moonpool-system:

Created systems are important and an essential part of the community! Created systems are amazing and have helped forward plural understanding so much. We’re lucky to have fronting guides written by created systems, communication guides written by created systems. Intentionally created systems are impressive! Accidentally created systems are unique! Created headmates are as much their own people as they want to be, they have their own autonomy and deserve to be respected. Solely created systems are cool! Mixed origin created systems are awesome! Mainly-traumagenic systems with created headmates are important! Psychologically-based created systems, spiritually-based ones, and every system in between are wonderful 💙👥

Created systems are still multiple. It’s okay to want to be plural or to have become plural because of creation methods. Whether it be through psychological or spiritual methods, if one claims existence/personhood and wishes to be seen as multiple/separate, they have a right to that no matter what.

divideres:

the downfall of tulpa centric resources and communities is an unspoken tragedy.

I didn’t have much experience with any discords or forums, but I miss the 2014-ish era of the tulpa side of tumblr. that’s where I first came across the concept. nowadays it’s just yet another plural tag; it’s filled with posts that aren’t about tulpas or tulpamancy at all.

and r/tulpas might as well be considered dead at this point. new posts are most often just basic questions.

it feels like tulpamancy has been lumped in together with the rest of plurality, when it probably would’ve benefited more by staying its own separate thing. in my experience, having a tulpa feels drastically different from having a headmate/alter. a tulpa functions differently, and their creation process is unique. I’ve purposely split new alters before and it was nothing like making a tulpa. though that could be due to me being a traumagenic system? who knows.

and I don’t like that there were attempts to convert tulpamancy into a -genic label (like willogenic, parogenic, tulpagenic), and that the tulpamancy specific terminology (like forcing, possession, wonderland) has been dropped in favor of the more widely used plural terms.

I believe that if things keep going like this, tulpamancy is going to become an abandoned practice. imo the only things holding it up right now are the resources that are left.

people who are more knowledgeable about the community are welcome to chime in, this is just based on what I’ve personally seen.

It’s a trend we’ve noticed for years now. We saw the rise of parogenic and willogenic, and all those terms did was splinter an already struggling community. Yes, Tulpamancy and Plurality obviously have overlap, but Tulpamancy just… operates differently from more broad categories of Plurality.

We still use Tulpamancy-specific terms like forcing and possession (though we use mindscape instead because we personally find wonderland to be too whimsical), but we don’t post much here anymore because we got life stuff and we struggle to find anything meaningful to post.

And you’re right about r/Tulpas, but that could be attributed to a variety of factors like Reddit in general going to sh!t with the API changes and AI bullsh!t.

10-7-2025

positivitygenic:

don’t forget to shower, take a bath, wash your face, brush your teeth, and whatever else!

even if you struggle to do it, it’s worth it for the happiness of being clean afterwards

You’ve been corrected by both me and Caflec on this.

No, people don’t make tulpas to “prove [their] mental strength.” You’re thinking of what Alexandria David-Néel wrote in her book. The second paragraph is more accurate, though.

6-15-2025

ohana-system:

eeveecraft:

ohana-system:

eeveecraft:

ohana-system:

cambriancrew:

ohana-system:

eeveecraft:

Potential Red Flag that More than Tulpamancy Is Happening

If you and your tulpa(s) randomly switch (as in neither party consciously initiated it) or experience involuntary switches, that is not normal in Tulpamancy. Switching isn’t random or involuntary in Tulpamancy; it’s most often a mutual agreement between systemmates and a conscious thing that occurs. Tulpas don’t randomly take front without warning or involuntarily in response to certain stimuli.

If you experience random/involuntary switching more than the random freak occurrence, you should look into dissociative disorders because this may be a symptom of something like DID.

6-5-2025

Um. Perhaps. However, I feel some things are not being taken into consideration here.

1. You can use stimuli to help a created headmate grasp front more easily. Which can lead to that headmate being conditioned to switch when exposed to the same or similar stimuli in the future. Especially if they are particularly excited about or fond of said stimuli/activity/event/object/media/ect. It would be unrealistic to expect any headmate to consciously speak up before switching for everything when getting caught up in the moment is natural even for singlets.

