#(this is more out there but perfectly their behavior without prior context)

[shimmerfires]

Light reflecting off their highly reflective outfit; with the movement of silver boots and an arm slung around their shoulder. Allowing one boot to dramatically leave the ground. "So, do you have a suggestion box."

[centrally-unplanned]

I think you are being a little coy with things, I don't think I misunderstood your post at all, but I also think debating that is probably not productive. It seems like you don't *actually* think the odds of China invading Taiwan are so low that security arrangements to mitigate against it are unreasonable? And that besides Russia there isn't some current other stakes-similar conflict that is best-odds higher risk? If that is incorrect you can correct me here.

But it also seems pretty par for the course among nations at the moment; the same behavior is seen from very many countries, large and small, and as far as it goes China's belligerency (again, except towards Taiwan) seems less likely to escalate to war than does most comparable nations'. For instance, a war between China and India seems implausible, whereas one between India and Pakistan seems dangerously plausible (though I still suspect on general priors that it won't happen).

I think this claim is very wrong, and its making the mistake of treating war like it has universal stakes but it does not. Chad & Libya fought a decade long border war for example! You just (probably) haven't heard of it because it wasn't to threat to anything wider - not only because Chad & Libya were too weak for it to be, but because those countries didn't want it to be much more than that. Many countries have border disputes; most aren't funneling the GDP of a small nation to prepare for an annexation attempt.

India & Pakistan are also quite concerning! What, you can't have more than one big threat going around? I never said that, why would I say that? But China's is definitely bigger because A: India & Pakistan at this point have a perfectly solid track record of even having live border clashes and not escalating, not saying they are going to resolve this with force, of being pretty okay with the status quo. India isn't running around strangling Pakistani statehood, or really even restricting Pakistan in any substantial way. If India ever started doing the things China does about Taiwan then 100% the threat rises. India doesn't claim all of Pakistan as its own.

And B: India just doesn't have the same "alt order" style foreign policy. They are a much weaker country, they are like everyone an imperfect but decently democratic country, and they just aren't that concerned with like establishing partner regimes they can pressure in Africa for raw material control and building alternative global arms supply chains. The Kashmir conflict has way less spillover capacity. And India is the best case you have, right? Everyone else who is powerful (besides Russia who I explicitly stated is the equal/partner threat) doesn't have anything like these stakes, and anyone who does is way, way smaller. Power is the relevant function, goals is the other, and other countries don't have the combo.

This is going to need a lot more elaboration. The US has engaged in foreign interventionism pretty consistently for like a century, with by far the two most grievous and unjustifiable examples (Iraq and Vietnam) separated by over 30 years. I'm not sure "Iraq was ~15 years ago and the US is different now" is really believable without some kind of additional evidence. If we compare the US and the PRC's record of flouting norms against wars of aggression and international belligerency since WW2, I think the US pretty unambiguously comes out as the more aggressive!

I think this is a decently weak stance to have because its pretending the global context doesn't matter for a conversation about the global world order, its function, and its threats. The Vietnam war was, as they say, very dumb, but was happening in the context of a Cold War where the USSR was doing things like launching crushing invasions of Eastern Europe and massive arm sales to sponsor wars - like, for example, North Vietnam's invasion of South Vietnam! - and invading its own neighbors like its oft-paralleled Afghanistan. I'm not pointing fingers here on "who is to blame for the cold war" but I think if you stance is that it happened because of solely the national character of the US or anything that is pretty trivial to discard. Its not like Europe or the Comintern were uninvolved in most of these conflicts.

Then the Cold War ended, and the US proceeded to, yeah actually stop doing most of that shit (actually already had after Vietnam - it changed the country!) and do things like humanitarian interventions in Kosovo (perfection is not being claimed here, far far far from it, just the change). Then 9/11 happened, which caused virtually the entire globe to support an invasion of Afghanistan for example. In this process the worst parts of America's bellicose foreign policy establishment reared their heads, got their way, and got completely discredited in the ensuing failures of their vision. America changed. The "50 year history" is just a way of saying "America was the strongest country on the planet" for that time period. Look at the track record of every single other powerful country for all of human history, just for comparison's sake.

And that context relates to China as well, whose "peace" was in that same order. This is obviously very involved, you need books on this, but there is a fundamental idea buried in your reply that if say organized, state-sponsored terrorists from Myanmar - you know, the country where China is propping up a regime with military & economic aid that is ethnically cleansing its minorities in a low scale civil war - 9/11'd some skyscrapers in Shanghai that China wouldn't respond militarily. I can't know, but I'm skeptical, incredibly skeptical. Going to war in that context is like the default state, if you made me bet. (Humans are dumb)

I don't in fact think its weird to say "after a country suffers humiliating military defeat it becomes gunshy" is that hot of a take? Not an iron law obviously but, yeah, its pretty common. The US got whooped and is much more non-interventionist today

I'm just gonna be honest with you, this sounds kinda racist. I mean, I'm not doubting that Chinese politicians invoke national pride or whatever, but so do most countries' politicians. Again, if you've got some evidence that "pride" is a big geopolitical decision making factor for the PRC and that this is significantly different from whatever goes on in the US, I would like to see it. Absent such arguments this seems at best like overbelief, confident assertion of a plausible but evidenceless and unfalsifiable claim, and at worst some kind of Asian stereotype. Sorry but this one really bugs me. I would like to know your thinking process here.

I am authentically trying to not be mean here, truly, not a snarky setup, but I am gonna need you to talk to the person you are actually talking to, and not the person you invented in your head. Who said its different in the US? I never did for a second. 100% of countries have pride-based policymaking. That has to be least controversial thing to say ever, right? Its impossible to look at the political history of anything and not come to that conclusion. Its half the reason the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq! Every country has this inside them at all times, at varying levels of power. You can use a different word than pride, its obviously more than just that one specific emotion, but I don't think I failed to communicate on that.

Right now, the US and Europe and Japan and also Brazil and Mexico and etc etc don't have a cultural muck-up spiraling their political culture into convincing itself that its has to invade and conquer one of their neighbors in a war that could involve nuclear powers. Their cultural muckups are making them do other dumb things, obviously, generally domestically, but fortunately their pride stuff isn't as relevant, and isn't as dangerous (in this topic at least). But in China, today, their cultural muck-ups have convinced them that Taiwanese independence is this grand humiliation, and tbh infecting their own strategic planning to make them think that its also strategically necessary when it isn't. Which is precisely why the Taiwan scenario is so deadly, actually, because it isn't some "well we need to hit our GDP growth targets" scenario you can bribe your way out of it or whatever. The emotional-cultural components of course also interact with institutional & materialist factors in bad ways that make it even stickier.

And tbh I am not going to pretend this isn't related to authoritarianism - obviously democracies are perfectly capable of being bellicose invaders, look at Israel for a very recent example. But it is also true that they have on average less stomach for it, they tire out quickly when faced with the actual costs of it and generally need to be pushed into it by events. Its part of the strategic threat China poses, not only around Taiwan narrowly but its strategic approach of empower other authoritarian actors who will also sustain militarily expansionist goals that it can align with. But w/e, a little bit of a tangent.

[Fire] grand strategy video games and/or uhhh post war Vietnam

I'll do postwar Vietnam: Vietnam profits handsomely from Not Being China - right now the CCP has an extremely dim reputation in the west on societal freedom, correctly so, they are awful. So, since Vietnam is a counterbalancing rival to China, it gets viewed as the "light" version of it, as like how 90's China was where as long as you don't directly challenge the state, you are fine and they don't care. But Vietnam's CPV is probably worse than Hu Jintao's era CCP; they are less systematic, but more violent & unpredictable. Seemingly innocuous or "acceptable" forms of protest, or deviations from public morality, are sometimes fine and sometimes will get you arrested and tortured for months. They actively cultivate "violence as random terror" as a form of state control, to use fear to prevent people from risking dissenting activities.

But we don't talk about it much because we need them as an ally and they are small enough as a country. Which, honestly I can't blame, reality is harsh and China is a far larger threat to global peace right now. Doesn't change that it sucks though.

[familyagrestefanblog]

Analysis of the Family Agreste Portrait

Quarantine strikes again and since the Agreste family portrait has fascinated me for a loooong while now I decided to put my thoughts into words and write another essay x3

The amount of informations we get out if it is amazing and its not only highlighting the absolute TRAGEDY it is that this family is about to face such a horrible fall out, it also hints at the former family dynamic before everything went to hell.

So make yourself comfortable and get something to drink, because we will be here for a while.

Here we go: My analysis of this beauty of a fictional portrait

Let's start with the most obvious one: Hawkmoth.

Its commen knowledge by now that the background makes it seem like Hawkmoth is standing behind the Agreste family like a bad omen waiting for fate to take its course and cause their doom. The portrait is brilliantly designed so the illusion is created that Gabriels body (here in a blue suit closer to Hawkmoths normals dark purple one) overlaps with Hawkmoths and a darker line is connecting the two faces as well, which rest on the same height right beside each other. The very same line grows bigger as it goes further behind Emilie - coloring her entire background - showing us that EMILIE is all Gabriel sees when he becomes Hawkmoth. But notice that Adrien on the other hand can hardly be concidered part of Gabriels “sight” at all.

Its forshadowing 101 and damn beautiful if I may say so. But this isnt what I want to focus on in this post.

I want to elaborate on two other key factors that tell us about the former dynamic of the Agrestes instead and what they tell us about the present and future.

The heart:

This is hitting me on another level because look at the heart these three form with Adrien right in the middle! He was so LOVED. This family may have never been anywhere close to ideal but still, there was LOVE and now he's gonna loose it all.

Adrien already lost his mother which led to his father getting even more distant and cold and now his father is becoming increasingly more abusive as he falls deeper and deeper into villainy. Gabriel was never a good father, the show has already made this clear with episodes like "the bubbler", “the collector” or "Gigantitan" for example but gosh there was hope for their little family! The end scene in "Jackady" portrayed it perfectly and I wrote a whole other post just covering the sigificants of Adriens and Gabriels hug in that episode. Check it out here if you want, it goes hand in hand with this one.

Miraculous is all about love and the completely different ways it can affect us, our behavior and actions. Because love isnt just wonderful, pure and empowering, it also can be twisted, destructive and cause the darkst nightmares. And with this family the writers know how to portray the complex love in an abusive houshold thats destined to go up in flames and they also know how to hint at their troubled past with the family portrait.

But this heart visual tells us even more in connection with the positions of their hands. And with these two key factors, lets start with Gabriel:

His hands convey it so strongly. He loves/d Emilie and Adrien so much and no doubt this love for them was certainly the reason why he started his quest as Hawkmoth. But he is now losing himself more and more in the pleasure of his villainy to the point where he forgets why he's doing it in the first place and becomes a complete monster (of a father). But this turn and spiraling into villainy didn't came out of nowhere - this root already had to be in him to grow like that. And this is also something the portrait indeed hints at as well.

Because Gabriel is the only one of the three who:

1. We see so completely open and without hesitation reach out and hold BOTH his family members.

2. Is visually “cut off” from them as well.

But this doesn't mean he was excluded and the only one who truly cared and loved, it just shows that things were more... complicated...as usual.

This is best explained with Adriens hand placements:

One hand is holding his mothers but the other one is visibly not reaching out for his father. But as we all know, that's not because Adrien doesn't love him. In season 1-3 it is made more than clear that Adrien does not hate his father - he loves him alot and tries to be there for him and be patient because he knows that the loss of his mother brought his father terribly down.

Sure, Adrien gets frustrated and angry with him, literally how could he not?? But Adrien tries his best to reach out to Gabriel so they can bond and come out of this tragedy stronger.

But this loving willingness to forgive his father for the chance of growing a father-son bond with him doesn't change the fact that these two didn't had a bond prior to this. And let's be honest here, does anybody actually think this distance between them was caused by Adrien? I don't think so.

So notice how Adriens hand - not reaching out for his fathers - is the only one in the portrait NOT inside or forming the heart.

When the connection of the hands between the family members symbolise their connection to another, then Adrien keeping the hand for his father away from the display of love is VERY telling. It tells us very directly what this distance did to Adriens side of the relationship. Despite Gabriels hand being right there, Adrien does not meet the gesture. And I cannot believe that he did it out of resentment, nothing in the show indicated such strong negative emotions from past Adrien.

It's much more likely that Adrien not reaching for his fathers hand is meant to show us that Adrien felt that he either CAN'T return the gesture because he fears that it'll end in an unpleasant reaction from Gabriel - that it isn't Adriens "place" to reach out to his busy and distant father like that, like it's demanding something - or Adrien simply didn't took Gabriel laying his hand on his shoulder, in the context of posing for a portrait, as a gesture of love and affection.

The way I interpret the portrait is that prior to Emilies dissappearence Adrien did not exactly try to reach out to his father the same way he did from s1-s3, which, I mean, of course wasn't the case. Not only is it NOT the 13 years olds (or younger) job to form an emotional connection to their absent parent - when that’s the PARENTS job - it also wouldn't be necessarily "needed" for Adrien to do so.

Because Emilie at this point was still in the picture so and she was the complete opposite. She was a (or maybe the ONLY) safe, reliable and loving constant of parental attention, affection and care in his life and because of these two HARSH contrasts Adrien learned from very early on to focus mostly completely on her in that regard while kinda blocking his father out.

That most likely wasn't even an active choice whatsoever - Gabriel proofed to be an unreliable resource so Adrien learned to subconciously treat him that way out of self protection. That doesn't mean he had any kind of dislike or malice against his father it just means that he wasn't able or allowed to connect with Gabriel the way he needed. Several episodes show that Gabriel deadass only parented like 15 minutes tops in his life with one of the worst offenders kinda being “Gigantitan” ngl.

So yeah, when I see that the portrait wants to tell me that prior to Emilies loss, Adrien - a 12-13 year old at most - is THIS used to rely solely on the strong bond he has with his mother and not even really reaching out for his fathers love, then I can't help but interpret it in the way that... Well... Gabriel was so distant and emotionally unreliable to Adrien for all his life, that Gabriel simply... wasn't needed by his son. Not at that point of time at least.

And while this may seem weird, because obviously Adrien only now starts to stop craving for his fathers affection and approval (which is btw a horrible, HORRIBLE thing and not something good. A half orphan losing the last remaining hope he had left of having the chance to finally get to form a bond with the only other parent he has left, just to be crushed by disappointment and abandonment all over again until he let's go, is REALLY NOT as much of a good thing people will make it out to be. This is... plain awful) it's actually quite logical.

Adriens hand outside the heart doesn't mean that his father meant nothing to him and therefore refuses to meet and accept his affection (that's literally the complete opposite of what the show shows us), it means that Adriens and Gabriels father-son relationship suffers from a fatal emotional disconnection caused by miscommunication/ a lack of communication.

And this was caused by Gabriel. How? Let me elaborate on that by going a bit far afield (cuz lbh we all have time for this. I’m writing this in quarantine and youre reading this is quarantine, so lets gooooooooooooo).

In "The bubbler" Adrien says that his father "always forgot his birthday", but I cannot agree with this in true honesty. Gabriel is controlling his sons entire life, calls him "the epitome of perfection" and temporarily truly gave up being Hawkmoth for him, he definitely never forgot Adriens birthday.

"The bubbler" even SHOWS us that Adriens perspective of the situation is actually not the truth:

This is Adriens first birthday after Emilies dissappearence and it's incredibly telling how Gabriel handles the planning.

What this entire little sequence tells me is that Gabriel is completely and UTTERLY used to NOT be the one to take care of anything related to Adriens birthday. So Emilie was always the one who did it but somehow - now without her - Gabriel apparently still hasn't even considered changing anything about that nasty non-involvement and just expected Natalie to pick everything up where Emilie left it.

Because let's be real here, knowing Natalie she would NOT have forgotten to get a present if Gabriel truly had told her to. Natalie is never presented to do mistakes like that but Gabriel on the other hand IS definitely presented to us claiming things about himself as ultimate, blameless and true when they simply do not reflect reality. A great example: Gorizilla

You didn’t even speared a minutes of your time for Adrien and he DID try to! Asshat… It's a problem guys. The lack of self awareness Gabriel displays in moments like this is legitimately concerning when you think about how deeply this man is falling right now.

But back to the topic:

Because even if Gabriel didn't even consider doing anything himself for Adriens birthday - not even taking the time to SEE his son (who just recently lost his mother, come on Gabe, really?) - one thing one cannot hold against him: he sure as hell remembered Adriens birthday like any decent parent would and it wasnt portrayed as a this-year-for-the-first-time thing.

And yet Adriens statement still makes complete sense. Because a big, BIG problem with Gabriel is just how much he takes things for granted. He EXPECTS things to be universally known and to never be doubted, just because that's how HE sees them. I will write 10 essays if it's needed to make people understand that Gabriel DOES truly love Adrien, it's just that Gabriel HIMSELF is such a rotten, twisted and toxic person that he cannot see how much his (oppressing) behavior and the way he (doesn't) express his love hurts Adrien and that HE is the one at fault. (for more, once again, read this)

Gabriel LOVES Adrien but he takes the love he feels as such a matter-of-fact that he just completely... forgets to show it.

And when we take Adriens words and look at the Family portrait it unfortunately seems that...

…. Gabriel ALWAYS forgot to show it.

Adriens hand - that should at least be reaching out to his father - is outside of the heart in accepting certainty. Because that's what Gabriels non-presence was for Adrien while growing up: an unreliable and unreachable certainty he had to accept early on as safer to not try to emotionally depend on too much or else he will get hurt.

So yeah, Adrien is the one in the portrait who is very openly not reaching out but only because Gabriel never gave him the needed affection and stability to be able to create that bond.

But let me correct what I said a little earlier: Adrien ALWAYS needed his father. Every kid, especially one in a bad situation like Adrien, does need their parents/friends etc as support system to become independent and confident in a healthy way. And if they don’t have that they WILL crave and look for it!

What Adrien has been doing up to now IS normal for a teenager - humans NEED affection, belonging and safety. What ISNT/SHOULDN’T be normal is Adriens disconnection towards his father in the portrait and just how much Gabriel fails to take care and BE THERE for his son in BOTH TIMES!

Collector:

Bother Christmas:

One thing I like about the show is that it portrays their young main cast with one very important truth: The psyche of a child/teenager of their age will react and adapt so it SURVIVES, even if it results in unfortunate consequences in other relationships and places. Thats the psyches main concern and it'll try to cope with the limited experience and development it has in whatever way necessary to get itself to the next day. A coping mechanism is not there to make you a better person, it ensures your SURVIVAL, everything else is a secondary concern.

So seeing pre-show Adrien not react to Gabriels touch and even feel completely unloved and disconnected from him is no surprise to me. Kids are incredibly observant. They may lack the needed experience and knowledge to truly understand that they deserve better and to stand up for themselves but they are masters in picking up red flags in people and can put this danger into perspective while comparing the different danger levels of their options of people and places to adjust their behavior.

Feast:

Stormy Weather 2:

So the broken connection between father and son we see in the portrait (that Gabriel doesn't even notice but Adrien fully internalized) isn’t there because Adrien “didnt needed” or wanted his father, its because Adrien NEEDED Gabriel so much in his isolated upbringing but Gabriel didn’t LET him need him - so Adrien had to adjust to that accordingly. Big, huge, ENORMOUS difference.

Honestly the most miraculous thing about Miraculous is that Adrien was able to bring up the strength to stay positive and friendly and to forgive Gabriel in hope for a better future. That boys situation is 7 kinds of depressing and traumatizing...

It's just flabbergasting to me how well this portrait shows how basically non-existent their relationship was at that point. And it's horrible to know that this estranged and unformed bond is all Adrien had left after Emilie dissappeared, just alot worse because after Emilie incident Adrien states that his father changed alot for the worse as well.

