#I can view them from an outside perspective but I can't engage personally with people who are different from me

[neverendingford]

.

[celerydays]

Hi! I have been following you for some time and I notice you draw more and more Sebastian and Ominis doing stuff that makes me... uncomfortable.....

Sebastian and Ominis are best friends, why people are obsessed with drawing them into weird gay stuff? Seriously.... Why can't be friends.... without all Sebinis... Just stop it...

Normally I would delete messages or simply ignore the things that make me feel uncomfortable–

But, you're on anon and this is my ask inbox, so I can only assume you want an actual, public response. So alright. Fine.

Like I said: normally I would just remove odd, uncomfortable, or even outright rude messages without making a whole thing of it. I curate my own online experience and I try my best to live by that rule.

However, I've now gotten multiple unsolicited DMs over the course of a couple of months expressing the exact same sentiment (and nearly word-for-word as this ask, so I highly suspect I already know who you are). I have duly ignored or glossed over them hoping that the person/people would take the hint to simply stop engaging with the same message over and over again. But an anon ask is my last straw, I guess.

So if you are the same person as in my DMs, I'm finally giving you a response (and if you're not the same person – which I highly doubt – then I'm speaking to both of you).

Firstly, I want to say that I am sorry that your worldview is so limited that this is your stance and feelings on gay/queer ship content for Sebastian and Ominis.

Next, I ask that you please:

Don't make your homophobia anyone else's issue but your own. Don't come into DMs/ask inboxes/comments to make your discomfort with the content I create my problem. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by sending this message but it's unlikely that you'll find the same feelings or sympathy from the person who is actively creating queer/sebinis content.

Curate your own online experience. Once again, do not make your content consumption anyone else's problem but your own. The "unfollow" button is there. Tumblr has a tag filtering system and I try to tag my art and content as accurately as possible. If you do not like something/it makes you uncomfortable, then do not continue to consume it. And if you still decide to stick around for whatever reason, then please keep your thoughts/opinions on this matter to yourself because I can promise that I don't actually care why you would continue to be here and looking at my art if it makes you unhappy.

Widen your worldview and try to reframe your perspective. Consider that Sebastian x Ominis is just as canon as Sebastian x f!MC or Ominis x f!MC. As much as we like to ship our various MCs with the canon characters, MC never actually amounts to canonically being confirmed as anything but being just friends with everyone. Using the "they are just best friends" / "why can't they just be portrayed only as friends" could literally be applied to just about any other non-canon/non-confirmed ship between friends regardless of gender. If even one of them, Ominis or Sebastian, was portrayed as cis female in canon, I would suspect that you would better "understand" why a ship between these two "friends" may exist. Then also consider a cis male MC; it's possible you may suddenly reframe all the interactions between Ominis x m!MC or Sebastian x m!MC in your head to be "totally platonic/friendly". Your issue is certainly not with their canon relationship vs. fandom portrayal (but I think we both know that).

Educate yourself. Go outside and meet and talk to people, I dunno. It is 2024 my dude. I don't even know how you're on Tumblr – the most queer-friendly social media site – with those kind of narrowed views and stigma.

I would like to finish by saying: I don't wish you the best. What I do wish is for you to learn, grow, and be better than this.

And also please stop sending me messages of this nature, because the next ask or DM I get like this, we're moving on to blocking at this point. And if your purpose was to get me to stop, I can tell you that these messages have only fueled the explicit sebinis smut maker in me. 😤

[yuriyuruandyuraart]

Are you aware that I'm-a-gay-fish and Zu ship dr//m/are ?/genq

okay so it took me a while to answer this but i finally found the words to so here goes; yeah i do know, and i totally understand if you don't ship it, neither do i, but there's nothing i can do about it?

they're allowed, so long as they don't harm people, to do whatever they want on their own platforms. and before you ask me if i support *ncest, would you actually ask someone if they support toxic relationships and murder whenever they ship two unhealthy killers with mental problems? because that's funnily enough what most people do around here! you can say it's not the same, and that they're romanticizing it, but i can personally detach myself from fiction enough to realize that while this concept depicted in their art shouldn't be recreated in real life, that doesn't mean they actually engage or support people that do that irl- they asked zu the same question so many times, and frog doesn't either and i've known gayfish for three years! you're well within your right to stop associating with them or distance yourself from their content but i myself won't.

i know fiction affects reality to a degree, don't twist my words please, but if you're too young to consume that kind of content with a nuanced perspective or is triggered/affected by it then as long as they tag their content properly then you can unfollow, block and move on. i have a habit of following and reblogging people's works before looking at their bios and before i know it find myself having to choose between two sides i don't belong to and i frankly don't want to! anti this or proship that- in this online era you have to adapt by keeping your cool and curating your own online experience and viewing people in black and whites is stressful, painful and dangerous for everyone involved. i don't even reblog the content you probably have a problem with, and i'm honestly still scared of the response i'll get-

i will not blame or hate whoever unfollows or blocks me for this, it's to be expected, but please don't think about it like some bad vs good guys dilemma? sometimes thought provoking morally grey ambiguous stories with messed up characters spark more positive discussion and healing than people looking into it because they suffer from the same delusions and want a justification-

like realistically, in my blog, most ppl here are basically shipping two literal skeletons with magic in their bones who are sometimes almost the exact copy of one another, and who theoretically have a very similar dna, and sometimes they make shipkids, which, if you know anything about *ncest, is one of the main reasons why you shouldn't bang your siblings - mostly from a moral standpoint because that's so gross i can't even think of it, but also because any offspring would suffer greatly from physical and mental diseases hidden in their genetic code- like. you could argue it's not the same but it's sancest for a reason. and even when they're widely different sanses, you wouldn't think fell x sans is wrong (at least in this specific community) but really we've all just gotten numb to how weird that sounds. trust me, there's a reason we don't talk about our ships to outsiders HHH

TL,DR: so while i greatly encourage you to block people and content you don't want to see/associate with, including me! i hope i made it clear why i, personally, don't care about dreammare and whoever ships it.

[ckret2]

*pulls up a chair, turns it backwards, and straddles it with my arms casually resting on the back*

Hi guys. We're gonna talk about vore. In a serious and non-judgmental manner. For five minutes we'll treat it like it's not a joke kink. Thanks.

So something not all of you know about me is I'm asexual; and something probably even less of you know about me is that I'm the kind of asexual who's fascinated by sexuality and kink, like an anthropologist studying a culture with norms and beliefs that are foreign to me. I'm intrigued by what makes people's sexualities tick and what it is that appeals to them about kinks that outsiders see as bizarre or completely incomprehensible.

I maintain a strict "we don't kinkshame here" policy; I'm personally disinterested in but comfortable discussing niche kinks ranging from inflatable pool toys to the earlier-mentioned oculolinctus; and I know that when I have a writing question like "what does poop taste like" oftentimes the most detailed and helpful information will come from people with fetishes that make most of the Internet gasp in horror, and I deeply appreciate their invaluable contributions.

So when I express surprise that I got someone into vore, it's because I have a specific idea about what vore entails that comes from—you guessed it—seeing lots of vore art.

