#‘their relationship is too complex to be defined like that-‘ do you think abuse is. simple | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

miraculouslbcnreactions · 2 months

Note

What do you think about Nathalie's original plotline of wanting to betray Gabriel after getting the Miraculous from the heroes so she can use the Wish herself in order to make Gabriel fall in love with her (according to the leaked Bible this used to be her motivation for helping Gabriel all along but it got scrapped from the show before it ever came up). Do you think this would've been a better plot for Nathalie than what we've got ?

I have extremely mixed feelings about that concept, so let's talk through them!

On the one hand, I am here for Nathalie having a motivation beyond, "I love Gabriel so much that I will do everything to make him happy, even if it means committing terrorism, supporting child abuse, and forfeiting my life!" While that kind of selfless motivation can make for an interesting character - or at least an interesting character arc - it requires a lot more character development than Nathalie was given. The way they did it in the show is just another entry in the show's troubling trend of making characters (and notably mainly female characters) do stupid stuff in the name of love.

Love making people do stupid things is a very real phenomena, so I'm not against that happening from time to time. But love can also make you do wonderful things and miraculous rarely shows us those moments. All the big, dramatic, love-based choices have been ones that lead to dire consequences and personal suffering even if the choice was framed as a loving and/or selfless act. Because of that, I'm okay with Nathalie's "sacrifice" being re-framed as a selfish act done because she thinks that she'll be able to get the miraculous and make herself healthy again.

This alternate motivation would pair well with Gabriel's motivation. I like that because they're co-conspirators, so having them share a theme of selfish love would allow for some interesting ideas. For example, what if we did something crazy and let the villains selfish love continually hurt them while the heroes' selfless love continually led to victory? I know, I'm crazy! Who would want that kind of nonsense in a show that's supposed to be all about love and friendship? (Btw, that was sarcasm)

At the same time, I'm really tired of characters being defined by their romantic interests and little else. It makes sense for Gabriel since he's our big bad who is doing everything out of love for his wife, but all of the other characters should be allowed to have more interesting, rich lives in which romance is just one of the many things that they have going on. It would make for a more interesting cast AND really highlight that Gabriel's love is unhealthy while the "true love" of our teens is healthy. A very important theme that has been painfully absent from the show even though it seemed like it was going to be a thing back in the early seasons!

Nino made movies. Marinette was super into fashion and helping her friends. Adrien liked video games and seemed to be into fencing, too. But as time has gone on, the story has become more and more focused on the romantic relationships, pushing aside plots that focus on other things and I'm not a fan.

I'm a big fan of the idea that the foundations of a good romance are a strong friendship and all members of the romantic relationship having personal lives separate from their romantic partner(s). As such, I want a show that gives friendship and romance equal billing. It can even be the friendship between the romantic leads! Episodes like Gamer and Horrificator were excellent in those regards as they allowed for some nice romantic tension while also developing the characters' interests and backstories.

In summary, if we fix canon so that the teen characters all have more healthy romantic relationships, then I'm pretty open to Nathalie keeping her original motivation as it certainly has potential. However, I'd only give it to her if Nathalie and Gabriel were going to get a lot more screen time and development as it adds a lot of complexity to their dynamic and - as I said in another recent post - you shouldn't add complexity to your story unless you're going to actually explore it.

Personally, I don't see myself ever adding this to Nathalie's character since I generally don't have much interest in developing her and Gabriel. Instead, I usually just switch Nathalie's motivation from love of Gabriel to love of Emilie and no, I don't mean romantic love. While I'm totally cool with lesbian Nathalie, I'm a massive fan of her being motivated out of platonic love simply because we don't see that often enough. It's always romance, romance, romance with a little familial love thrown in here and there for diversity and that's fine. Those are strong motivators. But platonic love can be just as powerful and Miraculous is supposed to be about romantic love AND friendship and I don't see why we need to limit the friendship angle to the teen characters. If Gabriel is our example of selfish romantic love, then let Nathalie be our example of selfish friendship.

Assuming that Emilie is some flavor of decent parent, do you really think that she's going to look at Gabriel and Nathalie's actions and be pleased by how they treated Adrien? No! She's going to be furious with both of them! Gabriel for hatching this crazy plot and Nathalie for going along with it. (Btw, this is yet another reason why I like good Emilie. Gabriel and Nathalie are so freaking selfish that I don't really see them caring if the law, the heroes, or the guardians find them guilty. They'd only care about Emilie's judgement and maybe Adrien's. I can see Gabriel going to jail unphased, but melting into a puddle when Emilie serves him with divorce papers while refusing to speak to him. I want him to get his wish - though ideally not via his own actions - but have it be a total monkey's paw!)

#ml writing critical #ml writing salt #anon ask

33 notes · View notes

conostra · 4 months

Text

Sexual Abuse in the Golden Age

Berserk’s beginnings make me sad. From the very start, the series was incredible. Great art, a rich world, complex and interesting characters, terrific explorations of motivations and philosophies and relationships and everything you can think of. Even including, despite all the airs around the manga, the intricacies of sexual assault and abuse!

At least, against men.

Casca, Griffith, and Guts all have their lives irrevocably warped by both the threat and pursuance of sexual assault against them in the Golden Age. It goes on to define their various pathologies, influencing how they interact with the world around them. And this is handled with incredible nuance and care, up to and including events like Donovan’s assault on Guts, Griffith selling himself to the Governor, and Casca being sold off by her family to the noble in her town. These events are all pivotal to the development of the characters into those we know and love. But unfortunately, at least in the beginning, this is where the praise ceases. Allow me to expound:

Guts’ entire life, from his literal conception, is drenched in vulgarity and gore. Born and baptized in blood from his mother’s hanging corpse, and rescued by a band of lunatic roaming mercenaries, Guts is far from a stranger to the horrors of the world. Forced to carry a sword for his survival, trained under an uncaring brutal mercenary who gave flashes of approval to a boy desperate to please, who was only truly “fair” to him when paying him for his work of slicing down men twice, thrice or more his age in combat to the death, Guts’ perspective would be warped further still.

And yet, no matter how warped his perspective could have been, it was not warped enough to handle what fate still had in store. One night, Guts is set upon in his tent, and viciously raped by a member of his own crew. A demon of a man named Donovan violates Guts’ autonomy to the highest order, proclaiming that this was allowed, as Guts’ very independence had been sold out by Gambino, the distorted version of what some would call the only thing resembling a father figure Guts had ever had.

And this affected Guts in a way that became prominent through the story. He becomes incredibly reclusive and aggressive. Even the lightest of contact from even his hirers, offering extensive gold in exchange for his service on the battlefield, flashes him back to that time and place. Even the lightest allusion to operating under anything other than his own will (or, to some degree, blind allegiance to Gambino) is heresy, and a violation of his autonomy on par with spitting on his face and telling him to wipe it down. This is especially seen in his first interaction with Griffith, where he flat-out asks him upon hearing him speak:

“Are you a homo?”

And even though he definitely is, it’s almost irrelevant to how Griffith is talking about him. Griffith objectifies Guts here, places him as an item of desire, to own, to wield, and to do as one wishes with. And Guts objects to that to his very core. There is no part of him that does not scream and rail against the very notion.

And in the beginning of his tenure with the Hawks, Pippin of all people is the salt that pours over Guts’ old wounds. While played somewhat casually, Guts still freaks out at Pippin’s casual disregard for his personhood. Whether or not that is Pippin’s goal is meaningless in the face of what it actually does to Guts and how it makes him feel.