So to think that all Adrien had left wasn't even this former basically non-existent relationship with his aloof father - who would only barely show his true affection for his son because he's either not around enough to do so or he thinks it "unnecessary to proof his affection" for/to Adrien because he already thinks it so obvious and undoubtable.

Well he thought wrong. And GOSH, it breaks my heart!

So now comparing the "Gabriel" hand from Adrien with the one representing his connections with his mother conveys a pretty harsh contrast.

Because last but not least, let's take a look at Emilies hand placements:

But here is now an interesting difference to Adrien. Whereas we openly see that Adriens side of the Adrien-Gabriel relationship is completely disconnected from the heart/love - showcasing just how badly Adrien has always been neglected by his father - we don't see Emilies hand in her Emilie-Gabriel relationship AT ALL.

Once again just like with Adrien, this doesn't mean she didn't love her husband and that Gabriel was used and fooled by the woman he so utterly adored. It just means that from Emilies point of view things were a bit more complicated. What exactly this is, the portrait is keeping secret from us. We have no way of knowing if and how Emilie is returning her husbands gesture. All we can say is that if she does she is definitely not doing it in such an open and unconflicted way as she does with Adrien.

But since when has anything with this family been this easy?

One thing the portrait makes very clear, Adrien and Emilie had a strong and good bond. Definitely the healthiest because the Adrien-Emilie connection is the only one depicted without any kind of disruption from both sides. Both mother and son are reaching out for the other ones hand creating a whole half of the heart, showcasing their affection for another openly and without any of the implied doubts the other connections display. And honestly? Comparing all the hand placements, the one connecting Adrien and Emilie just comes across as strikingly pure and true (which makes it even worse that it was HER Adrien lost…)

As I said it's a HARSH contrast to the one Adrien shears with Gabriel. This contrast is highlighted even further by the way these three face on another.

Emilie and Adrien are positioned facing another and so are Emilie and Gabriel. Telling us that Emilie was "face-to-face" aka involved with both her husband and son. It is Adrien and Gabriel were this looks wildly different. These two have no way of seeing each other in the eyes the way they stand now/then, further displaying their deeply rooted disconnection. It's portrays perfectly how important Emilie was in this family dynamic, because even though Adrien and Gabriel bearly had a connection at all they at least had Emilie as a link between them, keeping the family together. But then they lost her and where this left both father and son off we know oh too well...

So to collect all the informations we get out if this portrait:

-Adriens and Emilies relationship was the strongest and purest. Both of their hands connect and reach out for another in the heart, showcasing that they had a loving and positive bond.

-Adriens and Gabriels relationship is heavily scarred by a deeply rooted disconnection leaving Adrien feeling unloved and unwanted by his father to the point where Adriens side of their dynamic is outside the heart altogether. Gabriel may love and adore his son just like he loves his wife and never thought he displayed his love for him in a lacking way, but fact is: this love never reached Adrien the way it should have and Adrien is the one in their dynamic who got severely hurt and damaged by it.

-Gabriel was the only one completely unconflicted and happily at peace with the former Family situation. He's reaching out to both his family members with open love and affection in blissful oblivion that neither his wife nor son could return them the same way (to different degrees for different reasons). Gabriel was the ONLY ONE in the Agreste family who didn't saw problems in their lives and thought them all happy, hence why he's so obsessed with changing the past and bringing THIS state of their family back. He was happy and he had everything he needed and loved right with him, of course he wants THIS back. He's not aware that Emilie and ESPECIALLY Adrien did not feel the same about their former situation and that bringing all of them back to this is not the perfect happy ending for their entire family as he thinks.

-Emilie may not have been as unconflicted with Gabriel as he was with her but she is NOT feeling the same disconnection her son feels and isn't depicted with negative feelings towards Gabriel. Her side in the Emilie-Gabriel relationship is neither shown outright positive as with her son or outright bad as Adrien with Gabriel. Her side of their bond is depicted through her unseen hand placement in the unknown area in between.

-Despite their not so unconflicted feelings towards Gabriel - and Gabriel himself being aloof - neither Emilie nor Adrien are actively trying to cut Gabriel out. They aren't flinching away from his touch or exclude him from the heart whatsoever. He's happily included, obviously feeling loved. They may not be 100% happy and Gabriel doesn't notice it, but they aren't denying him his happiness and make him unhappy. Again, he's the only one truly happy here. Something neither Emilie nor Adrien tried to take away from him.

-Emilie and Adrien are facing each other as do Emilie and Gabriel, implying the presence of communication and a bond. Adrien and Gabriel do not face each other, showing their disconnected bond. If they could see each others face Adrien would have been able to see that Gabriels hand is a gesture of genuine affection and Gabriel could see that Adriens expression does not exactly display pure happiness the way he thinks. This also goes for Emilie. Emilie just like her husband is placed BEHIND her son, so even if she is facing him she would not be able to really see just how much Adrien is not satisfied and truly happy with his life at that point (meaning how unhappy being looked up, friendless and at distance with his father actually makes him).

- This fascinating family makes me sad and I like it lol

[highlifesupernova]

Kanye West is My Problematic Fave

Can we separate our favorite works of art from the artists who created them?

I'll admit at the outset of this piece that I don't know the answer to this question. Over the last three years, one of my favorite musicians has put on that red hat, released a terrible record about a misogynistic religion, and stood between an unrepentant homophobe and accused domestic abuser on the porch of a replica of his mother's home at a third listening party for an album that seemed like it would never be released. What does that mean for our relationship with his work?

The common thread among my favorite musicians is theatrics - I love nothing more than discovering a universe of sound, concept, and drama in a piece of music. I loved the idea that Sufjan Stevens would release fifty state albums. One of my favorite records of all time is a concept album about the American civil war by Titus Andronicus. Lady Gaga won my heart when she bled out on stage at the 2009 VMAs as commentary on paparazzi culture. I've been a fan of Kanye West (which sometimes feels more like being a Kanye West apologist) since he turned near-universal vilification after interrupting Taylor Swift's award acceptance speech on that same night into one of the most artistically complete albums I know - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.

Although its artist remained polarizing, MBDTF achieved triumphant consensus among the public and critics alike. It topped best-of lists, produced the immortal singles "POWER" and "All Of the Lights", and earned a perfect 10 from the era's authority on "cool" music, Pitchfork (it also arguably set Pitchfork on the path to its fall from grace, but that's a whole other essay). The record is funny, sad, relatable, introspective, maximalist, and heavy on pop appeal. The Kanye West of MBDTF was disarmingly self aware. In lieu of apologetics, West invited us to experience his hedonistic, lush creative mind for an hour and eight minutes. He was unrepentantly an asshole, and reminded us that we all kind of were, too. He sold us darkness as an indulgence.

In addition to, or perhaps as a result of, being an incredible musical achievement, MBDTF gave West control over his public narrative. He'd been a talented, erratic figure in pop music for years, but with this crowning achievement he became the center of pop culture. He was no longer the egoistical Chicago producer with the backpack - he was the unconventional genius who had made one of the greatest hip hop records of all time. He moved into high art spaces, becoming a figure at fashion week, and ascended to the highest highs of celebrity, marrying one of the most famous women in the world. The public gave West a pass for his behavior because it seemed accessory to his brilliance.

The incident with Swift eventually began to take a backseat to West's music. In the years following the release of MBDTF, including the album cycle for Yeezus, his public persona was brash but ultimately benign. He declared himself a god, had some more close calls at awards shows, and liked some of the Gaga songs. He seemed to maintain control of his image, and his fans, including me, got used to defending him for his art.

Over time, possibly as West's mental health deteriorated, this showboating personality became an erratic one. He went through a MAGA phase, a cowboy phase, and ultimately a Jesus phase, each time expressing opinions that were difficult to rationalize with his prior moral alignment and unpopular among the young hip hop fans who hold him in high regard. It has gotten harder to be a fan. In an era where we've called into question whether a bad action can discredit someone's work, and sometimes find that to be justified, enjoying West's music makes me feel like I need to be ready to defend him as a person. I don't think I can in good faith. It's also hard to hang up my nostalgia for West's earlier work and my abiding adoration of his albums from the early 2010s.

The difficult thing about the case of Kanye West is that he has yet to cause material harm. He has come out with radioactively bad takes ("slavery was a choice"), aired his wife's dirty laundry in public, and associated with some of his more concretely morally delinquent peers. He hasn't, to the public's knowledge, hurt anyone. Engaging with West's work post-born-again-Christianity era might feel strange, but it isn't repugnant in the way that celebrating R. Kelly or Chris Brown is. Giving attention and accolades to someone with shitty opinions versus someone who has used their wealth and status to actively cause harm doesn't feel quite the same, and I don't think it should. Fans cling to this as evidence that we can separate West from his art, or perhaps that we don't need to. I have personally rationalized my support for West in this way.

I started this post intending to come to a different conclusion than the one I've come to since the release of Donda. I was going to talk about how our reactions to art aren't logical or rational, and how I think it's human nature to struggle with denying ourselves the things we love. Admittedly, I was writing this to defend my continued consumption of West's work to myself on the eve of the new record's release. I still think that reasoning holds, but I also think it applies to feeling betrayed by an artist and finding one's opinion of their art tainted as a result.

The Independent gave Donda a zero-star rating, citing accused intimate partner abuser Marilyn Manson and noted homophobe DaBaby's involvement with the record as an inexcusable flaw. This review has been derided to hell by the wider internet, and I don't disagree that perhaps it'd have been more professional to publish a refusal to review the album, but I also can't argue strongly in West's favor here. Even if his apparent statement of solidarity with Manson and DaBaby was an attempt at a demonstration of Christian forgiveness, it is a bad look for West to deliver that absolution without comment in a public platform. I was raised Catholic, and having to sit in that weird little confessional booth really drove home that Christian God expects repentance before he's granting anyone forgiveness. Forgiveness can be earned -- and there are many times when the public could stand to be a bit more merciful -- but it is certainly not given for free. Nobody is obligated to forgive Marilyn Manson, DaBaby, or Kanye West. If the album is unlistenable to someone in the context of their actions, that is a fair reaction.

For the record, I actually quite like Donda. I think it's a fine album and the rollout was entertaining. I also know its release was engineered for maximum shock value, and I don't like that Manson's alleged victims were collateral damage.

There's a shade of grey here that I think is often passed over when we talk about separating art and artists, a shade I think West actually leaned into perfectly in the lead up to MBDTF; the art we like can be taken in context of the things we don't like about it. Kanye West makes incredibly innovative music, and is also very difficult to defend as a public figure in good faith. Those two things have never been mutually exclusive, and synergism of the two is what has made West the cultural icon he is. We don't have to talk ourselves into things being unproblematic in order to like them, and it's okay to sit with unresolved discomfort about art.

[saturnsgrove-ed]

Saturn's Grove

Entry 2

Tuesday, June 15th, 2021

Tw: Eating Disorders! Self Harm mentions, not explicit! Mental health struggles! ED behavior! Non-recovery! NUMBERS! CALORIES! WEIGHT!

NOT A PRO BLOG. JUST MY THOUGHTS. NO THINSPO EVER.

42lbs from next GW, 62lbs from UGW

As an update to my prior entry, I have, in fact, thrown out all edible things in my fridge, but for the sake of fasting safety-- as I'm planning to go as long as humanly possible, here --I've left a handful of low cal safe foods in the cabinet pantry, as well as some things I'm not entirely sure what to do with, just in case I end up on the verge of passing out. I'm doubtful that would happen at home, it's far more likely to happen while I work, so I've put a single (sugar free) pudding cup in the work fridge.

In retrospect, the 60cal sugar free pudding cups were, quite possibly, the least offensive food item in the house, and throwing them out was a miscalculation of extraordinary degrees. How stupid of me to toss the pudding cups, and yet leave the 100cal/bar special k diet pastry bars.. I am weak to my fruity desires -- the cinnamon ones can go suck an egg, though, its artificial Berry Superiority in this house! In all honesty, though, the special K pastry crisps, or whatever it is they're called, are a great kick in the ass mid-day if you're planning to not eat much (or anything) else throughout the day. Theyre quite lovely -- well, the blueberry and strawberry, at least. I'm not sure what the point was of making cinnamon ones when the cinnamon flavor is mediocre at best. Now, don't get me wrong, I do like cinnamon, just not the lackluster, and frankly pitiful, way it's used in the Special K bars, and if I am going to waste 100 calories, it had better taste like an angel shat it out, alright?

Anyway, back on topic...

My fatass heart shrieks every time I so much as have a passing thought of throwing out all of my lovely sourdough in the breadbox, so I have procrastinated in killing that particular carb-laden monstrosity. Soon.

Aside from the bread, my carb-heavy options are quite limited, and I'm glad to have gotten rid of the tofu (sweet, sweet tofu) in my fridge, else I surely would have drenched it in soy sauce and binged the entire block in a single sitting. If you aren't a fan of raw tofu covered in a kidney shuddering amount of the liquid salt that is soy sauce-- you're wrong. Your opinion is invalid. Soy sauce drenched, raw, ice cold tofu blocks... the most wonderful binge food. Salty, soft, melts on the tongue, and absolutely DANGEROUS. Sure, tofu is quite good for you and all that health nonsense... and it tastes incredible... but 100g of tofu is 76 calories. How dare it be so high in calories when I could certainly eat a thousand grams of tofu, were I ever so inclined to do so? Although, this may be a problem only I have, as most people turn up their noses at the very mention of "plain tofu". Pardon me, tofu is not plain, it is subtle, just as mozzarella cheese is subtle, not bland.

I suppose arguing semantics around normal folk is pointless, but I'm sure some of you understand what I'm prattling on about. People with normal relationships to food are honestly... terrifying. You're trying to tell me you can't look at a food and rattle off the calories? Or worse yet, that if you can't, it doesn't cause you incredible stress and give you that heavy, sickly anchor of dread settling in your guts? Ridiculous. Sure thing, just go eat your burger and don't stress about it... who do you think you are to flex that hard on me? How dare you, random stranger, cause me to have an internal monologe where I lament and carp over my own issues that I have no intention of actually fixing! The audacity of these perfectly normal humans, I swear.

Sarcasm aside, it really is jarring to realize not everyone has a constant alarm in their mind over what they're eating. This past weekend, I went to Sonic with my SOs (we are poly, for context), and I have never been so worked up (internally only, of course) over a pathetically small, egg and cheese burrito. You want to talk about plain, bland food? Have a Sonic egg and cheese burrito without sauce. Disgusting. I loved it.

I'm starting to believe I just have really awful taste in food in general. Whatever, at least I'm not one of those pinneaple-on-pizza heathens.

Bye for now.

[rosethornewrites]

Fic: The Rebellion of Adrien Agreste, ch. 5

The Admiration of Kagami Tsurugi Relationships: Adrien Agreste | Chat Noir & Gabriel Agreste | Papillon | Hawk Moth, Juleka Couffaine/Rose Lavillant, Adrien Agreste | Chat Noir/Luka Couffaine, Marinette Dupain-Cheng | Ladybug & Kagami Tsurugi, Adrien Agreste | Chat Noir & Luka Couffaine, Lila Rossi/karma, Gabriel Agreste | Papillon | Hawk Moth/aneurism, Marinette Dupain-Cheng | Ladybug/Kagami Tsurugi, Plagg & Tikki

Characters: Adrien Agreste | Chat Noir, Gabriel Agreste | Papillon | Hawk Moth, Lila Rossi, Jagged Stone, Plagg, Marinette Dupain-Cheng | Ladybug, Luka Couffaine, Penny Rolling, Anarka Couffaine, Rose Lavillant, Juleka Couffaine, Kagami Tsurugi, Alya Césaire, Chloé Bourgeois, Wayhem, Nadja Chamack, Nathalie Sancoeur, Sabine Cheng, Tom Dupain, Tikki, Fang, Principal Damocles, Caline Bustier, Ms. Mendeleiev, original minor character, Alec Cataldi, Lila Rossi’s Mother, Sabrina Raincomprix, Roger Raincomprix, Mylène Haprèle, Le Gorille | Adrien Agreste’s Bodyguard, Nino Lahiffe, Nooroo

Tags: Lila Rossi salt, Fake/Pretend Relationship, Teenage Rebellion, Swearing, Bad Parent Gabriel Agreste, Crack Treated Seriously, Lila Rossi’s Lies Are Exposed, Cuddling & Snuggling, Luka Couffaine Needs a Hug, Paparazzi, Parentification, Marinette Dupain-Cheng Needs a Hug, Gabriel Agreste Needs an Aneurism, Uncle Jagged Stone, we’re all queer here, the spirit of punk is sometimes just being allowed to be yourself, Kagami Finds Her Groove, punk rock fashion, Savage Kagami, Marinette protection squad, Good Parent Sabine Cheng, Good Parent Tom Dupain, Protective Kagami Tsurugi, Protective Luka Couffaine, Bisexual Marinette Dupain-Cheng, Pansexual Luka Couffaine, Sharing a Bed, Pet Names, LGBTQ Character, LGBTQ Themes, Instagram, Bullying, Social Media, Anxiety, Makeover, Hugs, will cure your acne, Face Punching, Bad Ass Juleka Couffaine, Rumors, Protective Juleka Couffaine, Protective Adrien Agreste, Lawyers, Hijinks & Shenanigans, Holding Hands, accountability, mental health, Jagged Stone’s well-paid pet shark, How to Make the Evening News, Sexy eyeliner for days, one fish two fish Lila is a screwed fish, How to have fun and piss Gabriel off, Fuckery, sweet litigious karma, Alya sugar, lawyer shark doo doo doo doo doo doo, Schadenfreude, Bad Ass Alya Césaire, Gaslighting, abuse denormalization, Jagged likes his lawyers like he likes his pets: toothy af, Blood in the Water, Everything you didn’t know you wanted and some things you did, Gabriel Agreste is shark bait, Denial, Consequences, Principal Damocles salt, caline bustier salt, the impotence of Gabriel Agreste, snarky Nooroo, lies and the lying liars who tell them, Lila’s brain is a narcissistic hellscape, Lila’s mind is built like an Escher piece, Alec Cataldi salt, Adrien Sugar, wholesome salt, Fu Salt, Kwami Shenanigans, Nooroo is a little shit

Summary: The Admiration of Kagami Tsurugi

Notes: The kids are gonna be alright.

AO3 link

Chapters 1-2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4

------------

Luka and Adrien’s eyes met after the girls left, and they couldn’t keep from giggling themselves stupid for a bit.

“Thanks for doing this, Luka,” Adrien said when he eventually caught his breath again. “I mean, I know it puts you out a bit.”

That received a shrug. “I really don’t mind. The liar has to be stopped, and if it keeps her from hurting you more, all the better.” He sighed softly. “I wish I’d been able to protect Marinette from her.”

Adrien nodded. “I didn’t expect Lila to get her expelled.”

“She threatened Marinette, as well, don’t forget.”

“What?” His voice sounded hollow to his own ears, and he propped himself up on his elbows. “She what?”

Luka’s eyes widened a bit. “Marinette didn’t tell you?”

“No.”

Adrien thought back on Marinette’s behavior, how she’d started to shrink into herself since Lila had returned to class. She always seemed on edge, jumpy anymore—even before the near-expulsion. If she’d been threatened, no wonder…

“When?” he asked after a moment, letting his head fall back on the sofa cushion.

“She said something about a blinding napkin? I didn’t really understand the context, but…”

He winced. So it had been before he’d given her his stupid advice. He was such an idiot.

“I told her Lila wasn’t hurting anyone.”

Luka gently pushed Adrien’s legs off his lap, then pulled him into a sitting position against his side. “Hey,” he murmured. “You didn’t know. She didn’t tell you. You gave her the best advice you could with the information you had.”

“I still should have… done something. Marinette deserves that much.”

“She isn’t one to demand that sort of thing.” Luka patted his shoulder. “Especially since Lila makes you uncomfortable, and she’s not blind to that.”

Adrien grimaced. “She keeps… touching me. Like she owns me. It’s creepy and invasive and I don’t like it.”

