#(okay as in morally acceptable? okay as in safe? okay as in let's stop thinking about this? Yes.)

[tyrannuspitch]

HOWEVER. if THOR were queer odin would do so much conversion therapy on him. :/

[yandereunsolved]

"Don't Stop Me Now" — Five situations where yandere Five loses it

cw(s): yandere themes, non-descriptive self harm, mention of suicide and domestic violence

1 — someone ✗ something is trying to harm you

Pretty straightforward. 

This is the numero uno that comes along with every yandere.  

Five grew up with an abusive, emotionally absent father figure. He was pushed to be the best, the most successful of his siblings, just for an ounce of affection. He was isolated for so many years with nothing more than a department store doll. He has had to put away whatever loose morals he had to slave away in The Comission.

Then you come along and brighten up his life. No, you do more than that. You perfect it. 

Then someone comes and tries to strip that away from him?

It's safe to say you've only seen that crazed look in his eyes when you're in danger. He doesn't care about whatever mission, the greater good, or whatever the fuck when you may end up being killed. He's swift and merciless, just as he was taught. 

After he makes sure you are okay, he'll hold you to his chest for what feels like forever. He just needs to become secure again in the fact you are alive. You are here with him right now. It helps ground him so he doesn't end up going about on a killing spree. 

Yes. That has happened one too many times. 

Klaus now knows not to joke about random people flirting with you. Their spirits won't stop harassing him. In his defense, how was he supposed to know Five would just go out and slowly torture them before letting them waste away into death? Klaus didn't think Five was that unhinged. He knows better now.

2 — you harm yourself (in any way)

He keeps an observant eye on you, so it would be a miracle if you managed to accomplish anything along those lines. 

Two words. no. more. 

He has the internal breakdown. He's just standing there and staring at you. There are tears in his eyes. He wants to yell, to freak out, but his voice cracks far too much when he tries to reprimand you. 

No. Just no. 

That's the only word that encapsulates how he feels. 

He is not going to allow you to hold any sharp objects. He makes sure you have no contact with Diego. Five is paranoid and suspects that Diego had something to do with this. Somehow. 

You are more strictly monitored. 

He has an entire list of mental and physical health questions he asks you each morning. If you tell him to leave you alone or that you are tired, there's about a seventy percent chance that he'll go off. It would definitely be in a Five way. 

He'd be teleporting around you and sputtering out statistics and caring yet demeaning words. 

3 — keeping him out of the loop

Five is meticulous. 

When you keep him out of the loop—which could mean not saying good morning to him or hiding a romantic relationship—he feels so powerless again. He needs to know what is going on with you so he can protect you if need be. 

Don't even try to argue with him. 

He's older than you, so he knows best. 

He has so much more experience at anything and everything. He can solve all of your problems if you just let him in. 

Does that mean he will do the same in return? No. 

There's no reason for you to know what he is doing at any point of the day. You don't need to worry your pretty little head about it. Aka, he's doing things that are morally gray at best and human rights violations at... that's still one of the better cases. 

Just tell him. Or he'll force it out of you.

4 — things being out of his control

This ties in with every other scenario. 

He needs to be in control.

Everything has to be perfect. 

If one thing goes wrong, then you may slip through his fingers. 

That isn't allowed to happen. It can't. 

It eats away at him at night to think something could happen that he can't control. 

The apocalypse happened, and he had to spend decades just accepting that fact. Until there was a chance he could change it. 

Now he has to. He has to change, sort, and neatly put away everything. No speck of dust is out of place. If it is, then he'll end up pushing himself into fixing it, to the point of exhaustion or death—whichever comes first.

5 — escaping successfully

The only time there is a plausible chance he will resort to physical violence. 

Why, why, why, why, why, why!?

How could he be so idiotic? How did you do it? Who helped you? 

Whoever helped you is going to die if they haven't already killed themselves because they know Five is going to be coming after them. 

He will act nonchalant, like he is in control, when he finally finds you once again. He'll tease, poke, and prod at your fear, like a ringmaster taming their lion. A part of this act is the truth. He has you back, and now everything can go back to how it was. The other part of him is still devastated and wants to curl up in your lap and just be safe there.

Yandere Five: fragile—handle with care.  

✗ @clarioscharm

[gremlinmodetweeker]

König of the Icks

I’m sorry y’all, König is an ick magnet. He’s such an awful human being. Not because he’s genuinely vile or awful or morally fucked (okay a bit morally fucked), but simply because he does so many things that give the ick. He’s King of the Icks. He really is. He’s awful. So, with me breaking your bubble, let’s go over a few of the icks that I think are most prevalent. More posts of König icks to come.

König wears socks and sandals. Or socks and crocs. He’s awful. He only does it when he’s wading in the water, meaning he’ll walk around in wet socks for about an hour afterwards until they dry out. It’s so disgusting I cannot stress how awful it is. He tries to tell people that it’s safer and more comfortable, but he looks awful. It’s a fashion nightmare. No human should be wearing socks and sandals while wading in the water. In all fairness, he’s right, it does keep his feet safe, but does he really need the socks???

He wears clothes in the wrong size almost all the time. You tried to get him clothes in the right size, but he rarely wears them. He wears clothes too large because he says it’s ‘comfy’ but he looks like a slob. He’s so disgusting it hurts. He doesn’t even treat his clothes well because they collect spills and stains as he wears them for multiple days in a row. He’s had someone ask if he needs money for a bus ticket before. It was the one time in his life he realized how other people saw him. He’s since started to try to wear nicer clothing when going out. Around the house though? He looks terrible.

This wouldn’t be so much of an issue if he weren’t such a messy eater. He may look like a slob, but normally he’s very clean and neat in his habits. He cleans dishes immediately after using them, he sweeps and mops regularly, he has good personal hygiene and takes care of himself. He’s a generally clean person. That is until he sits down to eat. It’s awful because he takes bites that are too big and then it’ll fall out of his mouth and onto his shirt. He’ll then suck the stain to ‘get it out’ but it just makes things worse. He also uses his shirt as a napkin or towel, depending on the situation. He’ll also make pretty loud sounds when he eats, especially when he’s eating noodles or slurping a smoothie. If you think you’re lucky and these will be rare instances, he has a protein shake every morning and will have a bowl of buttered noodles at least once every other day (usually more).

Along this line, König got in deep shit for not having a white shirt when he was a new recruit. They asked him why he wasn’t wearing a white shirt, and he told them that it was, in fact, the standard issue white shirt. The sergeant pointed at all the other recruits in bleach white shirts, and then back at König’s grey shirt. They got into a huge argument, only for the drill sergeant to pale when he spun König around and read the tag because this grey piece of shit was a white t-shirt all along

König is an excellent cook. Why is this an ick? Because he doesn’t cook. He could, if he tried, but he’s too lazy so he just throws a day-old grilled cheese in the microwave and calls it done. He then has the nerve to complain that he’s hungry when all he’s eaten are old chips and candy bars. The only time he’ll consider cooking is if you ask him to cook or if he’s having company. Otherwise he will eat trash and you cannot stop him. He will, however, once a week or so lay out a full meal. It's beautiful and delicious, but you know he'll be eating leftovers for days, and then go back to a day of only junk food, then he'll finally force himself to cook again.