Even later on, when Guts has his sexual encounter with Casca, the physicality of the intimacy they partake in flashes him back to that moment with Donovan. It takes him and Casca time to process everything that’s happened to him, for him to finally vent and take at least some of that pain off of himself alone, that allows him and her to finally love each other.

Griffith is not too far from this. Although this life was forced upon Guts, it feels only partially thrust upon Griffith by himself. From the very beginning, his sexuality was paramount to his mission. The fawning of common citizens and women and men and nobility all alike over his body, over his presence, was something he decided he had to exploit in order to do what he thought must be done for him to gain what he knew would one day be his. From his interactions with the Governor, to how he almost leads on Casca, to the entirety of his relationship and the strange power dynamics at play every time he and Guts are alone in a space spilling their guts to each other, everything Griffith plays at is tinged with a man who has, since a boy, been tainted with a nearly-religious worship by zealots of various degrees, including some who have no qualms over tainting the statue they kneel at and pronouncing it to the world as worship. This puts him at odds with Guts from the very beginning, the man he loves, violating his self-sanctity, as this is the way Griffith knows to attain what he desires.

This plays out further with how he… interacts… with Charlotte after Guts leaves him, and how he treats Casca, uses Casca, throws her back in Guts’ face to get at him. Ownership, dominance, and usage are what Griffith knows. And he knows how Guts feels about Casca. So he tries to, from his perspective, ruin her. The same way Guts was ruined. Honestly, it’s incredible, and would be a great way to handle it- if it didn’t completely strip Casca of her character for the next 300 chapters.

Casca was affected by all these things too. Same as Guts, sold off, but by her actual family. Almost immediately, assaulted by the stranger who now owned her life. Then, a murderer. Then, over the course of the rest of her life, despite becoming one of the most prodigious warriors the very world had ever seen, she was often reduced to the butt of the joke- always laughed and jeered at, not taken seriously by Guts or unfavorably by Griffith. Always caught off guard, always caught weak, or tired, or on her period, always taken advantage of, always on the ground, threatened to be molested, stripped bare for the usage of whatever the army they’re fighting at the time is. Always having her sexuality used as a catalyst for other characters, always used as a damsel to allow another to save the day- her body is a resource pulled at by Miura to cash in on more grandiose moments for the narrative.

Even in the road to the eclipse, there are at least two separate occasions where Casca is sexually taken advantage of, with soldiers slowly stripping her armor when Guts steps in and earns his title as the hundred-man slayer, and then the Apostle Wyald, leader of the Black Dog Knights, completely strips her bare and literally molests her, only not managing to penetrate because he is murdered by Guts in a stupendous rage.

And then the eclipse happens. There are so many things I can say about what occurred on the Eclipse, but ultimately, it is Casca’s humanity that makes the Eclipse so tragic. Scorned by her infatuation, unable to be saved by her lover, she is finally destroyed the way both of those mentioned prior have been. But this time, there is no growth from this. There is no development. There is no greater story to be told from this for Casca. As incredible as this moment and the development from it are for Guts, there is nothing gained from this for Casca. Her entire arc has simply been to be… what, torn apart for the sake of the boys around her masquerading as conquerors? To be used and abused, ultimately fridged for literal decades, kept around as important but unable to be anything more than arm candy? What happened to Casca is a tragedy, and is great writing as well in full admittance- but with two entire chapters devoted to her violation, a view of her complete degradation from the male gaze, and her complete loss of ability after the fact, it makes me view how she was treated before that with some amount of… anger? Frustration?

Something. It makes some amount of sense, of course- but if this was her penultimate conclusion, at least for as long as she has remained in this state, I would have appreciated if the other attempts at violating her were treated with the sanctity of Griffith’s and Guts’ encounters, if not even the attempt made at her in her past. You can only have a female character as incredibly skilled & competent as Casca trip herself into a terrible situation and threaten to be raped by the big strong men around her so many times before the singular self-save against the leader of the Blue Whale Ultra Heavy Armored Fierce Assault Annihilation Knight Corp, General Adon Coborlwitz, loses a bit of its luster, no matter how many different variations of the reason you can find.

Ultimately, I’m glad that Miura has other very well written women in the series- after all, even Charlotte is given time to shine, shown as able to play her role and shoot for lofty goals even under the crushing weight of Griffith’s ambition later, and both Schierke and Farnese have great arcs. I just… I’m just glad Miura rectified this later on, all in all.

God damn it lmfao. It was handled so WELL for the boys! and then casca kinda got the "yo isn't this so crazy? she's not a character now btw"

#berserk #casca #griffith #guts #man.#I get it #but like #she got hoed by narrative forces outside her control #literally fucked by causality

26 notes · View notes

crooked-wasteland · 7 months

Note

How would you rank every HB episode from worst to best?

This took me some time to think on, but thank you for the ask.

So all the Helluva Boss episodes ranked worst to best (in my opinion):

The Circus

I have to place the season 2 premiere as the worst episode of the entire series, simply because it cemented the direction the story was going to go with all of the worst ideas floating to the top. The relationship mystery between Stolas and Blitz gets watered down to a childhood crush based on nothing. It is love at first sight, but then the writing performs gymnastics in order to justify Stolas’ attraction after the fact. It’s so painful in Seeing Stars and Oops how the writers really want us to believe that Stolas liked him as a person first and that is supposed to be shown in how Stolas thinks Blitz is funny when no one else does, but the series of events in the Circus will forever undermine that narrative. He finds Blitz funny because he is attracted to him. Not the other way around.

Aside from the issues with the overarching story, the entire structure of the episode fails. The idea of Chekhov’s Gun is one I believe holds merit as a fundamental tool. If you are going to introduce something like theft, acknowledge the danger of the event, repeatedly draw attention to the theft, and then just never mention any sort of natural conclusion to that plot point. If anything, Blitz returning to Stolas’ home 25 years later to do the exact same thing, necessitated a coming full circle moment of that particular plot point. The failure to identify even the most basic of narrative principles that was a solid through line of character, story and themes told me everything I needed to know about how the series was going to be handled.

Stolas’ song is a poorly-performed nonsensical word salad that I found lacked any cohesion to the character in the previous episode or the next. It’s an ugly song with maybe 2 decent verses where Stolas acknowledges that this was all playing pretend, but that eventually goes nowhere.

Additionally, Stella was officially ruined as a character, which ultimately ruined Stolas as a character. By not giving Stella depth, Stolas was also stripped of any depth or complexity. His reason for staying is dumbed down to “for the child”, and Stella’s motivation is thrown out the window in favor of “she’s awful and please don’t try to make her understandable, because then what if Stolas is held accountable for anything?” Stella is too important a character in Stolas’ story, to make her one dimensional is to make Stolas less interesting. Everything is interwoven in a story, pulling a thread in one place unravels the garment elsewhere.

In a single episode, it encompasses everything that is wrong with the series, past and future.

0/10

Seeing Stars

To be honest, I feel Seeing Stars is most people’s worst episode due to some sense of denial when the season premiered and expected the show to at least continue with some kind of coherent story/timeline. I don’t think it would be as hated if Medrano had tightened up the narrative and made Seeing Stars connect to Ozzie’s more.

However, I would still put it at number 2, even if it had. Mainly because Seeing Stars is the worst sense of characterization and dynamics I have ever seen. And when you are trying to sell a character-driven story, some kind of consistency is required. This episode cemented Loona as being an abusive, manipulative, and entitled “bitch” of a person. Octavia is written like she is 13, not 17. Blitz and Stolas have the darkest timeline where Stolas continues to sexualize Blitz after being told off in the last episode and seemingly acknowledging that he defined the dynamic without any input from Blitz. Then forces him on stage despite Blitz being on the verge of a panic attack. But most of all, it has Stolas and Blitz both completely forget why they are even in this situation, because they are supposed to be looking for Octavia.

