Oldest person you’d sleep with?
22. Loud or quiet partners?
23. How much foreplay do you like?
24. How much teasing do you like?
25. What is too big for you to take?
26. Do you do hookups or only sleep with a partner?
Location
27. Favourite place to have sex?
28. Would you have sex in public?
29. Last place you had sex?
30. Where would you most like to have sex?
31. Do you like spontaneous sex, or do you need to be in the mood?
32. Could you go through with a hookup at a strangers house?
Kinks
33. What’s your biggest kink?
34. What’s your limit?
35. Are you okay with name calling in bed?
36. Would you do any BDSM?
37. Do you prefer to tie somebody up or be tied up?
38. Favourite type of bondage?
39. Do you like orgasm denial/forced orgasm?
40. Do you like overstimulation?
41. Do you like having pain involved?
42. Do you like biting/being bitten?
43. Have you ever been made to/made somebody beg for it?
44. Do you have any strange or extreme kinks?
45. Have any roleplaying preferences?
46. Send a kink with this number. Do you have that kink?
Masturbation
47. Do you own sex toys? How many?
48. Favourite Sex Toy?
49. What do you masturbate to?
50. How often do you masturbate?
51. How often do you use sex toys to masturbate?
52. Do you masturbate with penetration?
53. Do you go for multiple rounds or settle at one or no orgasms?
Oral
54. Do you enjoy giving oral?
55. Do you prefer giving or receiving oral?
56. What makes you orgasm the fastest when receiving oral?
57. Do you have a preferred technique for giving oral?
58. Can you deepthroat?
For people with dicks… (you can answer these when you send an ask)
60. How long and how thick is it?
61. Do you do anal? Top or bottom?
62. Are you circumcised?
63. Do you like your balls being played with?
64. Do you enjoy prostate stimulation? Ever came from it?
65. Where do you like to finish?
For people with vaginas…
66. Do you like playing with your clit?
67. How do you prefer to do it?
68. What’s your breast size?
69. How often do you go braless?
70. Do you finger yourself?
71. How familiar are you with your g-spot?
72. Do you squirt?
Sex
73. Favourite position?
74. How often do you do unprotected sex?
75. How loud are you in bed?
76. Do you enjoy having nipples played with?
77. Do you like/dislike/love/hate cum?
78. How good are you at dirty talk?
79. Do you get sleepy after an orgasm?
Other
80. Do you like wearing/seeing people in lingerie?
81. Do you masturbate or have sex with clothes on?
82. What’s your favourite style of underwear?
83. Are stockings/thigh highs a turn on?
84. Ever had somebody say no to a kink you suggested trying?
85. Do you trim, shave or leave pubic hair untouched? How do you prefer partners?
86. How many orgasms can you have in a day?
87. How many other people know your dick/bra size?
88. What do you wear to bed?
89. Do you eat ass? Do you like having your ass eaten?
90. Try to describe how orgasm feels for you.
91. Have you ever been to a strip club? How was it? If not, would you?
Fun questions!
92. Do you name your genitalia?
93. What would be your stripper name?
94. Any funny sex stories?
95. What food if any would you use during sex?
96. Would you give somebody a sex toy as a gift?
97. What’s the weirdest porn you’ve ever seen?
98. Do you often get horny in public?
99. Ever used something that isn’t made for sex in the bedroom?
100. Have you ever walked in on somebody or been walked in on?
2K notes
·
View notes
I don't have any evidence but I feel there a palpable sense of 'desperation' among waifu-brained FromSoft fans who are trying to deal with a game that is not very interested in catering to them.
Certainly there are no female characters who are sexualized themselves, with Malenia, Ranni, and Fia being the most obvious examples of this, their being almost completely unsexualized.
Malenia is a broad-shouldered woman who literally does not have sexual organs, and Ranni who we outright see naked at the end of her questline has a featureless body of cracked ceramics and rope.
It's atypical: Compared to Dark Souls 1 especially the difference is really apparent. (Quelaag, her sister, and Gwynevere off the top of my head)
And you've noticed it, too, right?
That 'desperation' in the shit fanart and posts I'm talking about?
A lot of people appear unwilling to accept those facts for Elden Ring's prominent female characters. (Like outside of wishing to fuck them they're just unfamiliar with drawing or talking about those characters.)
It's arguable even that Elden Ring has no waif-like characters whatsoever. (Although the likes of Roderika and Hyetta dispute this, their lack of popularity notwithstanding.)
A first since even Sekiro had Emma, with Emma's character being a woman who was evidently far too normal to have ever been considered a waifu, despite her having more lines and screentime than the Doll, the Firekeeper, and more, combined!