On the topic of food, König refuses to accept that food can expire. Just straight up. He doesn’t believe in expiry dates. ‘It’s a best by date, not an expiry date’ is his motto and he pays for it. At this point, he has a designated sick bucket because he gives himself food poisoning so often. All the others soldiers can’t believe that he’s fine with the MREs, but you know that when he comes home, he’ll be chowing down on stale bread he found in his fridge with moldy cheese. It’s disgusting and you have to regularly clean his fridge, lest he get sick eating things. He will also fish things out of the trash, so you have to be tactical in how you remove things. It’s a dangerous game.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of my König ick list. I’m telling you all that this man is a gremlin, and we love him for it. Part of the joy of dating König is dealing with his icks and suffering.

[sheathz]

If your moral take away on Andrew is that it's okay he killed someone to protect his brother but it isn't okay that he drugged Neil because Neil was a percieved threat and he was protecting his family, I need you to sit down and ask yourself why you're willing to excuse one bad action but not the other when they were both done for the same exact reasons: protecting people Anrrew cares about.

Playing moral Olympics on a fictional characters actions when both actions have the same goal is extremely contradictory and honestly makes no sense especially when one is socially less acceptable than the other and yet that's the one you're excusing. Andrews actions are morally grey with the same sense of "justifying" reason behind them but in the end were overall still illegal. Just because Neil turned out not to be a threat doesn't mean he didn't have the capacity to be one and it doesn't mean that Andrews judgement was any less valid even if his actions were extreme. Let's not forget Andrew near killed a guy for being homophobic to and going after Nicky, I don't think you can measure Andrews morals when his main and only one is: Keep those I care about safe.

Stop pitting Andrews actions against eachother under the guise of moral high ground it makes no sense and is frankly dumb asf. You're trying to apply some kind of narrative of judgment to a character who frankly would not gaf and doesn't have the same desire to be morally correct like y'all seem to.

[candiid-caniine]

on punishment. tw: dom-shaming

so this post is going around on some blogs i follow and i kind of want to discuss it, without adding to a post that has some fair and reasonable points:

in context, the bulk of this post is about training a submissive partner to take on some behaviors, or cease others, and how the author believes praise/rewards are the most effective + ethical way to do this. buuuut this doesn't sit right with me.

there's definitely a need 4 discussion with some subs about how their desires are not punishment-worthy or guilt-worthy. + much to be said about the psychological efficacy of behavioral change methods. i think it's probable that many subs have a negative relationship with punishment for good reasons, and in particular i think the OP here may have personal issues with the topic, which they are fully entitled to.

however, acting as if this is the best practice is, imo, harmful and unacceptable. i'll be addressing the issues i have with it under the cut; if you don't want to see discourse/philosophy, don't click :)

your sub is not your child: "training" is an entirely conscious and mutual decision. the post does mention this, but it also shames doms who are inclined to use punishment as a training method. let me be clear on how i feel here: the efficacy does not matter. you are adults. if you mutually decide punishment is an acceptable way to train, it's your brain.

you know what motivates me the most to change my behavior? being treated like someone who knows what they are doing.

"an adult punished for stealing will learn to steal more effectively." consider that the adult is making the choice to steal regardless, whether out of necessity or due to personal motivation. a sub who wants to be trained is not an adult who doesn't want to be stopped from stealing. both of these points are needlessly infantilizing to the submissive.

"Your submissive is no different from any of those examples." yes the fuck they are. your examples are a dog, a child, and a person the state views as a criminal. if your submissive is "no different" from those examples, you need to examine your shit as an adult and remand yourself to some form of personal growth.

"why would you want to rule through fear." because the fear is fun. lol. alternatively, doms who want to rule through pure, earnest, and unwilling fear are not doms, they're abusers. no matter the level or relationship involved in behavioral training for subs, the end goal is mutual fulfillment. if you don't like what others do in their bedrooms, or their 24/7 dynamics...simply don't participate.

"kill the cop in your head." okay. i already did that--i killed the part of my brain that moralized the things i wanted in my dynamic. i killed the part of my brain that designated punishers as violent, cruel, and unstable and the people who want to be punished as naive, weak, and child-like.

listen. my goal is not to say this person is wrong, or that their feelings towards punishment in a power dynamic or a training dynamic are invalid. they are very much not!! my issue is the dom-shaming and sub-infantilizing rhetorics behind what should be a personal exploration, not a sweeping, moralistic generalization about what consenting adults should do in their relationships.

if punishment in a training dynamic makes you feel unsafe, that's okay. don't do it.

if punishment in a training dynamic makes you feel safe, that's great. do it.

if your partner disrespects your position on either side, or intentionally trains you in a way they know you dislike, they are a bad partner and that is a separate issue.

punishment, for those who choose to utilize it in a training situation, is:

a morally neutral action. it would be immoral if it was done without consent. that is an issue with consent, not punishment.

agreed upon by both parties. see above.

sometimes pleasant: in this case, it may be sexually fulfilling, which makes it more of a soft punishment/"funishment." it becomes either a safe, predictable outcome for bratting, which can promote feelings of trust in the dynamic, or just unpleasant enough that the partner being "trained" prefers not to do it most of the time.

sometimes unpleasant: not sexually gratifying, perhaps, but still a reinforcement of the dynamic. again, a way to promote safety and predictability. your dom isn't slacking. your dom cares about your behavior. your dom's attention is on what you do, good or bad, because they're invested in you.

a way to reclaim feelings of guilt, make them safe, and deconstruct them. i cannot stress this enough. guilt over "bad" behavior (that i as an adult know i am allowed to do, but want to be controlled in) is not always a safe emotion for me to be alone with. as someone with religious trauma, as someone who grew up in a religious, corporal-punishment household, being punished for "bad behavior" is vital to my mental health in a dynamic. it lets me process guilt and shame, however "undeserved," in a safe way with a clear ending. it gives me closure. whether that makes me damaged or not, it also gets me the fuck off, so idc. there's a reason i prefer RACK over SSC these days, and it's because moralized definitions of the word "sane" are rampant.

not your business.

please, please make an effort to stop moralizing over what adults get up to in the bedroom. your dynamic is a personal choice that does not reflect on your moral value. i would normally have no issue with this except that OP is phrasing their opinion as a "guide" or "how-to." here is a list of true things, or affirmations, if you felt as unsettled by this as i did:

what goes on in your head is more important than psych articles.

you are allowed to choose how to motivate yourself to change your behavior.

doms are not controlling, abusive, or bootlickers for enjoying using punishment as a motivator.

subs are not damaged, oppressed, or naive for being motivated by punishment.

it does not mean you need to grow as a person if you want to balance punishment and reward in your dynamic.

mental safety is more important than psychological efficacy.

guilt and shame are things you are allowed to process however you want.

i just really need people to stop pushing dom-shaming narratives under the guise of pop psychology + holistic wellness language, pls and thanks. everyone thinks they're an expert nowadays, but the only expert on your mental and sexual wellbeing is you--and hopefully your partner(s) are willing to develop the same expertise :)

play risk-aware and consensual, my loves!

[joseline-woodhouse]

Okay I have to say it.

Will, Ada and Montresor did something way worse than Annabel Lee.

Why? Because motive matters. Now don't get me wrong, a good motive cannot justify an inherently evil action, it however matters more and more when going deeper into more morally grey areas.