There was no lesson Blitz needed to learn, if anything he needed to be instilled with more self esteem where possible. And Stolas already had this story arc done much better in Loo Loo Land. His character actively regresses to redo the exact plot thread, but worse. Much like The Circus, Seeing Stars set the stage for what we could look forward to in regards to the series from here on out, and the utter disrespect leveled at the original 6 episodes.

That’s not even counting how the episode is the exact same plot and story beats as Loo Loo Land, highlighting the extent of how creatively bankrupt the series is.

.5/10

Exes and Ohs

If it comes to personal most hated episode, it would be Exes and Ohs for me. The only reason it is number 3 and not number 1 is because it is a narrative cul-de-sac where the larger story is not affected by it at all.

However, it is still an objectively awful episode. Starting with the premise. The whole plot is a stolen South Park joke. It’s the Steal underpants episode, stretched out into something longer, and not nearly as funny. If you are wholesale ripping off another show, that’s plagiarism. This episode is creatively bankrupt, shouldn’t exist, has no purpose and serves no benefit. People try to argue that it has value due to Moxxie’s backstory, but what does it even serve? Sure, I know it now, but not a single character does. Millie doesn’t even find out. Even moreso, Millie’s entire connection to Chaz goes nowhere and is for nothing. We never know how, when or why she dated Chaz, it's shown she hates him, but she doesn’t even kill him. The whole episode would have ended exactly the same with Crim killing Chaz once he realized the shark demon was lying about having money.

It’s not good when the major complaints of the episode are actually what is saving it from being the worst episode.

2/10

Musical Special

The retconning of this episode, changing who Fizz was as a child to try and justify his uselessness in Oops retroactively is beyond frustrating. There is so much I could go on about in terms of character, but just focusing on this episode.

Mainly, the mildly perturbing extent Medrano goes to hetero-normalize her queer relationships. Every single relationship in the series is stereotypically designed as “Protector” and “Protected”. Stolas, Fizzarolli, and Moxxie are all characters who require constant support and protection from other factors in the plot.

Stolas needed to be protected from Striker. Moxxie needs to be protected from most things in his plots. Season 1 it was the fish monster, Striker, the agents, and finally Ozzie and Fizz. Season 2 we have him needing to be defended from his father and Chaz.

This episode it's all about Fizzarolli and him needing to be defended from his crippling low self-esteem that is only relevant to have him needing to be saved from something. The flashback serves to further retcon Fizz’s personality because a strong and confident performer doesn’t need to be saved from anyone, and in order to have the codependent romance where Fizz needs Ozzie, we need to fundamentally weaken him as a person. It’s a special episode, so the argument that it doesn’t need to exist is rather moot. Regardless, the characters and story are worse off for its addition to the narrative.

2/10

Queen Bee

Another special episode, so the argument of narrative value is once again disregarded. I dislike this episode for how one dimensional every female character is in this story. It highlights all the ongoing issues with misogynistic writing. Loona’s character is a wildly swinging pendulum from being antagonistic towards Blitz to being endeared with little motivation and ultimately being reduced to the caretaker of men. When she and Bee get into an argument, she only deescalates when she sees Tex be uncomfortable. The initial hostility itself is founded on nothing, Loona is immediately resentful of Bee because she’s attractive and people like her, specifically Tex. And her being sweet towards Blitz is entirely based on the fact that her relationship to him makes her look good due to his accomplishment of beating Beelzebub in a drink-off. It doesn’t read sincere, but rather she would look bad if she didn’t take care of him after identifying him as her “dad” when it suited her.

This entire episode works to assassinate Loona’s character and any hope of her being likable and growing. Everything about her motivation is purely selfish and consistently reinforced in big ways, so moving forward it will be very hard to realistically prove she does anything for not her own benefit.

The song was nice for about one minute, then it became unbearably repetitive.

1.5/10

Western Energy

This episode was altered and rewritten, which doesn’t inherently make it bad. It’s just that it was changed due to fans pointing out the glaring plot hole that is why Stella would want to kill Stolas when a divorce would benefit her more. Instead of critically assessing that question and focusing more on world building to create a logical justification for Stella’s actions, the writers shrug their shoulders and just can’t think of anything. It’s a special form of fridge horror as a writer to realize the major plot that was intended to push Blitz and Stolas closer together was so underdeveloped that when at all questioned resulted in the entire plot being unwritten. It’s transparently bad writing, but worse yet is that it is lazy.

This episode is what I use to show an example of how fans inject headcannon and plot into the series that the creators have no interest in spending the energy on. This isn’t James Cameron’s Avatar where there is a massively rich world around a lackluster story that has been crafted with such detail that it feels alive. Helluva Boss, and in extension Hazbin Hotel, have no world building and resort to the most superficial answers to any narrative roadblock at the expense of the characters and understanding their motivations. It shows resentment for not just the audience, but writing as an artform.

3/10

Ozzie's (with season 2 context)

I had to put Ozzie’s on the list twice due to this episode in specific having vastly different reads and reception before and after season 2 premiered. After The Circus, the episode loses all continuity with the original season. Stolas is pining and lovesick over Blitz, he doesn’t actually care about his wife and daughter leaving him. He just wishes more than anything to have his rugged peasant return his affections.

It is a plummet of quality and character in this episode that only comes to fruition with the understanding that Stolas has had an unreciprocated crush for two and a half decades.

With the context of season 2, Stolas doesn’t actually care about his daughter and how his affair, the marriage falling apart, their status, etc. affected her and his family. He only cares about the little boy he got a crush on, who his father rented out like a Lexus and then 25 years later Stolas demanded sex from. Stolas has a complete personality change and isn’t at all who he was the entire series to this point. Everything you thought mattered to him doesn’t, the ways we have come to expect this character to react to things is suddenly entirely different. His expectations are unexplainable and so far out to left field than what we previously established. This is one of the worst written episodes based on the major retconning of a keystone character and no effort being made to connect these changes in the narrative.

This was the warning shot we didn’t know we were given.

1/10

Spring Broken

Spring Broken to Unhappy Campers are the range of utterly ambivalence I have.

The song is poorly incorporated into the episode. Verosika isn’t ever fleshed out. Tex and Loona start off cute, and you can see a starting point of a dynamic between Loona and Blitz and you want her to treat him better while also recognizing that he infantalizes her constantly and doesn’t ever treat her like the adult she is. Could have been really good writing if it went anywhere. This episode establishes Loona abuses Blitz and does so intentionally because it gets her her way. It isn’t malicious, but immature and incredibly cruel, and there is a desire to see her become a better person and grow from this point.

Too bad.

4/10

C.H.E.R.U.B

I know this episode gets a ton of criticism for being a joke/filler episode that goes too long. And that is absolutely correct. However it is still better in that being filler, it is not seeking to be anything more than it is. It is just some dumb fun with a few jokes that come anywhere close to landing. But it doesn’t harm the characters or their stories, unlike the rest of the list up to this point

3/10

Oops

This episode is a hard one to place because I consider the first 7 of this list to be bad episodes. Then 8-12 are those that aren’t good with varying scales of enjoyment on my part. However I think Oops is neither good nor enjoyable. But it has some good story ideas that deserve some credit, regardless of how the writing and pacing consistently tries to undermine them.

The scene of Blitz and Fizzarolli in the alleyway is contrived and feels confused, but it does manage to land some points such as Fizz’s insecurity of being owned by his partner (too bad that goes nowhere and is immediately ignored in favor of Fizz NEEDS Ozzie, so essentially ownership is good actually) and Fizz hanging Blitz’s insecurity and guilt over his head.