The hand moved away from him then back, like Luka wasn’t sure if this qualified.

“Not you, or Mari, or Kagami. I’m even okay with Chloé. But not her,” he clarified, leaning his head against Luka’s shoulder.

Luka’s hand settled back on Adrien’s shoulder. “Good. The goal is to make you comfortable, not make it worse.”

This was of course the moment Jagged Stone chose to walk back in. “Aw, aren’t you two cute? Time to call the salon, then, get done before the girls get back, yeah? You have a date with dye!”

Luka and Adrien met each other’s gaze and started giggling again.

--

Kagami watched Marinette fidget, a habit she knew from prior interactions was an indication of the girl’s nerves. She often couldn’t help but be impressed by her friend, and this was no different. Clearly Marinette had taken charge to come up with a plan to help Adrien—and had not taken advantage of the situation to become his fake girlfriend.

Which, actually, if Kagami considered, made sense—she would not wish to do that, either. It would be more painful than anything. Marinette had approached the situation wisely.

She was further surprised that they had decided upon Luka as the faux boyfriend, as he seemed to be courting Marinette.

But she had put Adrien above herself, as a true friend would. Truly, Kagami had learned much from her about friendship in their short acquaintance, and she was certain she’d learn more as time went on.

The limo pulled up outside a store that had outfits that looked far more intense than Kagami usually considered viable for her clothing, but in the case of Adrien’s rebellion would likely serve perfectly. She slid out and offered Marinette a hand getting out.

“You’re very kind to help Adrien through this situation,” she noted, hoping to put her at ease. “And I thank you for thinking to include me. I haven’t ever had fun like this.”

The smile she received was almost blinding, and Marinette’s nervousness seemed to dissipate. “I’m glad you’re here, Kagami. It’s always more fun to do a makeover with friends.”

Penny entered the store ahead of them, and Kagami followed with Marinette in tow.

“To be honest, I am not good with choosing clothing,” Kagami admitted. “As a result I often simply wear my school uniform.”

That earned another brilliant smile. “I’d be happy to go shopping with you sometime. Or, I make a lot of my own clothing, and it’d be fun to design something for you.”

Kagami offered a smile in return. “I would be honored to model your designs, Marinette. In the meantime, I look forward to learning as you pick out Adrien’s new look.”

Marinette flitted around the store, choosing several pairs of black jeans, some pre-worn with holes, others with strategic rips or even chains. As the shirt was already taken care of, she looked at different jacket options, eventually choosing one which zipped at a slight diagonal and had a larger silver zipper and fittings. She also selected a black zip-up hoodie with green trim, similar to Luka’s.

Eventually, she made her way to the footwear, seeming torn between a couple of options. Marinette turned to her, holding up two styles. Both were black leather boots that would reach about halfway up Adrien’s calf; the first laced and also had five rather large buckles, and the second not only laced and had three buckles, but were further accented by chains above and below the buckles held in place by fixtures shaped like silver-colored brass knuckles.

“Which do you think, Kagami?”

She was glad Marinette was including her in the process. “Aesthetically, they both seem to have the desired rebellious tone. However, the ones with chains seem a bit impractical, and perhaps too much.”

Marinette nodded, setting aside the pair Kagami had rejected—her opinion, as inexpert as it was, had been valued.

They ended the trip near the jewelry, looking at the various options. A jade-green beaded bracelet caught Kagami’s eye, and when she pointed it out to Marinette it was added to the pile. Marinette found a leather bracelet with a Jagged Stone logo which was also added to the pile.

At the earrings, Marinette paused.

“I know he has pierced ears, since he modeled some of my earrings, but he doesn’t normally wear any…”

Kagami nodded. “Is that not reason for him to do so now?”

“Good point!” Marinette graced her with another smile. “I’m so glad you came with.”

They worked together, and Marinette laughed, her voice ringing out like bells, when she found a pair of black studs with a neon green Chat Noir paw on them. Kagami didn’t quite understand the joke.

“He originally was going to choose Chat Noir’s colors,” she explained. “I guess Chat represents rebellion to him.”

“Ah, so then these are perfect—they allow him to stick with his initial idea a bit.”

Penny was waiting for them, chatting with the clerk, and pulled out Jagged Stone’s credit card without even looking at the price.

“Didn’t take you two long,” she commented as their items were being packaged. “I doubt they’ve finished the dye job yet.”

“Marinette had a vision,” Kagami responded. “She is quite efficient.”

She blushed at the compliment and grabbed two of the bags. Kagami grabbed the third, and they left the store, ready to return to the hotel for the rest of the plan.

[glassworkspiderlilies]

the heiress & her companion

Kyokou Suiri (In/Spectre) | Sakuragawa Kuro, Iwanaga Kotoko | AO3 Summary: rumors circulate, parties are attended, and the young iwanaga heiress makes her position known.    Notes: vol 11 is gonna be available to ship tomorrow and i’m very excited about it!!!!!!!! ended up writing another celebratory fic, inspired by a shot of iwanaga in vol 10, where she’s being talked about and she just looks very cool. >:3 this fic has no real context and is pretty hastily written and hardly edited, so please pardon its roughness; just wanted to have fun with it and not agonize over it at all. [EDIT:] this fic has been posted to ao3, with some revisions & additions. :)

.

.

.

“Hey, have you heard?”

“What, about the Iwanaga heiress?”

“Yeah, seems like she’s been carting around some man, lately—how shameless!”

“Well, she’s still young—I suppose even she isn’t immune to such behavior.”

“Hey, watch your mouth. You know what they say about her.”

“I do know—but it’s not like she can do anything about idle gossip. Such are the ways of the world, and she certainly isn’t immune to that, either.”

“She’s supposed to be here tonight, you know.”

“What? For what? She hardly ever attends these functions!”

“Yeah, her parents don’t allow it, right? After…well. After that incident, some years back.”

“It’s understandable…but that man she’s been toting around? Supposedly she’s been given more freedom to be traveling, with him around.”

“Ah—not a lover perhaps, but a helper?”

“Mmm…I am unsure. They say he’s rather good looking, if plain. But I suppose we will see tonight.”

“Speaking of—why is she attending, anyway?”

“Apparently she’s been receiving a lot of marriage proposals lately. She is of age, after all, and of course, the Iwanaga name…”

“But she’s coming without her parents?”

“The Iwanaga Heiress does things herself, so they say. Hardly one to leave things up to her parents. Ah…does that mean someone has upset her, then?”

“Uh-oh…perhaps this was a bad night to attend, then.”

“There is still time to leave.”

“Yes, I think—”

“Entering! Miss Iwanaga Kotoko, and her companion, Sakuragawa Kuro!”

The doors open and the crowd goes silent—even the band stops playing, and the Iwanaga Heiress steps through the doors with a poise and grace that uncommon even amongst the social elite. Her cane makes a light tapping noise against the floor as she walks, and the young man by her side sticks close, his expression impassive. Hers is too, though the Heiress tends to be generally inscrutable to begin with.

All eyes are on her. It’s not an enormous gathering, especially by society standards, but she seems not at all bothered by the intensity of the attention. Though the young man’s expression remains neutral, he sweeps his eyes around the room, betraying slight nervousness or insecurity. He’s as good-looking yet plain as the rumors say, fairly nondescript in his black suit and purple tie, and he stands close but still at a respectable distance from the lady—a conscious arrangement, and a conscious message.

Some have seen her from afar and some have not seen her at all in years since she made the papers; she still has a childishness about her, visually, and her manner of dress reinforces that. She still prefers softer colors and frills; however, today she is in a deep purple dress with black detailing, and the severity of the colors makes her look more mature despite the Victorian design—and intimidating, due to the contrast. Her hair has grown longer, trailing just past her shoulders, and she still looks every inch of a doll. It’s almost a surprise as she curtseys and speaks, breaking the illusion.

“Please, don’t stop on my account,” she says, her voice lower than one would expect, but still young and girlish. It’s a polite and innocent enough statement; bashful, even, coming from a young girl like her. But because it’s from her, Iwanaga Kotoko, it is a pleasantly disguised command for everyone to turn their attention elsewhere, now.

The guests blink and shake themselves out of the brief stupor; the band slowly begins to start up the music again.

The Heiress seems to laugh a little, and turns to say something to Sakuragawa, who leans down to hear her better. He sighs at whatever she says, seeming a little exasperated yet resigned.      

The host of the party comes over to greet her, and she bobs her head in casual greeting while Sakuragawa executes a deeper, more respectful bow.

“Kotoko-san!” the host exclaims, “Goodness, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen you, hasn’t it? I’m glad you were able to make it tonight! I was thinking that you might not show.”

“Shimada-san. Yes, it has been some time.” She stares at him, a slight smile curving her lips. “And goodness. Why should you think I would not show, when you went to such lengths to convince my parents in order to ensure I would? That would be exceptionally poor behavior on my part had I not come.”

Shimada’s smile grows a bit stiff, but it was he who started the battle. The Heiress looks at him, perfectly innocent, and those who are perceptive enough confirm their suspicions—yes, the Heiress is not exactly pleased with the turn of events; she does not want to be here.

“To the point as ever, Kotoko-san,” he concedes, and she tilts her head a little with a wry expression. He’s not a bad man, if, perhaps, a little prideful. “Though to be fair, your parents did not protest as much as I thought they might. So I assume they, too, wished for some things to be laid to rest tonight.”

The Heiress shrugs.

“I forget, sometimes, how boorish society can be,” she says. She doesn’t even cast her eyes around the room, but several of the guests avert their gazes; though it seems that they are all invested in their own business, they are very much interested in the Iwanaga’s Heiress’ and her companion. “So I allowed them to convince me that I should, in fact, attend. I must say, however, that this was quite the inconvenience. We will not be staying long.”

Shimada bows.

“I have no complaints. I am honored enough that you are here, now.”

Iwanaga chuckles.

“There is no need for such flattery, we both know. Anyway, may I formally introduce my companion, Sakuragawa Kuro-san?”

“A pleasure,” Shimada says, holding out his hand. “I’ve heard much about you.”

Sakuragawa’s smile is equally as opaque as the lady’s as he shakes Shimada’s hand, as if he knows exactly what the man has heard.

“There is hardly much to know about me,” Sakuragawa says, his bashfulness more genuine. “But I suppose when one is carted around by Iwanaga, there is always more to tell.”

A few guests startle at two things: his casual address of the Heiress even though he uses her surname, and his choice of wording afterwards. Those who were gossiping earlier think to themselves that perhaps it really is true, that the Heiress really does have eyes and ears everywhere.

“Perhaps,” Shimada responds, noncommittally. In truth, he is less interested in the companion than the Heiress herself. He turns his head back to Iwanaga. “Since you are here, may I introduce you to my son?”

He waves a young man over, who sets his flute of champagne aside and comes to stand by his father. He’s a handsome man, evidently groomed to a perfect degree. The Sakuragawa boy looks downright shabby next to him, and Shimada’s son looks at him calculatingly, but Sakuragawa simply nods his head politely and does not engage in the silent competition. Shimada’s son blinks; Sakuragawa’s actions could be taken as confidence, but it is more apparent that it is simply absolute disinterest.

“Since you have already done so, hello.” Iwanaga says, nodding her head. She holds out his hand to him.

“Kou Shimada,” he introduces, and kisses the back of her hand. “It is a great honor to finally meet you, Iwanaga-san.”

“Like father, like son,” she chirps, and Shimada coughs.

“If possible, may I trouble you for a dance?” Kou continues, with a slight bow, proffering his own hand.

“Ahh…” Iwanaga says, staring at his hand. She looks up to Sakuragawa, who shrugs, and for a moment it looks like she pouts at him. “I suppose you did just walk over. My apologies, I must refuse; we will not be staying long enough for me to indulge in such a thing. We have a prior engagement that is imperative to be kept.”

“Ah…” Kou blinks in surprise, retracting his hand, but unoffended by her refusal. It’s curiosity that colors his expression as he glances over at Sakuragawa again, and then to his father. Parties such as these are usually the event that takes priority over anything else, but not, it seems, for the Iwanaga Heiress.

“I confess, you said short, but I underestimated how short,” Shimada says, surprised himself. “May I ask what engagement is so pressing, that you cannot even spare a dance?”

Iwanaga chuckles.

“Of course you may ask, but it is none of your business to know. I imagine you’ll hear about it down the line anyway, you always seem to. I only came here today to announce that I, nor my family, will be accepting any further marriage proposals or requests for prospective meetings. They’re a nuisance, you see, and the propriety involved in rejecting them is taking up too much precious time.”

Some slight murmuring breaks out, but the words have been said very intentionally.

Shimada chuckles, and inclines his head.

“Well, one certainly can’t get clearer than that,” he says, his expression wry. “The rumors are true, then?”

Iwanaga smiles, and Sakuragawa sighs.

“Some of them, perhaps. In any case, I have a man that I’m not letting go of.”

Shimada looks at Sakuragawa, who turns his head, as if by not making eye contact he can avoid assumptions. The older man looks at the companion up and down, trying to see any distinguishing features that he might outshine Shimada’s own son in.

“Your preferences are strange, Kotoko-san,” Shimada says with a shrug, and Iwanaga laughs again.

“Not at all. What I like are men who can understand me. That pool is very small, to begin with. And besides, Kuro has a unique constitution that is suitable to my tastes.”

“Iwanaga,” Sakuragawa hisses, at this, gripping the top of her head in a claw hold, “What did I say about this? Stop saying such salacious and misleading things.”

“Hey! Do not do that in public, thank you,” she snipes back, dislodging her head and smoothing down her hair. “Forgive his manners,” she continues, as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Some guests are better than others at hiding their shock, at the behavior of both the Heiress and her companion.

“And please forgive hers,” Sakuragawa adds on, with a significant look at the Heiress. “In any case—Iwanaga. It’s time.”

“So it is. Shimada-san, Kou-san. We shall take our leave here.”

The two bow, and begin to walk away.

“Sakuragawa-san!”

The two turn, surprised at the address. Shimada blinks at his son, surprised that he’d called out.

“In your opinion…what kind of man is best for Iwanaga-san?” Kou asks, his face serious.

Sakuragawa blinks, but Kou stands firm in his question. He is—intrigued, somehow, by the indifference that Sakuragawa seems to exude while maintaining familiarity he has with the Heiress.

Sakuragawa looks up at the ceiling briefly, thinking, before returning his gaze to Kou and smiling.

“Let’s see…a monster, perhaps?” he says, with an odd sort of cheerfulness.

The Heiress chuckles, but the kind of laugh that suggests a private joke is being shared. But there’s something also—ominous, about the way she laughs, and her eyes when she notices him staring send a chill down his spine.

“Have a good evening,” she says, with finality, and the two leave without further interruptions.  

“Well,” Shimada says to his son, after a moment, “That could have gone worse, I suppose.”

“It was…certainly interesting,” Kou says, his eyes still lingering at the door. “I suppose that’s the last of the Iwanaga Heiress we’ll see in person for a while, then.”

“As much as I tried to set you two up,” his father begins, taking a glass of wine from one of the passing waiters, “Perhaps that’s a good thing.”

Kou hums in response, and his father walks away to talk to some other guests, while Kou is swarmed by a different group who want to talk about what had just transpired. The companion, treating the Heiress like that, the audacity! And yet—the Heiress’ own reaction, exceedingly human. Kou listens, mostly, and thinks back to the Heiress’ and Sakuragawa’s expressions before they had left.

A monster, huh? He wonders, and shudders at the implication, and what that leaves unsaid about the both of them.

.

“So,” Kuro says, as they walk outside and get into the car that is waiting for them, “Was that really necessary?”

He nods to the driver once Iwanaga has settled in comfortably, and they set off towards the train station.

“Well, I suppose there are other ways that it could have been done, but this was the second most effective way. Shimada-san is very influential, and so are his parties; with this, the news will spread without having to do anything extra.”

“Then what was the first most effective?”

“Announcing an engagement between us, of course.”

“Ah…forget I asked.”

“Kuro!! We’ve been dating for three years now, isn’t about time for our relationship to advance?!”

“You call me by my first name now without any honorifics, isn’t that advancement enough?”

“It isn’t that different, is it?! And you still call me Iwanaga!”

“Wasn’t that your own request, because you didn’t like Kotoko?”

“I’ve changed my mind! Do it now!”

“Okay, Kotoko.”

“Ahh—! As expected, it’s unpleasant! Fine, you may still address me as Iwanaga.”

“Good. It is hard to say, after all.”

“Kuro—!”

“Ahahaha!”

“How many times do I have to say, don’t just laugh about these things!”

He continues to laugh, of course, as Iwanaga pouts.

“In any case, this should stop the troublesome proposals for a while. The less I have to participate in these high-society politics, the better.”

“Please take your parents into consideration, as well. You can’t simply escape being the Iwanaga heir.”

“Oh, they’ll be fine, and I’m not escaping anything. They understand my situation very well—at least, as much as is within their capability. I’m handling what I need to in both worlds—I am a bridge, after all. And besides, I have you now. And, my parents like you too.”

“I think they’re just relieved that there’s someone who can actually look out for you…”

“Eh…it all amounts to the same thing, doesn’t it? What I’m saying is…they approve of you. So…”

“That’s nice—I like them too, they’re good people.”

“Then…!”

“I feel bad that their only daughter and heir is someone like you…”

“KURO!”

He laughs brightly again as she pounds his arm.

“Oh, forget it,” Iwanaga grumbles, as she looks out the window. Kuro smothers a smile; despite it all, she recovers easily. “Anyway, our next case might take a while. Are you prepared?”

“Does it matter, if I am or not?”

“Please take this seriously. You place such little value on your life, for understandable reasons, but still.”

Kuro closes his eyes and lets out a soft, short laugh.

“I am taking this seriously.” He looks at her, and she blinks at the seriousness of his expression. “Iwanaga. You have your job. I have mine.”

She stares back, tilting her head in question after a few moments.

He sighs, deeply. Even now she fails to understand her own mortality, and the danger she puts herself in without thinking twice when mediating for spectres.

“You just focus on what you need to do,” he says, as he looks out the window. “I’ll follow.”

There is a moment of silence before Iwanaga reaches out and hugs his arm. He looks at her and sighs, patting her head, and she squeezes his arm tighter.

“You should do more than just follow,” she murmurs into his arm, knowing that he won’t hear.

“I told you years ago I wouldn’t let you fence me in just yet,” he says.

“And I asked if you really thought you could still get away from me,” she retorts, letting go of his arm and leaning back in her seat. “You say all this, but it’s been three years. And you’re still here.”

“I know, I can’t believe it…is this some kind of additional curse…?”

“Hey!”

He laughs at her expression again, and they let the subject matter drop here, on a light note, like they always do.

Iwanaga switches gears and fills him in on the details of their next case and a rough outline of her plan, though it will probably change midway through with the new information that they’ll collect. Kuro stares as she goes into her focus-mode, twirling a section of her hair with her fingers as her eyes glaze over. Though he’ll never admit it to her out loud, it is a joy to watch her work. Iwanaga is as ruthless as she is fair, despite her innocent looks, and Kuro—well. He’s not exactly kind, either. He doesn’t mind being her halberd. And despite all of his teasing, Iwanaga is right—it’s been three years, and he hasn’t chosen to leave. He doesn’t think he knows how to, anymore.

He leans back in his seat as well, turning his gaze out the window. His lips quirk up into a slight smile. She wants him to walk beside her instead of follow, he knows, and not in the physical aspect. But that also means getting caught up in her pace, that’s something he has to be careful of. She needs someone to watch her back, if it is monsters, demons, and yokai that pull her forward.

So Kuro follows, and will continue to do so, as she lights the path up towards the future she so unwaveringly chooses, looking for him every step of the way.