Annabel has made it very clear she understands these people, including Duke to be damned regardless of her actions and basically sees herself confronted with a trolley problem that goes: "You, your wife and like X other people are bound to rails. A trolly will run over all but one of you. However if you pull just the right levers, both you end your wife will survive. The first lever you must pull is on Duke." While this doesn't make her actions noble, it gives them a noble cause and one could argue in several ways that she's acting within a moral grey area if we take the situation to be as unshakable as it seems. To make to examples, one could argue in an utalitarian way (this saves more lives than the other option) or in a very human way (this saves a loved one at the cost of a soon to be dead man, who could blame her?). There are also concepts of morality that would condemn her, like for example the categoric imperative or Jewish or Christian (and I think Muslim) religion, in which it is inherently bad to kill a single person even to safe thousands of others.

Annabel considers killing Duke a necessary evil.

Montresor however is acting out of pure sadism and spite and he puts on quite a show to make this clear. He had done so even if he believed everyone would get a happy end and he is having the time of his life killing Duke. That is picture book chaotic evil behaviour right there and by no means redeemable.

Will and Ada? Arguably worse than Montresor, at least not a bit better. This is the kind of stuff that makes large scale modern genocides possible. Hannah Ahrendt (great woman, you should look her up) argues in her book "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil" that evil at its worst is not some kind of demonic evil like it has been preached in medieval times, but lays within the sheer banality of an office worker casually doing the phone calls and paper work necessary to send thousands to their certain death, while the office worker goes back home, eats dinner with his family and thinks "I'm just doing my job. It's my supervisors moral responsibility, not mine."

Ada and Will tried to kill for no other reason than because they have been told to do so and the lack of willingness to accept responsibility really shows in their actions afterwards. So I am a bit confused when I see people arguing how terrible Annabel Lee is while defending the "poor boy Will".

So, controversial opinion: in this very specific case, even though Annabel Lee either started this or at the very least didn't stop it when she clearly could have, she hasn't committed anything as immoral as her henchmen committed, who did not even need a motive to kill.

Also I would every day prefer an Annabel Lee willing to kill Duke to safe her wife in the long run over an Annabel Lee that prefers to not be a controversial female character. Let's not forget these people don't actually exist.

[olderthannetfic]

Thinking about the asks a while back regarding accepting ex-antis. Obviously they are just as welcome in fandom as anyone, and they make fine acquaintances spotted in passing.

But, I think antis who decide they're not antis anymore often seem like they decide this about themselves at the drop of a hat? Like, they have one conversation, or two conversations, and they think "Ohh, people are mad at me when I say they should be jailed for fanfic crimes? Okay! I don't believe that anymore! I changed my mind!"

That's a very serious thing about which to change your mind in a hot second. Of course, on the one hand, I'm pleased: I think having stupid pissfights about the evils of shipping, in a reality where I walked to the bookshop and bought The Misfortunes Of Virtue when I was 13 and nobody even noticed let alone cared, is fucking stupid.

But on the other hand, I think this is the crux of my mistrust: I have not yet been convinced to "change my mind" about a sincere, core belief because someone yelled at me and made me feel bad. And it's hasn't been for a lack of yelling.

I feel like this kind of dime-stop turn from antis is really about conforming to stay safe from harassment and censure within a perceived in-group, and not about establishing a reasoned moral framework by which you want to act in the world. And it's fine to be a go along to get along and avoid thinking too much about moral issues and to change your mind whenever people get mad at you. But, you see, whatever new opinion that kind of ex-anti now espouses, if it's not a lie right now, it evidently might be in, like, ten minutes when someone else acts mad at them.

I'm not advocating for being mean to such people, obviously, and I don't even think you can necessarily tell someone who does this apart from someone who actually had a sincere and thought-out change of heart without pretty extensive acquaintance. I just think with a lot of people I see suddenly declare themselves not antis anymore... non-interaction is the way to go for me.

--

Much depends on how much they ever believed it in the first place.

If they don't have any strong belief other than wanting to hide from harassment, they can be pushed around again.

If, on the other hand, they were super into some dark fiction or something and using this crap to delay their kink awakening, if they can once accept themselves, they aren't going to swing back the other way.

Honestly, I expect most people to be cowards if they see someone bullying the person next to them. I expect people to jump on bandwagons. Antis are a particularly visible and douchey variety of this at the moment, but they're hardly alone.

I don't care about avoiding ex-antis because I think most of the issues with them can crop up with nearly anyone. But yes, there are often traces of One Right Way-ism and other annoying artifacts of their old views.

[shitouttabuck]

i joke, don’t i, about my dog-coded heart. i love you like a dog, i grin, and they hear devotion and loyalty and desperation for love

i love you like a dog, and that’s cute because i’m affectionate and i’m on your side and i want to be close, all the time

but i love you like a dog, and that’s everything turned up to eleven because i’m at a party on saturday night when you call me and tell me someone hurt you. there’s calm in a crisis but no sanity—just worry and the need to protect you. i sit at the foot of your hospital bed and find the girl on facebook and tell her if she ever comes near you again i will put her in the ground myself

i love you like a dog, and i sleep on the floor of your room when we get home. i walk you to class and i glare at everyone who looks at you with anything other than kindness and i pick you up from work when your boss won’t stop staring at your bare arms

i love you like a dog, and i get an email from the university regarding my behavioural issues. you can’t threaten another student, they say. but other students can tell their classmates to kill themselves? i ask. they only reply with a date for a disciplinary hearing

i love you like a dog, and you don’t come with me. you ask if i really said those things to her. of course i did. you say maybe you will go stay at your dad’s for christmas after all

i love you like a dog, and you’re realising i’m not a good one. you come home; i’m there at the door. i love you like a dog, and you’re realising that means codependence and possessiveness and doing anything for you at the cost of everything and everyone else

i love you like a dog, and this is not what you signed up for. there’s only so much training can do: i am so good at pretending i will follow every basic command, at pretending i will behave in a way that’s acceptable

do you even know the difference between good and bad? you ask me one night, halfway to tears in the kitchen when i’m standing between you and the door, begging you don’t go see her. how is what she said to me any different from what you said to her?

and i think maybe i don’t know the difference between good and bad, only what the difference means to you. i know which behaviours performed gets me a smile and a pat, and i know which has you desperate to escape my attempt to be your shadow, nose bumping your heels with every step you take away

i don’t know the difference between good and bad, i only know how to love you. but i love you like a dog, and that’s not the way you want to be loved, because keeping you safe and keeping you warm shouldn’t ever come at the price of suffocating under my heart and apologising to your colleagues for my bad manners and stubborn presence

i love you like a dog, and maybe that would be okay if i was a dog who listened. i love you like a dog and maybe that would be okay if i didn’t have a temper. i love you like a dog and maybe that would be okay if i was a dog who knew you’re coming home when you leave

but instructions and implorations mean very little when my right and wrong is all in context of your well-being, and i am capable of both bark and bite, and you stopped coming home altogether

i love you like a dog, and it’s exhausting for you. you’re not the bad guy; you gave me a home and loved me and let me love you. you didn’t ask for a problem pet—you wanted a friend to share a house with. someone to text from the grocery store, someone to make breakfast with on sundays, someone to cover late rent

i still joke about loving like a dog. i think i’m better, these days, at pretending i know where good and bad lie. pretending i care, because you care. and maybe that’s not a pretence, then. i do care because you care. i just don’t know if my love will ever stop taking priority over morality. i’ll pretend. i’ve only lost one person since you, so maybe that’s growth

you look happy in your photos. you have a cat; that made me laugh. i’m not going to click accept on the request, because i don’t think i know how to love you any different than i did six years ago. but—and you might never know this—i’m always going to love you anyway. we may have bled out, quick and messy euthanasia of the life we built, but i love you like a dog, and that shit’s unkillable

[andromeda-pleiades]

Feel free to just read this and delete it, I don't need a response.