The forced engagement, rapid fire pacing, and immediate resolution thoroughly dismantles any good points the episode started to set up. I have to admit the animation is pretty solid, people worked very hard on this for less pay than this quality deserves. But this episode struggles to find a place it belongs on my list because. It almost sees the light only to bury its head in the sand writing-wise.

2/10

Unhappy Campers

Unhappy Campers sits in the same pool with Oops and how it is objectively a terrible episode, but the portions involving Blitz and Barbie are genuinely interesting and I think relatively well done when compared to the rest of the season. Millie has some fun moments herself, though the whole portion of the episode surrounding her and Moxxie could have been cut and it would only serve to elevate the material overall. So even if she is the best part of the worst portion of the story, it still isn’t something I deem worth salvaging.

It would have been an excellent 5 minute episode.

2/10

Murder Family

It’s the first episode. It did well reintroducing the characters from the pilot. It had enough intrigue to see where it would go and how it would expand the world and characters. It. Was genuinely fun and impressive for a YouTube animation, with horror notes and black comedy. There was a sense of character that we could maybe get to know over time and see them struggle and change. It started off very superficial, which was fine.

The blank canvas of what could have been.

5/10

Ozzie's (Before season 2)

Having to remember Ozzie’s premiere after an entire season of thinking we were getting to know the characters, their dynamics, personality, wants, etc. So the personality change in Stolas is given more leeway as LooLooLand set up that he really wished he could find love and his wife and daughter leaving has changed his routine to the point he is in a depression. It even seems Stella took the staff with her in the separation and he’s genuinely all alone.

So him sitting in front of a television asking why nobody will love him makes sense and doesn’t feel out of character when given the room to rationalize and try to piece together the character from past instances. Additionally, him becoming overjoyed at Blitz calling him out is just as easy to rationalize away. I recall watching the episode and interpreting that Stolas was needy, desperate and earnest, not for Blitz, but just in general. And Blitz making himself available to Stolas is why Stolas tries so hard to make this pretend date legitimate. It also explains Blitz’s own utter disinterest in the scenario.

Ironically, looking back, Blitz feels like an Audience insert with how utterly confused and dismissive he is of Stolas’ targeted affection. He sees their relationship like the audience does: one of convenience and mutual benefit. Blitz calling Stolas out is him cashin in on this messed up coercive sex deal they have. Him calling Stolas out and using him for his own gains is only seen as fair in his eyes. And Stolas’ attempts to legitimize the date is a continuation of his own hedonistic selfishness. So when Stolas tries to leave Blitz or otherwise removes himself by covering his face, Blitz’s anger and resentment is valid. Because there’s a lot of confusion taking place at the moment, but Stolas is responsible for all of it and instead runs away.

The exact same escapist behavior that ended up with him in bed with Blitz in the first place.

This is all really compelling drama and without the codependent neediness of the second season, it ties together in what feels like a real season finale for the characters. Everything up to now was a prologue, an introduction of the world, characters and conflicts. Ozzie actually took the characters and faced them off against each other directly. Showing all of their worst traits and building more intrigue to Blitz’s past and his relationships. This was an episode of great potential when it was first released.

7/10

Loo Loo Land

I’ll be honest, the more I think on this episode the more I believe its placement is more out of pettiness than actual quality. While a song that made me invested at the time, You Will Be Okay is a poorly written musical song. Specifically in how it fails to actually build on the themes we were having presented. Because if you really listen to it, the song foreshadows how little Stolas actually cares about Octavia.

The only part of the song that builds character is the one when he speaks of how his marriage is cold and loveless and how “all [his] stories have been told, except for one.” Which one would think that untold story has something to do with Octavia. He’s singing the song for her, to her. He’s presumably alluding to the fact that she’s his only joy in life.

But the very next line is talking about Armageddon. Like the end of everything, the death of the universe, some heavenly judgement. That’s why everyone and their off brand YouTube clone was talking about Stolas dying at some point in the series. Because the song fails to adequately communicate the character and his feelings and how that wraps into the plot. It’s a pretty song to the ears, but fails as a musical.

Additionally, I feel I may still have such a soft spot for this episode in how it often contradicts the current direction the story has attempted to go. Details, dialogue, timeline discrepancies, all of that has continued to hinder the second season in trying to retcon the entire story to this lesser version of itself and Loo Loo land as an episode is just so tightly written that it has become a thorn.

All the portions with Blitz and RoboFizz are great. Great character, great foreshadowing (to nothing unfortunately), great pacing. Those scenes have some legitimately funny jokes. Stolas stole the show it seems, much to the series detriment, but the real stellar parts of the episode were for once the actual main character.

6/10

Truth Seekers

This episode would have been my favorite due to Blitz’s bad trip and the animation involved throughout. However, the fact that the show has entirely dropped the relevant and interesting portions of the episode, overused and abused Stolas’ demon design since this episode, and the animators have since been confirmed to not be paid fairly for the work they do, this gets to be number 2.

Like Loo Loo Land, Truth Seekers is a primary source of contradiction in the new direction the story has gone and a constant reminder of how little work has been put into the narrative. It’s one of the strongest episodes of the series as a whole, but it has been almost entirely retconned.

I have seen some mention of the agents returning to the story and if that does come to pass, this will be hilarious in trying to reconcile what parts of Truth Seekers is canon and what isn’t any longer. And the realization that all the best parts are the ones ending up on the cutting room floor.

7/10

Harvest Moon

Striker was an intimidating figure. Genuinely. There was a real sense of weight to this episode in the animation and visual storytelling. It’s a solid episode for what it is and far and above better than even Truth Seekers because it required Medrano and her staff to actually address the episode and make obvious efforts to retcon it. That is how solid an episode this is.

Stolas is not too creepy and dominating, but nor is he seen as the delicate princess who is always crying over some guy who doesn’t return his feelings. He is fun, and it starts the nudge towards maybe something a bit more amicable on Blitz’s end.

Millie absolutely deserved more time for her character seeing as they were staying with her family and she having an episode of standing by her husband and defending her choices in who she loves would have been far more engaging than Murder Family pt. 2, Moxxie lacks confidence and self esteem forever and always.

The song was so inconsequential. It was a funny segue with Striker basically upstaging Moxxie at every turn, but that doesn’t actually go anywhere when in regards to the plot overall.

And Stella putting a hit on her husband, to his face, was hilarious and would have been so interesting to have seen it played more than a joke. Like Stolas knows she wants to kill him, and he is just vaguely fine with that. Maybe thinking his letting her try to kill him would have her stay and not file for divorce. Have it been this macabre comedic sitcom where she’s always trying to kill him and hates his guts for being a subpar husband, but he takes it as some kind of tit-for-tat and plays along with it. She gets to send assassins after him, he gets to have sex with his rugged assassin imp. It’s a ridiculous level of absurdity that still allows for all the characters to be dimensional.

That got a little away from me there. Basically, this episode was the strongest overall. Animation wise, writing wise, story potential wise. This episode is the most solid Helluva Boss episode.