[bigskydreaming]

So, okay. The posts about how psychodrama and exposure therapy have been used effectively to treat PTSD. Sigh. Oh boy. Okay, see, because the thing is they’re not wrong, on a technical level. But they’ve been so completely stripped of context ie the specific HOW and in WHAT WAYS those are ACTUALLY deemed helpful rather than perpetuating self-harm - as to be quite misleading, IMO.

Disclaimer that I am not a licensed therapist, and I do not claim to be. I am just a survivor whose done a crapton of coping in various ways in my life, and researched just about every school of thought there is on these subjects, as well as interacted with a plethora of other survivors of all types in a variety of settings like support groups, one on one conversations, etc. Do with the following whatever you want. I’m not sourcing this because none of it stems from a singular source other than the accumulation of all the reading and talking with professionals and other survivors and own experiences and whatnot. Evaluate what I’ve put in this posts on its own merits, take away what seems worth following up on, even if just as a starting place for your own research, dismiss it entirely because of my lack of a PhD, whatever. Entirely up to you. I’m merely writing it down because its in my head either way. I’m happy to discuss what I have to say here, but I’m not gonna engage with potshots at my credibility that are largely focused on semantics or just my lack of credentials. I don’t have the time or the patience for that, so don’t be surprised if I just ignore that shit. Anyway. Moving on: 

There are many, many different types of trauma, and even trauma stemming from abuse or rape can be so different in so many key respects, that what is helpful for one person can absolutely be the exact opposite for another. This is why I generally stay away from “I write dark smut because its my coping mechanism” arguments - I have enough trouble getting people to argue my actual points when there’s barely any room for misinterpretation....I have a migraine already at the thought of how people will spin my stance on this out of context.

But the thing is....given the varying degrees and types and contexts and dynamics and effects different instances of abuse and rape have on individuals....I’ve never and I never will argue that there is zero validity to the idea that anyone has ever been helped to work through their traumas by writing certain things. There’s just no way I, or anyone, is qualified to make that claim. BUT, the flip side of that coin is it is equally unilaterally impossible AND IRRESPONSIBLE, IMO, to blithely trot out the idea that writing and reading dark fiction as a coping mechanism is universally harmless and most likely to result in positive growth rather than negative stagnation or even backsliding into more active states of trauma.

So take something like roleplaying and psychodrama as tools for helping a survivor deal with their trauma....absolutely there’s a place for that. BUT whether or not it will likely be to a person’s benefit and healing rather than counter-productively reinforcing negative mindsets or behaviors - depends almost ENTIRELY on WHAT a therapist’s aims are in using psychodrama as one of their tools. What explicitly they think it has to contribute towards a patient’s specific situation and issues.

Because the thing is, psychodrama is essentially a tool for INSIGHT. Nothing more, nothing less. It essentially has a patient roleplay either themselves in a recreation of a past traumatic event or time period, but in a controlled setting and with someone to guide them through it....or in other instances, has the patient roleplay themselves in the role of their abuser or attacker. 

Its ultimately a way of putting someone in their own shoes during a prior event, or the shoes of someone else present for it or involved in it....and viewing the event with fresh eyes, from new angles, given that they now have the distance and the awareness of its lack of ‘realness’ to focus not just on their fear or panic of the time, but going through the motions of the event while now able to spare attention and focus for what was happening OUTSIDE their tunnel-visioned panic of the time, or what might have been going through the heads of the other people involved.

So again, as a tool for insight and information gathering or paradigm-breaking, it has a wide range of potential applications. It absolutely can and does help a number of people heal in a number of ways. Using psychodrama and roleplaying recreations of past events and their aftermath can help someone understand why they reacted in certain ways, why they developed certain behaviors or tendencies in its aftermath or in their attempts to recover. It can be used to help demonstrate to a survivor that they’re being too hard on themselves, expose the lie of ‘if only I’d done this instead, everything could have gone differently’ that many survivors use to punish themselves. 

It can be used with survivors who are struggling to understand why and how someone could do this to them, or especially with survivors of abuse who worry about the possibility of becoming just like their abuser, continuing a cycle of abuse and harm because of how they’ve internalized what was done to them, or attempted to justify it over the years. 

Using these techniques and methodologies can help put a survivor in the driver’s seat of a recreation, essentially, have them roleplay their own attacker, with an impartial professional available to act as a soundingboard and fact checker for their own decision-making process throughout the recreation - ie periodically asking “now are you saying you’d do that next because its what YOU want to do in that role, or because its what you assume your abuser would want to do there?” And thus it can help reassure an abuse survivor that ultimately, they just don’t think the way their abuser likely did, and despite their fears, their thought processes do not lend themselves towards the chain of actions and reactions that would likely result in perpetrating certain abusive behaviors themselves.

HOWEVER.

The caveat that I pretty much never see in posts citing the use of these techniques in healing from trauma, is that for every potential application, there’s another instance or way in which these techniques have no value, and in fact can cause harm. For instance, not every survivor struggles with why someone would do to them what they did, what they must have been thinking to hurt them in this way. Some survivors have simply no desire to wonder what was going through their attacker’s head...it means nothing to them, and offers nothing to help them with what’s in their own heads. So as a tool for information gathering or discovering new angles to a past trauma, its meaningless at best.

Similarly, these kinds of ideas or techniques attempted without an experienced and impartial observer present for the recreations can do just as much harm as they have potential to help. For instance, if someone has struggled with self-blame ever since a traumatic event, convinced themselves that it might be their own fault, because they did or didn’t do certain things....these kinds of recreations and roleplaying present a very tricky tightrope to walk. 

If the survivor ISN’T able to fully make the distinction between their panic, adrenaline fueled thoughts and reactions of the time, and their own more capable and clinical view of the recreated scene due to the safety and comfort of their current danger-free environment...then its entirely possible, and likely, to come up with ideas or alternative actions or choices that theoretically could have allowed them to manipulate the situation towards a less traumatizing conclusion, or perhaps allowed them to avoid it happening at all. 

Thus, by coming to these ‘conclusions’ via the psychodrama role-playing, a survivor has actually given their brains MORE ammunition to use against them when thinking that its their own fault their trauma happened, because they did x instead of these now clearly defined alternative choices they’ve thought up....and failed to healthily internalize as things they could not reasonably expect themselves to have thought of at the time.

See what I mean?

Similarly, exposure therapy is....oof. Yikes. I have a lot of thoughts about its validity as a tool for helping with PTSD and associated trauma responses and aftermath. I’m perfectly aware that they’ve had enormous success with using virtual reality type programs to treat soldiers’ PTSD in a variety of ways.

The thing is though, prior to the viability of such technology, exposure therapy has almost unilaterally been used to treat ANXIETY disorders, specifically. Such as with people who experience various phobias.

Because....anxiety is largely irrational/instinctive in these types of things. They’re a person undergoing a panic response to varying degrees, in response to a threat or danger that’s largely imagined....based either on memories triggered by a similarity in their environs to the setting of a past trauma, or by hypothetical extrapolations off of various stimuli, or sometimes, just completely irrational lines of thinking.

So essentially, the varying applications of exposure therapy as a method of treatment for anxiety disorders specifically....is that by inducing an encounter with the root fear of the patient, but in a controlled environment where they’re in no possible danger, a therapist can theoretically enhance a patient’s awareness of the irrationality of their fears. They can empirically guide a patient through an understanding of how their mind is playing tricks on them and imagining or embellishing threats that objectively are not a possibility at the moment. And from there, help a patient build a mental toolbox of thoughts and thought processes they can pull out and use as tools when their anxieties threaten to overwhelm them...and they need a way to establish an anchor to objective reality and separate imagined threat from real surroundings....to detect and affirm when something is just their mind playing tricks on them again.

The problem here lies in the fact that this is largely only useful in helping ground people in the reality of things not usually being the threat or danger they imagine them to be. But what exposure therapy can NOT do, is ‘expose’ a survivor to a reconstruction of the conditions of their past trauma, or a ‘scene’ that plays out similarly to the way their trauma did....and reassure them there’s nothing to be afraid of there, because their fears and anxiety in the scene being recreated....WERE VERY MUCH REAL AND VALID.

Now, one possible use of exposure therapy in terms of singular event-born PTSD....is in helping survivors deal with specific TRIGGERS. Using exposure therapy techniques in controlled settings and with professionals to guide survivors through a session of this.....therapists can expose survivors to various stimuli-based triggers, and much as with phobias, a patient can be walked through a more objective awareness and understanding of the fact that although their triggers based on this specific trauma are completely understandable and valid....they are statistically unlikely to act as a forewarning or precursor to ANOTHER instance of their root trauma, and thus do not present a rational fear that a survivor needs the fight or flight response they’ve conditioned themselves to have upon experiencing these triggers. As with phobias, this allows patients to assemble a variety of tools to use to counter the psychological and physiological effects of encountering these specific triggers.

But this isn’t the same thing as treating the fears and anxieties born of worrying something like their trauma might ever happen again, period. Because those fears are categorically...with merit. Survivors are just as vulnerable to abuse and sexual assault as non-survivors, and statistically speaking are more likely to be prone to greater likelihoods of revictimization than non-survivors are of being victimized initially. For a variety of reasons. But basically...exposure therapy can’t help a survivor be reassured there’s nothing to be afraid of....when it can’t guarantee that. Nobody can.

Now, like I said, there’s been considerable success with treating the PTSD of soldiers with VR-based exposure therapy. But again, context is hugely important here. Because war is in and of itself, a viable setting. Soldiers who get PTSD as a result of battlefield trauma, and then go home....well, some of the most common symptoms in their case tend to be flashbacks and an inability to distinguish past from present...essentially, many often find themselves feeling like they’re right back there in the heat of battle where they were initially traumatized. 

So in their cases, in terms of THIS specific manifestation of PTSD....VR exposure therapy has a lot of merit, as using it, therapists can guide their patients back and forth between grounded, objective reality, and virtual reality environments that have been programmed to simulate the wartime environments their PTSD episodes transport them to. In doing so, therapists can help anchor their patients’ awareness in the reality that they are no longer in that wartime environment. That its not real, that future encounters with it are the product of artificial constructs their brains have produced. They can establish clear boundaries between real, and not real, and as described previously, help them assemble tools for objectively breaking down the false reality their PTSD creates for them in the future, break through to the present time and place underneath.

But see how this technique fundamentally can’t work to help anchor triggered survivors through PTSD episodes, more generally speaking, and not just in terms of coping with specific triggerings? A soldier can be made empirically aware that he is not experiencing his root trauma again here and now, because it relies on him being in that wartime environment, and empirically, he is no longer in that wartime environment. A rape survivor, in contrast, can not be made empirically aware they can’t be experiencing another rape or threat of another rape here and now....because there is no empirical proof that what happened once can’t and won’t happen in similar settings possessing the triggers they’re reacting to, or just in any future settings at all.

Which brings me to exposure therapy relying on recreations of past traumas via written fictional scenes.

In theory, all the ingredients are there. A controlled, safe environment - wherever the survivor reading or writing the scene is. The ability to end the scene whenever it gets to be too much - via simply putting down the story or stepping away from writing it. Everything needed to reassure a survivor, while experiencing a simulation of their trauma that might very well still feel viscerally real at times, due to how well or intensely its written....nevertheless, all the ingredients are here for the survivor to ultimately put the necessary distance between the recreation and themselves, and from that distance, more impartially observe that its not real, it can’t hurt them, their trauma is in the past and its behind them.

The problem here is that ironically, there’s TOO MUCH distance between survivors and the recreations. Because of the very nature of fiction as a medium.

See, the thing that can’t be stressed enough, is no matter how well or accurately or in as much detail as you recreate or simulate the environment and conditions of a rape or setting of an abusive event.....rape and abuse, at the end of the day, are not inherently about specific events, interactions, causes and effects.

Rape and abuse are DYNAMICS.

The trauma isn’t born of the physical acts being recreated. The trauma is born of the aggressor having taken something ephemeral from the victim, as well as the physical effects of their actions.

Basically, the problem with using fiction as a recreation of say, someone’s rape.....is that the essential, fundamental element of the rape that MAKES it a rape....is the sexual agency or autonomy the rapist strips their victim of, takes from them. Because rape ultimately isn’t about sex, its about power. Sex is merely the medium by which a rapist TAKES that power. But the crime, the heart of the trauma, the thing that makes it linger long past any physical injuries...is the rapist having used sex to exert power over their victim, make them feel lesser in that moment, and in recollections of that moment.

And this element CAN NOT EXIST in fiction. By virtue of them being fictional characters. They’re not real. There is no power for the fictional rapist to take from their fictional victim....ONLY THE SIMULATION OF IT.

Because when I said fictional recreations ironically have too much distance.....I meant because EVERY consumption of fictional scenes by their very nature....have a degree of distance between the reader or viewer and the fiction. There’s an implicit awareness of this EVERY TIME SOMEONE SITS DOWN TO WATCH TV OR READ A BOOK. These are little rituals we each have done too many times for them to NOT be ingrained on some primal, fundamental level, deep in our lizard brains where the knowledge and awareness that these things can NEVER hurt us, that we are ALWAYS in a safe and controlled environment wholly separate from the things that we might be afraid of.

There is a REASON that military vets treated this way use VR technology for their recreations. That the theory had to wait for the technology to catch up to it before it could be viable in specific respects at all. That its not enough to sit soldiers down in a room and just play war movies over and over until the therapist shuts off the TV and reestablishes the ‘real world.’

Because ultimately, we simply are not capable of willfully divorcing ourselves from reality and fully immersing in a fictional recreation that exists just on TV or on the page. There is always a part of us that remains firmly anchored in reality and cognizant of that...

And as a result, there is only so far we can ever project ourselves into a fictional recreation....which means ultimately, we always are going to hit a wall there. No matter how much we identify with one of the characters, project ourselves into their shoes, there is always a basic awareness that we are not them, and we are not facing the danger they are. 

Which means no matter HOW good or detailed or accurate or emotionally resonant the words on the page are, as they describe each moment of the interaction between aggressor and victim that seems to the reader or writer to otherwise be a perfect recreation of what happened to them....there is simply NO WAY to recreate the one explicitly essential element of that specific trauma....the taking of power, from the one character by the other. Because between the two fictional characters, there is no actual power dynamic, and no actual exchange of power taking place.

Only the APPEARANCE of it.

And as a result, a survivor might very well FEEL helped via this particular coping mechanism, with them handling exposure to such a recreation much better than they did the first handful of times. But is this actually healing, or could it just as easily be termed desensitization? Because the thing they’re taking in, internalizing is NOT a perfect transportation to the circumstances of their rape and the successful emergence out the other side with newfound awareness of having been safe from harm the whole time.

Without any way to even pretend that the dynamic being witnessed from a distance has actually resulted in a theft of agency rather than merely the appearance of it.....what’s left? What actually sits there, described so vividly on the page?

Sex.

Because just like rape isn’t really sex so much as its the taking or asserting of power VIA sex...the image or description of one person raping another without the actual taking or assertion of power....basically just looks a lot like sex.

Which incidentally, IMO, might have a fucking LOT to do with how fucking bad our society is at noting the difference between sex and rape, and the fact that they’re not interchangeable or one and the same. And why rape survivors so often face slut-shaming and victim-blaming and are accused of actually wanting it.

Because when you’ve been conditioned by a lifetime of fictional media consumption to equate rape with the sex you SEE or READ about, as being basically the entirety of it and the intangible elements of it just abstract to you.....its very easy to look at a survivor and see not someone who had something intangible but very much REAL stolen from them via sex....but just a person who had bad sex they didn’t like.

And THIS, more than anything else, is what I personally view as the greatest ramification of widespread rape fantasies and noncon fics in fandom: that there is ultimately a ceiling on how much it can help any or every survivor cope or heal from their trauma - even while acknowledging that there are surely some specific contexts or combinations of elements in some individuals’ traumas that allow for fictional recreations to still largely serve the function those survivors aim to get out of them - but again, in terms of a coping mechanism that’s universally applicable or viable for all survivors of all scenarios? 

Nuh uh. No way. There’s no possible chance of making that claim in all honesty, and without making that claim, even the argument of it being a successful coping mechanism for SOME survivors in some specific ways, does not validate the ease with which its trotted out as a truism for all survivors to take heed of and all nonsurvivors to respect.

But MEANWHILE, at the same time, an equally inevitable end result of these fics.....is the continued desensitization of readers en masse, to the reality of rape as a theft of something intangible, impossible to fully recreate or depict as an experience, except in reality or potentially, some day in virtual reality. 

It inevitably serves to perpetuate the unspoken and perhaps sometimes even unconscious view, that rape is ultimately just sex of a certain kind. And so more and more, it becomes viewed as something that has the capacity to titillate and arouse....the same as any other form of sex, obviously. Because why wouldn’t it....if ultimately, that’s all its treated as being? 

[royal-loki]

Why does Thor agree with Loki that he should stay on Sakaar - a Thorki perspective

I know this scene is confusing to a lot of Thorki shippers because basically Thor seems indifferent when Loki says that he’s better off staying on Sakaar. Instead of begging for Loki to come with him back to Asgard, Thor agrees that he should stay on Sakaar because it’s “perfect” for Loki. Here’s the whole dialogue exchange in the elevator -

Loki: Here's the thing. I'm probably better off staying here on Sakaar. Thor: That's exactly what I was thinking. Loki: ...Did you just agree with me? Thor: This place is perfect for you. It's savage, chaotic, lawless. Brother, you're going to do great here. Loki: Do you truly think so little of me? Thor: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were going to fight side-by-side forever, but at the end of the day you're you and I'm me and... oh, maybe there's still good in you but... let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago. Loki: [emotional] Yeah... it's probably for the best that we'll never see each other again. Thor: That's what you always wanted. [pats Loki on the back]

The thing I found most fascinating about this scene was that leading up to it, Thor and Loki were fighting perfectly in sync with each other. 

We were shown a whole action sequence demonstrating how second nature it was for the brothers to fight side by side. They knew what their next moves were without even glancing at each other. You can think of this scene as a dance. Thor and Loki were having a waltz to express their feelings rather than simply talking. Right before their in sync fight sequence, we get this exchange -

Obviously, the writers wanted the audience to know that Thor and Loki are terrible at communicating with words. As Loki states, “Open communication was never our family’s forte.” 

Earlier in the movie when Thor is held prisoner before his fight with the Hulk, Loki casts an illusion and visits him. There he suggests to Thor that they should both stay on Sakaar and kill the Grandmaster, eventually ruling Sakaar together or leaving when they get the chance. We know that Loki has shown that he knows that they can’t defeat Hela because she is too powerful. Since they failed to stop her before she got to Asgard, she would be even more powerful if they went back to fight her. Loki is a pragmatist, he knows their chances of survival and he wanted Thor and him to stay alive. It might seem selfish for Loki to pick Thor over the rest of the Asgardians in that moment but he loves Thor more than anyone else, and would rather spend the rest of their lives together than risk losing him to save anyone else.

Now that we have established the context for the elevator scene, let’s review what happened. Loki tells Thor that he will help him get the Grandmaster’s (orgy) ship in exchange for safe passage through the “anus.” Yes, this is was actually written into the movie. Then Valkyrie and Bruce set off to start a revolution to form a distraction so Thor and Loki can go get the ship. We begin the scene by Thor asking Loki to discuss what has happened since he found out that he was ruling Asgard in Odin’s place. Loki claims that he doesn’t want to talk about it but his body language says otherwise. We get a whole scene of the two brothers fighting in perfect harmony without even creating a battle plan. Even though Loki says contradictory statements like, “We might as well be strangers now. Two sons of the crown, set adrift.” We can clearly see that Loki’s silver tongue has gotten quite rusty. Thor can easily see through Loki’s facade of indifference. The scene shows the audience how the brothers instinctively know what the other will do. They easily defeat all the guards that are in their way. Thor and Loki are far from strangers and are both working together as Odin and Frigga would have wanted. Now we’re at the infamous elevator scene. 