From what I've witnessed, in most cases, it takes more than just "eroticized cannibalism" to make a work "vore." Like if two cannibals are having a sexually-charged dinner over a delicious homecooked meal that we know was once human, there is something kinky going on here, and the cannibalism—the knowledge of a life ended, the taboo, the horror—is part of that kinkiness; but if you ask how many people are engaged in this sexual encounter, the automatic answer is "two," the couple eating. Not "three." The meal isn't humanized. It's an edible sex toy, a prop. It's meat.

To my mind, "erotic cannibalism" isn't "vore" until the meal is a person. That doesn't just mean giving them dialogue; but treating them as a participant in the sexual encounter. Either the subject from whose perspective we are to view the encounter, or the object of desire on whom our erotic gaze is meant to linger.

Think of it this way: if you replace the human meat with beef, is it now just a story about eating steak? Then it's not vore. On the other hand, does it now inherently become a story about eating an anthro cow, because the "beef" had enough personhood that you can't consider it "just" a cow? That's vore.

Consuming a human(oid) body doesn't constitute vore, but rather consuming a human(oid) life. A consciousness—an identity—must be swallowed. If that's missing from the encounter (say, if someone is devoured but their personhood is ignored by the creator as irrelevant; or if parts of a person are consumed, but their seat of identity—their mind, their soul—remains undevoured), then to me it's not yet vore. It's "just" cannibalism.

And so—by my own understanding of vore—I've never written vore.

But like on the other hand I have written about a cannibal who gets off to biting off chunks of his lover's flesh because he fantasizes about consuming his still-beating heart to make his beloved a part of himself; so like, okay, sure, let's be real here, I've gotten close enough to count.

The fact that it doesn't "feel" like vore to me until a life (as opposed to mere flesh) has been swallowed doesn't mean that to other people what I've written won't hit the same buttons that vore hits for them—because the edges of any one person's sexuality are nothing if not nuanced and blobby and blurry and no two people's ideas of what gets them off (and thus no two people's ideas of what makes for a specific kink) will ever be exactly the same.

All of which is to say:

Yeah I was genuinely surprised when somebody said I got them into vore lmao, legitimately my first reaction was "how tf did I get somebody into a kink I myself don't have?" BUT the fact that I can "feel" a hard dividing line between "vore" and "horny cannibalism that isn't vore" doesn't mean that other people feel it's there. It's interesting and enlightening to hear that for somebody, there is no difference in what I wrote, and I did actually, genuinely introduce them to a kink I don't see myself as sharing. I think it's kinda neat.

(So, anon who wrote in, if you're still around: I hope my surprise didn't come across as derision! I was genuinely fascinated to hear that. And I do appreciate getting this random opportunity to talk about unusual kinks on main.)

Okay, lecture over, class dismissed. Y'all can go about your day.

[orange-orchard-system]

I keep getting asks about discourse even though I have said many times before that this not a place where I like to hold discourse. I don't plan to change that, but since people can't leave it alone, I'll give a rundown on some of our general Discourse Perspectives and Rules™ so I can just tap the sign if anyone else comes into our inbox or something screaming at us over any other/more discourse in the future.

I don't take call-outs or other accusations seriously unless they have reasonable proof for everything. This means that: the proof must not be easily disputable; it must not be offensive or harmful due to a misunderstanding, finding its way out of the audience it was intended for, or simple mistake due to perspective at the time it was made/said; it must not be something taken out of context. I also don't consider minor mistakes or a simple difference in opinion on minor issues something that justifies a giant call-out or cancelation, especially in cases where they can just be taken up with the op privately (or even just on a reblog chain); the call-out itself must be an appropriate reaction to any offense. Calling for a full "cancelation" of someone over a single post the op didn't mean to hurt anyone with (just as an example) is not what we'd consider appropriate.

On a related note, no, "this person has done XYZ which is bad but I'm not gonna elaborate on the how or why" is not enough for us to give a shit about whatever discourse you're yapping about. Either elaborate with sources, direct quotes, and an explanation, or leave us alone.

If we ever do speak about a call-out, us asking questions and questioning what we may see as weak points doesn't mean we're "defending" whoever the call-out is about. It just means I want clarification and/or think the call-out is being a little unfair, not that I think criticism of the person in question is necessarily unwarranted. My opinions on call-outs and my opinions on who those call-outs are about are two separate things. I can say I think something is taken out of context while agreeing that it wasn't very good in context (as just one example).

This is because call-outs and discourse – however normal they've become in modern internet times – can still be very serious things. I will engage with serious things like this with a critical eye, because I don't want to come to a rash decision that could hurt people. I consider myself decent at textual analysis, and I'm going to implement my skills at that to whatever call-outs or "why are you supporting X" messages I happen across. If I end up dismissing something based on the conclusion I draw, that does not necessarily mean I think the accused did nothing wrong, but rather that what was brought before me to accuse them does not hold up.

Just because we reblog from or talk to someone doesn't mean we agree with them on every discourse opinion they may have. In fact, we may disagree with and criticize their views, perhaps even openly – we've done it before.

Trying to explain our thoughts on every little discourse point is not worth the time or effort to us. If you can't find our public opinion on something, assume we either have a private opinion and have thought it over amongst ourselves, or don't feel we know enough to say something on it or form an Official Opinion™ (assuming we know anything at all). Discourse is not one of our hobbies, and we don't intend to make it one.

On a related note, stop assuming that everyone on the internet is fully and wholly informed on every single discourse argument going on at all times. I have a life outside of Tumblr and try not to make myself miserably overwhelmed by all the horrible things in the world; you cannot possibly expect me to understand what the hell you're talking about if you come onto my blog and start randomly accusing people of just generally being horrible with no context or explanation. I am not omniscient, I am just someone blogging on the internet.

Might add onto this in the future if we feel the need to, but I think this establishes most of our bases. Part of me can't believe this is necessary, but it's Tumblr, so better safe than sorry when it comes to discourse. Especially considering people have already tried to start shit with us many times in the past. Good to have a sign to tap for when it inevitably happens again.

[hickeygender]

Hello! Sorry if this isn't a topic you want to speak on (so feel free to ignore this) but I have two questions regarding different arguments I've seen about the Hogwarts Legacy bullshit, as there were mixed views from both trans and Jewish people when I went on a blocking spree earlier:

1. I saw a couple of the fans that paid actual money for the game defend their choice with "but Im trans" or "but Im Jewish" or both. Thoughts on that?

2. There have been claims that pirating the game is alright as long as you don't talk about it online, whereas others posed that engaging with the game through piracy is in itself harmful - maybe not to the wider society as a whole, but to Jewish, trans, and other marginalized individuals in that persons life. What is your stance on the matter?

I have some ideas about these myself but seeing as I am neither trans nor Jewish I think it'd be best to ask first and only follow up with a dialogue if that is wanted of me. I know that outsiders can sometimes have more nuanced/better positions than insiders (like with the whole truscum and transmedicalism rot going on about in some trans circles) but. Yeah. Asking predominantly out of curiosity but also because you tend to be aggressively clear and honest about the shit going on with HP and I like that.

I'm fine with answering this, though I will add that I'm not Jewish and so I'm not qualified to speak in depth on the antisemitism present within the game other than to acknowledge that it is very blatant and wrong.