7.8/10

#helluva boss critical #helluva boss critique #vivienne medrano #vivziepop #helluva boss criticism #spindlehorse critical #spindlehorse criticism #helluva boss

41 notes · View notes

eastgaysian · 1 year

Note

Sorry this is a dumb question but can you explain why tomshiv is not abusive? Shiv seems to hit a lot of textbook behaviours of emotional abusers

thank you for your follow up clarifying this was in good faith bc i checked my inbox yesterday right after getting high and was like man come on. don't do this to me. but yeah i can talk about it, it's obviously something i have a fair amount of thoughts on

on a fundamental level, i take issue with the assertion that there are 'textbook behaviors of emotional abusers' in the first place. distilling abuse down to a set of behaviors is, imo, effectively meaningless and totally unproductive. it's not the behavior of an individual that defines abuse, it's a specific and intentionally cultivated imbalance of power and control within a relationship. victims of abuse can and do resort to survival mechanisms that could be considered in isolation as 'abusive behavior', the point is that you can't consider them in isolation. there's a gulf of difference between the same actions when they're coming from a person in a position of significant financial or physical or social power over someone else, or when they're coming from the person at a disadvantage.

i think viewing abuse as a set of behaviors also encourages you to treat interpersonal abuse as if it's discontinuous with systemic abuse, which is inaccurate and unproductive. a key part of succession's premise is that, because the family is literally the business, the familial abuse within the roy family is inextricable from the broader systems of capitalism, patriarchy, and the sexual violence and abuse endemic to them. with regards to how the show satirizes and critiques these systems, i think it's very telling that all of the characters are to some degree complicit and/or participants in abuse, but logan is the only one i'd say is unambiguously and intentionally presented as 'an abuser' (whose abuse is not an isolated product of him as a person, but integrated into/inseparable from the capitalist system which persists after his death). still, logan isn't reduced to a one-dimensional angry, abusive dad, he's given depth and complexity. his continued insistence that he loves his children isn't treated as something that's untrue, but that doesn't make it inherently good, and it certainly isn't incompatible with him abusing them.

circling back to tom and shiv. their relationship is unhealthy, it's not good for either of them to be married, shiv does fucking awful things to tom and tom does awful things right back, i'm not questioning any of that. but at my most cynical and bitchy, what it comes down to is quite simply: shiv doesn't have enough power over tom to be abusive, systemically or personally.

the thing is sometimes you see people say 'wow, if the genders were reversed people would say tom and shiv's relationship is unambiguously abusive!' which... hrm, but really the issue is that. the genders are the way they are, that's for a reason, and yes, that does make a significant difference in how we perceive their relationship and power dynamics. tom holds very real and present power over shiv as a man and as her husband, proposing to her when she was vulnerable in a way that placed huge pressure on her to accept and then trying to get her to have his baby so he can become patriarch. shiv's the heiress with the legitimacy of her family name and generational wealth but she is continuously, unavoidably subjected to gendered discrimination and violence. she's never allowed direct access to real power - she has to rely on the men around her, her husband or her brothers, and if they don't feel like humoring her she's shit out of luck.

this doesn't cancel out like a math equation, but it definitely makes things much more complicated than shiv being an Evil Bitch Wife to her Poor Pitiful Husband. when shiv finally does push tom too far, he immediately, successfully, goes over her head to her abusive father to fuck her over. maybe shiv wants to be her father in her relationships and exert the same kind of control he does. but she doesn't and she can't! she does not have that power! she cannot stop tom from kicking back and his hits are significant. as much as she might like to pretend otherwise, tom not only has always had the power to leave in a way shiv doesn't, he had and has the power to fuck her up badly, and he's used that power. that is simply not the power dynamic between abuser and victim to me.

i also have to say that abuse is not always going to be definitive black and white. in real life there are plenty of unambiguous situations but there are also plenty of complicated situations, and applying judgments to fiction is not always straightforward. i can't exactly call someone 'wrong' for personally being uncomfortable with tom and shiv's relationship or believing shiv is abusive, but i'm very skeptical of the viewpoint and the motivations or assumptions that are often contained within. if shiv is abusive, she definitely isn't uniquely so among the cast, so you had better be applying that label and any associated moral judgments equally across the board.

#mingbox #abuse mention #might self destruct this tag later but it's like.#my relationship with my ex was definitely unhealthy and fucked me up but it was not abusive because fundamentally.#he was actively worse to me than i was to him but the moment he went too far i cut him off and took all the friends in the divorce #if he had more influence in our social circle or could actually successfully emotionally manipulate me it would've been much worse #but he didn't so it wasn't. i won the idgaf wars and everyone liked me better because i am not an asshole so i peaced out.#he's a dickhead and i had to leave that relationship for my own good. still it was not abusive #chalkboard

152 notes · View notes

uwushitsuji · 4 months

Text

Reading black butler again as an adult, I find myself thinking a lot the sexualization of Sebastian and Ciel's relationship. I was expecting to feel disgusted but.... Morals aside, I feel from a narrative standpoint, it actually works?

We all know most sebaciel scenes are fanservice, Yana used to draw yaoi, the anime was sold as "shonen-ai" etc etc It's 2024 there's no point to debate that over and over again.

But is that fanservice unnecesary? At least in the manga, I dont think so. For the better or for the worse, it does serve a purpose. It defines the entire relationship of the main characters.

Just to make it clear, I think their relationship is very sexual, but not in a literal *they have sex* way. Sex is associated with love, intimacy, passion, desire, but also with violence, possesiveness, domination.

You could get rid of all the "weird fanservice", but that would destroy the complexity of their relationship. It would become either a story about two characters that don't care about each other, or a bland "wholesome" one.

Ciel, despite all his trauma, feels comfortable exposing his body to Sebastian. Having physical contact with someone. Showing his vulnerable self, because he's absolutely confident he won't be hurt.

Sebastian is always close to Ciel. Even too close. And the weird way he carries Young Master. It's clearly unappropiate and he doesn't seem to care about boundaries. Because Ciel is what he desires the most, and he *owns* him. Ciel is his treasure, his prize, his most precious possesion. Ciel is *his*. He's always being possesive, showing the world Ciel belongs *only* to him, while also being (somehow) gentle and caring.

(The topic of how Sebastian uses his sexuality as a weapon is pretty interesting as well, but not today!!)

Surprisingly, the fanservice does wonders to develop the duality of their dynamics. It perfectly showcases both the "light" and "dark" between them. Intimacy, healing, confidence absolute trust, caring for each other. Codependency, unhealthy desire, possesiveness, manipulation.

They're two sides of the same coin.

On the other hand, in contrast with Sebastian and Ciel's relationship, I think it's interesting how scenes involving real sex are not sexualized at all??

Sebastian and Beast are both really attractive characters, and they could be used in a more "fanservicey" way. However, their scene together it's short and uncomfortable. The intimacy between them feels fake, everything seems off. Beast doesn't look like he's actually enjoying anything. It's pretty clear she's being abused, and thanks Goodness there's no romantization nor explicit borderline fetish content. Instead, it does a great a job creating a "something is wrong here" atmosphere.

The Blue Memory flashback. It's disgusting and makes me physically ill, but it's able to do so without being explicit. It's really powerful without being morbid. Absolutely no fanservice here. Thanks Goodness again.

Like in real life, in Black Butler sexuality can be a safe place (Ciel and Sebastian), or a source of violence and pain.

Imo Yana is a better writer than you all give her credit for. She may be a shotacon or whatever, but at least she is coherent with the overall tone of her story and can be respectful when it's due. Despite all the fanservice at some points, I feel she's great at knowing when to do or not do it.

At the end of the day, I find fascinating how sex and sexualization are used in Black Butler. Sebastian and Ciel's relationship has nothing to do with sex, yet is so intense that I could argue that rather than being sexualized, their entire relationship is inherently sexual per se. If you remove that element from the equation, the main characters would be so different that the nature of the entire story would change.

The "fanservice" is not only fanservice, but what moves the characters and story foward.

Is it ethical?? That's up to you.