Before anyone says that Loki wouldn’t be safe on Sakaar - I know that Loki claims that he has run out of favor with the Grandmaster but he is the God of Mischief and can easily disguise himself to stay hidden as long as he wants to.

Loki tries one last time to get Thor to reconsider and stay with him on Sakaar. Yes, he wanted his brother to stay, not just himself. Thor doesn’t take the bait and says that Sakaar is perfect for Loki. He’s pretty much telling Loki that he knows that he would rather stay safe with him on Sakaar but Thor is a hero and he has to go back to save their people. Thor is very intelligent and has finally figured out Loki’s pattern of behavior. He says one thing but wants the opposite. In this case, he’s telling Thor that they should go their own separate ways but what he truly means is that he wants them to stay together, just not on Asgard. Thor uses reverse psychology on Loki to get him to want to come with him to save Asgard and it works. 

I’ll explain another confusing sequence that has polarized the fandom - Thor using the obedience disk on Loki, leaving him stranded on Sakaar. The way I interpreted the scene was that Thor knows that Loki is a powerful God like himself. He also knows that some people find the obedience disk to be highly erotic. Thor knows that Loki got pummeled by the Hulk, hit with an energy blast from an re-engineered Asgardian weapon, tortured by Thanos, fell through an abyss, got beat up by the Avengers, survived a fight against the Jotuns, and countless other examples of Loki being able to withstand physical pain. Although Loki is squirming on the ground while the obedience disk is on, he does not pass out like Thor. Clearly, Loki has a higher pain tolerance than his brother and it could be possible that the obedience disk does feel painful but in a “it hurts so good” kind of way.

Thor knows that Loki will cast an illusion and so he places the disk on Loki during the elevator scene before his brother can do anything that will prevent Thor from getting off Sakaar and saving the Asgardians. Yes, Loki would have risked Thor getting captured just so he can stay with him on Sakaar. He probably assumed he would gain the Grandmaster’s favor again and eventually buy out Thor’s freedom. 

Thor: This place is perfect for you. It's savage, chaotic, lawless. Brother, you're going to do great here. Loki: Do you truly think so little of me? Thor: Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were going to fight side-by-side forever, but at the end of the day you're you and I'm me and... oh, maybe there's still good in you but... let's be honest, our paths diverged a long time ago. Loki: [emotional] Yeah... it's probably for the best that we'll never see each other again. Thor: That's what you always wanted. [pats Loki on the back]

After this exchange, Thor can see that Loki is visibly upset by the thought of them parting forever so Thor changes the subject to them doing “Get Help”. This reminds Loki of the times they played together as children and lightens the mood for the next scene when Loki attempts to betray Thor. It’s telling how desperate Loki is to stay with Thor by how easily Loki agrees to do “Get Help” with him. A game where Loki pretends to be the damsel in distress and Thor holds him up. Yes, Thor throws him but this doesn’t physically hurt Loki and it’s not the first time they have done this ruse. Even though Loki says that it’s humiliating for him, a genius like himself didn’t bother to think of another way to distract the guards. This tells me that he doesn’t truly get embarrassed by it and actually enjoys doing it. Especially since he was contradicting his true feelings for two scenes before that. 

Then Loki splits from his illusion and sets off the alarm. Again, I want to clarify, Loki was not betraying Thor, he was only calling the guards so Thor is forced to stay on Sakaar with him. He was worried about Thor fighting Hela and getting himself killed in the process. 

Here’s the most important point - Thor knew that Korg was setting off a revolution and would come to the ship docks to escape. He was not leaving Loki to die on Sakaar. He knew his reverse psychology had worked on Loki and convinced his brother to be the hero he knows he truly is. Remember, they grew up together and have been alive for over a millennia. Thor knows that Loki has always fought side by side with him against their enemies. Finding out the truth about his parentage broke Loki and caused him to rebel against Odin but Thor knows that Loki was in deep emotional pain from the betrayal. Loki even says that Thor knows how he feels now, being lied to all his life. 

Thor knew Loki would come back to Asgard with him and the other prisoners. He always knows that when he speaks frankly with his brother, that Loki does the opposite of Thor asks of him. This time, Thor wised up and spoke to Loki in a way that he knew would get through to him.

In summary, Thor agrees with Loki that he should stay on Sakaar because Loki is a “tsundere”. He hides his true feelings behind his silver tongue but his actions speak louder than words. The brothers working so seamlessly to fight off the guards in the scene prior to them being the elevator. It showed that despite the few years of drama between them, they love each other very much. Loki only wanted Thor to say safe with him on Sakaar but Thor felt a duty to go back to Asgard and save his people. Thor knows that Loki has a kind heart and would come back to save their people so he used reverse psychology to tell Loki that he ‘used’ to think the world of him and that he belongs on this savage planet. Loki ruled Asgard for years, it was prospering and all the Asgardians seemed happy with his method of ruling. In fact, there’s a theory that most of Asgard knew that Loki was pretending to be Odin but didn’t even care because they love him. This movie established three very important things. First, Thor is just as intelligent as Loki but plays dumb when it’s convenient to him. Second, Loki loves the Asgardians and the Asgardians love him. Third, they care deeply about each other but have a hard time expressing their feelings with words.

*Side note - I know there are some Thorki shippers that hate Taika because they feel like he undermined Loki in Thor: Ragnarok but I can assure that Taika is one of the biggest Thorki shippers in all of the MCU

[swshadowcouncil]

The Case for Rey Skywalker: Another Interpretation

In the first Case for Rey Skywalker, we presented the idea Luke knew who Rey was at the end of The Force Awakens and kept it from her to protect her. Now we present an alternative possibility.

Rian Johnson referred to Luke and Rey as the “beating heart” of The Last Jedi.  Yet the film he made portrayed their relationship as contentious and emotionally distant.  Either Rian Johnson has a very unusual idea for what constitutes the beating heart of a film, or there is more going on between these two characters than meets the eye at first glance. In our first series of articles, we proposed that Luke knew from the moment he saw Rey that she was his daughter, whom he had long thought dead, and that he made the painful choice to reject her in order to spare her from the sort of tragic fate that Skywalkers are prone to.

Now, we present a second possible frame through which to view the film — that Luke does not know Rey is his daughter when she first arrives on Ahch-To, or at least does not believe it to be possible. In this interpretation, Luke’s motivation for rejecting Rey is not part of a concerted effort to drive her away, but is rather a response to how Rey reminds him of the loss of his own daughter (who, incidentally, would be right around Rey’s age and have a similar appearance and temperament). While this interpretation retains the overall shape of our initial Rey Skywalker interpretation of TLJ, it provides an intriguing new context for Luke’s behavior towards Rey, and towards the overall development of their relationship.

The Interpretation

Luke, from the end of The Force Awakens and throughout his interactions with Rey in The Last Jedi, is going through an existential crisis. His treatment of Rey is his response to the extremely conflicting thoughts and emotions that she causes in him.  Even though he is cut off from the Force, he is drawn to her and yet at the same time he is constantly putting up emotional barriers to keep her at arm’s length.

When Rey first comes to Luke at the end of The Force Awakens he has an emotional reaction to seeing her.  There are tears in his eyes and his eyes and lips quiver like he’s about to start crying. Indeed, The Last Jedi is very careful not to overwrite Luke’s reaction. Yet when Rey hands him the lightsaber he promptly flings it over his shoulder and rushes off. In this interpretation, we propose that this is the beginning of an internal struggle between Luke’s heart and his mind.  

His heart is 100% sure that this is his child standing in front of him, hence his emotional reaction to seeing her.  His mind however, is certain that his daughter is dead. Perhaps he thought that he had felt his daughter die or felt that there was no way she could have been alive all this time without him sensing where she was. Him tossing the lightsaber then would be akin to someone throwing their hands up in exasperation. He can’t reconcile what he thinks with what he feels, so he runs off. The anger he displays in doing so would also be explained by this interpretation of events–of all the people Leia could send to retrieve him from Ahch-To, she sent a girl who looks exactly like a teenage version of his deceased daughter, in what would appear to be a transparent attempt to pluck at his heartstrings and guilt him into coming back. The “cheap trick” he’d undoubtedly believe was being played on him would make Luke’s frustration and rejection perfectly justified, and the bewilderment he would feel at seeing the ghosts of his past in the flesh would drive him to run and hide instead of confronting the reality of what was happening.

Mark Hamill has also suggested that Luke’s bitter attitude towards Rey is at least in part an act. To defend himself from the emotional turmoil that Rey is causing in him, Luke adopts a bitter shell to mask his feelings and to keep Rey from getting too close to him emotionally. He tells her to get lost and spends a good part of the day blowing her off despite the fact that she keeps following him around like an angry duckling. However, Luke also likely actively dislikes Rey because she reminds him so much of the child he lost. If Luke had been the father to a Force sensitive child, he would have certainly dreamt of one day teaching her the ways of the Force, a dream that would have seemed to die some 14 years prior to the events of The Last Jedi. Now, he’s tasked with becoming a mentor to someone who he believes is a complete stranger but whose appearance, manner, and temperament all remind him of what might have been.

Yet Luke, still a hopeful man at heart, is also drawn to Rey in a way. He repeatedly gives her glances over his shoulder and when she stops following him to go to the tree on Ahch-To, he follows her there. Luke asking Rey, “Who are you?” in the tree might not seem odd at first, but Luke already knows her name at this point (we know because he refers to her by it later in the scene) and he knows she’s a member of the Resistance come to bring him back. He also asks her who she is prior to her telling him that she had seen the tree and the island in dreams. If Rey were truly a nobody with no connection to Luke, he would have no reason at that point to think there was anything more to her than she had already told him. Him asking her who she is implies that he has reason to think there is more to her than that. If Luke does on some level feel that Rey is his daughter, his questioning of her becomes incredibly poignant.  

He desperately wants to know why his sister would send a girl to him that reminds him so much of the child he lost. He asks “who are you?” because he can’t bring himself to have enough hope to ask “Are you my daughter?” In his mind he is certain the answer is no, but he has to know one way or the other. At least if Rey can tell him definitively that she is someone other than the child he lost, he can resolve his internal conflict and see her as an individual rather than a ghost come to haunt him. Rey can’t do that, however, because she doesn’t know who she is herself. She shows Luke that she is Force sensitive, but to Luke that just adds another similarity between Rey and his “dead” daughter. This new bit of information only heightens Luke’s inner emotional conflict.  Again, he reacts to that conflict by throwing his emotional walls back up, adopting the bitter act again, and running off.

During the scene with Artoo, Luke drops the act.  He seems much more like the Luke we all remember from the original trilogy. There’s no bitterness in his voice or his actions, just hopelessness and deep sorrow. This is one of our earliest inklings that the seeming erraticness of Luke’s emotions actually follow a clear pattern–he alternately puts up walls and breaks down into fits of grief in response to his interactions with Rey. When we see him next, he’s gruffly telling Rey he’s agreed to teach her, his vulnerability nowhere to be found.

During the first lesson, Luke once again starts to open up to Rey just a bit. His voice is kind and sincere, and he seems to watch her intently as she meditates, clearly interested in learning more about her and her abilities. However, when Rey is drawn to the cave and her raw strength is revealed Luke freaks out again.  She reminds him too much of Ben and (as The Last Jedi comic adaptation repeatedly states) too much of himself as well.  Yet again, Luke’s reaction to Rey triggering his conflicting thoughts and feelings is to throw up emotional walls and run off. Later, we see that he is unable to reject her entirely–when Rey goes to practice with her staff and the the lightsaber, Luke watches with a look of wonder on his face before once more turning and running off.

Rey, too, undergoes something of a journey in her relationship with Luke. When she first encounters him, at the end of The Force Awakens, she has tears in her eyes (as does he), which seems a bit strong of a reaction for someone who’s simply glad she found someone to teach her the ways of the Force. Though she is not outwardly as conflicted as Luke in The Last Jedi, Rey seems puzzled that he does not welcome her in the way she expected. She pushes continually for his approval and acceptance, such as when she pledges to Luke, “[Kylo Ren] failed you; I won’t.” bringing Luke to tears. The extremely emotionally heightened nature of their relationship, as well as Rey’s sudden seeming personality change upon being rejected by Luke (such as beginning to trust Kylo, who she had previously detested), further implies that both characters know or suspect more than they have the courage to admit to one another.

The real key to understanding everything that happens between Rey, Luke, and Kylo, however, is the deleted scene at the Caretakers’ village. In this scene, Luke pranks Rey into thinking the locals on Ahch-To are in danger, when in fact they’re simply having a bonfire festival. When Luke catches up to Rey, who sprints off to rescue them, she turns on him, castigating him for making a joke out of the person she had once “believed in.” Rey storms off, and Luke is left looking guilt-ridden as she walks away.

Without this scene, the following events seem to transpire: Rey pledges not to disappoint Luke, and, although she is a total stranger and Luke has no reason to take her promise seriously, this is finally the thing that motivates him to reconnect with the Force so he can train her to be a Jedi. Then, seemingly at random, we cut to Rey, who is extremely upset, demanding of Kylo why he murdered his father. With the Caretaker village scene, however, the following story falls into place:

Rey’s disappointment in Luke spurs him to try and reconnect with the Force, likely out of a feeling he has let her down and a desire to make amends. Meanwhile, we catch Rey on her way back to her hut from the Caretaker village (as opposed to wandering randomly in the darkness), still extremely–even suspiciously–upset after her altercation with Luke. When she encounters Kylo Ren, she tearfully demands why he murdered his father, shouting “You had a father who loved you, he gave a damn about you.”

Prior to this, Rey is quite hostile to Kylo. During their first encounter, she tells him he’s going to pay for what he did. During the second, she calls him a snake and a monster and tells him he has lost. The third encounter is the first time where she starts to actually try to talk to him. The fact that this issue is so pressing that she’s willing to ask her mortal enemy about it seems to imply that whatever just happened to her brought the topic directly to the forefront of her mind. In other words, Luke’s spiteful and dismissive prank drove Rey to question how someone could ever fail to appreciate having a father who loves and cares about them, something she now particularly feels she does not have.

This heavily implies that by this point, she has begun to suspect that Luke is her father. Kylo picks up on this and starts needling her, telling her that her parents threw her away like garbage (much like the lightsaber at the beginning of the film). This is before the scene in the hut where the two see into each other’s minds, so it shows that Kylo already knows that Rey’s parents are her greatest weakness–he’s perceived it from her words and actions alone. It also shows that he’s already begun to push the idea that her parents abandoned her before having any clear knowledge to suggest they did so, casting doubt on his later interpretation of what he sees in her mind.

After talking with Kylo, Rey decides to go to the tidal cave that’s been calling to her throughout the film. When she arrives in the hall of mirrors within the cave, the very first thing she does is ask to see her parents. This is important for two reasons. The first is that it shows that Rey doesn’t remember what her parents looked like. If she can’t even remember that, she is unlikely to remember anything else about them. The second is, up until this point Rey has shown no signs of deeply desiring to know who her parents are. She has only shown a desire for them to come back to her. Notice she doesn’t ask for the mirror to show her where her parents are. If at this point all she wanted was to get back to them, asking how to find them would be the most logical thing for her to do. Like Luke asking “who are you?” to Rey, Rey asking the mirror to show her her parents only makes sense if there was a specific answer she was hoping to either have confirmed or disproven. She’s hoping that the mirror will show her Luke, so she can finally confront him and find out why he’s seemingly rejected her. But just like when Luke questions Rey, Rey is given no firm answer and left only with inner turmoil.

Rey feels abandoned by Luke and because of the lack of answers from the cave she begins to believe that her real worst fear might be true–that whether her parents are Luke or somebody else, they abandoned her deliberately and do not want her back. She’s hurting and very emotionally vulnerable, but she also feels a deep connection to Kylo Ren, likely because he is her family as well and seems to understand what she’s going through. So in this moment of weakness, she confides in him and starts to sympathize with him.  

At this point, Luke rushes back to Rey calling her name. Though the timeline is unclear, it’s implied that this happens on the heels of Luke reconnecting to the Force for the first time. When he first opens the door to Rey’s hut he’s smiling, showing he was running to her with good news. The movie’s novelization suggests Luke is running to Rey because he’s decided to come with her and join the Resistance, but this sudden change of heart makes slightly more sense if he had also dared to allow himself to hope that Rey was his daughter (keep in mind that when the two parted, they were angry with each other, so it would be odd for Luke to burst into her house unannounced and smiling unless something significant had changed since they last spoke).

When Luke sees Rey with Kylo, he blasts the hut apart in shock and anger, only to realize that Kylo wasn’t actually there. Rey accuses Luke of trying to murder Kylo, obviously a very emotionally sensitive topic for Luke. Luke’s response is, again, to retreat back into his bitter shell and tell Rey to leave the island, though his pleading with her shortly thereafter not to leave at all suggests that this, too, is an act of emotional self defense, not where his heart truly lies.

Rey demands to know the truth from Luke, who tells her that he had sensed darkness building in Ben during his training. Luke’s motivation in going wasn’t to kill Ben, but to look in his mind and see how deep that darkness went. Luke then tells Rey that by this point, Snoke had “already turned [Ben’s] heart.” Instead of the future, we believe a terrible calamity has already happened that demonstrates Ben’s inner darkness. If what Luke saw was that Ben was somehow at least partially responsible for the death of his wife and the “death” of his daughter, and thus that Han, Leia, and everyone else Luke loved were at risk because of Ben, then suddenly him having the split second instinct to draw his lightsaber isn’t so out of character for him. More importantly, the choice to put the saber away and not strike down the man who he believes caused the deaths of his wife and daughter, becomes yet another testament to Luke’s unrelenting goodness and compassion, rather than a sign that he has failed.

After getting the truth from Luke about what happened the night of the Temple massacre Rey decides to go to Kylo Ren to try to turn him from the Dark Side. Luke begs her not to go, but when she holds out the saber to him he refuses it again, looking dejected.  He’d just been forced to relive what he considers to be one of his greatest failures. If he had been feeling like he could go back to being a hero earlier, that has all been reversed now and he’s back to feeling like a failure again.

Luke’s feelings of utter failure continue into the next scene where he goes to burn the tree, but despite his feeling he still can’t bring himself to go through with it.  After blasting the tree with lightning, Yoda begins to lecture Luke on needing to look past the Jedi texts. Luke’s demeanor changes when Yoda first mentions Rey. Yoda picks up on that and the tone of his lecture completely changes. He criticizes Luke for missing the “need in front of [his] nose.” This is true on two counts. Luke needs his daughter but refused to believe it when she was standing right in front of him. Rey needs her father, but that was something Luke refused to be to her. Luke says that he was weak and unwise. He’s realized that pushing Rey away was a massive mistake. This prompts his next line, “I can’t be what she needs me to be.”

In this interpretation, the line serves as an explanation for why Luke has refused to accept that his daughter is alive–not only is he afraid of being disappointed if he is proven wrong, but he also feels like he can’t be the father that she needs because of his previous failures. Just as he did on the day of his death, Yoda reminds Luke to “pass on what [he has] learned,” not only his success but also his failures. For only in learning Luke’s failures could Rey grow beyond them.

By tracing Rey’s journey, we can easily see how she reaches this point. She arrives on Ahch-To believing Luke might be her father. When he rejects her, she is shocked and confused, and tries to make sense of why he has received her so coldly, though she, like Luke, is too afraid to admit her suspicions outright. She finds a partial explanation when she learns he’s cut himself off from the Force (“of course you have”), and still pushes for him to accept her, even if he might not be able to sense who she is. Her patience runs out when he plays a cruel prank on her in the deleted scene, after which point she begins to have doubts of whether he is her father after all. This leads her to the mirror cave, which she hopes will confirm or deny that Luke is her father, but instead it gives her no answer. She offers Luke one last chance to prove his care for her, but when he refuses the call she gives up on him and flies off to confront Kylo.