Re: your recent post about noncon/underage content in fandom spaces, specifically in CoD:MW.

It's not an individual's place to police what Fanfiction or Fanart people create. The characters are fictional. The death, torture, and destruction in CoD fics are also fictional. In no country is murder "okay" either, but people die in Fiction all the time. There's a specific tag on Ao3 that authors can and should put on their works if the work features Under-Age or noncon content. You can filter out that tag and not read it.

I don't read them, certainly, bc that's not the kind of story I'm interested in reading, but it doesn't mean it's my right to tell authors to stop writing it. I don't read fics involving daddy kink bc it squicks me out like hell, but it is not my place to tell authors to stop writing fics with it. Fictional characters can't break irl laws, even in "reader insert" fanfictions. Authors are not and cannot be held accountable for the things they write, because they write fictional stories.

I recommend you block the users and tags you don't want to see, and you help encourage the creators you do want to see without insulting others. Your experience will improve. I want it to improve. I don't want you to be unhappy with your experience in any fandom. Fandom spaces are places to find your people, find your little joys, and to coexist peaceably, and it's wonderful when it all works.

With all due respect, you're well spoken, but that's where my respect ends

Let's do this in points

I am not policing what people write. I simply stated how i feel about certain content on the internet.

If you think writing character death or death in general is the same or equal to writing pornographic content about children, you're too far gone.

Once again, you try to dumb down pedophilia into something less than what it is. The things about daddy kinks are two consenting adults who are not getting off on the manipulation and r*pe of children.

Like I said in my previous post, I don't care about your laws or that 'fictional characters' can't break them. I believe that pedophiles are the absolute scum of the earth, and I have no positive feeling when I think of those horrid and disgusting people.

Also, I want to make this very clear. I don't care if you write weird, illegal things like vore or kidnapping on the internet, I only care about the children, and I wish nothing but the worst on anyone who wishes harm on them mentally, physically, and sexually.

I know it may seem hypocritical for me to be okay with certain things on the internet and not okay with other things but I am my own person and I'm allowed to have my own moral compass. And I find no reason why anyone should be okay with this type of content being allowed on the internet.

I know that blocking them and moving on about my day would be the socially acceptable thing to do. But I don't have to be content with the media people consume on the internet. I also have a platform, and I feel strongly about this, so I'm gonna speak out on it.

I know I might sound a bit extremist on this matter, but that's exactly how I feel, I care so deeply about children and their future, and well-being. That I will commit war crimes to make sure they're safe

Also next time you write something think what's the point, if the point is defending pedophiles then you're probably on the wrong side.

[akc-g]

the thing is ultimately idc what ppl do. u can do whatever u want. nobody can stop u from doing what u want. fictional characters ARE just fictional characters. ur not doing anything illegal aside from technicalities that we can argue abt all day. all of this ultimately IS debating based on ur personal morals n frameworks n none of this tangibly affects reality. there are sliding scales of acceptable for like everything in these discussions etc etc dark media has its place. i dont like that u will get, like, 'anti' spaces for lack of a better word that refuse to have anything troubling in fanwork or leave room for nuance. i think these spaces are very kid-orientated n we as adults need to actually argue w each other not 15yos who just learned the concept of fandom but im getting off topic.

my points onwards are that fiction is ALWAYS grounded in reality in some way - the characters exist for a reason, the story exists for a reason, fanwork exists for a reason. asking urself why you enjoy xyz n how you enjoy it is like a thing everyone should be asking themselves and your feelings from that also exist for a reason. nothing exists out of nothing. my feelings on this subject don't exist out of nothing - your feelings on this subject don't exist out of nothing.

and the second point that hasnt been talked to death is that, okay, yeah, fandom politics do not affect real life. but if they don't matter, if ppl upset dont matter, then why do YOU need them to matter? why is it just vacum sealed fiction when someone complains but when you talk about it, its suddenly important queer media? it clearly matters to you. it clearly has an impact on you. why can't it have an equally negative impact on others as the positive impact it had on you? why does fandom only matter when it helps? besides that something not touching the real world can be true while it very much effecting the niche space you inhabit, which is important in this context.

i respect that ppl get defensive of their interests and the things that bring them comfort, letting go of coping mechanisms or simply happy interests is difficult. i generally dont think ppl on the 'opposite side' are some kind of inhumane monsters. we r all just ppl trying to find something to make ourselves feel better abt our world. what makes you feel safe isn't inherently a good thing tho just bc it makes u fuzzy. this goes for like. everything ever but *post context*. ig my whole point is less ppl have no media literacy but that ppl deliberately have none bc ppl want to stay comfortable in the niches theyve created.

[beevean]

I keep thinking of this interpretation of N!Hector (at the bottom). How, essentially, his growth revolved around his conception of love: how he's at his core a broken, love-starved man who had to learn how to let go out of selflessness.

They make some valid points. So I want to put together why the story still wastes a very intriguing concept and its morals are still disgusting.

Let's take N!Hector purely from this angle. His sloppy writing starts to make sense. N!Hector never warms up to Carmilla, because his last memory of Carmilla is her beating him up after she revealed that her apparent respect was a lie. Dracula is on thin ice: he was the first person who was nice to him, but he lied to N!Hector about his real plans, and most importantly, got convinced that he might have died if Dracula actually succeeded. (still doesn't stop him from wanting to resurrect him)

Lenore is "nice" to him. Lenore not only praised his voice, the strength of his character, etc., but she also has shown that she wants to be with him for no ulterior reason, and that she wants to protect him from mean Carmilla.

So N!Hector is totally fine with her. It's okay that she beat him that one time, because it was his fault (granted, an abused person might think like that...). It's okay that she made a sexual game out of taking him out with a leash: that's just how vampires are, right? It's okay that she used sex and took advantage of his feelings to put a trapping ring on him: it was with good intentions. It was for his sake. It was to protect him.

So, N!Hector falls in love with Lenore because she did everything in her power to keep him in a gilded cage, including resorting to rape by deception. Abuse is love. Selfishness is love. He, too, loves like a vampire, shown by the way he surrounded himself with pets magically compelled to be loyal to him, so the two have the same love languages.

This speaks of a profoundly ill mentality, the byproduct of a lifetime of abuse. It's a delicate topic that should be treated with the utmost respect.

exhibit a: respectful writing that truly gives trauma the gravitas it deserves.

After some more bonding over how similar Lenore and N!Hector are because no one loves them and they're just victims, they're so like each other fr fr, we get to S4E6. In a way, we can see N!Hector's actions here as a mirror to what Lenore has done to him: she used treachery to turn him into a tool and so "keeping him safe", and so he used treachery to cage her and protect her from N!Isaac destroying the entire life she built with the others. This is mercy for him. This is an act of love. Protect Lenore and stay close to her, but everyone else can die, even if it hurts her. I see the intention, I really do.

But add to this the fact that N!Hector's whole plan was for the sake of resurrecting Dracula, therefore risking another mass slaughter, for no other reason than to feel better about his mistakes, and we're starting to see a problem.