From the perspective of a trans person, I think that even trans people can hold harmful and transphobic stances when it comes to this game bc they're letting their nostalgia blind them. Being a minority does not inherently free you from being wrong and bigoted, even against a group you yourself are part of. Sidenote - considering how this game actually has a trans person in it and to my admittedly limited knowledge it doesn't engage in transphobic rhetoric or tropes like it does with the antisemitism, I'd find it VERY sketch if a trans gentile claimed they could play the game bc they were trans. Like, hello! The antisemitism isn't negated by your transness!!

Onto your second question: I've thought about this myself and I think I've finally decided on my stance, though it's quite rambly. Imho if someone is absolutely 100% going to play the game, I'd prefer that they pirate it, do so behind closed doors, and not speak of it bc there's no such thing as bad publicity. But like... they're knowingly engaging with a game that is steeped in antisemitism and monetarily benefits a transphobe. The simple decision to play that game, even if it doesn't impact their worldview in any way, even if they aren't lining joann's pockets, even if they give it no publicity... they're still making a decision to put their own pleasure and enjoyment over the pleas of Jewish and trans people. That's selfish in my book. Like, if someone hasn't dropped HP I doubt anything I can say will change that, but I just find it sad and exhausting that people will call themselves allies and then refuse to do anything that could possibly challenge or inconvenience them. They post infographs about the rise of antisemitic hatecrimes and reblog "fuck terfs!", but will they actually show up to rallies? Call their legislators to complain about bigoted legislature? Educate themselves? Make room for Jewish and trans voices and be silent when necessary? Consistantly reflect on their own biases and bigoted behaviors and grow as a person? Something tells me that if they can't even refrain from playing a blatantly antisemitic wizard game just bc it reminds them of a book written by a terf they read when they were 12, that that's not very likely.

[aotopmha]

Saw the first part of the AoT finale.

And this once again just hit at the right time for me personally.

It's not just about 'oh protect the kids' 'oh Eren is the poor victim bby'.

Eren is a victim AND perpetrator. He literally tells you this.

I'm currently feeling that sentiment of 'take responsibility you stupid fucks' very deeply.

But to start somewhere, I think the strongest part of this portion of the story to me is absolutely the character writing.

Eren is horrified at his own thoughts and what he felt in the future. (In fact the reason why he is stuck in his head are at least partially his own destructive feelings from the future. He's interesting because he has feelings. His future self wanted this while his current self is sitting there horrified and crying.)

Him not being free is absolutely the right read. It's simply about not being able to see past his feelings – his state of mind. Which is absolutely influenced by several factors as well like OG Ymir's feelings, his knowledge of the future outside of his feelings and his father's memories.

But he's also genociding people. And getting out of that prison is only possible if he is willing to engage with other perspectives. It's all this sort of a greek tragedy loop where his own dark thoughts amplify everything else and the other elements amplify his dark thoughts.

And because he values freedom so much, he could never actually restrain anyone from fighting back.

It's these character elements that determine the narrative direction. The story at this point is deeply character-centric.

Yet despite all seeming lost, his opponents feel it's worth to keep fighting for those who yet live. They can't take back what happened, but they can try to move forward in the circumstances they are in. I think this sentiment is so deeply important going into the finale.

Hange's decision is all about this position of responsibility she was pushed into following Erwin's death, too.

She values the pursuit of knowledge, so she picks Armin as the commander.

I really like her response to Yelena because she's basically talking past her. She admits she failed with Eren, but she never says Zeke is right.

In line of with this moment with Hange, I think a lot of this has very specific emotional nuances and I find that really important.

Yes, Eren's friends are begging with him in Paths, but I also think it's not just because they just love him so very much.

They are also desparate to throw everything at him because he's kind of destroying the world and killing humanity.

So any reason is okay as long as it gets through to him.

Just like that speech by the old guy is equal parts military speech, emotional desparation and thematic statement.

I could logically and clinically tell you that someone else could've technically replaced Hange or maybe Hange held on too long to the point of it being too much.

Or how Annie just could've pieced herself together and gone with them.

But to me it at least all makes sense from the character perspective.

I think it makes sense Hange went instead of Armin or Reiner or even Jean not just because she felt responsible and all Titans are needed, but also because she is also a better, more experienced fighter. What the anime improved is the sense of suspense of just how close the escape was. Her feat was successful as much because of her skill as it was luck and while I think this was the intention to begin with, I think the pacing and depiction of her battle was so much better in the anime. It was a desperate charge picking out Titans in a smart way to protect that one building.

On the other hand, Annie was drafted against her will. It's dumb another strong weapon chooses not to fight in the middle of an apocalypse, but we're also in the middle of an apocalypse and it's better to not have a liability making things worse in there.

That's the kind of story I view this series to be. And technically the story never brings of the experience thing or Annie being a potential liability, I think the framing makes at least the tone clear.

And the very final chapters are the peak of this, I think.

Which is also why it sucks that Historia is treated the way she is. Everyone else is great and gets to be complex and she is sort of just written out in the most sloppy way possible. I think her scenes will all probably be consolidated in the finale into a single timeline, if that. (Though the truth is, I think even completely skipping them would treat her better, so I'm sort of holding out for that.)

I think the final chapter is exactly like this. I think it has a much more nuanced, but more importantly consistent thematic perspective than people give it credit for undermined by not letting it sit has much as it should and follows through from this material.

We can't change what happened, but we can try to make the best of the circumstances we are left with and move forward the best we can.

I think this series is flawed in more complex (and to me interesting) ways than I see claimed, too.

I think there is nuance to the potential read that the story is about Isayama painting a facsmile of imperialistic Japan as victims because he clearly wrote the the representitive of the fictional Japan in her story regretting her actions of exploiting a minority and admitting they only care about themselves.

Hizuru was basically destroyed because of its own greed and that's a very clear (and true) statement about Japan.

She goes on to say you only truly understand you've done wrong once you've actually done the wrong thing.

This feels like an apology to me. And that's good, but she's also a tertiary character, so much does it matter?

And how much of painting Hizuru as an ally is patting yourself on the back?

This story is full of these nuances to me, be it in a straight-forward reading of the text or on the meta level and that's why I will always have a soft spot for it.

I think there is so much more to it all on all levels.

But right now I felt like addressing these elements.

[dragynkeep]

I get it can be viewing a situation with another character as something to heal, a coping mechanism.

Writing nightmares and episodes and shit, fine by me, as long as you recognize it or depict it as something that shouldn’t be happening, yet happen. That goes for abuse, abuse should never happen, etc.. It’s always in movies and shit. Though I do not agree with writing children with old people in sexual situations on any account. That is written CP... Anything sexual with children in a manner that you yourself are writing to be attractive or “hot” is gross, in reality it really is.

It does happen to people, writing it so that people know it’s a bad thing and the weight of it and how much it can have an effect on someone, probably better? Instead of you know, “normalizing it”

I would not want some 20+ year old writing about me like that against my will. These characters aren’t real, yet you have to think about it. Thinking things through is always important.

I just don’t agree with it, you’re not gonna stop because of this I know. Though, I implore you to think about it harder and why is it that you find this Fun to write, or depict.

It’s not being “uptight” it’s going along with gut, experience and thought. I have been groomed before and all that shit, stuff I haven’t even told anyone. It’s just that personally I wouldn’t want anyone to go through the shit I went through, or what has anyone went through.