When she arrives, Luke’s rejection is still fresh in her mind, and when Kylo, who she thinks may be another member of her family, also refuses to join her, her greatest fear takes hold. This fear is not that her family is “nobody” in a general sense, but rather that they are “nobody” in that they are not the Skywalkers, whose trust and acceptance she had struggled so hard to win. The Skywalkers, she imagines, must have had a good reason to leave her behind, and so when Luke (and now Kylo) disappoint her, she believes they must not be her family at all, leaving only one explanation: that her parents had no good reason to leave her; they abandoned her simply because they did not love her.

As we said before, Kylo doesn’t come straight out and say that Rey’s parents are junk dealers, he gets her to say they were “nobody” first. This could be because at this point he doesn’t know how much she knows, he only knows that she carries with her a deep-rooted fear of who they are, one that is now weighing heavy in her mind for all the reasons listed above. If Rey had instead said “Luke abandoned me on Jakku,” it’s entirely possible that he would have used that to try to persuade her to join him just as well. In any case, the evidence presented strongly suggests that Rey’s “confession” is a fear that Kylo is persuading her to “admit” as truth, and that while not deliberately lying, he does not possess certain knowledge aside from what he saw in Rey’s mind that she fears.

Rey’s arc of discovering her identity ends, in this film at least, on a bitter note. The end of Luke’s side, however, unfolds a bit differently. In his duel with Kylo on Crait, he notably tells Kylo “I will not be the last Jedi,” at which point the scene cuts to Rey. Her eyes shoot open and she glances behind her, clearly sensing something (which the novel says is Luke reaching out to her through the Force to tell her he will “always be there” with her). When she runs to embrace Finn immediately afterwards, the shot zooms in on her face, then cuts back to Luke who is smiling slightly and has a distant look in his eyes.

If this interpretation is correct, this is certainly the moment Luke finally fully believes beyond doubt that his daughter is alive. Moreover, he also knows she’s now safe and back with the people she cares about most.  For the first time in the whole film Luke looks truly happy and at peace, and this is when he puts up his saber, ready for Kylo to strike him down. He does not wait even until the Resistance is flying away–his thoughts are entirely on ensuring Rey is safe, an odd focus to have in his final moments if she is just a student he knew for a few weeks. Kylo picks up on what Luke is doing, and his happiness and contentment, and vows, “I’ll destroy you, and her, and all of it.” This line clearly indicates that Kylo knows Rey is on Luke’s mind at this moment, further confirming that Rey and her well-being are among his final living thoughts.

Both Leia and Rey are shown reacting to Luke dying, while the film gives no indication at all that Kylo has sensed anything. It would be strange for a girl who knew Luke for a few days to feel his death while Luke’s own nephew, who had lived with Luke for years, did not, if there were no other connection between Rey and Luke. Rey tells Leia “Luke is gone”, but of course no one is ever really gone. When Rey left Luke, their relationship was in a very contentious place, and they received no closure before Luke died. Most stories make a point of resolving the conflict between protagonists prior to or during the climax of the third act. Often the resolution occurs in a touching way or otherwise serves as an emotional climax for the story, so the fact that this moment does not occur in TLJ has some interesting implications for what will happen in IX.

Conclusion

Overall, the effects of this interpretation are similar to those in our first Rey Skywalker theory. We still assume the same backstory for Luke, Rey, and their separation; and the emotional effect of their reunion is very similar. What differs is primarily Luke’s purpose in the narrative arc. Rather than serving to protect Rey from the knowledge of her heritage (thereby placing the story’s focus on the significance of the Skywalker identity), he plays a more personal role, placing the focus more on the emotional journeys of both father and daughter. This may not seem like a significant distinction, but it fundamentally shifts what we can expect in Episode IX.

A story where Luke knows who Rey is, and must protect her from the danger of her bloodline, requires a resolution focusing on identity. However, a story where both characters’ arcs are focused so strongly on their specific relationship, as opposed to them belonging to the same family, requires a conclusion focusing on the repairing and healing of their broken bond, more than on broader implications. There are arguments to be made for both these potential conclusions.

A conclusion rooted in the meaning of the family identity makes sense, given that the conflict between Rey and Kylo is a proxy for the dueling legacies of Anakin and Vader. At the same time, we’ve spent an entire film simply setting up the relationship between Luke and Rey. It stands to reason that the conclusion of their arcs will focus on resolving the antagonism that built up between them for the duration of The Last Jedi, a resolution that would be diluted by a focus on broader themes.

Regardless of which way the story goes, we expect that JJ will give a satisfying explanation for why Rey and Luke didn’t realize (or admit) they were father and daughter in IX, and we can’t wait to see what it is.

[poipoi1912]

Carisi-centric thoughts on Ep 19x08

Here we go.

Disclaimer: I will try to remain objective. Be warned lol. My undying love for Barisi influences my fic, of course, but I try to analyze the actual episodes as realistically as I can. (if by “realistically” you mean “realistic-ish while always allowing for the possibility of Barisi)

Overall Thoughts

I really enjoyed the case. Even if we've seen it all before (wasn't there an episode with Kevin Pollack and an Eyes Wide Shut situation? Where he was a judge and he genuinely thought a woman wanted to be raped?). The double catfish element was sort of new, I guess. I did also like all the performances, even if the female perp was written in a stereotypical way. And I appreciated the guy's attitude, and the contrast between his appearance and his mild behavior, but also the contrast between someone seemingly sweet and someone who would act out a rape fantasy no questions asked, i.e. without making sure the woman was consenting, at least in person. I don't know if the writers intended that last part or if I'm reading too much into it, though.

That said, deep down I wish he'd had an attorney like Rita or Buchanan, because they'd never let him plead guilty and we'd witness another awesome trial about that aspect of the case (though I did love his actual lawyer, whom he did not listen to). Still, it's nice to see a decent if flawed person doing the right thing, SVU used to do that a lot in the early seasons. I believed that the guy was conflicted about it, at least, so that entire scene worked for me. I also appreciated that the victim's trauma wasn't instantly healed in the end. It felt more real. So the overall idea of the episode was solid (if unoriginal), and the execution was very good.

The Rollisi Corner

First thing I need to get off my chest: Sonny clearly bought coffee and breakfast for Amanda the morning after, hopefully to go with his apology, and then, when he saw the bartender leaving her room, he turned around and left and hE DIDN'T GIVE HER THE COFFEE??? OR THE FOOD??? Like she didn't deserve his croissants because she had sex with another guy? WHAT A DICK.

OK, onto my analysis.

The Facts

So, Sonny and Amanda get visibly drunk, they get in a bar fight which excites them both, because they enjoy punching people I guess (is that a thing?), and then Sonny tries to hook up with her, but Amanda awkwardly nopes the fuck out of there before hooking up with the guy she flirted with earlier. I'm with them so far.

There are multiple and equally valid interpretations for these actions. Maybe Sonny was vulnerable after his deleted break up, maybe he's been harboring feelings for Amanda for a while, maybe he was just hyped up after the fight and he wanted to casually let off some steam thinking Amanda would be up for that, maybe Amanda is open to that but didn't want to start anything while they were kinda drunk, maybe she was weirded out because she wasn't expecting it and she doesn't see Sonny like that, maybe she was unsure but horny, because that bar fight got her going, so she called that bartender, maybe she was really into the bartender and she had decided to sleep with him long before Sonny's proposition. Fine.

My problem starts after that.

In my view (which, going by the tags, is shared by many), Sonny should have apologized to Amanda the next day. For the drunkenness alone. For possibly making things weird between them. For getting caught up in the moment and hitting on her like that, instead of talking to her about his feelings (whatever they may be) or even (gasp!) asking her out. In fact, that's what I was expecting. That's how I thought they would get Rollisi going. By Sonny apologizing and Amanda jokingly saying she didn't want to "take advantage” of him in his drunken state, but leaving the door open for something in the future. Basically I was looking for a sweet interaction to show that Sonny has actual feelings for Amanda, as opposed to just wanting to sleep with her, and she's maybe willing to entertain that notion, just not yet. Neither of which happened.

Instead, the show chose to put a stop to it, before it even started. Instead, Sonny got jealous, and weirdly entitled if not territorial, and he started acting all petulant in front of a suspect, not to mention in the middle of the precinct, to the point where Amanda had to call him out on it. Of course I get why he would be hurt (and I was totally expecting some adorable sad sack moping lol) or even offended (because his fragile male ego couldn’t handle the fact Amanda chose to sleep with someone else), but why would he let that affect his working relationship with Amanda? Hasn’t he never heard of putting on a brave face? Has he no dignity? Conceal, don’t feel, Sonny!

My Thoughts

On one hand, I feel this could have been handled a lot better, by giving us a good idea about where their heads are at. Instead of leaving us totally wondering about their potential feelings, romantic or sexual or nothing at all, this could have been something heartwarming, something meaningful and consistent with Sonny and Amanda's prior supportive and friendly relationship. Like, imagine if he had sweetly tried to kiss her at her place, while making dinner. Perfectly adorable, and perfectly in character (and, yes, maybe a little too Hallmark, which I would have preferred over the soapy methods the writers chose to employ). And they could have still had that awkward "um, nope" moment afterwards, perhaps interrupted by Jesse crying or something.

Or, even in this random context (out of town, drunk, high on adrenaline), imagine if Amanda had sternly told Sonny to keep his feelings separate from the job, but also that she values his friendship and she needs some time because this is new territory for her (valuing a dude lol). That would have told us that there’s a real connection, as opposed to a simple possibility for a hook-up, if Amanda ever feels like it, and if Sonny’s ego isn’t too bruised to accept.

On the other hand, this is a heterosexual SVU relationship (the only type of relationship allowed apparently), and drunken messiness and awkwardness and weird aggression is the only way those seem to ever happen on this show (see Rollaro, Bensler). So I get it. I don't get why Amanda had to sacrifice (thankfully only) some of her progress (enjoying drunken bar fights? That's so S15 and it also made me miss Amaro, her OG bar fight sidekick) or why Sonny, a character who hadn't displayed similar traits, had to suddenly change to fit that mold. Then again, maybe the change was not so sudden. Sonny hasn't been Sonny in like 2 years 👀

I suppose I always thought that, if Rollisi were to ever start, it would be different by default. For Amanda's sake (and I've posted about this in the past). I thought it'd be about feelings, not misplaced lust. Like, not to diss Sonny, but he ain't no Amaro. "Unresolved Sexual Tension" doesn't quite work when Sonny is involved, you know? No matter how good he looks in a henley. Which was especially evident when Amanda flirted with that bartender. There was a clear physical component to that brief interaction. With Sonny, there was awkwardness. He tried to move in, Amanda pulled away, and he laughed it off like it was dumb of him to even try. No heat. But that's fine, too. I just thought a potential "moment” would take that under consideration. That sweetness.

I certainly wasn't expecting Sonny to make a move while drunk, and then suddenly get all passive aggressive, and then get rewarded for it in a weird "so you're telling me there's a chance" moment which did nothing to inform us of anybody's feelings, if any even exist. Especially considering his totally ambivalent expression in the end. Amanda has always been a straight shooter. And Sonny has always been respectful. Why not take advantage of their actual personality traits and dynamic, instead of writing in a contrived bar fight, a drunken almost hookup and the awkward aftermath? This is a little too blurry for me, and it just might suggest that the point of that side-plot was to show that Sonny and Amanda are not going to go there, at least not for a while. The hot bartender’s inclusion specifically, it was unnecessarily soapy (no reason why Amanda couldn’t just turn Sonny down and go to sleep), and it served no other purpose but to kill the momentum between them.

Speaking of, Amanda's whole "people have sex" speech kinda framed their situation weirdly. I'd like to think that her sleeping with someone wasn't Sonny's problem (it better not have been!). His problem was that he was confused, and possibly jealous, and self-conscious. So why did Amanda purposely choose not to address the real reason he was being annoying? Why did she act like Sonny was judging her out if some misplaced sense of morality? (By the way, I truly don’t believe that the show was suggesting that Sonny only has sex out of pure love and that's why he was judging Amanda in the year of our lord 2017. I have a different theory about that conversation.)

My Predictions

Is it possible that Amanda was trying to avoid talking about it altogether? Did she maybe want to cool things off, and twist the argument around, and steer Sonny toward a more manageable direction, one less uncomfortable for her?  “Don’t judge me” as opposed to “yes, I rejected you”? For the sake of their working relationship, since Sonny seemed fully intent on perpetually moping? Maybe she decided that acting like she might one day sleep with him was the best way to keep things cordial between them? If so, yikes. 👀👀👀

Personally, however, I choose to fanwank that Sonny was not so much petulant but moreso embarrassed, after a rejection which possibly forced him to reconsider is own behavior, and the reasons why he may have misread the situation. I also choose to believe that Amanda cleverly used teasing and joking as a more palatable way to set Sonny straight and to press pause (at the very least) on whatever almost happened between them, because she's not willing to go there, or else she would have done it.

Anyway. Let's see if and how this progresses. In about 15 episodes, if and when the show remembers this even happened. My guess is, that talk was supposed to end the awkwardness but also kill the "what if", and Sonny and Amanda are going to interact normally for the forseeable future.

Barba Thoughts

We sure got a nice amount of Barba this week (all things considered), and I sure loved it! I always prefer the episodes where police work only gets them so far, and they need a Barba assist to win the case. And this wasn't a rabbit out of Barba's hat, by the way. This was a legitimate interrogation. I loved seeing him so confidently getting the job done. It had been a while since we got a longer trial, and this case was interesting enough to sustain it, so I'm glad we got to see it. Raul was fantastic in that moment, by the way. As always. Selling that "compassion” while making it perfectly clear he didn’t believe any of the victim-blamey things he had to say to get Heather to crack? That was masterful. I love him.

The Barisi corner

"Tell Rafael not to worry" :D

Barba's sweet face when he saw Sonny :D

"Hey!" :D

Sonny's eager face when he delivered the slam dunk Barba needed, his eyes literally hanging off of Barba's lips, waiting for approval? :DDDD

Barba's joy because Sonny brought him something juicy he could use to win the case? :DDDDDDD

I love their love :')

Stray Thoughts

So Noah gets kidnapped by Sheila and we don't even get to see her twirl her mustache? Come on now! I want my money's worth. I sat through the boring grandma scenes, I'm gonna need to see Brooke Shields go full-on villain. I can't wait for the "reveal" that she has him.

Guys, is a bar fight, like, a good thing? Is it actually fun? Was I supposed to be rooting for anybody in that scene? I wouldn't know, violence just doesn’t do it for me.

Does anyone remember that Amanda has a kid (a toddler, by now? I think?). Are they really sending her to spend the night in West Virginia without anyone offering to cover for her? I guess that's what happens when you're short-staffed and Fin gives zero fucks. Still, they could have at least let Amanda mention having to get an overnight baby sitter, or even say something like “I love my kid, but it’s fun to remember what it was like when I was carefree” etc. Does Jesse even exist anymore, or is Noah the only child in the Tri-state area now?

Barba's hair!

Sonny in a henley!

Cauliflower ear! Nice attention to detail.

Brooke Shields is a good actress. I enjoy her scenes with Benson, Mariska is really good in them as well. I just wish the writing wasn't so trite.

This was yet another episode where a psychiatrist would have been useful. Heather didn't look like she was all there. I was waiting for Huang to pop in and suggest she wasn't competent to stand trial.

The sleazy defense attorney handing Benson his business card was a flawless character moment. Straight out of the early seasons.

Sonny: These influencers are the voice of Gen Z

me: please stop

Fin: Don't people know porn's free these days?

me: i love you

Fin: I'm allergic to West Virginia

me: I LOVE YOU

[facesofcsl]

Carole H., Undergraduate Student (Psychology) 

Carole Hiew is a fourth year Psychology student at U of A. She was able to experience CSL placements both prior to and during COVID-19, which provided her with insight about how organizations function in regular circumstances and how they have adapted to the pandemic. Continue reading to learn about her CSL placements with both young children and older adults.

Which courses did you take with CSL? 

I count myself fortunate that I had the opportunity to participate in two CSL placements, and they were on opposite ends of the age spectrum. As my first CSL course in Winter 2020, I took PSYCO 329 (Adult Development and Aging), where I assisted older adults in learning basic computer and internet navigation skills, such as computer components, turning the computer on/off and logging in/out, email basics, and accessing and surfing the internet. I then proceeded to take PSYCO 323 (Infant and Child Development) last semester, where I developed a play-based lesson plan with puppets to support preschool children’s emotional development. 

How did the CSL component of your classes impact your experience with your course curriculum?

I would say that the CSL placements were a valuable opportunity, since the experiences were tightly aligned with the course curriculums. In PSYCO 329, our professor was able to weave active learning components into the class along with the standard lecture materials, and the activities definitely played a huge role in helping me to understand how older people may view the world around them in light of their multifaceted physical, psychological, and sociocultural experiences. You can imagine how pleased I was when I started my placement, and see how many of the topics we discussed in class were coming to life right before my eyes! My placement was downtown at SAGE Seniors Association, and as previously mentioned, I assisted older adults with 1-on-1 help during a series of computer classes. This class was just one of many “life enrichment” programs that older adults could participate in; there were a plethora of free or low-cost courses, outings, trips, exercise, events, information sessions, etc. that were aimed to enhance the domains of well-being (physical, mental, intellectual, social, and emotional) of older persons, and assist them in finding information and other services to participate as active members of the community. It was rewarding to support the older adults’ progress in learning how to use a computer, and even more rewarding when we would become good conversation partners and chat about life in general, just like old friends. 

With all the uncertainty COVID-19 caused last year, it wasn’t possible to meet with the facilitators, parents, and children from the Military Family Resource Centre (MFRC) in person. At first, I was disappointed that my PSYCO 323 placement was online, since I love volunteering with young children- in fact, I’ve been lucky to spend over 500 hours as a volunteer for mentorship programs and summer camps directed towards elementary-aged children in previous years. But despite us having to go virtual and adapt to our online CSL placements this year, I found myself enjoying researching the ways that I could put the theory that we learned in class about children’s development into practice, and even more so, integrating that information to create activities that would be fun and engaging for preschoolers! The coordinators at the MFRC provided us a lot of freedom in choosing which aspects of development we wanted to target, and ultimately, my group and I decided to develop a set of lesson plans supporting preschool-aged children's emotional development. We thought it was a critical time and aspect of development to focus on, since children’s understanding of how emotions influence their own and others’ behavior allows them to not only regulate their own inner state of mind, but also can help them improve the quality of relationships they have with others. Additionally, the school environment may very much be their first time away from home for such a long period, so being able to regulate all the new feelings that come up from being in a new context and from navigating novel interactions can definitely make the transition easier. 

What is the most important/memorable lesson that you’ve learned through CSL? 

I think the CSL placement that impacted me the most was from PSYCO 329, because it really opened my eyes to how online literacy is becoming increasingly important in today’s society where technology is constantly evolving. For older adults with relatives in other places or children that move away from home, to not keep in contact through online services with their families could mean that they might become isolated from their strongest support networks. Also, there is an abundance of services that the Internet can provide, be it communication, information, leisure, and more. The necessity of technology has definitely been amplified during these pandemic times! 

For myself, I know the basics of how to use a computer, such as how to turn it on and off, how to hold a mouse and navigate the cursor, how to use search engines, and what the icons on the screen are. These are things that I automatically know or do without thinking about it in my daily life. However, many of those older adults that were in the class had no clue since they’ve never used a computer before. 

Therefore, one of the biggest lessons that I took away from this placement was being aware of and suppressing any unconscious biases about older adults, so that they did not reflect in my actions. Of course, I’m sure no one actively sets out to volunteer at a senior’s centre to make anyone feel patronized or disrespected. But I was quite surprised to discover that during my placement, I unconsciously held many myths of aging in mind, like the negative stereotype of older adults needing a lot of assistance due to being less competent with technology. In the beginning of the placement, I was mostly unsuccessful with minimizing the actions that reflected my biases towards older adults. For example, I found myself jumping in to type on the keyboard or navigating the cursor for those that seemed to be struggling. However, I observed they were perfectly capable of performing those actions without my help (albeit, slower than the speed I would go at- a natural and normal part of the aging process). I also caught myself using elderspeak a few times to simplify concepts that I thought would be challenging to grasp, but in fact, it was totally unnecessary. 