We're near the end of the show, and N!Hector hasn't grown one bit. Not morally, and not emotionally. He still has no empathy. He still loves like a vampire. He still has no self-respect. He went through unimaginable torture, and he's still the "manchild" we were supposed to laugh at in S2 - except now he's marginally cooler, I guess.

(also, is it really "love" if N!Hector genuinely thought N!Isaac would kill him and he accepted it? He didn't plan to stick around, he didn't plan to "keep" Lenore with him. So the point starts to fall apart.)

But then N!Isaac makes a speech to him about agency and the will to live, and a few episodes later, N!Hector has his "magnificent" growth. His sign of maturity is letting Lenore die. Not keeping her close, despite her being the kindest person to him (although I suppose N!Isaac will quickly replace her lol). Letting this woman, both a victim and an abuser, commit suicide on her own terms, the terms he never had, is N!Hector finally learning how to love.

All very nice and wholesome. On paper.

Lenore is forcibly made to be sympathetic in S4, to the point that it becomes blatant lying. Suddenly she has no sexual interest in N!Hector anymore, after all she did to him (and very interesting, that Lenore was only aroused when he was her prisoner - now that he has more freedom and seems to like her as a person, she doesn't care anymore). Suddenly her smug demeanour has vanished, treating him with almost real respect. Suddenly there's more focus on how alone she is, and how she and N!Hector can relate to each other and only have each other in the world. It's disingenuous, and all so that I could pity her, and believe that these two would care for each other, and be touched that N!Hector's big love gesture is allowing Lenore to find freedom from her unnatural existence, while in reality I'm just frustrated that this rapist got to find freedom from the consequences of her actions - she doesn't even feel bad for what she did, "I'm sorry for everything you went through", so much for growing to love him. It's not even framed as him being free of her, but her being free of herself, fuck that guy I guess. Hell, even her phrasing implies that the main reason she sunned herself was that she wasn't willing to live in a cage, even with Hector, basically throwing a tantrum because she didn't have power anymore. I get reading between the lines and connecting that what triggered her suicide was the realization that as a vampire she's inherently doomed to go insane with craving power, but she really painted herself in the worst light.

I can't even say that the show forgot about her previous behavior: it specifically calls out to Lenore "solving Hector's problem", but makes it a joke that is quickly brushed off. We are meant to be endeared at Lenore using sex as a tool of deception. Yeah, silly Lenore, that was awkward I guess. More seriously, Lenore neither had a solid change of heart/realization that she behaved like a monster in the name of her "good intentions", nor is she tragic enough compared to her actions - at most I can understand where part of her behavior is coming from, like her being happy to show her strength by beating N!Hector into the ground, but I don't feel sorry for her. The story had the chance to emphasize her conflict with her vampiric nature, if I was really meant to pity her hopeless existence, but it doesn't take it. So I have no reason to care about her, or think she's a good person for N!Hector. The fact that she is the kindest anyone has ever been to him doesn't mean that she is kind, just that this poor man has been spit on far too much.

And maybe N!Hector really is too broken to understand that being raped is bad. Maybe his abuser choosing to waste time around him feels like a banquet for someone as love starved as he is. But is that how he ends? Still not getting it? Still not feeling anything about the way he has been treated all this life? Is he really completely not conflicted about the two-faced way Lenore treated him?

And what about his relationship with humanity? Is writing a book about his mistakes really the best he can do? N!Isaac realized off screen that he wants to change the world for the better: what is, effectively, N!Hector's change in this aspect? Sure, maybe he won't keep resurrected pets anymore, but after jotting down how much he has fucked up in life, what does he want to do? What was his journey, made of nothing but suffering and mockery and the lesson "you are stupid for trusting", for?

If I am to read N!Hector as a victim of deep abuse, so damaging that he has lost all sorts of empathy, morals and self-worth... what is, then, the story told through him? He doesn't get better. He doesn't even get worse, in the same way Isaac did, for example - I proposed an ending where he snaps and sets the castle on fire as a bookend with his abusive childhood, which would have been tragic, but ofc it didn't happen. The climax of his journey is that he holds no resentment towards a woman who was both kind and cruel to him, and simply chose to forgive all the bad that was done to him without any struggle. He accepted the crumbs and lapped the plate.

The message: forgive the people who hurt you, if they think they are only helping you - in fact, don't even think about it. Not because it's unhealthy to let yourself be consumed by resentment. Because if they hurt you for your own good, then they are good people deep down.

Steven Universe became the internet's laughing stock for far less.

(it's not even that Lenore was his mother, or his long-time wife, someone that could be genuinely hard to distance yourself from if they abuse you. They knew each other for maybe two months.)

I cannot empathize with N!Hector, and I can't even sympathize with him, because this is not a character arc, this is a slop job. I don't think Lenore is so nice because she deigns to speak to him, and I don't think her wanting to protect N!Hector can make up for her disgusting behavior in S3. I have no reason to be happy that N!Hector is "free", because he's in the same position he started from in S2: cooped up in a castle, uninterested in getting closer with humankind, alone. And I have no reason to be sad that Lenore killed herself, because the story did a poor job of convincing me that she deserved to be happy with the man she treated like a pet before her character was disingenuously defanged.

I can assure you: Ellis did not have any intention of writing a story about how abuse warps your conception of love. He just liked kicking around a ball in the shape of a character, and then gave him a rushed "good" ending (that still feels bittersweet compared to all others) because of backlash. Trying to see a coherent arc here is like trying to squint to see an image on a magic eye poster, and the effort is not worth it. N!Hector deserved better, and abuse survivors deserve to be represented by characters written with love, not spite.

[katyspersonal]

Dear, oh dear. What was it? The authenticity to strange customs of royal bloodlines from actual history? The fact that medieval-coded setting might not have had the same taboos? Or the fact that incest for Martin is what weird deaths abs barefoot women are for Miyazaki? Oh, it doesn't matter.. Tonight, Katyahina joins the discourse.

(Lmao she actually doesn't, it is actually just Elden Ring DLC spoiler vent)

I am actually thankful for getting spoilered about the plot twist before I could return from work and play myself, because I had time to overcome all 5 stages of grief on it lol gghghg Okay first of all, I am NOT this guy:

I also disapprove of any manners of "moral crusades" in the fandoms where control freaks try to force "writing it better" on the fellow fans. One can take creative liberties and make AUs, it is their right, not our obligation. Let alone the fact that I personally have Tanith type of love aka I'll accept any ideas the writers have, even bad ones, because it is their work and I either take it OR find another story to love. So yeah, I think we as a fandom enter a crisis where some will rage quit but those who stay could do that thing where they believe everyone owes them a "safe space" from canon. Just taking my stance on the matter: do whatever you need to preserve enjoyment in ER but keep in mind that fanon will never be more important than canon!

On the subj, it doesn't really matter for me why incest is SO acceptable in Elden Ring setting. I can accept the conditions in the fiction, since it is DARK fantasy after all! What really bummed me out originally was the choice of characters to pull that idea. Like.. Malenia got cucked, huh. It is deeper than that of course. Regardless of how you feel about the topic, leaving her behind is just sad. I feel bad for her

It isn't just this, it is.. the fact that this piece of the puzzle takes her level of gilrfailure to ABSURD heights. I guess she really DOES mirror Maria, in the end!! This makes nuking Caelid and destroying Radahn's brain a serious mess in her story. Like... she fucked up spectacularly. She fucked up a BIG time as 'blade of Miquella'. Yes, sure, dark theme bad scary blablabla but I feel bad for her, she deserved better. She was done dirty by fans (both Reddittube incels and Twitbr radfems, you are ALL guilty!), but now she is done dirty by characters/Miquella and by the writers. It all made no sense and I get an impression that she exists just to suffer. She is not miserable, she IS misery.

