sturgeon are probably responsible for most of history’s “lake monster” sightings around the world! these giant fish do sometimes cruise around just under the surface, and from a distance their primordially scaly spines can look like some kind of fantastical serpent, or something.
“STAY OUT OF THE WATER”
these freshwater fish are generally huge, sure, but some individuals have been recorded as north of 20 feet long, which is frankly ridiculous.
add that to the fact that a single sturgeon can live for more than a century and you’ve got a lake-monster hypothesis!
(or sometimes “jesus christ how did a shark get into the Great Lakes?”)
Holy fucking Jesus, that thing could eat me whole and still have room for dessert!
WELL LUCKILY(?) FOR YOU, sturgeons of all sizes are bottom feeders that rely on a diet of shellfish, crustaceans, and tiny fish that they vacuum up out of the muck. they don’t even really have teeth- a sturgeon couldn’t bite you even if it wanted to.
and when I say “vacuum” I am, perhaps, speaking more literally than you are comfortable with! behold, the mouth of the sturgeon:
they literally just cruise along the bottom and Hoover up anything remotely edible that seems like it might fit in their face! HUGELY uncomfortable to look at, but not dangerous.
*muffled wet slurping noises*
yessirree, if a sturgeon wanted to do you in it would have to resort to beating you to death with its mighty tail, like god intended.
(which might happen if you try to harass a big one! these things have a SEVERE amount of muscle, and a sturgeon legally can be counted as a blunt weapon)
Do you ever just try eating bugs because the girl ur in love with likes bugs and also you want her to fuck you in your new four poster bed with a mirror over it
Nobody ever give me context for this post. I like it just as it is.
@jeezypetes hm would you be impressed if a girl ate a bug or something else? 🤔😆
I did ask my gf to eat a (seasoned, prepared for consumption) cricket to tell me how it tasted. Idk if i was impressed by it though
Moving to a different post—I had no idea that aphantasia was so common?
I can easily visualize things “in my mind’s eye”. I don’t see it with my actual eyeballs, but I can clearly picture what things look like, either from memory or from a description of them. I can imagine vivid colors and shapes and scenery, and when I read or listen to an audiobook, it’s like a film reel is playing inside my head. If the description is confusing, sparse, or poorly written, the imagined images just aren’t as detailed.
If you have aphantasia, how does non-visual fiction compel you? If there is a description of how something looks, do you get anything out of that at all or is it just irritating word clutter?
Like, if you’re reading a book and you come across a passage like
The stranger stepped into the shelter of the cave and pulled off her sodden hood. Her brown face was lined but not yet old, the creases in her brow the result of a hard life rather than a long one. Her shorn hair was prematurely gray, but her eyes were sharp and yellow as an osprey’s.
Do you get something out of that, or do you just zone out, and would you rather read something straightforward and free of visual descriptors, like
The stranger was a middle-aged woman, weary beyond her years, but fierce and intelligent.