And the proshipping community IS a safe space for pedophiles. Everywhere. It’s like a ground where they have literally every damn say. You can’t just say “no its not” because that’s like closing your eyes and pretending someone isn’t there. I have seen plenty of people in the proshipping community be outed as pedophiles. Its fucked. Not necessarily saying all of them are, but it’s still fucked because WHY are you giving into that behavior.

Not to mention minors get into this community and that has them vulnerable. They just get into it and learn “oh its fine to be under 18 and with an adult” when its fucking not fine but they believe it because they learn that from adults or other children who have been groomed by adults who happened to be their “friend”.

It’s a fucking system man, one moment you’re fine with some bullshit, the next you have now convinced a teenager it’s fine that an adult is talking to them sexually because they see it in fanfiction and as something desirable.

You can't normalise something that society sees as wrong. Someone writing fanfiction about age gaps and noncon is not gonna suddenly change everyone's perspective any more than Game of Thrones did.

All this says is you want adults to baby teenagers on the internet. Outside of tagging triggering content and warning those who are affected by it to not read it, we are not required to do anymore. If you are old enough to be on these sites unsupervised by your parents, you are old enough to make decisions not to engage in fiction that is not written for you.

Because a proshipper is just someone who believes that fiction does not equal 1:1 with reality. Fiction can conjure up feelings like happiness or sorrow, but it cannot on its own tell someone that something socially unacceptable is actually okay. What is needed for it to be able to do that is ignorance, and that's where you have propaganda. Teenagers should not be getting their socially acceptable behaviour lessons from a buncha strangers on the internet writing and drawing shit. That's on their parents.

Also the fact that you literally wrote "written CP" is fucking gross. There is no such thing as written CP, because it has to be pictures of an idenfiable child who is real. Not pixels, real. Because at the end of the day, that is a real human being that is being hurt and exploited for other people's gain. To equate that with a fictional character going through a story is dishonest and you should be ashamed.

Both of us have been groomed. We have been hurt in horrible ways, so no, you don't get to use the "I was groomed" card to shame other survivors because you personally don't like it.

Cause that's what this long ass ask is about. You're not being smart, you're not helping people, you're shaming them for doing stuff that you personally don't like. And rather than be an adult and click off or simply don't interact, you get on your high horse and you look down at the proshippers who are gross and have nasty likes in fiction. Grow tf up.

Any proshipper who is one knows that pedophiles are not welcome in this community. Are there gonna be some? Yeah, because pedophiles use anything they can to groom children and abuse them. It's not the object they use, it's the trust they build with their victim in order to get them to do what they want. You think they just sprung up when fanfiction became more widespread and easily accesible? No, you fucking doughnut.

And I've seen many antis being outed as pedophiles. Almost like every community is in danger of them, lmao.

You don't have to agree with proshipping. You don't have to like it. No one is making you.

But you are literally the one coming into proshippers' spaces, many of whom talk about their past with abuse and assault, and shame them into going back into privacy with things that don't have to be private. Why don't you block and create your own space away, so that you're comfortable with other people who like the same stuff that you do?

Oh wait, cause you'd rather sit in my inbox and cry over it. Piss off.

[doloresdisparue]

Okay, I watched the video now and I did not like it. I obviously sympathise with any attempt to set the record straight on the novel, Nabokov's intent and the reality of Dolores so to be clear in the grand scheme of culture I am aligned with this person, we're nitpicking within a circle of people who all broadly agree here, same as when I criticise the Lolita podcast. I already disagree with the premise of the video for several reasons but there were a few points that ticked me off specifically. Under a cut for length.

First of all I think citing from a bunch of opinion pieces, not all of which have scholarly background is not ideal. The essays this person cites also contain some absolutely ludicrous statements. One quote that is cited but cut off right before it gets really bad is From Roxane Gay's essay:

The aesthetics of Lolita in narrative and film are choices, and those choices undo or at the very least diminish the ugliness of the story they represent. Those choices seduce the reader or viewer. They lull us into believing that violation is perhaps not so bad. In most movies that deal with sexual violence, we see beautiful men doing terrible things to beautiful women. Rape is ugly, but rapists never are. This is such a contrast to how most of us imagine rapists. Or that’s what I would like to think. In my mind, rapists are hideous men, repulsive in every way. At least literature can accommodate ugly realities more effectively than film and television. We can write about ugly things beautifully but still make it clear that they are ugly. We aren’t seduced or distracted by images of charming, handsome men with an appealing streak of silver in their hair.

This is such a deeply irresponsible sentiment it boggles my mind that it came from a writer I previously respected. We would certainly like to think that all rapists are hideous because that would be easy but I was under the impression that we had collectively moved on from the Victorian sentiment that beauty equals morality and you can safely know someone is evil if they're not conventionally attractive. Part of the POINT of Lolita is that Humbert gets away with what he does because he is a conventionally attractive, educated, charming white man. That a queer, fat, black person (all things that are or were maligned as inherently bad/ugly by western society) would even suggest that we should not have attractive people do bad things on screen because people who do bad things are ugly inside and therefore ugly outside is so utterly baffling I struggle to put it into words. I also think that the majority of people are, in fact, capable of seeing a hot person do something bad on screen and not immediately conclude that this means they should also do or endorse said thing but maybe I'm optimistic there. I feel similarly about some of the other essays cited but since this is supposed to be about the video I won't go through them too.

The video posits that since Nabokov wrote for five years and wrote towards the trappings of a specific medium, changing said medium is "irresponsible". Firstly, five years is not a long time for a film to be in development, nor even a script. Secondly, this, to me, speaks of a very flat uninspired view of the concept of adaptation. Just because a story was geared towards a specific medium doesn't mean you can't adapt it. Of course you can't film Lolita 1:1 the way it is written. THAT would, in fact, be fatal. But there are plenty of films that skillfully depict unreliably narrators, including ones engaged in very bad behaviour (Gone Girl, American Psycho, Fight Club, Black Swan, to only name a few mainstream titles). There are also a plethora of movies filmed from a Bad Guy perspective in general, innumerable horror films where you follow someone doing awful things, often someone who fully believes they are justified in what they do. Somehow people arguing against a visual adaptation always forget that the novel has a VERY clear framing device. Humbert is introduced by someone who declares him cuckoo-bananas and only valuable as a case study and then we have him talking to a potential jury. I know the previous movies also ignored that but that doesn't mean it HAS to be ignored. I would argue it is a central pillar of the way the novel works and it is very easy to adapt. Have it the way the musical does, put him opposite a prison psychiatrist, open and end the movie that way, have the psychiatrist either comment in voiceover or flash between the actions of the past and the interview if you're scared of the actors pretty face distracting the simple minded viewer too much. It is NOT hard to frame the story just like Nabokov did and I fully believe there are talented scriptwriters who can do that. Calling a medium change inherently irresponsible is just stupid, I'm sorry. There is nothing irresponsible about changing the medium of a story per se. All the ethics of it lie in the production.