2. Involuntary switching doesn’t equal DID or any other CDD. Endogenic systems also experience involuntary switching. We shouldn’t encourage jumping to concerns of DID before considering other explanations. CDD symptoms are intense and come with a plethora of other indicators that would also need to be taken into account.

3. Systems share a brain. It is absolutely always within the realm of possibility that you will blend together at times and possibly end up in front as a result. It’s essentially similar to being multiple paint colors all poured into the same bucket. There will be some mixing.

4. Tulpas are not immune to acting on their own. They are still people capable of making their own choices. It’s not unreasonable to think that a tulpa might form the habit of taking over as they please whether disruptive or not. Just because you make a tulpa doesn’t mean you control them. Being a tulpa simply refers to that headmate being created intentionally.

5. Once you learn to switch fluidly and become comfortable doing so, switching just becomes an adjustment. Fluid switching comes with, well, fluidity. Sometimes you just flow in and out of front and that’s fine. It’s not a cause for concern.

- Rue

I agree with most of your points, but you’re missing a key thing to consider. The audience for Eeveecraft’s post isn’t established tulpa systems. It’s people coming in to the tulpa communities assuming what they’re experiencing is tulpas due to not having adequate exposure to any other kind of plurality.

In those systems, unexpected, unwanted switching is more indicative of DID than tulpas or other endogenic plurality.

I can definitely understand that, and I do apologize for not knowing the intended audience. Though, I wish that intention was a bit more clear as this post can randomly come across anyone’s dash without clarification.

I am still concerned, however, because I don’t quite understand how being new to a community makes it inheritantly more likely to be DID vs endogenic simply because they haven’t been exposed to either concept? It feels like either option is just as likely. Perhaps you could elaborate if you don’t mind? /gen

- Rue

There’s a difference between being in a Tulpamancy system for 7 years and gradually becoming more fluid and someone who made a “tulpa” a week ago that randomly takes front without warning. This is also why the post is titled “Potential Red Flag that More than Tulpamancy Is Happening.” Or, “…it’s most often a mutual agreement between systemmates and a conscious thing that occurs.” People really need to pay attention to the specific language a person uses.

With the former example, you can gauge why this behavior is happening because you’re already well-versed in Tulpamancy and Plurality at that point. Like, there is a difference between intentionally training a systemmate to cofront upon like, smelling something specific versus them doing this suddenly with no discernible cause.

Was it wrong of me to expect people to have the reading comprehension to understand this point of mine? Maybe. General literacy has been taking a down-turn.

Also, I feel low-key disrespected by your fourth point with assuming I don’t acknowledge tulpas are their own people. Yes, obviously, they are. I’ve made that abundantly clear on this blog for many years. Why do you think I specifically defined involuntary in this case as something non-consensual between both parties?

And with your fifth point, again, that is not the average Tulpamancy experience. It just isn’t. The culture behind things like switching are different in the Tulpamancy community versus the broader community. Most Tulpamancy systems have to actively train switching and practice it like a skill. Unless you’re already plural, this is not something that naturally comes to most Tulpamancy systems.

Like, sure, maybe I could’ve pointed out that DID specifically requires distress and dysfunction, but I also don’t think it’s harmful to encourage people to at least check or be aware of potential red flags like this. I made this post because I saw a story by a Tulpamancy system that got diagnosed with DID because they manually created memory barriers so strong that they had uncontrollable switches and significant gaps in memory.

Also, please note that I do not mean abnormal is bad. It isn’t inherently a bad thing. Yes, involuntary switches are abnormal in the Tulpamancy community specifically, but depending on context, that does not necessarily make it a bad thing.