Thankfully, near the end of my placement, I became better at recognizing and stopping these negative stereotypes from reflecting in the way I interacted with the older adults in the computer class. Overall, I would say that this placement enabled me to discover a newfound appreciation of how competent and capable older adults really are (especially when learning new things: who said you can’t teach an old dog new tricks?), and it struck the point home that older adults really are a rich and diverse set of individuals all experienced and talented in their own ways.

How can CSL help you in your career and/or future endeavors? 

I hope to dedicate a career to working in the field of speech-language pathology (SLP), and I’m planning to extend my degree by a year so I am able to obtain more real-world experience working with both young and old. I’m grateful that the CSL placements gave me the opportunity to do just that! In PSYCO 323, I enjoyed applying the course content to make it come to life, which is why I’m considering to engage in both the clinical practice and research aspects as a potential SLP in the future. 

How would you summarize your experience with CSL in a few sentences? 

My placements with CSL were eye-opening experiences. I found it fascinating that I was able to not only participate in applying theory to create teaching material (PSYCO 323), but also see the theories taught to us in class unfold right in front of my eyes to become a reality (PSYCO 329). I would like to thank my professors, classmates, coordinators at SAGE and MFRC, and of course, the CSL program, for making this all possible! 

[vohalika]

So about that One Shot...

(I am officially borrowing the cr wank tag now. No more individual discourse tags, woohoo. Blacklist that if you can’t stand my rants.)

Man. I don’t even like discourse that much. I’d much rather be bitching about Vax and the CR ending right now. But this has been a little… Disturbing.

So, to sum it up, what are people upset about? (All of this is within the context of a D&D game, mind you).

·        A grown woman in sort of a position of power propositioning several tied up 12-year olds for a sexual relationship.

What are people not upset about here?

·        The general raunchiness of the oneshot in question

·        Amy Vorpal being the most horrible person to ever walk this planet

·        Amy Vorpal casually supporting pedophilia in her downtime

·        The moral and ethical downfall of society because of a joke gone wrong

The literal only issue people have here that in a game that was already raunchy – it’s Sam, what are you gonna do – someone asked a group of tied up kids around the age of 12 whether they’d consider a sexual relationship.

And before someone yells about context; the age of the Lost Boys had been established several times before that line happened. Now, okay, the OS in and of itself was a little chaotic with personalities clashing and not always paying as much attention to Sam or the other players as they should have. But the age of these kids was mentioned. Several times. Before Amy made that joke.

Which, by the way, also seemed to upset a few of the players, particularly Stephanie and Molly who then spent the rest of the session making sure the Queen never got close to these children again, while the whole incident kind of remained a running gag.

Now, you know, even without the current political climate being what it is, if you are generally okay with the concept of there being lines you should not cross, yeah, uh, this was one of them. And even if it weren’t, if a sizeable number of people are upset by something, the first reaction being yelling at them that they shouldn’t be, especially with such a sensitive topic, is, you know, kind of a dick move.

And just to indulge the whataboutism that sprung up around this…

·        But what about fetch me a young boy/teenage assholes?

Context, is the thing. The young boy comment was about Grog and/or Scanlan trying to find a messenger boy for something completely innocuous. The teenage assholes was something Taliesin said when describing Percy’s level of maturity and general disposition. The joke here was the poor phrasing. Not the fact that anyone was actually propositioning minors for sexual activities or their assholes in any way. In context, the Queen of Hearts asking tied up twelve year olds whether they’d be interested in a sexual relationship with her is still just exactly that.

·        But what about Grog and Scanlan going whoring?

Pretty sure the sex workers involved there at any point were consenting adults. Unless you subscribe to the school of thoughts that sex workers can never consent under any circumstances, in which case, this is really not the discussion we should be having here.

(Also plenty of people frequently bring this up and are upset)

·        But what about Scanlan’s general creepiness?

Okay, so, I’ll be the first person to say that some people around here have the tendency of painting Scanlan as an innocent little cinnamon roll who could do no wrong and we don’t talk about the modify memory, but there are also just about as many people who have always complained when he crossed a line. Like. In what universe were people NOT upset about him forcing Kima to look at his dick? In what universe are people not violently against Pikelan because of what transpired prior during their relationship? Not in this tag, that’s for sure. And – and I can’t believe I’m saying this, you guys are making me defend Scanlan, what the fuck – in this case, the creepiness died down as a point of character development. Sam and Scanlan actively got over this issue and apologized for it. It was part of a longform narrative. And also any and all predatory behavior was directed at women above the age of consent who were perfectly capable of smacking him around. And did just that.

·        But Sexism! You only complain because a woman is doing it! See also Trish the Dish raping Tary! Vex assaulting Percy with her nakedness!

Yeah, uh, uhm. Okay. So I’m not one to dismiss the accusation of sexism in fandom lightly. Like, at all. Some of y’all’s comments about the validity of Vex’s and Percy’s early relationship being somewhat lessened due to the fact that they were fucking like rabbits were definitely that. But the thing is, I remember just as many, if not more, people calling the other people out on their shit. Not to mention that, again, enthusiastically consenting adults.

And while there was a lot of discourse surrounding Tary’s one night stand with Trish, most of that was about the general handling of Tary’s sexuality, the other’s insensitivity about that, the uncomfortable associations that scenario brought about… Consent was debated a ton here, and there were indeed voices pointing out that nope, Tary did definitely consent here, that is not the issue. The issue was the plotline existing to begin with. I’m personally ambivalent about that, seen it resonate with a few gay men, but on a list of things people were upset about, Trish being a rapist was like. Looooow on the list. And they were called out for that.

(And again. No one involved was around 12 years old.)

Also, while we’re on the subject of sexism, the Queen of Hearts was entirely based around the joke that she liked tiny men in bed while being an aggressive woman, both sexually and in general. Also making her kingdom bigger or something. And that is basically all there was to her character. Haha, how funny. She is a woman. Who is aggressive. If you wanna call sexism somewhere, I’m going to whataboutism you right back at the character we are talking about here.

Another thing: So, what have people been doing here, really? Has anyone lit up the torches, grabbed the pitchforks and led a mob to Amy Vorpal’s doorstep? Called for boycotting her work? Written a strongly worded letter? Worst I’ve seen are some concerned tweets, and not very many, that Amy even seemed to agree with? The cast has faced worse for Scanlan not being on the campaign guide cover. Marisha gets worse than that for even existing.

So… People are taking issue with people taking issue with someone asking tied up twelve year-olds for a sexual relationship. Not even over people hounding the actress for an insensitive off-color joke that got a little too far. Just… Being upset. At pedophilic implications. Is that even a word? It should be.

[oumakokichi]

So I've seen a few opinions of ppl who say that ALL Ouma ships are bad because they are "abusive" or toxic because Ouma would "bully" the other and they're unhealthy, etc. I've read so many of ur metas so Ik that's not completely true. But as a fellow Ouma and SaiOuma shipper, what do think of this?

I think it’s an unfortunate fact that many people sometimes takeaspects of a ship which aren’t always the best or the healthiest out of contextand associate them with words like “abusive” or “toxic” when that really isn’tthe case at all.

I’m reminded of the ask I got a while back from an anon whomentioned that people had been calling Tenko a “creepy stalker” just becauseshe was overly eager about making friends with Himiko and needed to learn torespect that Himiko is much slower about opening up to people. Again, it’s aperfect example of a ship that does have flaws getting completely misunderstoodand drastically misinterpreted out of context to make it look a lot worse thanit is.

Any relationship, be it romantic or platonic, has flaws. Orat least, it should. Adding flaws and things to work on and improve and, yes,even occasional unhealthy behaviors makes a ship much more realistic, and givesthe characters something to work on addressing. Relationships without any flawsat all lack depth. That’s not to say they can’t be enjoyable or cute in their easygoingness,but they simply aren’t realistic.

By “flaws” and “unhealthy behaviors,” I want to note that Idon’t mean anything edgy. Ships don’t have to be dark and gritty or angsty inorder to be realistic, interesting, and compelling. Even a ship that seems themost lighthearted and laid back can still have really interesting flaws—these canbe anything from a lack of communication (maybe one character doesn’t tell theother when something is wrong because they don’t want to make them worry) tosimple misunderstandings (maybe a character accidentally speaks for or overanother character because they thought they would like something, and it turnsout they don’t, and they have to discuss that kind of behavior and work on it).Either way, even the most “vanilla” ship can still be fleshed out andinteresting and compelling, as long as there are some flaws in it.

As with individual characterization, of course, the mostimportant thing to keep in mind for writing ships is to not brush those flawsunder the rug. Having a character’s flaws get addressed and called out withinthe narrative serves to highlight the fact that they’re not perfect and thatthey really do have things they need to work on. It keeps the character(s) fromgetting a free pass, and helps convey to the reader that these kinds ofbehaviors are unhealthy and need to stop in order for a healthy dynamic ofunderstanding and trust to ensue.

I would say that Ouma’s flaws as a character get more than called out within thenarrative. Not only is his hostile and antagonistic behavior constantlyportrayed within a negative light even when he’s arguably doing it for “theright reasons,” but Chapter 4 alone is almost entirely dedicated to being “theOuma call-out chapter.”

Despite Ouma’s motivations, it is absolutely true that hebecomes far too fixated on Saihara in Chapter 4. Unable to bring himself totrust anyone else, he decides that if he does ally with Saihara, he wants it tobe only with him and no one else. And to that extent, he tries to force Saiharato cut ties with Momota and the rest of the group, because he believes that he’s“wasting his time” with them and that they’re “dragging him down” by becomingoverly-reliant on his detective skills.

There’s a reason his confession scene in Chapter 4 is such amorbid double-entendre. When he says he’s the kind of person who wants “theperson he fell in love with” to look only at him, even if it means “putting hishands around their neck,” he’s not referring to actually strangling Saihara oranything nearly so grotesque. But it’s still a pretty messed up comment to make(not only because it’s very dark foreshadowing about Miu’s death, as her corpseis discovered in the scene immediately following his confession).

It highlights his unhealthy mindset by that point, thelevels of paranoia that he’s mired up in, and the fact that he honestlybelieves forcibly trying to make Saihara “look at him” and cooperate with himis for the best, regardless of Saihara’s actual wishes or thoughts on thematter. He’s stuck in tunnel vision, completely justifying his asshole behaviorby saying it’s “in order to stop the killing game,” trying to act as though “theends justify the means,” when the simple fact of the matter is that he’sjealous of Momota and the others and wants Saihara to pick him over them. Itsounds very childish, and that’s what it boils down to: he’s being a child andhiding behind his more strategical, logical objectives in order to justify it.

But the thing is, while this behavior is unhealthy and messedup and a perfect example of Ouma acting like an inexcusable jerk, it getsdirectly addressed within the narrative. Rather than just sitting passively andletting Ouma say what he wants, rather than cutting ties with anyone, Saiharaputs his foot down. He tells Ouma point-blank in the Chapter 4 post-trial thathe’s pathetic for acting the way that he is, and that he’s just doing itbecause he’s lonely and jealous that Momota has people who care about him buthe doesn’t.

And Ouma, despite being the world’s biggest smart-ass, triesto respond to that—and can’t. He immediately stops his villain act, says he “gotbored,” and wanders off, because he literally doesn’t have any good retort toSaihara’s accusations. Saihara called him out on his behavior and it was 100%true, and while it’s certainly understandable why Ouma acted the way that hedid, it’s a good thing that he wasn’t just given a free pass for it by thenarrative. In fact, on a first playthrough, the player is actively encouragedto hate Ouma, not only for his actions towards Saihara but for what he did toGonta as well, since it seems as though he’s just acting purely antagonisticand evil for no reason at all.

This kind of willingness to discuss and call out flaws issomething I think is necessary for any character dynamic, be it a friendship ora romantic relationship. See, as long as there are flaws or negative aspects toa relationship, just about any ship has the potential to become “unhealthy.” Butthose flaws don’t make a ship “abusive” or “toxic.” These words are oftenassociated with ships as a kneejerk reaction, because people have either madeoverly hasty judgments based on misinformation, or because people want to skewpublic opinion about a ship a certain way. It’s easy to slap these labels on aship without much proof or justification—and that’s very, very dangerous,because it causes mix-ups and misunderstandings with what actually qualifies asabuse or toxic behavior in a relationship.

As someone who has a lot of firsthand knowledge with abusebecause of family reasons, and as someone who’s currently in a very healthy andloving relationship, I can say that there’s a huge difference between the two.Abuse stems from an imbalance of power, with one person in the dynamic, be it familyor friend or significant other, trying to constantly belittle and undermine theother person, despite the occasional “honeymoon” phase, or brief times whenthey’re nice to you. “Unhealthy” behaviors are just flaws: things you or the otherperson might sometimes do unconsciously, but which can be addressed anddiscussed rationally, and improved, as long as you admit to them and make aconscious effort to do them less often.

Ouma has a lot offlaws. That’s one thing I’ve never tried to deny in any of my meta, nor will Iever try to, because it’s an undeniable fact. But I think trying to say that “all”ships with him, or that saiouma in particular would be “abusive” or “toxic” isa gross exaggeration and fails to address the ways in which Ouma actuallyinteracts with the people he cares about.

Let’s take his canonical interaction with Saihara, forexample. Chapter 4 is Ouma at his most fixated, and Chapter 5 is after he’sdecided to cut almost all ties with Saihara and the others, so that he candeliberately pretend to be the ringleader instead. But let’s examine some ofhis other interactions with Saihara throughout the game. In his FTEs and themain story alike, he constantly encourages Saihara, rather than belittling him.

Whenever Saihara guesses the right answer in a trial orpicks up on some clue or other he’s left for him, he praises him openly.Saihara sometimes wonders if he’s just being sarcastic, because Ouma is a knownliar, but it’s a fact that Ouma only ever makes these comments whenever heseems truly, genuinely impressed that someone is actually following his trainof thought.

He’s deeply interested in Saihara and in trying to figurehim out, and it’s clear that prior to Chapter 4, where he became hell-bent onstopping the killing game “no matter what the cost,” he actually does want toprioritize Saihara’s wishes and happiness over his own—which is, I think,pretty indicative of what a sympathetic person he is at heart.

As an example of what I mean, there’s a point in Chapter 3where Ouma says that he wouldn’t want to actually resurrect Amami for the “resurrectionmotive.” When Saihara asks him why in surprise, Ouma says it’s because hethinks Saihara himself would be happier if they could resurrect Kaede instead,and that he’s “thinking of his beloved Saihara-chan.” He tries to brush it alloff immediately afterwards as a lie, but considering there was no need for himto bring it up in the first place, and considering it matches perfectly wellwith his behavior in his FTEs and other parts of the game, I think he wasprobably telling the truth.

In his FTEs, he’s playful.He’s a brat who wants attention and loves to tease, but really, he’s justplayful with Saihara. His FTEs are some of the best evidence prior to Chapter 6of the fact that, for all his bluffs, he’s little more than a harmlessprankster; he spends the whole time with Saihara “threatening to kill him inthe end,” only to spend every FTE either playing Yu-Gi-Oh, drinking tea, ortying a game of rock-paper-scissors for 100 rounds. And in his final FTE, hewraps it all up by losing the knife game on purpose and letting Saihara win,giving him as many hints as possible to the true way to win the killing gameitself—which is to say, “don’t play it.”

His prison mode ending provides us with direct insight intowhat Ouma is like in a situation where he’s far less paranoid. Without thekilling game ever starting, he remains cautious, but he’s far less distant.Unlike his FTEs where he cheekily but firmly lets Saihara know that they won’tbe hanging out anymore, and where Saihara can tell that Ouma “won’t reach outor let himself be reached out to,” in his prison mode ending, Ouma actuallyasks Saihara to stay by his side, stating that he knows Saihara “wants to knowmore about him” and thinks that he’ll be able to do so if they stay togethereven after leaving Saishuu Academy. Saihara accepts, admitting to himself thathe’s certainly very curious about Ouma and that he doesn’t think Ouma can “lieabout the warmth of his hand”—a metaphor, I think, to the fact that for all hislies and pranks and tricks, Ouma can’t quite lie about his good intentions atheart.

There’s also what little we know about DICE, if that’s anyindication as to what Ouma is like with the people he truly cares about. Whilenot much is certain about them, we do know for a fact that Ouma’s motive videorefers to them as “friends bordering on family, closer to him than anyone, hisabsolute favorite people in the entire universe.” Clearly then, Ouma is verymuch capable of valuing other people and doing things for their sake. Ratherthan being the “evil Supreme Leader” he pretended to be, he was simply a leaderof a group of pranksters—and he loved them very much. This also supports whatwe’ve theorized about Ouma being a very caring, loving person beneath thesurface, despite the fact that he tries just as hard to play the unfeelingstrategist as he does the evil villain.

In the end, it’s this side of Ouma that makes him soenjoyable to ship, in my opinion. There are things he would need to work onwhen in a relationship with just about anyone, but I think it’s a hugedisservice to Ouma’s character to imply that he would be “abusive” or “toxic”to someone he was with. He is, after all, someone who puts others needs abovehis own. Even when he acts like he knows best or does incomprehensible,confusing things, he always emphasizes that it’s “for everyone’s sake.” Hissacrifice in Chapter 5, and the fact that he died when he could easily haveavoided doing so by letting Momota and Maki die instead, shows that clearly, hewould rather put others above himself, even if it means getting himself killed.

That said, there are of course, Ouma ships that I’m not afan of, and which I do think stray into much riskier territory simply becausethey’re on uneven footing from the start. Gonta and Ouma as a ship is a primeexample—not only does Ouma manipulate Gonta into getting killed, but Gontatrusts him implicitly because he’s very naïve and caring, while Ouma is awarefrom the start that he’s treating Gonta like a pawn. Regardless of the factthat I do think Ouma liked Gonta as a person and thought of him as somethingclose to a friend, it’s true that there’s a power imbalance there, and that I’mnot comfortable with shipping them as a result.

But there are plenty of Ouma ships in which he’s on evenfooting with the other party, and which I find interesting and compelling.There’s saiouma, of course, in which Ouma wants for Saihara to chase after himand understand him, to play the detective to his “phantom thief.” I’ve listedplenty of reasons why I enjoy saiouma, including the fact that Ouma is one ofthe main characters to encourage Saihara and push him to grow stronger anddevelop, as well as the fact that it’s based on two characters struggling topuzzle each other out and understand each other.

There’s also oumami and kiibouma, as a few other examples.Ouma and Amami have vast potential, as two characters who wanted to “stop thekilling game,” and who had a lot in common but never got to interact much incanon. Ouma clearly found Amami mysterious and interesting, and would’ve likedto have known more about him, I think.

Meanwhile Kiibo and Ouma are both intentional parallels ofeach other, both of them deliberately set up to represent “hope” and “despair”in Tsumugi’s killing game while coming to subvert their expected roles. WhileOuma teases Kiibo and sometimes can be somewhat of an ass about it, he’s alwayscalled out on it by Kiibo, and most of their interactions are more likechildish banter than anything remotely mean-spirited.

At the end of Chapter 5, Kiibo is the only character whosays outright that he doesn’t think Ouma was lying about hating the killinggame, and who wants to “end the killing game” himself as a direct result ofseeing Ouma and Momota’s sacrifices. And like Saihara, Kiibo is the only otherpicture set aside on Ouma’s whiteboard—clearly, he had a hard time figuring himout too, considering Kiibo definitely had ties to the audience and was soobviously suspicious, but also so obviously had his own free will and sense ofindividuality. The two of them have potential for really interesting interaction,especially as they were put on deliberately similar footing for most of the game.