So yeah, as much as I want to focus on my stance that if you can't accept fucked up canon maybe this story is not for you, but 1) we spend two years being invested in these characters and it is valid to preserve it, as long as abiding by more "pleasant" fanon isn't forced within the fandom 2) "you can enjoy the media and still engage with it critically" is a pointless statement because the ones who decide what IS the "correct" way to be critical are those who fear-monger better and most fans aren't head strong and seek leaders, so I might as well ask people to stop being people and 3) I honestly am more concerned about Malenia. It's been a while since I felt so personal about the character. I want her to re-bloom as her baby self so I could hold and protect her from the gravity of her mistakes and misplaced faith, that's how I feel.

[nerdygaymormon]

I'm feeling like I'm being prompted that it's okay to date girls, but like I worry if this is the devil. The spirit wouldn't prompt me to do something that is against God and yet I feel like I am. Can you help me makes sense of this?

In our church there are men we sustain as a prophet, an apostle, a Seventy, a stake president, and a bishop. It's very hierarchical and we are trained to defer to them on matters of morality and virtue and determining what is right and wrong.

Yet we are also taught that we have the light of Christ in us. We have our conscience to be our guide. We have an inner voice that can lead the way.

Our leaders are not perfect and they don't have all the answers, and sometimes they get it wrong. They are doing the best they can and may be inspired to say something useful for me, but maybe their background and experience and loyalty to the men above them will limit their ability to see me as I am and what is best for me.

The name of this church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You see “of Jesus Christ” and “of Latter-day Saints” are next to each other. There’s nothing that has to be in between you and Jesus. You are entitled to revelation for your life and you don’t have to rely on any one else for it, not even a prophet.

My experience is that messages of the Spirit are accompanied by feelings. For me, with the spiritual messages the feelings I experience are calm, peace, love, settled, feeling positive towards others, and joy. Sometimes we call the Spirit the “comforter,” so think how you feel wrapped up in a nice thick comforter on a cold day: warm, safe, protected, snug. Or sometimes it’s a feeling of unease or befuddlement or trouble remaining focused on the topic, in those cases it means this isn't it, try again.

We talk about the Spirit like this mighty thing that will make our heart burn or a voice speaking to us, and I’ve had that happen, but only rarely. For me, if ‘quiet’ could be a feeling, then that’s generally how I feel the Spirit.

Think of how you felt when you receive the prompting that it's okay to date girls, is it the same sorts of feelings you associate with things of the Spirit?

I’m reminded of a story from Acts 10:10–16 about the very first Gentile allowed to join the church of Christ. Cornelius was a centurion and an angel instructs him to go to the city of Joppa and find the apostle Peter.

Peter doesn’t believe non-Jews are allowed to be followers of Christ, but God gave him a vision. In the vision, animals are lowered from heaven and Peter is commanded to eat. But he refuses because these animals are considered unclean in Jewish law. The voice tells Peter not to call unclean that which God has cleansed.

Because of that vision, Peter understood that if God said it’s okay for Cornelius to join the church, then Peter should not block Cornelius from joining even though Cornelius was a gentile.

I think the same applies to you. If God has said “this is not unclean,” then you accept that the "law" as you had been taught may be too limiting, it may not be correct.

Let's say you decide to move forward with dating girls, and then decide it's not that great for you. You can stop dating girls. Sometimes experience is the best way to learn, and by dating girls perhaps you'll learn this isn't for you. Or maybe you'll learn it feels right in so many ways that you never understood was possible and which you never felt when you dated boys.

Often we don't know the path our life will take, but we can see far enough ahead to see a rock ahead of us and we can step onto that rock. Once there, we can see the next rock and then take that next step.

You now are seeing a rock ahead to date girls. You get to choose to step onto that rock, or to wait until later to take that step, or even to never take that step. Whether to step onto that rock is the choice you get to make, but the spirit is saying if you do take a step that it's okay, that this is a choice that's open to you.

The leaders can make the rules for what's acceptable in church, but you get to listen to your conscience, your inner voice, the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and determine what's right for your life and the next step forward for you.

[ed-recovery-affirmations]

ive been going back and forth about asking this but as someone who never had healthy eating to a healthy approach to body image modeled for me, what does waning the healthfully lose weight look like? ive been considering trying to lose weight for health reasons (my doctor supports me if i choose to or not) but i realize i have no idea how to keep diet and exercise from becoming disordered. thank you for your time

That is a very good question! I'm glad you have access to a medical professional who supports you either way. I'm going to go ahead and put my answer under a cut so that people who find diet advice triggering can choose not to read. The truth is that for many people who've experienced disordered eating, all dieting is a risk and can lead to ED relapse. I was really hesitant about answering this, because I do personally believe in health at every size, and because I do not know your specific medical needs/previously existing medical conditions. However, because as someone who had to be put on a very restrictive diet when I was experiencing terrible GI problems, I REALLY wish I'd had someone to talk me through having to restrict with a previous ED, because it was SO triggering. I truly hope my advice can help, whether you choose to pursue this or not.

I am going to bold something I ended up putting in the end of my written piece, though: If you try still find yourself struggling too hard with your mental health and body image, it's really okay to stop dieting. If you find yourself too hungry, too tired, just too deprived, you can quit. I don't know how you feel about the "health at every size" movement, and I do not know your current weight, nor do I need to ask. All I know is that ANYTHING is healthier than developing a lifelong eating disorder. And I know that you deserve a life in which you feel the best you possibly can, regardless of what that looks like! I personally believe it is okay to be fat. Yes, really. It is okay to be fat. It can be hard, in this world that demonizes fatness, to accept that for yourself, but it is okay to be fat. And it is much, much healthier to be a self-loving fat person than to be someone who self-destructs in pursuit of thinness.

Please take care of yourselves, followers. Know your limits and mind the tags before reading on.

So if you choose to pursue this, first and foremost, make sure you're not cutting too many calories, because you will fuck up your metabolism in the long run. Remember that 2000 (give or take) is considered the MINIMUM for an adult. Many diets recommend 1500 - that is BAD. That is a starvation diet. There have been studies showing this will fuck with your metabolism and health long-term. 2000 is the minimum, and remember that calories have no morality. You may find yourself needing to add more if your exercise plan is particularly rigorous. Remember, giving your body what it needs will make it feel safe. Exercising while going into deprivation mode will trigger your body into starvation mode in the long run.

That leads me into a segue - never let your body feel deprived or starved. This is the gateway to eating-disordered thinking - the idea that you should deprive yourself if your body is not where you feel it "should" be, or that you are displaying moral weakness for feeding your body when it tells you it needs feeding. Use intuitive eating - eat nice and slow, savoring each bite, and absolutely keep eating until your body tells you it feels full enough. Remember, once your body is full, there is nothing wrong with putting away the rest for leftovers!

(And keep in mind - eat until you feel ACTUALLY full, not using ana tricks to make your body temporarily THINK you are full.)