6-5-2025

First of all, there’s no need to be hostile simply because I needed clarification. You’re also coming off as classist and ablest. Not everyone has had the privilege of a proper education. Some people also understand or interpret things differently due to various neurodivergencies. And no, people don’t need to pay attention to your specific wording because 1: if it comes out of your mouth, then you are responsible for it, 2: everyone understands things differently, and 3 that’s why people ask questions for clarification. You being impatient and not stopping to take all of that into account and having an attitude… does not bode well. Especially when you are now the one who is seemingly making assumptions about what I think your veiw on tulpas is based solely on a point I made without at all saying a single thing about you personally. Not to mention your not so subtle and uncalled for insults just because you have an unreasonable expectation that everyone should be on your level. “Low key disrespected.” So your answer is to high key insult someone instead of commucate your feelings in a constructive and composed manner?

Switching is a skill. People vary in skill. Some never learn, some take a while to learn, some pick it up quickly, and some are simply a natural at it. So yes, you can be a new tulpa system and possibly still experience a fluid switch. Which, yes, as you said, falls under an abnormality. However not everyone, especially newcomers, will know whether that’s abnormal or not without explanation. Which you included none of. If I am new to plurality, I cannot infer all of this context that you left out of your post. As an autistic person, I would struggle with that quite a bit unless you explain to me that there can be variation and what that variation might look like. And because I get the feeling you might decide to use that as an argument, yes, I realize you could also be autistic. Which would be why you’re so hung up on people understanding your words in a specific and very black and white way. Well guess what. I know someone like that too, and while it infuriates them, they understand that’s not how people work and that doesn’t give them the right to chastise others for it.

Also what you’ve posted on your blog over the years is not something I should be expected to know about, nor go digging for just to understand a singular post that you made on a social website where it doesn’t stay within the confines of your blog. You did say “both”. Which can be read as “both must consent beforehand” not just “both usually consent but sometimes just one can consent”. If you want to talk about specific wording, then why didn’t you specify that?

And yes you absolutely could have pointed out how DID specifically requires dysfunction. So for someone who’s so hung up on being specific, once again, why didn’t you? The hypocrisy here is distasteful. It isn’t harmful to suggest someone look into something IF certain things seem to coinside, but you listed one singular, incredibly common thing. Newcomers require significantly more introduction and information than you provided. Surface level suggestions are not particularly helpful. Especially when many of these newcomers are young, anxious, and impressionable children.

You also said the system you based this on manually created memory barriers. I’m pointing this out because, once again, you want to be specific, right? So if they manually created the barriers themselves then they still are a tulpamancy system. They’re just perhaps very skilled at dissociation and got carried away. I suppose you could argue that they induced DID. However that is not what your post was about. Nowhere did you speak about inducing DID. You stated that more than tulpamancy could be happening. I think it’s incredibly reasonable to draw the more likely conclusion that you were speaking about something that is naturally occurring as inducing extreme dissociation is not a common idea. Perhaps your post would have been clearer if you’d spoken about the actual concern which is apparently that you can give yourself a CDD as opposed to simply possibly having one.

And just to note, while I am most certainly perturbed, I am not intending this as hostility or a fight. I am simply pointing out all of the issues I see. However, if you cannot refrain from insult just because you struggle with being misunderstood, then I will take my leave of this discussion as I do not enjoy engaging with people who are unreasonable, rude, and incapable of taking criticism or having a legitimate conversation.

- Rue

You know what? I just realized I didn’t quite answer your question properly:

I am still concerned, however, because I don’t quite understand how being new to a community makes it inheritantly more likely to be DID vs endogenic simply because they haven’t been exposed to either concept?

It’s because there have been numerous instances of someone coming into the Tulpamancy community, thinking they have a tulpa, when reality, they have an alter and have a dissociative disorder. Tulpamancy and DID are more known than non-Tulpamancy, non-disordered Plurality, especially because of media (often harmfully) portraying these concepts. Therefore, it is easier for someone to come across the Tulpamancy community first. Yes, you could say that this is equally-likely for a non-disordered plural, but I have seen the former more often, and it’s important to direct them to the right resources.

This doesn’t come off as someone who wants to have a genuine discussion, especially when they go in the same post:

You’re also coming off as classist and ablest.