The potential impact on child actors is metioned and I fully agree with their point that it would be irresponsible to cast a little girl. While some movies (like one of their very examples, Mysterious Skin) have filmed scenes of child sexual abuse ethically with strict precautions to protect the child actors that would be very difficult to do for a story like Lolita and, as the video says, I would rather not risk it because real life children matter more. Regardless of the filming itself the media attention and reaction would no doubt be EXTREMELY damaging to any child actor so, no, we should not cast a child as Lolita. However, the other example the video cites as a good CSA movie features a 22 year-old playing 15 and we live in a day and age where studios are distastefully adding whole CGI replicas of dead actors into their movies so I don't understand why the possibility of casting a short, skinny 20 year old and digitally augmenting her face and proportions a little is never brought up. I have personally seen someone call the cops on an ongoing production featuring a 23 year-old because she was styled to look young. It works. This is entirely leaving out the fact that animated films that are not for children do, in fact, exist and animation is a medium that can be used to tell adult stories. The association of animation with childhood could, depending on the style, even work in the favour of the horror of it all if one were to adapt Lolita that way.

However, while I agree wholeheartedly about the ethics of casting a real child and I massively appreciate linking the topic to parent influencers and the way young child "influencers" are treated because that is a really important topic there is also an idea throughout the video that I don't love and that is the depiction = endorsement idea. Especially in the context of claiming a Lolita movie would be pandering to pedophiles and therefore be equivalent to CSEM. I understand this in the context of a real child being sexualized or made to act out a kiss or similar things with an adult actor (though even then I think it is HIGHLY irresponsible to equate this to filmed evidence of actual CSA) but none of that is a prerequisite for a Lolita movie, as I stated above, which leaves us sliding down the slippery slope of the 1996 CPPA which declared everything CSEM that showed a character implied to be a minor engaging in sexual conduct. If you think about that for longer than the reactionary kneejerk Protect The Children this essentially bans any and all teen movies and shows. There is nothing inherently wrong with adult actors playing kids engaging in acts real kids should not engage in. This applies to media about sexuality (which is vital for teens) just as much as it does to media about children experiencing violence and trauma. In fact it's GOOD across the board, regardless of genre, because child labor laws in the US film industry have historically been awful and I'd much rather squint a little to pretend that 30 year old is 16. Media showing underage characters in sexual situations is not inherently unethical. There are degrees of taste, obviously, but implying media with underage characters or depicting CSA could appeal to pedophiles and is therefore close to CSEM is not only stupid but also wildly disrespectful. It's also a nonsensical argument because any movie featuring a real child could appeal to pedophiles. Just like the rest of us they don't need to have the object of their attraction presented pin-up style to find them attractive. If you want to prevent children in movies from potentially appealing to pedophiles you're going to have to ban children in movies.

I'm not even going to touch on their attempt to claim that depicting murder is fine but you have to draw the line at CSA because "murder is an exclusively physical act" as if we haven't had endless conversations about the normalisation of violence in media and movies being used for propaganda that LEADS TO murder. I have to assume the maker of this video is American because the people trying to cleanly separate sexual violence from "acceptable" physical violence usually are. That cultural disconnect is too complex to go into here but let's leave it at I Strongly Disagree. If you're going to handwring about Forbidden Subjects at least be consistent. I think Stephen Schiff is a hack who never should have gotten to touch Lolita but he was absolutely correct about the American movie landscape being accepting towards movies depicting nonsexual violence versus sexuality being immediate cause for censorship. His main issue (among many others) was viewing Lolita as a story of primarily sexuality in the first place not in pointing out the hypocrisy of American media standards.

This also goes hand in hand with what I think is actually an irrelevant comparison. The video mentions "good" examples of CSA movies that are told from the POV of the child victim. This is irrelevant. Lolita from the POV of Dolores is fundamentally a different story with a different point and narrative function. We can talk about wanting that story too but it has no place in talking about adaptations of the novel. It is funny that an example given is Mysterious Skin though, because that does also very prominently an uncomfortable start with mostly POV shots from the perpetrators perspective on the child as the abuse is happening. This is deeply uncomfortable on purpose as much as it is a technique to keep the child actors safe because they were filmed entirely separately with no full idea of the nature of the story and it shows that there are very effective ways of depicting CSA even from the point of the abuser without turning out garbage like the Lolita movies provided the films are actually made by people who view the story as CSA and think CSA is bad.

If one is actually interested in seriously considering or discussing this instead of bringing movies into this conversation an example to go off would be Michael (which also took pains to safeguard the child actor) as a child abuser POV movie that presents an entirely uneroticised view in the style of Haneke. You could look at Hard Candy for cinematography that toes the line but stays painfully uncomfortable by virtue of presenting the child as A CHILD (though an unnamed production member did attempt to assault the child actor at some point so no points of real life safety here) or The Babadook for a movie largely about someone abusing a child that featured said child for large chunks of the movie but still upheld extremely strict standards to safeguard the child actor. I could go on but I've already spent too long typing this breakdown.

I also notice that the video REALLY tries hard to deflect the blame from Kubrick in regards to the awful movie adaptation and the abuse of Sue Lyon. Given their mention of a Kubrick loving phase I'm not feeling inclined to be charitable about that. James B. Harris was the abuser of Lyon and the producer of the movie, yes, but Kubrick was the writer and director. Kubrick was also FAMOUS for micromanaging his sets and nothing getting done without his explicit approval. He is as much if not MORE responsible for the tone of the movie than Harris. He was the one who re-wrote the script. He and Harris had a production company TOGETHER, they were on equal footing. They were friends. Lyons abuse was an open secret, NEWSPAPERS called her a Lolita jokingly referencing her "relationship" with Harris. Kubrick knew and he let it happen. He is responsible for the movie and he is responsible for either turning a blind eye of facilitating the sexual abuse of Sue Lyon. His grave is a gender neutral bathroom as far as I'm concerned.

The whole argument Kubrick makes that this video blindly regurgitates regarding the Hays Code is also nonsense. There were movies before Lolita that depicted child sexual abuse. Kubrick's argument was in regards to wanting to make the movie more erotic and sexually explicit because he too saw it as a love story (as he said himself). It would absolutely have been possible to make the movie about child sexual abuse, the book doesn't feature any explicit sexual interaction either. It would have still been a struggle and rest mostly on implication but the Hays Code did not keep Kubrick from making a good movie his own disgusting views of the story did.

Lastly, throughout the video they use the word "pedophilia" to mean anything from actual pedophilia to child sexual abuse. These things are not synonymous and muddying the waters adds to a cultural belief that anyone with an attraction to children is inevitably destined to also abuse children which drives pedophiles away from seeking help and learning to manage any urges safely and instead only exacerbates mental health issues. I know no one likes to think about the well-being of pedophiles but no one chooses to be born with that attraction and for the prevention of child sexual abuse helping people who suffer from it to access therapy resources IS important and will benefit everyone. The believe that pedophilia = child sexual abuse also helps offenders who are not pedophiles (which, by the way, as far as available numbers go is THE MAJORITY) brush their own actions under the rug as not driven by a persistent exclusive attraction to children and therefore negligible. Let's not add to any of that. And while Lolita is, of course, a story about a little girl the language in this video seems to relegate CSA in general to something that is done solely to girls by men which, again, from the available numbers we have, is NOT THE CASE and perpetuates a societal belief that protects female abusers and leaves male victims alone and without support. Let's not.

new lolita video essay by finalgirlstudios!! i think you'd like it

i have to say the title does not make me inclined to watch but maybe that's a fault of the clickbait economy and the actual point of the video is more nuanced.