Take joy in cooking and finding new foods! Food is not bad. It is something that we all need and it is natural for us to take pleasure in it, so don't let your eating or food prep experiences become "guilty!" Experiment with nutritious recipes, savoring the journey of finding what you like, and remember, you don't have to force yourself to eat specific foods if you don't enjoy them. I know kale got really big a while back, but it's just not for everyone. (It can also be cooked in different ways - it is VERY difficult to enjoy raw kale.) Now drinking liquefied celery seems to be the new fad diet. You don't have to like that either (I hate celery, myself!) There is no morality attached to eating foods that you hate because the latest fad diet says you have to, and you do not deserved to be deprived of enjoyable food at ANY size, remind yourself of that! Remember that your body does not need to "detox" from food, and that there are a wide variety of foods that can offer you good nutrition. Depriving yourself leads to a mentality of feeling like you deserve to be deprived. Do your research and find what you like.

Remember that healthy fats, carbs, salt, and sugars are necessary nutrients. While your doctor may advise you to somewhat reduce these things, do not trust ANY diet that tries to keep you from incorporating these things into your regular meals. (In fact, you need many of these things in order to properly absorb your vitamins.) Eat complete meals rather than falling to fad diets.

You are human and humans need little treats! If you have a favorite type of "junk food" it will not lead to a healthy mentality to deprive yourself of it completely. Your doctor may advise you to reduce the quantities of these treats and replace them with more nutritious snacks, but a total-deprivation diet is not mentally healthy. Keep your treats. Remember that your worth does not decline at ANY size, and you deserve to have treats here and there at ANY point in your journey. And that's ANY treat. Yes, processed food. Yes, refined sugars. Yes, "empty calories." We all deserve a little bit of our favorite things every now and again, and these foods have no morality. They are not "guilty" or "bad" foods. They're treats. Allow yourself to enjoy them. I also would NOT follow the practice of setting aside one specific "cheat day" where you allow yourself to go ham, followed by more restriction. I'm concerned that could lead to a binge-restrict pattern, fuck up your metabolism, and encourage an unhealthy relationship to guilt and food. Instead, allot yourself these treats in measured amounts throughout your week.

(Also, try to keep from falling into the mentality that you are only allowed to feel joy, pride, happiness, etc once you have reached a certain weight. If you never lose an ounce, you are every bit as human and worthy as a hypothetical thinner self. If you deprive yourself of joy in the process, having no idea how long it will take, you may arrive at your weight goal only to find that you have forgotten how to feel positively about yourself as a person along the way.)

Remember that exercise is not for punishing your body! Try to find exercise that you enjoy. You can take little walks while listening to music. Perhaps you can go swimming, try yoga, or sign up for a dance class. It can be hard to do these things while you don't feel comfortable in your body, but remember that regardless of what anyone else thinks, you deserve to have activities you enjoy at EVERY size. Typical exercise like running and lifting are totally fine, but not everybody likes these things and that's okay. There's no morality to that either. Some people just hate running. Remember that you're trying to create a lifestyle in which your mind and body feel good, a life that you enjoy. So ask yourself, as you exercise - are you doing something good for your body, or are you punishing your body? Your body does not deserve to be punished. (And don't be discouraged if you have to work up to the exercise abilities you want. It doesn't happen overnight.) Oh, and you don't need to exercise excessively after a holiday or a treat! Exercise is not something you use to punish yourself for eating. Eating is a life necessity, not a punishable offense. Remember that.

Allow yourself to enjoy events like holiday parties, birthdays, family events. It can be hard not to struggle with guilt on these days, but you are still deserving of enjoying the treats and festivities at any size. And if well-meaning family members try to guilt you, feel free to let them know that if you wanted their advice, you would ask.

Do not be tempted to punish your body through restriction or painful levels of exercise, even if you don't lose weight as fast as you'd wanted to. Even if you find yourself not losing any weight at all! All bodies and metabolisms are different, and you don't deserve to punish yourself no matter what. These behaviors can create mental health problems and can set you up for serious long-term physical health problems down the line. And you deserve better than that - at ANY size! Keep in mind that you may not end up at the ultimate weight you had envisioned, but try not to become frustrated. Go at it slowly and steadily. Drastic levels of rapid weight loss just do more harm than good. Try to enjoy where you are at every part in the process, and give your body love and appreciation wherever it's at. There is a lot of pressure to want and relentlessly pursue a thin body, but it's not sustainable if you can't be in the moment loving your body along the way.

And finally, if you find yourself struggling with a mentality of guilt, shame, or fear around food, it is okay to go off your diet. If you find yourself too hungry, too tired, just too deprived, you can quit. Yes, really. There can be a lot of stigma or shame attributed to a "failed" diet, but there is nothing shameful about making the right choices to best protect YOUR mental and physical health. So if you try this and still find yourself struggling too hard with your mental health and body image, it's really okay to stop. I don't know how you feel about the "health at every size" movement, and I do not know your current weight, nor do I need to ask. All I know is that anything is healthier than developing a lifelong eating disorder. And I know that you deserve a life in which you feel the best you possibly can, regardless of what that looks like! I personally believe it is okay to be fat. Yes, really. It is okay to be fat. It can be hard, in this world that demonizes fatness, to accept that about yourself, but it is okay to be fat. And it is much, much healthier to be a self-loving fat person than to be someone who self-destructs in pursuit of thinness.

I might suggest you consult with a therapist and nutritionist who might be able to help you monitor yourself, and might also help you gain better insights into your mentality around body image and food. That way you're not doing this alone and will have other people to tell you if what you're doing is taking a turn into the unhealthy/disordered.

Whatever you decide to do, anon, I hope you find a life that you enjoy and in which you feel well!

[itsclydebitches]

I'm on season four of my Walking Dead rewatch and it kinda baffles me that Carl isn't the one to kill Karen and David.

Obviously this would require reworking later episodes/seasons (Carol would no longer get kicked out, this would be a huge blow to Rick, etc.) but imo it makes way more sense for their character arcs, Carl in particular. We've just come off of a season where Carl shoots someone, a kid (by Hershel's standards) while he was lowering his weapon, then strongly defends himself to Rick. This isn't a moment where Carl considers shooting someone to eliminate a potential, future threat—which could have been a nice parallel to Rick nearly giving the Governor Michonne—or a case of him only wounding the kid on accident and essentially getting a reprieve. You didn't kill him, so now you have to chance to consider whether you'd have been okay with the fact that you had. No, Carl murders this guy and then displays no remorse for it, speaking with complete conviction that they must eliminate anyone who crosses them to keep their family safe. That's a hell of a set-up for the next season.

So Rick takes Carl's gun away and, given that he needs a break from the pressures of leadership himself, tries to rehabilitate Carl by redirecting his care-for-the-family energy into gardening. Okay, so far, so good. The problem is that nothing happens during "Infected" to change Carl's moral stance. He's forced to pick up a gun to defend Michonne from a walker and Rick accepts the necessity of that, giving Carl his own weapon back at the same time Rick takes his. The message is far more, "I recognize that you need a way to defend yourself in this new world and I trust you to use this responsibly"—growth Carl already went through back in the second season—rather than, "I can trust that you'll use this on walkers and immediate threats only, not the people surrendering who might later become allies, friends, and family like so many others have." There's a vague reference to how Carl has been "trying" lately (AKA over the course of a month given the time skip) and that Rick is proud of him for that, but it's merely implied that Carl has changed his mind on this incredibly fraught issue. Worse, that this monumental change happened off-screen between seasons.