If this pattern continues with the female characters introduced in the DLC, I wonder what we'll see, then xd.
29 notes
·
View notes
I find the whole premise of the war in Houses very sad.
Rhea is being targeted because "everything is the fault of Crests" according to Edelgard. Rhea has no power over Crests themselves, and the blood that enables Crest bearers to use Relics is dragon blood. The Relics are the bones of her brethren.
According to Edelgard, whose every ounce of information is fed to her by the Agarthans (why does she even believe anything her captors say again?), Rhea is an enemy... but why would Rhea condone anything related to Crests and Relics? Also, Edelgard didn't stop the Agarthans from kidnapping Flayn for her blood, allowing them to create demonic beasts. On top of that, she later uses demonic beasts for her war, so she uses Agarthan technology, etc, to turn regular humans into demonic beasts while saying that Rhea is the one at fault.
Rhea, who actively tries to stop Relics from falling into the hands of people who will turn into a demonic beast if they use them. She gets mad if Byleth says they won't turn over the Lance of Ruin to her, and it's one of the few times she openly gets mad at Byleth - because she knows the dangers of it falling into the wrong hands. Her only relief came from Sylvain - not Byleth - who said he would take the Lance of Ruin and assured her he wouldn't let it fall into anyone else's hands. He was also pretty convincingly honest about it, because she wanted him to remember the dangers of it and he says he "won't soon forget". Coming from him it was likely the most honest response she could've gotten out of anyone else in the monastery, so she let it go.
And also, here we are, with Rhea, one of the very last of her kind, being told she can't exist because she's not human, thus proving all her fears and worries about her identity correct. In CF, the last straw for her was that same person "taking" Byleth, Sitri's child, from her (i.e. even if Byleth "chose" that path, there was someone that was the cause of that decision. Without the war starting, Byleth wouldn't have decided that, so in Rhea's eyes it's Edelgard's fault, but she also isn't letting Byleth get away with it either).
It's also sad that Rhea's only chance to tell the truth (i.e. to Claude) was when she was already dying. There was no chance for her to tell the truth, be free of it and still feel safe. In this case she also wouldn't have died if the war had never started, because her five years of captivity by Edelgard left her weak and it kept her from being at her full strength when it came time to fight the Agarthans.
It's very frustrating for me too that we have Claude who does what he can to find out the truth, but Edelgard never does any such thing and just immediately believes what the Agarthans believe. Instead of her thinking her captors might be lying, she allies with them to kill Nabateans, which is exactly what they want. Why not try to find out the truth, or talk to Rhea to figure out what her side of the story is? Why just take the side of your tormentors both by information and in a war of your creation? Edelgard was a puppet on Thales' strings and willingly went along with it for years.
But somehow everything ever is Rhea's fault. See, even if Sothis was uwu BaD and stuff, I'm still not sure how any of that lands on Rhea, besides for her being Sothis' child and thus the children of the parent must die simply for who their parent is. Either way, it comes down to Rhea not being human, and thus Edelgard blaming her for every problem in Fodlan ever. It's sad to me because it really is that simple in terms of Rhea getting blamed for everything.
Rhea lied about the Crests and Relics, calling the people she hated heroes (something Edelgard could never do about the people she hated) to avoid more tragedy. It's almost like her lying for the benefit of humanity worked against her, which in an ironic way is like saying the humans were the enemies all along. She does good things for them and they just turn on her. It's kind of like, maybe she should've seen them as enemies all along, but she didn't. She accepted the ones who didn't hurt her or her kin. She accepted the people who had nothing to do with any of that.
Idk I just wanted to mention Rhea's place in the war because I've never really brought it up. It's just sad to me that she did everything she could to stay safe while not viewing humans as an enemy, but her kindness was part of her downfall. It makes me wonder if she'd told the truth eventually that people would've understood better. When she tells Claude, he realizes all the lies Rhea's been telling weren't hurting anyone, but instead allowing the power of the dragons to continue to exist in humans. If it had been her decision, she never would've allowed that because it was her family that was killed for that.
But like... apparently it's all her fault. Apparently everything is all her fault.
I know the Fodlan games have a huge glaring issue with victim blaming, but it's very sad to see that the victims are at fault right until their death (mainly on CF, but if you factor in Hopes, SB and GW too). They're blamed for their coping for how they suffered, and they're blamed for every little thing they do or don't do from then on. There's no winning. If you're a victim, you're a villain. Edelgard used to be a victim, but she stopped being a victim when she started making victims and siding with the people who tormented her in the first place.