[sophieinwonderland]

Different anon here: It’s honestly strange to hear this argument of a “neurotypical autistic person” as a parallel to a non-disorded system.

I’m someone who was coercively dx’ed with ASD and who has tags & words around this filtered on multiple platforms because I have to be in a certain headspace before engaging with discussion around autism (if I want to do that). I view autism as an inherently clinical term just from my experiences around it and randomly seeing people be positive about them being autistic can sometimes feel extremely unsafe - which I’ve seen is apparently somewhat similar to how some OSDD & DID systems feel towards non-disordered systems.

I know there’s also more to the parallel being drawn by the original anon than just that (like a common thing I’ve heard is feeling like is something isn’t disordered, folks won’t take you seriously anymore - but that’s the fault of society & the medical system, not random ppl around you - among other things), but managing your (general you) social interactions online so you feel safe is up to you. There’s a difference between blocking/filtering/muting things because you’re uncomfortable with it or don’t want to see it and going out of your way to harass people about how you feel. But there’s also nuance to that in itself on a public platform like tumblr because I know a fair amount of people realistically won’t do that, and you have a fair amount people treating the blogs of others like their own and/or assuming that all posts are directed at them personally, and I don’t know of a good solution for that (with syscourse, I’ve seen both anti-endogenic folks and pro-endogenic folks randomly give unsolicited advice to blogs about how they could effectively ‘better represent their community,’ and it feels like a violation of boundaries).

Maybe none of this is relevant, idk, but I felt like sending this.

Host:

It's a bit weird to me too for similar reasons. Unlike being plural or being a system, Autism is an actual diagnosis. I can completely see where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, there's no word for having autistic traits while being just outside the threshold for diagnosis.

I'm in a strange place as far as viewing my autism as a positive goes. Overall, it's a disorder that has had a serious negative impact on my life. However, if given a chance to change things and be born neurotypical, I wouldn't take it.

For all the bad that's come with this, every aspect of how I think is influenced by it in some way. It allowed me a unique perspective that I wouldn't have as a neurotypical person. Not to mention that I can't imagine Soph existing in a world where I wasn't who I am today... and I couldn't accept that.

I'm not proud, per se. But I am who I am and wouldn't want to change that.

I guess I'm in a spot where I can see why people would feel positive about being autistic even if I don't feel that way myself.

[alatismeni-theitsa]

Hi! I've been following your blog & have really enjoyed the discussions you've hosted about the issue of cultural appropriation in Americanized Greek mythology retellings. As someone in the Armenian diaspora, I struggle with what is appropriation due to the cultural mix caused by diaspora and, historically, Armenia's Hellenistic period under Macedonian rule. What would differentiate a Greek-American from an Armenian-American in terms of proximity to Ancient Hellenism?

Same anon with the Armenian cultural heritage question. The character count for these asks is rather restrictive, so I wanted to add here that there are many, many differences between a Greek-American's relationship to Ancient Hellenism and that of an Armenian-American. I was hoping to hear you share a Greek person's thoughts on the issue, but I did not mean to equate the two at all. I hope that came across. Thank you.

================= end of ask ======================

That's a very interesting case and I'll take some paragraphs answering it if you don't mind 😁

By "Hellenism" I understand you mean "Hellenismos"/"Greek culture", as called by the Hellenes today? At least I hope so :P But in any case, the difference between a Greek-American and an Armenian-American to the ancient Greek culture/religion is pretty big. (As you also mentioned in the second part of the ask)

For some who may not be aware, since the Macedonian Kingdom the two peoples have a great connection, continuing to the Byzantine era, united by the Orthodox faith, and the recent co-existence (and genocide) in Anatolia. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Greeks and Armenians in the US are closer culturally than to their WASP peers. Greeks who know their history see Armenians as brothers.

Still, in my perspective, Armenians have "slices" of Greek culture and connection to Greek culture and history, but still significantly less engagement with Greek culture than ethnic Greeks. This goes vice versa for the Greeks and Armenian culture, as Armenians had a whole bunch of influences during the last two millennia that Greeks didn't have. That's why I said "pretty big difference" in the beginning.

Of course, it's possible that most Armenians have quite a clear image of the Greek gods and Greek antiquity because of that shared past. Unfortunately, I don't know the relationship of Armenians to the Greek deities, and you have connections only to Armenia so we can't cross-examine this :/

What I can hypothesize is that Armenians in the homeland understand how to view ancient deities better than the people who are from "the new world" because living in a society that inhabits their ancient home automatically teaches you these things. Or maybe relatives who lived there teach you these things even though you didn't grow up there.

I don't know your exact background so please forgive any assumptions on my part, but I make them in case some of them resonate with you. (So, feel free to correct me!) I think the fact that you mentioned such an ancient event for the Armenian-Greek connection rather than the more recent history of the peoples might be an indicator that you were raised in a quite westernized environment which places a lot of value on antiquity. So there might be some further distance that you'll have to mentally "cross" to come closer to the ancient Greek culture and faith.

Due to the common elements between the Greek and Armenian culture that can be accentuated in the diaspora I understand that the discovery of a silver lining is difficult. So my recommended guide is this:

1) If an element feels foreign to you and you know it was never Armenian, it is indeed outside of your culture.

2) Hooowever, if Armenians at some point had the same fashion, dishes, and beliefs as ancient Greeks of a certain era, then the culture of that particular period is part of your ancient heritage because these elements were adapted by Armenians at the time. I mean, if something Greek was also used by ancient and medieval Armenians I don't see why it's misappropriation if you consider it part of your heritage.

3) It's useful to examine the differences between the "original" Greek cultural element and the Armenian version of it because they might differ slightly. A hypothetical example: Greeks might have worn a specific type of chiton but Armenians adapted this clothing to their own culture, so if you say your ancestors wore the "Hellenic" type and not the "Hellenized Armenian" type, this will be an inaccuracy. From what you told me, it seems to me that you have as your heritage the "Hellenized Armenian" elements and any Hellenic elements that were imported to Armenia. Not the whole of ancient Hellenic culture.

But at the end of the day, cultural proximity to something ancient doesn't matter when calling out disrespectful things. There are Greeks who don't care about misrepresentation and there are xenoi from the edges of the world who do. You were able to understand the Americanization part despite not being sure about your claim to Greek antiquity. You can also learn about the Greek ancient past and engage with modern Greek culture without a care about your ancestry.

I don't know if I covered your concerns or not. If you'd like to ask something more specific on the matter, please do! Thank you for entrusting me with your thoughts and, as I always say, this is just my own opinion on the matter. Other Greeks or Armenians - or other knowledgeable people - feel free to add stuff!

[hologramcowboy]

I am interested to know your opinion on shippers obsession with JA. Both J2 and cockles/destiel shippers go to great lengths to prove Jensen is either with JP or Misha. Its like he is a prize and whoever has him is the winner. JA is absolutely adorable I know but why is him being with either of these men romantically important to these people.

Anon, as promised I took my time answering this and gave it my full attention, this is probably going to seem like the most judgmental post in the history of ever and possibly the longest but here goes:

When it comes to shipping, I've stated before that I love seeing people engage their creativity, fall in love with a show and then with creative license create something new that brings them joy. That's so awesome to see. But shipping has a dark side or, rather, a small percentage of people who are set on ruining the fandom experience for all.