But for me, even if there are some uncomfortable moments, the result is worth it. A relationship so unique that you can't "tag" it. Both unhealthy and abusive, yet a safe place for Ciel to heal. It's problematic on several levels, but *that*is what makes it interesting.

Anyway, it's just fiction, and it's nice to explore different kinds of stories without hurting anyone.

#black butler #Kuroshitsuji #Meta?#Most like a rant actually

21 notes · View notes

danlous · 2 years

Text

One of the things that has stuck out to me when re-reading tvc and made me feel like i understand amc!Lestat better too, is how much Lestat's character is defined by his fervent, desperate lust for life which manifests as this never-ending hunger and restless greed. Very roughly paraphrasing because i already returned the book to the library but it's like when in qotd he says something like "i had to have him [Louis] like i had to have everything i had ever wanted and do everything i had ever wanted to do in the world". That's the essence of Lestat's character that informs everything he does. Like for example when you look at Lestat's constant cheating in the show obviously there are many complex reasons why he does it (simple sexual frustration and boredom, need for affection and worship, trying to elicit jealousy and emotions in general from Louis to get proof that he's wanted, extension of his abuse because he knows that it's hurtful to Louis so it becomes a way to subtly punish and control etc.) but i think a part of it really is so simple that when he sees something he wants he has to have it. It's almost like he's physically incapable of stopping himself. He just has to have and do and experience everything there is in the world, otherwise he feels trapped. I think that even if his and Louis' relationship was perfect and Louis would show his love in the way Lestat wanted he would still cheat. In a way Louis was right when he asked "aren't i enough" because there's nothing that could be enough for Lestat. It doesn't matter that he wants Louis more than anyone or anything else in the world. He could never be satisfied because he's so driven by the incessant fear and emptiness inside him.

#mal reads tvc #mal watches iwtv #keanu.txt

199 notes · View notes

fairycosmos · 11 months

Note

no offense to that last ask but I don't think you can "groom" an adult. I feel like people infantalize young adults too much and maybe I won't understand until i'm past 25 but in the mean time I feel like i am a grown adult who is fully capable of looking at that stuff responsibly (not that I do but if i were to). anyways im not sure why ppl make 25 the basis for everything especially when it is proven that the brain does not actually full develop at that age

idk - the met police at least defines grooming as "when a person builds a relationship with a child, young person or an adult who's at risk so they can abuse them and manipulate them into doing (sexual) things." 100% minors are more at risk of being groomed and it's far more common with that age group, but i don't think it's entirely impossible for someone over 18 to be groomed either, i think it's really a case-by-case sort of thing esp since so many abuser/victim dynamics are complex. but yeah agree about the age of 25 having all this arbitrary weight put onto it i mean i get why bc it's obviously a common belief that the brain isn't fully developed until 25 but i know that's a heavily disputed theory atp

#anon

24 notes · View notes

centrally-unplanned · 10 months

Text

Sarah Z released a new video on Buffy Season 6 - looks like she isn't the only one doing a recent Buffy binge, great minds Sarah! Given her long track record as a Buffy lover I give her props for finally going all in and making a project of it. As is going to be a surprise to no one, I am pretty middling on this video - lets go to the random thoughts:

--- My first comment on this was going be a bit of a question mark around its title, "In Defense of Buffy's Most Hated Season". Season 6? Most hated? Sure you not thinking of Season 4? Or Season 1? Season 6 is very consistently ranked as a higher Season by most - no Season 5 or 3, sure, but normally top 3 or 4. Its a bit of a "cultural baggage" idea - because of, hm, reasons, it was an extremely controversial season back in the day. But removed from its airing that drama faded away, and particularly given that season 6's musical episode is one of the most lasting legacies of the show, now it stands on its merits and is generally liked. Sarah even almost accidentally cops to that with one of her example reddit posts, from a Season 6 hater but who frames that as a hot take:

However, looks like we agree, because Sarah changed the name of the video! Now its called "You Should Watch Buffy Season 6". I respect and empathize, honestly, realizing the cultural consensus has changed can take some time.

--- For a movie review about defending Season 6, it actually spends half of its analytical run-time criticizing it. And I was not swayed by these - which I am sad about, I have my critiques of the season too. Just trying to explain why the following thoughts are about criticisms, given the title.

--- Does anyone out there interpret Riley's departure in Season 5, and one-episode return in Season 6, as Buffy "losing a good man, and being shown the life she could have had married to him if she didn't screw up"? Because that is what Sarah thinks, and that to me is a buck wild take. Riley is not a subtle character, its pretty much a defining trait of his. Pretty sure his departure in Season 5 is him leaving a bad relationship, that is bad for him and Buffy, and Buffy realizing too late that she was letting pride and self-involvement get in the way of fixing it. Not that it necessarily could be fixed, or should be, just that that was the source. And in season 6 - this to me can't be any clearer - Riley's point in returning is to highlight that he, who was in an awful place in Season 5, got better. He got over it. He's strong even when he doesn't look it. And Buffy is too. She will get over it. Its why she breaks up with Spike at the end of the episode - Buffy realizes she is still strong, she can be way she 'used' to be. It does not forgive Riley's mistakes, or is even about any of that? This is a very weird take. Honestly I want to know if others have this take, tell me if you do.

--- This very weird take by the way comes from the "misogyny" moments that the video constantly alludes to, which tie back into Joss Whedon's behavior, which I want to flag here. I'll admit that from what I have seen of the evidence, while Joss does come off like a huge asshole on set, I actually haven't seen much of a case for a lot more than that. Some people see him as this like uber-predator and I don't know where that is coming from. So I might be biased a bit here, lacking that heft of conviction.

But I still think this is generally correct - someone's personal behavior is an extremely imperfect reflection of their writing chops. Some of the most insightful prose of all time was writing for crass monetization; serial abusers have written, in spades, the most complex and well-realized victim protagonists. Writing is a skill, not a morality trait. Personal action impacts writing, sure, but not in ways that *align* with morality. The fact that Joss Whedon was an asshole on set does not mean the writing on Buffy reflects misogynist abuse. Xander isn't a misogynist - when he is mad at Anya for sleeping with Spike he is portrayed by the narrative as a clear asshole. Riley isn't portrayed as a perfect boyfriend, dude fucking pays vampires to bite him! This all in your head! You don't have to like prove Joss Whedon is a bad dude through textual analysis. His work can still be #girlboss feminism, there is no contradiction there.

--- This will be brief, but I feel like we are past the weird 2010's hiccup of thinking "fridging" is a problem, right? This is about Tara's death, ofc. Stories aren't real life, in stories some characters are way more important than others. Side characters exist, very often, to further the arcs of those main characters. One of them dying as part of a main character's arc is completely normal. Its weird I feel I have to explain this; I don't really, right? Tara is not killed off on a whim; she dies because Willow has a season-long arc of tipping over the edge on magic power, its a lot about her relationship with Tara, and her death pushes her over the brink. I'll admit I find Dark!Willow's execution to be a bit weak, but that's its own problem; the motive is solid. This is how stories work.

--- Additionally, I think there is a big, but a bit unnoticed, shift in what "works" in media around character deaths. When Joss Whedon killed Tara in Buffy - and more notably killed Wash in Serenity - he was doing a deliberate "no one is safe" thing. It became a meme, actually!

Meme-ing about Joss Whedon man, right there in the garbage dumb of the past alongside Harry Potter memes shitting on Twilight thinking its the better franchise; life comes at you fast. But anyway this was a "big thing" to happen - audiences were shocked by it! It had dramatic impact.