These are just a few examples, to say the least. There areothers, but this has already gotten very long, so I’ll stop. But I wanted toaddress this topic in full because it’s something very important to discuss, inmy opinion, and it’s important to try and note the difference between flaws andunhealthy behaviors and downright abuse. Thank you for giving me a chance totalk about this kind of thing, anon, and I hope I was able to answer yourquestion!

[robinrantsalot]

Melanie’s “K-12″ is Unmemorable Garbage

After a four year hiatus, you would think that this young artist would come out with a spectacular new album nothing like she has ever done before. What did we get instead? Mediocrity. We received the exact same music that was being made years prior, only with different packaging. You would think that during such a long hiatus, that even a slight change in her sound would have occurred, but maybe that’s my fault for setting my expectations too high.

The album was released in September 2019 along with a film to complement the music. For the purposes of this review, only the effectiveness of the album will be discussed. The only thing I can say about the movie is she at least offered it for free for a good while, so you didn’t have to pay to watch that second-rate crap. 💩

Melanie Martinez has only come out with one other album before this, so you would think it wouldn’t be that difficult to make the second one sound at least slightly different and intriguing. That must be asking too much of the young artist however since the songs on “K-12” and “Cry Baby” could have come from the same album. Well excuse me there is some commonality with the songs on “K-12”, every now and then a word relating to schooling will pop-up and you’ll remember that oh, that’s right! These songs are supposed to be set in a school. How different! How unique! I suppose the theme makes sense when the previous albums childish theme is taken into consideration. However what that album had that this one doesn’t is that it was something new, something that didn’t sound like anything else that was out. Now? “K-12” sounds like a song you hear when you're listening to random songs on the radio. You won’t choose to listen to it, but you may hear it in passing. It’s not an awful album, but after all of the hype and build-up, I expect a little more than average results. Julien Denizard further proves this point with the following: “While the concept does sound interesting and has compelling themes when put under a closer lens, the execution and delivery of the whole project fall flat on its face.” https://www.breezejmu.org/culture/the-world-of-melanie-martinez-is-sonically-subpar-on-k/article_a2ea88ea-d27d-11e9-8e7b-abfbd7b881d8.html If Melanie’s vocals had more punch to them, maybe this album would have had better results. Her voice just has no oomph to it, which is what these songs require.

This album was clearly not meant to stand on its own as once the album is combined with the context of the movie, it’s better. Still not great, but certainly better. That’s the problem though. The album needs to be able to stand on its own and sound good without visual assistance to make an impact.

Let’s start with the positives, shall we? There are some okay songs on this album despite my disdain for the work as a whole. Class Fight has a nice beat and a chorus that is easy to sing along to. The repetition of the song gets old after a while, but it’s not that bad. Detention also has a nice beat to it, but after repeated listens, I still have no idea what the song is even supposed to be about. But hey, at least it sounds kind of alright, how cares if it makes sense right? The song on this album that I feel actually works with Melanie’s delicate vocals and bubbly sound with a contrasting dark theme is Teacher’s Pet. Good job Melanie, one out of thirteen of your songs actually work! 

 The metaphors in this song are crystal clear in comparison to the confusion in the other songs. The music and vocals help to show the horrid and predatory behavior that can occur between a male teacher and a young and vulnerable female student. As Sound Bite Reviews points out: “Sounding unnaturally distorted and tense and the way the song builds and gets darker as it goes on works brilliantly.” https://soundbitereviews.wordpress.com/2019/09/06/album-review-melanie-martinez-k-12/

The issue with trying to criticize this album is that while the message behind the songs is a good one, the songs themselves do the meaning no justice. For instance, the song “Strawberry Shortcake” should have been the perfect anthem for the #MeToo movement with the theme being the objectification of women, but the actual music just falls flat. The sugary sweet bubblegum music is just too sweet to actually have the impact that Melanie was going for. I am all for songs that sound happy and sweet actually having a heavier theme, but come on! It just doesn’t work here, and it’s not even that catchy which is an even greater sin.

 “Orange Juice” runs into the same issue. Great message, subpar song. I listened to this song at least five times in one go and I still couldn’t recite even one part of the chorus. Most of the songs just don’t stand out, and trying to compensate by saying the meaning behind the song makes up for it is just an insult to the very movements you're trying to support. Having to explain the impact of a song rather than having the song does that on its own says it all.

Naysya Blackshear has this positive comment to say: “At times the songs blend together a bit and the only way one can notice a change is with distinguishing sounds, like a bus engine starting, or coughing and sneezing.” https://amherstwire.com/29283/entertainment/melanie-martinez-holds-nothing-back-on-new-album-k-12/ I have only this to say about this statement. Shouldn’t that be a negative? None of the songs stand out in the slightest to the point that they all just blend into one incoherent mess. How on earth, Blackshear, is that a positive?

One comment from Jeff Benjamin sums up perfectly why this subpar album was still highly regarded by her fanbase: “Her core following will jump into this next step with her as already early numbers indicate that the album will have a very healthy debut on the charts…” https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbenjamin/2019/09/12/melanie-martinezs-k-12-vision-is-a-perfect-conceptual-album-in-the-streaming-age/#3430488330fe I couldn’t agree more. It doesn’t matter if the album is actually good or not, the die-hard fans will hype up this album and it will inevitably chart, whether it deserves it or not.

Usually, this is where I would put my top 3 songs that I recommend you listen to from the album but…nah. See? Isn’t that just so unsatisfying? You expect something to happen but then it doesn’t, much like this album! Why listen when I just gave you the true experience of K-12 as an album; utter disappointment. You’re Welcome! Just kidding, but honestly? Top 3? Let’s just stick to one song this time. If there is any song on this album worth your time it’s Teacher’s Pet. Give it a listen!

Overall this album gets a 4.5/10. A mediocre score for a mediocre album. Better luck next time Melanie! 🤷

Find the whole album on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/1KerGJUScYGffP3Mjmjz8c

[vixenscratch]

Red Flags and Dealbreakers in Relationships

Disclaimer: While I’ve tried to cover/stick to things that are pretty universal red flags/dealbreakers (and the two are not synonymous, far from!), that doesn’t mean a relationship that does not display these signs is by necessity healthy, nor that I’ve covered all possible variations and eventualities that may to some degree or other affect the severity of certain behaviors. This is also my opinion, based on how I see relationships, and not all these will mean that there’s anything wrong with either of you. Sometimes two perfectly good people are just not suited for a relationship together. Far as I am concerned, an amicable breakup is always preferable to a messy one, if possible.

It’s also going to be kinda long. Kinda a lot long. Lots of stuff under the read-more! Expect some less than savory things related to relationships to come up, considering the topic.

(If you want to reblog for the art alone, feel free to wait until it’s been posted to @shutupvixen - I won’t take offense!)

Dealbreaker: You and your partner have different relationship ideals or relationship goals.

What this means: While trying to work on things and compromise works in many situations, there are some cases where I’d say it’s somewhere between risky and an outright bad idea, if you want to remain friends in case of a breakup. This is one of them. If your partner actively wants kids (a relationship goal) and you actively do not, there isn’t a compromise that isn’t going to make one of you unhappy, and at that point saying “I love you, but this is not something either of us should expect to give up our own wants and needs on” is okay and healthy. If one of you is poly and the other monoamorous (and wants monogamy for your relationship as a whole, not just themselves - there are people who don’t want more than one partner but don’t mind their significant other having multiple, and if you keep communication open and make sure everyone is and remains okay with the arrangement, that’s fine!), that’s also something unlikely to have a healthy resolution that does not dissolve the relationship (relationship ideal).

What this does not mean: Having different religions, ethnicities, political views, or opinion on whether the toilet seat should be up or down is not, in this context, a relationship ideal, unless it actually affects how the two of you want your relationship to be structured (e.g. if a partner insists that the other partner follow all or some of their customs). You may find that such things make it difficult to maintain a healthy relationship, but they in themselves are neither dealbreakers nor red flags the way I’m using the words here.

It also does not mean that either or both parties need to have formed an opinion regarding things like reproduction in order to get into a relationship. Things like having kids are only a dealbreaker if you have goals that don’t, and can’t, match. 

Dealbreaker: You and your partner have irreconcilable sexualities.

What this means: This kind of ties into the prior point, but is different enough I wanted to cover it separately. While I don’t particularly believe that a relationship should be based solely on sex, it will be a component of most relationships. In this context, sexuality encompasses both sexual acts with other human beings (whether or not they are your formal partner(s) - open relationships are a thing and can be perfectly healthy!) as well as masturbation, consumption of pornography, and other activities that result in sexual gratification (including crossdressing-as-gratification and ageplay, to name a couple of examples). Most people in a relationship will have enough overlap here that it gets “close enough” for all parties to be relatively happy. Sometimes, either due to the natural shift of sexuality over time or because one partner or the other went out of their comfort zone in order to secure the relationship early on (not a practice I’d recommend!), things can get to a head, however. 

I would also put any sort of moratorium on a partner’s masturbation (unless part of a consensual arrangement where that partner has willingly ceded control) under this heading. While it’s alright to ask to be left (note “left”, not “kept”) in the dark about it, it’s not acceptable to force your partner to choose between lying to you and denying their own sexual needs.

Working it out: Despite the fact that I’ve labeled this a dealbreaker, there is some room for compromise here if both partners are willing to put in the work, but an individual with a high libido and someone with absolutely no interest in sex are unlikely to be able to maintain a healthy relationship unless the party with the higher sex drive has some kind of acceptable alternate outlet. The same goes if one party’s sexual gratification is dependent on particular acts/fetishes/kinks that the other is unwilling or unable to indulge. 

Possible compromises could include giving one partner space to indulge their desires alone without blame or reproach (if this will provide sufficient gratification for them), making allowances for certain extrarelational activities to take place (keep in mind that e.g. bondage and ageplay do not always have to include anything that most people would consider “sexual” in order to be satisfying for the participants), or, if the problem is simply a lack of interest rather than active disinterest/distaste, trying to meet halfway. If no compromise can be found, however, maintaining a relationship where one or multiple parties are consistently sexually unsatisfied is not healthy nor likely to work in the long run. This is why I’m calling it a dealbreaker - if an understanding can’t be reached, it’s better to break it off before it gets to the point of resentment.

What this does not mean: This does not make you justified in cheating on your spouse(s), nor in trying to impose your needs on them. Nor does it mean that you need to share all sexual interests in order to be a sexually compatible couple. It doesn’t make you obligated to put out if you’re not in the mood, and it doesn’t give you the right to use your libido as a bargaining chip (more on that later).

If you find the topic of human sexuality and what it means for, among other things, relationships, I can recommend giving Sex at Dawn by  Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá a read.

Dealbreaker: Systematic or recurring abuse/violence

What this means: There is nothing that justifies deliberately abusing your partner. While I don’t doubt that many abusers need help and support, it’s not their partner’s job to provide those things at the cost of their own well-being. This goes for both physical violence, which is probably what most people think of first when they think of spousal abuse, and mental/emotional abuse, which can be just as damaging, if incredibly hard to nail down. A partner who regularly tells you that you are worthless, that you should be lucky to have them, that nothing you do is good enough, is not so much a partner as they are a bully, and that’s about as far from a healthy relationship as you can get.

What this does not mean: I would argue that a single instance of relatively mild violence (a single blow, shove or slap, the kind of thing that could reasonably be attributed to impulse and does not cause significant injury), particularly if provoked or under the influence of alcohol, drugs, mental unhealth, etc., is not automatically an indicator of an abusive individual, provided they own their behavior and take steps to keep it from happening again. This might mean seeking help to throw an addiction, going to anger management classes, talking to their treating physician about the incident and possibly discussing changes in medications if applicable, or something else entirely, depending on the situation. Keep in mind that most domestic violence is mutual, and that deliberately winding your partner up until they lose their temper is also a form of abuse.

Obviously in cases of eg. egregious violence waiting to see if it happens again is not necessary, and probably unwise - your first duty should be to protect yourself, and you are under no obligation to try to mend a relationship that is broken to this point. I can’t say exactly where to draw the line for “cut your losses and don’t look back”, and I don’t think trying to draw up some kind of rule for it would do much good, so I don’t particularly care to try.

Dealbreaker: Your partner supports or indulges in a self-destructive habit

What this means: A partner who helps you to start or continue self-destructive behavior such as drug use/addiction, eating disorders, or self-injury, without attempting to redirect or intervene with the behavior, is not someone it’s going to be healthy for you to stay with in the long run. This goes doubly for a partner who initiates the self-destructive habit - even if they themselves are addicted, someone who offers you e.g. hard drugs is doing you more harm than good, in the long run. On the other hand, you should also, for your own health, not remain indefinitely in a relationship with someone who refuses to get help to shake habits or addictions that are a serious risk to themselves or their surroundings. 

What this does not mean: A partner willing to go out and buy you a pack of smokes if you ask may be contributing to your future lung cancer in some small way, but that’s a much milder degree of self-destructive habits than I’m referring to here. Neither does your partner have to take responsibility for your habits and choices onto themselves. A supportive partner will encourage you to seek help, but is not obligated to give up their life in order to watch you and make sure you do not harm yourself. Likewise, finding out that your partner has an addiction or other self-destructive habit does not have to be a sign to walk away right that minute - you’ll have to have a long, hard think about it and decide how much energy you are capable and willing to put towards trying to help them without it negatively impacting you. 

Dealbreaker: Your partner has failed to disclose information about themselves that is likely to seriously impact your life or health

What this means: While it is understandable for someone to be reluctant to reveal secrets associated with social stigma, such as STD status or past criminal convictions, if these could impact you, your partner owes it to you to be honest. Being with them should be your informed decisions, and taking that decision away from you, particularly if it’s liable to have long-reaching consequences, is a violation of your trust and agency that you should not be expected to take lying down.

What this does not mean: Having a past conviction does not mean a person will never be a suitable partner, and if those days are truly behind them, they may not need to bring it up unless there are long-reaching consequences that could result in you being dragged into an ugly situation in the present. Neither is your partner obligated to share every little detail about their life with you - some people are less comfortable opening up about their past than others, especially if some of those memories are painful. Neither does it mean that having an STD should automatically be considered to make someone undateable, or that not knowing about one’s STD status when initiating a relationship should be held against a person. 

Dealbreaker: Your partner mistreats your or their own pets

What this means: Someone once said something like “if you want to know a man’s nature, look at how he treats his dog” and there’s something to it. Not only are you responsible for looking out for the best interests of any pets you own, but there is a very real risk that someone who mistreats animals will move on to mistreating the people around them, and if that happens, chances are that you’ll be close at hand. You’ll also not want to get implicated if their mistreatment of the animals reaches levels that get animal welfare or law enforcement involved.

What this does not mean: Not everyone has the same knowledge, even about animals they themselves own. Sometimes seemingly abusive or neglectful behavior is the result of ignorance, or differences in training ideologies. If your partner’s behavior is due to not knowing better, that is not automatically even a red flag - talk to them about how you want your animals treated, help them educate themselves about the care of their own animals, and you’ll have improved the situation for the lot of you.

Red Flag: Your friends are concerned about your relationship

What this means: If multiple friends or relatives, from at least two separate social circles, express concerns about your relationship or its effect to you, they are probably seeing something you don’t. While relationships do change us over time to some degree, if friends tell you you’ve changed since you started seeing your partner (and it’s not in the sense of “you seem much happier now” or similar sentiments), you should take them seriously and at least listen to what they have to say. Manipulation in relationships can often be subtle, and isn’t always even done consciously, but it’s generally easier for an outsider to pick up on or notice that something is feeling “off” about your relationship. After hearing your friends out, it’s up to you to decide whether you want to take action now, file the information away to be reviewed at a future point, or dismiss what they have told you - it is after all perfectly possible that your friends and your partner just have bad chemistry.

What this does not mean: Your friends do not all have to like each other, or your partner. It’s natural for people to sometimes just rub each other the wrong way, and that should not be an automatic reason for ending a relationship. Neither are you obligated to uncritically heed your friends’ or family’s advice regarding who you should be dating.

Red Flag: Your partner uses sex or their libido as a bargaining chip

What this means: The trope of one partner telling the other “no sex for a month” after a disagreement is widespread, and thoroughly unhealthy. Sex should be something that is shared for mutual enjoyment, not something that is withheld to punish one’s partner or pressure them into giving in to a demand in order to get some. A partner who habitually does this is likely to develop other abusive or controlling behaviors, or may be using their lower libido to score a perceived advantage, in which case you may just not be sexually compatible without renegotiating your relationship terms. Similarly, it’s not acceptable for an individual with a high libido to attempt to use their high sex drive to push their partner into having sex when they don’t want to, or as leverage to force through changes in relationship terms that their partner is not comfortable with.

What this does not mean: It’s perfectly reasonable to have a little bit of bargaining between partners, either due to time constraints (”we can have sex if you help me clean up after dinner first”) or as part of the give-and-take that is part of every relationship. As long as neither partner feels disadvantaged by these deals, and they don’t form a pattern of unequal exchanges, this is fine. It is also not a problem, but in fact healthy, to express that one is unhappy with the amount of sex in the relationship. 

Of course there will be situations where one partner is not in the mood, or wants to put limitations on sexual relations due to outside circumstances. The important part, then, is that the measures are reasonable given those circumstances. There’s a big difference between withholding sex from a partner who cheated in order to punish them, and wishing to use additional protection for a time in order to ensure that the infidelity does not have additional unwanted consequences, such as STD transmission. 

Red flag: Your partner wants to know where you are and who you are with at every hour of the day

What this means: Keeping stalker-level tabs on one’s partner is a textbook precursor to more overtly abusive behavior. While it’s reasonable to want to spend time with you, your partner does not need to know your schedule in detail. This is especially concerning if they also call to check up on you when you’re not together, or otherwise attempting to double-check what you’ve told them. 

What this does not mean: Taking an interest in what you’re doing is not a bad thing - it only becomes a problem when it goes overboard. Asking you where you’re going is not in itself abusive, unless and until it reaches a level where your partner is mapping out your entire life.

Red flag: Your partner will not believe that your friends are only friends

What this means: It’s common in modern western society for individuals in a relationship to grow jealous and suspicious of their partner’s friends, particularly friends of the same sex as themselves. This is something that media and social expectations to varying degrees encourage, but it is toxic to relationships. If your partner is not willing to believe you when you tell them you have no sexual or romantic interest in a friend they are jealous of, that is a sign of possible future trouble, and something you need to work out sooner rather than later. Your partner has no right to expect to be able to dictate who you spend time with, and this sort of situation is liable to result in them attempting to do so.

What this does not mean: If you do have an interest in a friend, you should absolutely not lie about it. Lies are not a good foundation for trust. Rather, be honest and upfront, and offer what reassurances you can without straining the truth. Telling lies will only serve to reinforce future suspicions.

Red flag: Your partner says one thing but their actions say another

What this means: Perhaps the most common example of this is in the aftermath of infidelity. While taking your partner’s word for it that you’re okay may be reasonable in the short run, if they continue to keep you in the figurative dog house, it’s likely you at the very best are facing an uphill battle to reach a point where you actually are okay. It is not fair to either of you to try to salvage a relationship where you are fumbling in the dark for a solution and they are still hanging onto the offense that they claim to have let go of. This goes beyond dishonesty, which is already relationship poison, and into being a fertile breeding ground for resentment. 

What this does not mean: Sometimes, in the very short term, people know that all that’s left until they can truly let go is a little bit of time. Saying “I’m fine” and going to get some air to collect one’s thoughts and recompose oneself is a lot easier than explaining the intricacies of this, and is an acceptable simplification. In those cases, asking “do you need space?” and giving them space if they say yes is about the best you can do, and a normal part of interacting with other people. The red flags only start coming up if the disrepancy between word and action persists for an extended time, indicating that your partner is chewing their figurative cud instead of letting it pass through their system and be flushed out.