Let me start by saying that Your question would be better posed to a shipper that would be open enough to discuss with you. But since you asked me, in particular, it probably was for a reason so here's my perspective. As always, please ignore whatever doesn't resonate and follow your inner guidance.

From a psychological point of view, no one becomes over invested in anything without projecting a personal issue unto that situation/person. I think the hateful shippers (let's remember there are also normal people in this group not just cray ones) see themselves in the people they ship so, for them, their favorite star getting Jensen is like them getting Jensen. It's a projection of an inner frustration. People devalue themselves so they don't see themselves as valuable enough to be in a great relationship, which is why they chose someone to stan who embodies what they want to be and who can have what they think they cannot have.

Psychologically speaking, taking sexual identities that don't belong to Jensen and trying to force them unto him is damaging. It would be damaging to any human let alone someone who is outside of these fandom groups and can't understand everything about them. But people never put themselves in Jensen's shoes. It's one thing to build a story inspired by a series and love it so much you share it with the actor and another to confuse the real-life actor with the character you created. But I do get that these people need to see themselves in Jensen and Misha/ Jensen and Jared/ etc., they need to be recognized, they need to win. That's human and natural but what I will never get is WHY they bully Jensen, make up lies about him and objectify him when they know this hurts him. Even the people who think Jared and Jensen are in a relationship, like that's cool as long as they don't harm anyone with it, it's their prerogative but when they assault others who believe differently or attack the actors then it becomes a toxic, toxic thing.

I should share an important aspect from my perspective, Actors use sexuality a lot in their scenes, they use it to create chemistry. So often, these rumors happen because people are ignorant about an Actor's toolbox and how sexuality is included in mostly everything. Why? Because it is primal. For this reason, there are exercises aimed at creating chemistry and when script analysis is done it's always best to give special attention and look for the main chemistry/climax points of any story, that's the ultimate goal after all. This chemistry might be sexual or otherwise, but it is the fuel of the story and it is what captivates the audience. Aside from this, the whole point of a tv show is to bring to life a plot with chemistry so everything is set up to support and feature the through line of a story. In Supernatural's case, it's the love between the two brothers, that's the core of Supernatural and so the whole show was dependent on the chemistry between the two leads, which meant they had to find to super attractive men who also vibed believably that they could share a strong bond despite being basically in competition as Actors.

All of this not considering the intimacy the camera creates from a cinematic point of view. So, it's funny to me when people think this one or that one are dating just because they have chemistry because any actor that is trained can create chemistry with anyone within minutes. That being said, people get discarded all the time during audition due to said chemistry, mostly not because they suck at creating it but because execs/directors/ etc are looking for a certain zing which you either have naturally or you learn to create masterfully. Sometimes it can even be created from the outside in by manipulating what the audience sees and how they see it through masterful direction, styling, context creation, etc.

Another point to consider is that someone who is highly desirable (think leading man, leading men and women are usually the men and women most want to sleep with) will magnetize others regardless of circumstances and create chemistry on a subconscious level. People automatically assume and start rumors but it's to deflect the fact that they are attracted and magnetized to said individual and perhaps lack the maturity or awareness to handle it in healthy ways. Think of any sex symbol, people all described them differently based on how lude or intelligent the person doing the describing was but they all had one thing in common: Blind Desire. Unfortunately, when blind desire hits people and they do not have the tools to process it some can get pretty evil. Look at Elta, she's shamelessly built her whole identity around sleeping with Jensen and gives zero f**** about the damage to his image she's done time and time again. So, his own wife behaves like an obsessed fan would. It's sad and heartbreaking. But this often happens when people have magnetism, most don't know how to process it, so you get these really weird experiences that make you want to move to a different planet and directly affect your self-esteem because when people are obsessed with you, you're not going to blame them, you're going to blame yourself and feel like there's something wrong within you. Whether people admit to it or not, what they do does have an impact on the Actors not just on their own mental balance.

So, the point is, shipping in and of itself isn't bad, it's only the percentage of people dead set on hatred and malice that choose practices that harm the actors and other fans that sucks big time.

Jensen is innocent in all of this and besides doing his job as an Actor, he has done nothing to encourage this type of behavior and it does not reflect his values, beliefs and choices, the only thing it reflects is the nature of the people who are being vile.

Again, I could be completely off on this, this is just my impression so please find a shipper that can openly and kindly speak to you and explain their valuable perspective because I am sure they have so much more to share and explain.

[nightswithkookmin]

GOING ON A HIATUS

Thanks to everyone who's taken the time out to read my posts and has enjoyed it so far. It's really been fun and entertaining exchanging thoughts and having these much deeper ship discussions.

I thought this issue was gonna go away but I woke up this morning to more people messaging me about finding my last video analysis on several other platforms without appropriate credit.

But that's not disturbing. The disturbing part is the people sliding into people's DM'S on other platforms to get them to take down my video because they don't want people sharing my content on other platforms as they believe it would only make my blog popular.

For those worried about this whole credit business, thanks for showing this much concern for me? I really appreciate the love and concern if it's from a genuine place of concern. Thank you...

I think some of you already know this by now or might have figured it out, I am a law student, I am very much well aware what is and what isn't within my rights? Lol

I honestly didn't see this whole credit thingy as a big deal. It's not. Not to me. Lol. I repost people's photos without credit too all the time. Often, it's because I don't know who to credit and most time my lazy ass just forgets to. Lol. I think it's normal? It's inconsequential I mean.

The videos I use are usually often water marked by the appropriate owners so I don't go through the hustle of figuring this whole credit business out. If I should decide to come back here again I will check that habit of mine?

While this whole credit business is not a big deal to me, malicious slander and defamation to my character is and I don't take it lightly.

It has been brought to my attention that some Jikookers from Tumblr have since been sliding into people's DM's on other platforms asking them to take down my video and or remove the credit they give to my post.

They are telling people I am problematic, calling me the Taekook Lives of the Jikook community. That I have been spreading lies about Jikook, that the Jikook Tumblr community hates me or something like that and to further caricaturize me and make me appear more evil in order to get people to turn on me and hate me, they make up the most ridiculous lies about me claiming that I believe a notorious serial killer is innocent.

Now I have since deleted my YT account because I don't want my colleagues to find out I am into shipping too lol- shipping is a guilty pleasure of mine and I know how this fandom works unfortunately. I've been a silent part of it since 2014. I mean it's started already. The Doxing and shit.

The original post under which these replies are from couldn't save sadly as my account has been deleted but you can see from my notifications the general feel of what my interests outside shipping looks like.

I am interested in a myriad of topics, from literature, Aliens, writing, Harry Potter, history, activism, advocacy, philosophy, law, politics, NASA, and mystery and murder among other things.

My quora is mostly filled with notifications from my Book community and True crime community and often I do share my thoughts and answer questions with regards to the psychology of murderers, legal evidence, notorious villains in literature- well I guess now you know the kind of lawyer I want to be if and when I'm able to complete law school.

But what has my interest in these topics got to do with Jikook and shipping please?? How does this prove I hate Jikook and spread lies about them?