Then Game of Thrones happened and this got turned up to 11, and the general plot twist even more of a meme. But meanwhile, TV changed in the background; entire seasons were getting dumped at once on streaming, everything was becoming "high context" with actors live tweeting their own set experiences, fandoms got more involved and contextual, "water-cooler" shows everyone was talking about faded due to audience separation, all sorts of shit. Which meant that the "kill a main character" thing stopped being powerful - it was overplayed, spoilers were more common, it didn't "air" as a standalone episode everyone talked about. The reason to kill off a character to raise the stakes faded away.

Which means when people go back and say things like "oh I loved Tara why kill her", its...well for one Amber Benson wanted to leave the show. But additionally you can't see the power it had in 2002. TV was different then, it wanted different things.

--- To give something positive, while I think Spike's attempted rape of Buffy is a strong writing choice - very in character for Spike, and its fine that it is primarily about his arc and not Buffy's because its a story, that is how these things work - I do agree that Buffy's response to the event is just not explored enough. It comes up multiple times of course, even in Season 7, but it also gets swamped by plot events in Season 6 with Willow, its not given room to breathe.

This imo relates to the fact that the pacing of the event is a bit wonky - Spike & Buffy had been on the outs for many episodes at that point, there wasn't this strong inciting incident for it. If it had happened much closer to their breakup, in a more focused arc, it would have had more narrative impact and allowed time for both of them to respond to it. I get that they had a lot of plot balls to juggle at that point, but still, missed opportunity I think.

Okay I had more thoughts but I am tired, I think that covers my most interesting complaints/observations anyway.

#buffy

26 notes · View notes

the-cat-and-the-birdie · 1 year

Note

Do you support proshippers, cause if so then 😬.

People generally do not take this as an answer but I do want to say it because some people do care.

But I don't. Because I do not support either side and assigning me to either side does not reflect my views.

I actively oppose the conversation and the way is formatted and I intentionally do not engage.

I am neither a ProShipper or an Antishipper. And describing me as either would be describing me wrong. Why?

Because it's not a cut and dry issue.

It's not like Pro-life and Pro-choice where the question is simply 'Should abortion be legal'?

The shipping argument is asking if a RANGE of topics ranging from abusive relationships or negative depictions of mental illness to literal CP are okay - all under one question.

Asking me this is like asking "Hey do you support people that age up Damien Wayne in fics *cough*(and also people who write horribly dangerous things like graphic sexual assault for their own dark amusement..those people too)*cough*"

Like...the question to begin with is flawed.

With a question formatted like that - there is absolutely no way to have a healthier clear conversation that makes sense or accurately displays anyone's views.

The conversation itself is to vague and too broad to offer any type of fruitful conversation whatsoever. And I stand on that.

Like, I'd say at least half of the takes I see from either side I think are wrong, ridiculous, or based on vague arguments that just don't make sense.

I'm Not a Pro-Shipper cause there is some weird shit out there I'm not attaching myself to. Because some people out there are deranged, and malicious, and this is the internet.

I'm NOT an Anti-Shipper because there are a LOT of fucked up things that do wind up in media that tell a specific story - and there's also shit in the conversation that just doesn't fucking matter.

If you're writing about a character who went through CSA and your goal is to show a story about someone who lives with that trauma? Great. I'm for that so long as you do your research and do it respectfully

If you're writing out the SCENES???? AT LENGTH?? Go somewhere. Preferably a jail cell but somewhere that's not here.

If you're aging up a character and headcanon-ing what they'd be like in the future for shipping purposes - or you're shipping characters with no in-universe confirmed age. I couldn't care less.

If I don't wanna read it, I won't support it. I won't give it kudos or views. It's got nothing to do with me.

If you're writing things that are openly racist or openly sexualizing a character you are clearly writing as a child - absolutely fucking not. Anime men I'm looking at you.

And if you write black characters involved in raceplay count your mfing days.

It's not a cut and dry issue, so to ask me to define myself in one word on a topic of dozens of different genres isn't going to give you a clear picture of my views.

You are more likely to get a more clearer answer if you ask me about that specific genre and topic.

I am vocally and clearly on neither side and opposed to a conversation that is narrow and often ends in miscommunication.

There's always going to be a Pro-Shipper or Anti-Shipper out there that I deeply disagree with.

I refuse to engage and support a conversation that lumps together very serious issues with very asinine things and then expects me to answer in one word at threat of harassment (not you in specific, but very realistically in general).

I am a person of complex opinions. You see my blog. You really expect me of all people to be able to describe myself in one word?

Maybe in the terms of "Pro-Life" vs Pro-Choice (I'm Pro-Choice obviously) But in this conversation I cannot do it. I am very firmly neither.

I hope that answer your question, and since I feel like this should be said - especially with the fandom we're in - I'm happy to answer your question.

Like I said, a lot of people just won't take this as an answer. And that's fine. But I said what I said.

If you engage in this conversation and you think I agree you, you're wrong. If you engage and you think I disagree with you, you're wrong. Cause I am simply sitting here in silence, writing my silly little analysis and looking pretty, and will continue to do so.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a photo of Hobie that I need to stare at.

Bye.

#I do not engage and I mean that #proship #antiship #somebody was bound to ask #but yeah thats why i dont talk about it cause that conversation is structured dumb as fuck from the ground up are kidding me #the question in itself is rigged for an argument regardless of what you say #so I say - Fuck that shit Im here being a hot girl fuck you gonna do stop me??

40 notes · View notes

painisntn33ded · 1 month

Note

Can i ask what you mean by you don't believe in the term narcissistic abuse? /genq

i only ask because i am a victim of said type of abuse and im genuinely curious to hear and like i want to say that i do know npd =/= abusive by default /gen

feel free to not answer if youre not comfortable sharing ♥️

Hey, sorry for not responding to this for so long life has been a bit messy. I think it's really important that we differentiate the idea of NPD from the idea of inherrent abusiveness. By using the term "narcissistic abuse" we directly imply that it's a special type of abuse that only people with NPD are capable of. If we look at what people define as "narcissistic abuse" it's almost always just forms of emotional abuse like gaslighting, love bombing, etc. that everyone is capable of. Of course people with NPD can be abusive just like people with Depression or Autism or any other disorder can be abusive. But you'd never take these disorders and slap a special abuse label on them. Calling something "depressive abuse" or "autistic abuse" would sound stupid. Of course people with depression, people with autism, people with bpd, people with any disorder can be abusive but we don't treat them with the same inherent capability of abusiveness we treat people with NPD. We see them as individuals who chose to be abusive, who chose to gaslight, love bomb, etc. Maybe you use the term "narcissistic" not as a descriptor for NPD but as a stand in for egotistical or self obsessed. But we can't separate the world "narcissistic" from NPD. When people hear narc abuse they think NPD, this leads to many issues. For example people arm chair diagnosing anyone who has wronged them or hurt them with NPD or the further stigmatisation of NPD. It's important we see NPD as a trauma based disorder, it's complex like any other personality disorder but the kind of stigmatisation pwNPD face actively stops them from accepting the diagnosis, which means also that they don't get the access to the help they would need. It also makes it hard to speak about your experiences, when the diagnosis you have is directly linked in people's minds to the idea that you're abusive or a bad person being open about the fact you have NPD might have a very real negative impact on your interpersonal relationships. We also have to remember that mental health professionals are people too and thus just as prone to social biases as anyone else, from personal experience getting help for a heavily stigmatised disorder is hard and often results in mistreatment from medical professionals. The way we treat NPD, the way we use the term "narc" abuse actively harms abuse victims (which most pwNPD are), actively stops them from understanding themselves and seeking help.