I am not intending this as hostility or a fight.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, this is hypocritical.

I acknowledge that the post could have had more clarification, but I am a busy person and am not nearly as involved in these communities anymore. I don’t have the energy anymore to spend hours, writing entire essays on things like this. I am someone who’s already written ad nauseam about Tulpamancy with incredible nuance in both my guide and FAQ, and that’s a major reason why they’re the longest in their respective categories in the Tulpamancy community. Just writing this response alone has left me drained, but I think you deserve a clear response that addresses the key points you laid out.

And no, people don’t need to pay attention to your specific wording because 1: if it comes out of your mouth, then you are responsible for it, 2: everyone understands things differently, and 3 that’s why people ask questions for clarification.

This is just incorrect. Language and wording matters. There is a significant difference between something like e.g. and i.e., or, “This will occur,” versus, “This can occur.” The amount of Tulpamancy resources I have criticized about using objective language in regards to Tulpamancy, a subjective experience cannot be understated. If you want to disregard the specific words, then look at the intention of the post. The intention was, “Hey, if you experience this, you might be having issues that you don’t realize, and you might want to look into it.” The intention was to spread awareness. What do you think is the worst possible thing that could happen if someone did not get that message?

Because for me, I think whatever potential harm that could be caused there gets outweighed by the potential of someone reading this post, noticing they match the post, decide to look into it, realize they do have a dissociative disorder, and get help for it. That alone makes the post worth it, even if it’s a flawed one.

And your own point defeats itself because yes, everyone does understand differently, but there is an infinite amount of ways things can be interpreted and understood. Do you reasonably expect someone to list every single way what is intended to be a short post can be interpreted every single time? Do you think that’s reasonable? Especially in this circumstance where you are the only one so far who’s had an issue with the post? Could you not also expect someone to try and look at a post from more than one angle? Do you think the responsibility should solely rest on the poster for that?

However not everyone, especially newcomers, will know whether that’s abnormal or not without explanation. Which you included none of.

If someone blindly takes the word of a short, random Tumblr post without conducting any further research, that indicates a deeper issue than the post itself. And in that post, I did encourage the reader to research dissociative disorders if they believe what I listed applies to them. Again, what is the worst that can happen for that? They look into it and decide they don’t match the rest of the criteria?

As an autistic person, I would struggle with that quite a bit unless you explain to me that there can be variation and what that variation might look like.

As I mentioned, I’ve already done this for years. I do not have the energy to account for every instance a person simply glosses over my wording or does not gel with how I write. I listed it as a potential red flag, explained that it’s not normal in the Tulpamancy community specifically, and suggested the reader to conduct further research if they think the post applies to them. Just because I just wanted to make a short, simple post does mean I am incapable or don’t care about variation. Again, I am a busy person with things outside of the Plurality community I deal with, and I do not have the time or energy to pour that much into a single post anymore. You can notice this by looking through this blog’s activity and see how dead it is compared a few years ago.

The hypocrisy here is distasteful. It isn’t harmful to suggest someone look into something IF certain things seem to coinside, but you listed one singular, incredibly common thing.

I literally already explained that no, this is not “incredibly common” in the Tulpamancy community specifically. It is not. That is simple fact. Points like this showcase that you’re not familiar with the community this post is oriented towards. I’ve been in this community for almost eight years now and have seen all kinds of experiences from all kinds of people, and let me tell you, no, it’s not common for a tulpa and host to randomly switch without warning unless in highly niche situations, that was intentionally trained or the system became disordered due to things like later trauma, or they’re a mixed system, etc. It obviously is in the broader community, but the post wasn’t for the random non-Tulpamancy plural.

So for someone who’s so hung up on being specific, once again, why didn’t you?

If I did and spent the next hour or two writing an 800+ word essay on the history of switching in the Tulpamancy community on every single type of switching and the gradient between types, would you be happy? What do you want me to do? I already admitted that yeah, I could’ve, but I didn’t, and I’ve already explained why. Do you think it would be worth it since you’re the only one here who’s complained about it?