So why not get rid of that lackluster, non-redemption by really leaning into Carl's flawed perspective for a while? Season three gave no indication that he was backing down about this, so... he doesn't. Rick takes his gun, makes him farm, and all the while Carl is chaffing at the kid treatment and what he's coming to see as his father's "weak" approach to contribution. Why are you farming when you could be out there defending us? Cue arguments about the necessity and worth of keeping a home running, even when yes, physical safety is a major priority. (That's something I always thought was missing from the Andrea vs. Lori kitchen argument in season two. Lori is wrong for the misogynistic, "Let the men do it" attitude, but Andrea is equally wrong to devalue the "laundry" Lori does—AKA, everything that ensures the fighters are fed, clothed, clean, have a roof over their head, and have something to come home to after all that horror.) Rather than Carol, I can easily picture Carl realizing that no one is going to stop treating him like the kid he is, so he uses that to his advantage by starting story time. Yes, Dad, I'm doing exactly what you want and taking time away from the horrors of this world, acting my age by enjoying some good books with my friends. I'm definitely not teaching them about knives and stuff :) When the sickness hits Carl again has that need to do something, to protect everyone, but no one is letting him near a gun. Alright. That's fine. He's resourceful. He's still allowed a knife and there's no one guarding the gasoline. Taking out a sick Karen and David in their sleep is easy.

I can better buy into someone Carl's age thinking that killing the people showing symptoms will fix the problem, as opposed to Carol, an adult on the council who knows more about how disease works and that they're pretty much all already infected. (And yes, obviously for this post I'm working under the belief that Carol did kill David and Karen, rather than engaging with the Lizzie theories.) I can better buy into the character who just killed someone in the name of safety a month ago executing sick friends than I can one of the most nurturing members of the original group. Which brings me to Carol's rather rapid, mostly off-screen development. Don't get me wrong, I ADORE badass!Carol—she's one of my favorites in the whole show—but binging the series has really highlighted how quickly this hardened Carol came about. It might have worked better if she'd become colder after loosing Sophie, but she remains the softer, caring group member all the way through season three. We're told that she's made huge strides—she's a "good shot" now whereas before she'd always cower during an attack—but that's not exactly the same thing as becoming someone willing to murder preemptively to keep others safe. I can't even quite reconcile the end of season three Carol with the shady Carol at the start of season four, the one who teaches self-defense behind Rick's back. While it's definitely well-established that she's often used Rick as a convenient target for her frustration and grief, questioning his leadership in the process, they seem to have come to a better understanding by season three. Basically, Carol has changed, undoubtedly, but not this much in this short a time. Merle comments that she's not the same woman anymore, but that's in the context of her being able to put him in his place; she's no longer terrified of the Eds of the world. Roughly a month before the sickness goes down, she's still the same Carol who talks gently to Daryl and reminds him that just because you love someone doesn't mean they're good for you. That's a wildly different Carol from the one giving clandestine knife lessons, telling a little girl she's "weak" for not stabbing her dad, and burning two friends on the off chance that this will keep others safe.

So give all that to the character who has actually been focused on learning to defend himself, is adamant that kids (like him) need to be tough, and has just established that he's willing to kill in the name of future protection. Let Carl go through all that and let Rick grapple with it. Meanwhile, I'd hold off on hardened!Carol for another season or two, rather taking her through that development via Lizzie. She's more confident now, better at defending herself, but still fundamentally the Carol we met back at the quarry when separated from Ed; the one who cheekily admits she misses her vibrator. She's made huge strides, but she's still grieving Sophia—obviously—and now suddenly this man is charging her with loving two girls roughly her daughter's age "like her own." Carol promises, but not with the obviously-of-course-why-wouldn't-I? vibe of the original scene. She doesn't know if she can love them like that, or protect them better than she did Sophia, but how can she deny him his final wish? Let Carol struggle with motherhood again (perhaps paralleling Michonne with Judith), how to navigate it, and juuuuuust as she thinks she's starting to make some headway...

Lizzie kills Mika.

That, alongside killing Lizzie herself, could introduce the Carol we come across at the beginning of season four. She once let Lizzie try to put down her father and when she couldn't do it, Carol comforted her and tried to protect her. Of course she did. Now she puts down Lizzie and realizes that she can't be "weak" anymore. Not if she's going to protect any more little girls. She's going to learn more, train harder, cease hesitating, and god help anything that gets in her way.

[fieldofgreengrass]

O M G okay in the way that lulu idolizes nunki and sees him as an angel from actual heaven LOWKEYYY like the knight she used to dream about coming to save and protect her and guide her etc etc i think she would come to love kissu as not only a friend but as a protector seeing as she cannot fight for SHIT which resolves in her being a passive fighter utilizing traps and such. i think kissu being an in your face active predator when it comes to fighting and terrorizing would make her feel simultaneously safe and fearful bc she would feel like she never had to be scared of getting hurt with someone like him around while also getting huge stomach aches and bouts of stress and anxiety from the inherit wrongness of it all. MUCH TO PONDERRRRR sorry for word vom EEEEK

ohh my god LUXX ;; 🖤 PLEASE never apologize for telling me your thoughts, you don't understand how excited i got receiving this and knowing yu enjoy them so much + talking with me about them uaa i love you and i love your writing and this is making me batshit insane.. ohh WOW it's just so sweet! and beautiful! and so immensely twisted! because kissu doesn't abide by his own morals, just his ideology that nothing stays, so it's natural to hurt, get hurt, and lose everything. and then you wake up another day and move on. he knows the pain he causes and he enjoys it, when asked why he does it its just "because i'm with my friend," or "because i was tasked to do it, and i want to do a good job. i don't want to disappoint someone waiting for me." he finds the fact that people are so caught up on it amusing. he thinks about them, you live in a plentiful world, you have chances at life you don't deserve, you have a natural system that rewards you with blessings, why do you complain? why can't you accept it? he looks at peoples' grieved houses and bleeding pets and says, why can't you rebuild it? why can't you just have a good time rebuilding it, too? he knows exactly why they're upset, but he mocks them regardless. because her way of living prevents her from getting hurt. she's neck deep in it. and she views everything as a wonderment with so much happiness to glean. her priorities of connection, affection, friendship are so much higher than things like life and trauma and guilt. if you hold close to your heart that doctrine that everything changes, and that everything can change in a moment, maybe you're living on a constant line but it's comfortable.

if anyone close to her asks her why she's so awful in her methods.. she smiles at them and says "because they can do the same to me. i'm not stopping them, see? they're stopped by their own teeth." and once, she promises that if someone retaliates or gets revenge later, she won't fight back at all. she'll let nature take its course. she starts walking out in the open where anyone can kill her with a projectile. when too much time passes, she tries to make it happen by finding a previous target and dropping her chisels in earnest. only nothing happens, because they're stricken with fear, and for just one moment their fear was wrong and unfounded. how would they know that? to them, kissu is simply humiliating them and exercising power in a sick way. and she is.

so.. she really cares for lulu, and she really doesnt view anything luxx does as immoral. shes willing to protect her, make things easier for her, and show them both a good time. i think she'd be pleased lulu would trust her in that way.. shes not so ignorant to believe luxx isnt afraid, its only natural, but something deep within her wishes for her to let go of fear, too.. i think paralleling luxx's idolatry of nunki to how she views kissu is soo amazing, and it speaks to how theyre so different but so influential on her psyche... it must hurt so much but bring a sense of security all the same. aaaaaaahh