In summary (tldr): "narc" abuse is not a special type of abuse, it's just another term for emotional abuse but in it's terminology it also further stigmatises a group of people in a harmful way

#sorry for the long response it's a very complex topic i could probably write pages upon pages about this #generally id advise everyone to talk to some diagnosed narcissistics once in a while #just like evey other group they're diverse individuals with diverse behavioural patterns

4 notes · View notes

themomsandthecity · 3 months

Text

How Understanding Acceptance Healed My Latina Mother Wound

A therapist recently shared a profound insight that resonated deeply: "The only people who owe you acceptance just for existing are your parents. For everyone else, it's a choice." In those words, I found solace, the final piece that helped me close the chapter on my mother wound. The truth is, I am the shadow of my mother's monster-which is my father. From a young age, I grappled with the complexities of my relationship with my mother. My childhood was defined by her inability to accept and understand me, a journey that started before I could fully grasp the nuances and lasting effects of her abuse. Early on, I had to reconcile and exist, knowing that although my mother would do whatever it took to put a roof over our heads, she wasn't able to truly get close to me because she couldn't separate me from my father - her abuser. My mother is a single parent to four daughters; none of us share the same father. Still, we were raised as sisters in our house - but we all knew that our different last names represented different times in her life. As the only child between her and my father, I bore the burden of inheriting the scars he left behind. I've always known I looked like my father; what I get from my mother is in the form of her resilience. Unfortunately, my resemblance to him strained my relationship with my mother. My father, a charming Gemini, has the confidence of a true renaissance man, the type of fella who convinces himself his tales and lies were true to excuse his behaviors. Unfortunately, this trait latched onto my mother's behavior towards me during much of my upbringing. For years, I didn't know that victims could adopt the behaviors of those harming them. In a way, I grew up believing my parents shared the same temperament and personality. Dubbed the nervous 'problem child' straight out of the womb, clashing with my mother was a frequent occurrence during my upbringing. My relentless quest to emotionally bond with her, hoping for mutual understanding, often fueled these conflicts. Nevertheless, the burden of enduring over a decade of physical and psychological abuse inflicted by my intermittently present father deeply affected her and our entire family. Despite her persistent fear of his escalating actions, her entrapment led her into profound mental turmoil during my adolescence, finally breaking free when I was 10. When I was a kid, my mother often complained about how much I cried. It didn't matter what she did; in my mom's eyes, no diaper changes, bottles of milk, or nursery rhymes could calm me down. And some days, the idea of ripping off her own head felt like a viable option. I was what you would call a sensitive child, and my mother's battered mind was not equipped with the tools to handle me. Her abuse and fear of my father began way before my conception. Her undocumented status held her in a complicated situation with a married man that eventually led to intimate partner abuse during pregnancy. Alice Miller said in her book, "The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self," that "If the mother is suffering, the baby is suffering too, the pain never gets discharged. The organism does not develop the confidence that it can regulate itself, that things will happen the way they should." As I like to think of it, I was born the manifestation of my mother's pain and the image of her nightmare. However, being the child of a witty, clever, and emotionally detached Gemini mother made it difficult for her to trust my tears, as it was one of my father's many tactics. Just to clarify, my mother didn't abuse me beyond what her culture deemed appropriate discipline. Unfortunately, the physical abuse I eventually faced was assigned to an impressionable and equally traumatized older sibling, but that's a story for another time. However, in my mother's stress, depression, and terror-stricken grief, I was born a traumatized person who picked up on everything as an… https://www.popsugar.com/family/how-i-finally-healed-my-latina-mother-wound-49370243?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

0 notes

patnaneuro · 9 months

Text

Is Wanting to Be Alone a Trauma Response - Know Here!

Staying alone and self independency is a response to people who never had anyone to rely on.

Sometimes, people prefer to spend their time alone because they have never experienced how it is like to be around people or how to trust someone else.

At times, people want to spend some days alone and after a while they want to be with their loved ones. These are all perfectly normal things that an individual can go through.

Although, spending too much time alone can get lonely and frustrating which can become an issue.

Do you feel like you don’t want to talk to people? Does living around people make you want to withdraw in your cocoon?

Do you feel exhausted by the thought of spending time with others? If these are some questions bothering you, contact the best psychiatrist in Patna, Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh.

Why does trauma make you want to be alone?

Trauma can make people’s life miserable if they cannot handle the feelings and emotions associated with it.

Most typically, people who have gone through some kind of trauma become very sensitive to loud noises, people caring too much, and can cause distress to people with impaired daily functioning.

People initially experience intrusive thoughts, repetitive involuntary dreams about the event, or flashbacks to that traumatic event. They can not understand how to deal with these thoughts and feelings.

Due to these unwanted feelings people can react aggressively or get irritable about little things. They don’t want to bother their loved ones with what they are feeling in fear of their judgment.

They are ashamed of what they are going through and sometimes tend to blame themselves.

Is being too independent a trauma response?

People with past trauma go through a rollercoaster of emotions and feelings that only they know.

And, not everyone shares these thoughts with other people. These experiences result in an emotional dysregulation leading to unpredictable relationships.

Thus, people have difficulty dealing with emotional connection and feel intense loneliness. This causes isolation trauma response and people get scared to trust others. These feelings lead them to do things by themselves and become independent.

They think only they can handle their feelings and are ashamed to show their vulnerability to their loved ones which makes them only trust themselves.

These people suffer with identity issues making them question their role and where they fit in the society. Self-esteem issues are very common among these people due to their past experiences.

Somehow the traumatic event can make them doubt their ability to live and function. These feelings of shame lead to isolation and detachment from social interaction thinking it will be futile.

Is self isolation a trauma response?

Yes, self isolation can be a trauma response! To define a trauma response is how one reacts and has learned to deal with emotions.

The way one responds to this trauma is how they have been taught to deal with emotional feelings in childhood.

When people have had no one to rely on in their childhood, they think that ‘I had a lonely childhood, so I can deal with these fears on my own.’

Signs you grew up lonely

The childhood trauma can project into adulthood with their feelings and emotions affected because of the way they dealt with them in their childhood. Signs that the childhood was lonely are

Attachment issues such as not being able to rely or trust someone to be there for you.

Constant neglect in childhood can make you very sensitive to criticism.

Physical or sexual abuse makes a person socially withdrawn and fearful of strangers and unknown people.

If a person deals with grief with no show of any emotional feeling, they might have experienced a huge loss in the childhood like losing a parent or caregiver.

Complex PTSD loneliness

The complex trauma in adults feeling lonely and unloved can be most commonly a result of childhood trauma. People with PTSD suffer from loneliness because

They believe no one can understand their feelings or what they are going through.

Most commonly people have associated depression with this disorder making it more difficult for people to reach out for help.

There is a certain stigma around seeking mental health care leading to people avoiding seeking treatment for their symptoms.

This feeling leads to extreme self reliance as a trauma response.

What does trauma release feel like?

The trauma release can help one feel better about themselves. There are various trauma release exercises that have shown to promote mental stability by treating unresolved trauma.

It involves stretching that can relieve muscle tension. Some other exercises are sitting in a squatting position to release the tension. Trauma release exercise helps people deal with their trauma and relax the body.

Trauma release exercises and about the appropriate response can be helpful for people. To understand more about this, contact the neuropsychiatrist in Patna, Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh.

#Why does trauma make you want to be alone #Is being too independent a trauma response #Is self isolation a trauma response #What does trauma release feel like #Signs you grew up lonely #Complex trauma in adults feeling lonely and unloved #extreme self-reliance is a trauma response #Complex PTSD loneliness #Isolation trauma response #I had a lonely childhood

0 notes