So if they manually created the barriers themselves then they still are a tulpamancy system. They’re just perhaps very skilled at dissociation and got carried away. I suppose you could argue that they induced DID.

Okay, fair point. I never said you can’t be both a Tulpamancy and DID system. Again, I didn’t spend a lot of time on the post, but I still think it is important to note that these occurrences are just simply not the norm in the Tulpamancy community and that yes, they can be indicative of something that should be looked into. Yeah, I could’ve said, “Note: DID requires distress and dysfunction,” or, “Though this type of experience is more common in non-Tulpamancy Plurality,” or, “Note that abnormality =/= bad and depends on various circumstances.” Would you be happy if I included those clauses in my post?

6-7-2025

It’s because there have been numerous instances of someone coming into the Tulpamancy community, thinking they have a tulpa, when reality, they have an alter and have a dissociative disorder. Tulpamancy and DID are more known than non-Tulpamancy, non-disordered Plurality, especially because of media (often harmfully) portraying these concepts. Therefore, it is easier for someone to come across the Tulpamancy community first. Yes, you could say that this is equally-likely for a non-disordered plural, but I have seen the former more often, and it’s important to direct them to the right resources.

First of all, thank you for actually taking the time to answer. Had this been the initial response, I would have said “Oh I see, that makes some sense to me, thank you.” And that would have been the extent of the conversation. I am mentioning this, not to shame, but to give an example of why it can be better to assume good intentions and be open to simply answering questions for someone who simply didn’t understand you the first time. Even if you perceive that your intention is crystal clear, it probably isn’t to everyone. And no one should be shamed for needing clarification because they aren’t an English major, nor are they capable of reading your thought process through a minimal text post. I am saying this as someone who himself struggles with trying not to be offended when people misunderstand me. The way I am currently trying to imagine that you might not be accustom to the way I am accustom to making points when bringing up concerns because it seems like most of what I said didn’t actually make the point I wanted it to.

This doesn’t come off as someone who wants to have a genuine discussion, especially when they go in the same post:

First of all, I was not the one who jumped to insults and disparaging comments because I made assumptions about someone’s intentions. So that feels a bit like you are trying to put this all on me, which is unfair of you. I also do not personally understand how you seem to have interpreted two entirely different concepts as hypocrisy when both can exist at the same time. “Hey, I have an issue with what you said, and from my perspective, you are coming off as offensive.” Is not equal to “You’re an asshole and I’m assuming you meant to be intentionally offensive.” I am not calling you classist and ablest. What I said was, you are coming off as those things. It’s an invitation for you to clarify your actual intent. Didn’t you get upset with me for this same exact thing when I offended you for not reading the very specific intention of your wording? And now it feels as if you are changing the rules for how you think one should read things. According to what I understand, what you were essentially trying to say was that the way words are written should be read literally, correct? Then why is it that when I clearly write out my intention in plain English that I am not trying to be hostile, suddenly it’s decided that I actually meant the exact opposite of that? I am genuinely confused at this point.

This is just incorrect. Language and wording matters.

Yes they do, specifically in a professional context. My point, however, is that this is Tumblr. This is a post on a public internet platform that is subject to everyone and comprised mainly of young people and people of average literacy at best. Your expectation for people to read everything you post with the insight of an English major is absurd.

And your own point defeats itself because yes, everyone does understand differently, but there is an infinite amount of ways things can be interpreted and understood. Do you reasonably expect someone to list every single way what is intended to be a short post can be interpreted every single time? Do you think that’s reasonable? Especially in this circumstance where you are the only one so far who’s had an issue with the post? Could you not also expect someone to try and look at a post from more than one angle? Do you think the responsibility should solely rest on the poster for that?

This is where I see I did not clarify my intention enough. I was not asking why you weren’t specific about “XYZ” because I think that you should have actually included all of that context. I didn’t actually expect you to answer all of those extra questions. I was trying to make a point, which was: if you want to get stuck on being specific, then why would you yourself not be much more specific than you were? I apologize for not properly conveying that.