Imo the story should've had Edelgard side with Rhea against the Agarthans and still have done four routes. Like... sometimes I think of what Edelgard could've been, how she could've turned on the Agarthans after pretending to work with them, and end up telling Rhea everything. She could've been a kinder person who had the same "ideals" (quotations because they're empty promises in canon) and could've been equally as resolute and strong.
She could've told Dimitri the truth that she hid from him despite having an entire year to tell him. She could've told Claude what she knew about Rhea after talking to Rhea, since he was looking for answers. She could've been a really awesome lead where CF/SS were similar routes with different perspectives (not necessarily identical), but those routes were her and Rhea working together. At the end, she could've taken responsibility for any time she worked with the Agarthans and moved on.
It's also sad how the fandom does the exact same thing to Rhea. She does something, she's bad. She doesn't do something, she's still bad. All she has to do is exist and she's still bad. If she reacts in any way because of her trauma, she's bad.
The fandom's views on trauma are pretty disgusting though tbh, because the general vibe is that if you have trauma you can only uwu about it. If you have any other reactions, including violent ones, you're horrible and need to be "put down" because you didn't have a "proper, correct" reaction to your trauma. If you don't shut up and deal with it, you're a bad person.
I feel like CF was a mistake with its writing and justifying the actions of ableism and imperialism both in one route. A mistake as in, now people actually believe that stuff is all well an good (despite the other routes saying otherwise).
Anyway that's it for this. I'm sure someone out there will call me a Rhea apologist now even though I'm not and even though she's not even remotely my favorite character lol.
45 notes
·
View notes
It's just so genuinely frustrating to me that almost every single other female character always gets pushed aside in this discourse. Doesn't matter what you think of or how you treat any of the other women, some of whose morals could be discussed just as extensively, the only opinion that matters to judge you is Ed3lgard and Ed3lgard only.
You really just gotta look at how they treat Rhea to see how shallow their care for misogyny is.
Rhea is someone who went through unimaginable suffering and due to that suffering did things that were indeed morally questionable, but (other than Fhirdiad) never cruel. She did everything she did because she wanted to make sure that everyone in Fodlan was safe, and mostly left the humans to their own devices (save for when either the Church was directly threatened or they asked for her assistance). She is someone who puts her own life and safety on the line to protect her people, up to sacrificing her own life to do so.
She gets called an abuser. A tyrant. Crazy. Because when her trauma is not simply left untreated but actively attacked and she reacts poorly to that, that is when her "true" character comes out to Edelstans. Everything she ever does, ever, in any context, gets deliberately misrepresented into being villainous.
Edelgard is someone who went through unimaginable suffering and due to that suffering did things that were not just morally questionable, but undeniably cruel. She did everything she did because she wanted power and wanted Fodlan to go back to how it once was (completely under Imperial control), up to attacking people who went out of their way to stay out of her way (the Alliance). She is someone who won't just endanger the lives of her citizens, but will outright have them killed if it means she can gain more power, by her own admission and as shown in her actions.
She gets called a liberator. A hero - the hero. A victim of a world who hates progress. Because when Edelgard says that she's doing it for "the weak" (ignore that she will sacrifice them as soon as it would help her), because she says that she wants to get rid of the importance of Crests (ignore that Plain Jane inheritance-based systems, which are arguably even more unfair, are still around in her endings), she must be telling the truth! Because Edelgard would never lie!
Even if we were to do a No No and fight in their pit wrt Rhea's characterization, the way that they portray Edelgard is literally no better than how they portray Rhea. She also sacrifices people "for the greater good," she also lies to keep up a certain image to her people, she also colludes with murderers because it suits her wants, and she also rules Fodlan tyrannically - everything that they accuse Rhea of doing, they portray Edelgard as doing, only with hoards and hoards of excuses and Fine Print and Um Ackchually's tagged on.
And that's their main like, way to say that they totes fr fr care about misogyny; villainizing Rhea as a devil while uplifting Edelgard as a pinnacle of morality and heroism, and "debunking" any defense of Rhea/criticism of Edelgard. It's not out of a genuine care about sexism against women, but just a tried-n'-true Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card to pull out for their fave.
So it's like, I'm sorry, but at this point unless a non-bot, non-troll, actual person comes out and vomits shit about Edelgard needing to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or some garbage, whenever anyone says that they found a misogynist talking about Edelgard? I'm just gonna assume that the "misogynist" said something like "oh they must have said that genocide is bad," because that is how wrung out and insincere they're made their usage of the term out to be. Especially when they can't be bothered to treat actual breathing women with any kind of decency the second we say something Mean About Edelgard, which is its own conversation by itself
61 notes
·
View notes