Again, I am a busy person with things outside of the Plurality community I deal with, and I do not have the time or energy to pour that much into a single post anymore. You can notice this by looking through this blog’s activity and see how dead it is compared a few years ago.

That’s fine, but I don’t really understand why you’d make a post that could spark conversation in that case, especially one you feel the need to be defensive over. I also don’t understand why I’m expected to go through your blog history to put your post into context but you aren’t expected to provide clarification when someone brings up a concern as if other people don’t also have busy lives? Again, that’s a genuine question.

If someone blindly takes the word of a short, random Tumblr post without conducting any further research, that indicates a deeper issue than the post itself. And in that post, I did encourage the reader to research dissociative disorders if they believe what I listed applies to them. Again, what is the worst that can happen for that? They look into it and decide they don’t match the rest of the criteria?

You know what? This is a good point. You are absolutely correct. I’m sorry that I missed that initially. You did infact encourage research.

I literally already explained that no, this is not “incredibly common” in the Tulpamancy community specifically. It is not. That is simple fact. Points like this showcase that you’re not familiar with the community this post is oriented towards. I’ve been in this community for almost eight years now and have seen all kinds of experiences from all kinds of people, and let me tell you, no, it’s not common for a tulpa and host to randomly switch without warning unless in highly niche situations, that was intentionally trained or the system became disordered due to things like later trauma, or they’re a mixed system, etc. It obviously is in the broader community, but the post wasn’t for the random non-Tulpamancy plural.

Ah I see, I was having trouble keeping this in the context of specifically the tulpa community. That is indeed a mistake on my end. However, you are quite mistaken. While I may not be up-to-date, I too, started off in the tulpa community before discovering we were a mixed origin system and being diagnosed with DID. That would be the reason I was invested in this post at all.

Your last two comments fall under the part where I failed to convey that I didn’t actually expect answers to those questions but instead tried to use them to make a point.

Now, I’m sorry that I seem to somehow fail to come off as genuine. This happens quite often to me specifically. I am personally very frustrated that everyone seems to take everything I say as a fight instead of just taking the time to answer my questions and explain things to me no matter how many times I reassure them that the intent they perceive does not match the intent inside of my head.

However, I am also getting an overall less than tasteful picture of you as well for multiple reasons: You were immediately defensive, you assumed the worst of me despite clear use of a tone tag, your first instinct was to interact with me by insulting me, you did not apologize for directly and intentionally insulting me, and you seem very closed off to criticism and polite discussion.

For this reason, if there is no change, I will simply regard you as someone who is best not to interact with and bid you adieu.

- Rue

And no one should be shamed for needing clarification because they aren’t an English major, nor are they capable of reading your thought process through a minimal text post.

Okay, yeah, it was unwarranted. Me being frustrated with people lacking literacy online does not give me right to throw strays towards a stranger. I apologize.

I’m going to leave out the majority of your post because I don’t think replying to each point is a productive use of anyone’s time and I feel like it would muddy the waters further.

Though I will answer this:

That’s fine, but I don’t really understand why you’d make a post that could spark conversation in that case, especially one you feel the need to be defensive over.

Because to me, it’s better to make a short, well-intentioned post than post nothing at all, nor did I expect such a short post turn into a conversation that is… almost 3,000 words long. You can also say that any post on social media invites discussion. If I had to worry about every single post of mine turning into this kind of situation, I’d never post at all.

I don’t think you’re outright trying to be hostile, nor am I, and I think there’s just a genuine communication issue here. At this point, this conversation has derailed. We can go on and on about how, “No, I’m not trying to be an ass, but you did this…” ad nauseam, but what is the point of that?

How about: we both acknowledge that we both misunderstood each other, could’ve handled it better, and try to do better? I apologize for coming out swinging when you just wanted clarification. I should’ve just answered your question like you said and we wouldn’t be here.

And that’s not enough, sure, we’ll go our separate ways and that’ll be that.

6-13-2025