This Kookie Min Monsta person slipped into someone's DMS and asked the person who had put up my video analysis to take it down or discredit me because to her I am problematic. She is not the only one.

You want so bad to paint me black- no pun intended just to win an argument? You claim I am the evil malicious person here but I am not the one sliding into people's dms trying to take credit away from people for their hardwork, spreading hate and negative energy, making things up to manipulate people's perception of others and get them to hate and turn on them- and all because of A SHIP? Damn. This is pathetic.

Who died and made you the gatekeeper of the jikook shipping community? Honestly antics like these don't work on me try again.

I made a video commentary on my Booktube YT account- yes I am part of the book YouTube community as well sue me or better still slip into their inboxes and tell them I voted for Trump therefore I hate chipmunks.

The commentary I made on YT months ago was when I was in the highs of finding a new passion and it was on Ann Rule's book, The Stranger Besides Me- a true crime novel on Ted Bundy which I found so poorly written that at the end of the book it left with me wondering whether or not Ted Bundy was guilty at all!

The Author's writing style which deviates from most writing styles of True Crime novels I have read gave me trust issues as I stated in the video. It felt more as if she was writing a made up fictional novel than an actual True Crime novel but because she knew Ted Bundy in person she made it seem as if we just had to believe her account.

Then there was this whole thing about the police not being able to match the DNA samples taken from his rape victims, to his own Semen because his Semen was DNAless- in lay man's terms. I'll spare you the technicalities involved.

As I stated in that video, I do believe Ted Bundy was guilty but I do not have much faith in the Judicial system, or criminal procedures or even the Author of that book- a sentiment most people within the true crime community share as well. We just had differing views on whether the writer's style took away from the narrative and waters down on the extent of Bundy's guilt.

We had a Similar conversation about Chris Watt. If the community I was engaging in didn't have a problem with my commentary why do you? Please don't meddle in things you know nothing about. It's embarrassing.

The conversation about whether or not Ted Bundy is innocent is moot but a philosophical one. It has nothing to do with Ted Bundy's guilt but more so the criminal procedures involved in his case and the different accounts that exists surrounding his case.

He was electrocuted, he confessed to his crimes no damn person with brains would think or assume he is innocent and I never said anything of that nature drew any conclusions to that effect.

Besides, I moved on from Ted Bundy a long time ago. Now I am into the Serial Killer who writes death poems and signs it off with drawings of the size of his dick at his crime scenes- mind your own business please or don't and let's have an intellectual discourse about him? Lmho.

I am also into cat memes if you care to know and have a whole IG dedicated to cat memes. I believe human beings are the most dumbest species in all the galaxies and when the Aliens arrive I am snitching.

When my mind is at rest, I often wonder if Aliens have masculinity complex and if they do whether or not their masculinity is contingent on the size of their dicks or whether they have to engage in a battle to the death with an alien grizzly bear to determine who is the man.

I love BTS memes too- a little too much and often end up debating over the internet with random people over whether BTS memes are funnier than cat memes- I'm weird, true. But how does all of that make me a bad person?

It's crazy how these people can go on these other platforms to ask people to take down the credits to my posts as well as my posts itself but can't ask people who run to these other platforms with misinterpretations of my work to take those down.

Instead they come on here to call me out for people's interpretations of my work?? It doesn't work that way. You are the author of your own opinion and interpretation of other people's work. You don't call out the original author for someone's opinion of their work. If that were so I would be emailing Stephanie Meyer for Anna Todd and her After series. Get some education.

I have since blocked this person and others whose Tumblr I have been able to find thanks to all those that's helped me finding them on here.

My gf also tried reaching out to the persons who shared my post after we realised this was becoming an issue and had asked them to credit her or my blog- but honestly I don't care about that yet she won't give it a rest. Lol. My ride or die this one. Sigh.

However, we realized soon that this is not about 'stealing' credit- can't call someone out for not giving credit when I suck at that myself. Lol.

This is about people's malicious intentions and their attempts to silence me and take away my right to freedom of expression however way that they can. This is wrong and evil.

I honestly don't care for all these ship politics these people are engaged in. I've had enough intelligent conversations to know the distinction between arguments that flows from bruised egos and actual conversations around a subject matter.

This whole I am right, she is wrong politics... y'all get that the point of having an opinion is not to be right, right? We all cant have the same perspective and you can't call someone a liar for holding views that is different from yours. That is a bizarre mentality to have.

As I stated in my post, that content I made was a rebuttal to the Taekook theories running around on the internet alleging JK glared at Tae when he pulled on his shoulder because he was jealous Tae and Jin were having fun behind him. He wasn't. He was worried Tae was gonna expose him and JM holding hands behind Suga.

If you don't think they were holding hands then Taekookers were right and his reaction was because he was Jealous of Taejin I guess...

But thats your truth. That's not my truth. I don't believe Taekook is real. JK isn't jealous of Taejin he is not Twelve- but then again he was sneaking around behind Suga holding his boyfriend's hands so I guess he is twelve? Lol. Jikook!

Do you.

But please stop the evil malicious attacks and seek immediate help. There is such a thing as right and wrong and this is just plain wrong. Your Karma and chakra are in the negative nodes and you need to fix it. It is not funny anymore.

Thank you to everyone who has shown genuine concerns for me in the past few days and thank you so much for trying to stand up for me. There are good people on here and I have met and interacted with a lot of them and thank you so much for such a wonderful experience and insightful discussions.

I don't hate people because of our differences in thoughts, beliefs, opinions. There's always room for dissenting opinions in every sphere. At the very least, we can agree to disagree and shake on it. But You can't make up shit about people just to prove your opinion is right and their opinions and views which differ from yours are 'wrong.

I am not a victim though, and they are not bullies, psst. They are just vile pathetic human beings exposing the greens of their insides. What you do says more about who you are as a person and human being. And this is who they are.

Just be a nice decent human being. That's what this world needs. Fix whatever is broken inside of you and free your mind and spirit. Hate is never the answer.

I'm going to be away for a while because I have studies, work and other interests I want to pursue at the moment- it's just my AADD flaring up so if you see me henceforth raving about Nana at least you'd know why. Lol. She's wrecking my Jimin bias. Lmho.

Spread positivity, do the right thing, stand up for a good cause and keep supporting Jikook. Jikook is real.

Until we meet again.

Signed,

GOLDY

[cryptid-science]

Shadow People

They usually come at night. Maybe you're reading or watching TV or just lying in bed. He's most often a man, and may be wearing a hat or a hood. A lot of times you'll only catch a glimpse of him out of the corner of your eye, as he flits across the wall or disappears through a doorway. Sometimes he's just a shadow, a flat projection sliding across the wall or ceiling; but other times, especially in the dark when you least expect it, shadow people appear as a full-bodied black apparition, jet black like a void in the darkness itself, featureless but for their piercing empty eyes.

The foggy Santa Lucia Mountains run along the central coast of California, and for hundreds of years, the Chumash Indians and later residents have told of the Dark Watchers, shadowy hatted, caped figures who appear on ridges at twilight, only to fade away before your very eyes. A visit to the Internet reveals hundreds and hundreds of stories from people who saw shadow people in their homes, on websites such as shadowpeople.org, from-the-shadows.blogspot.com, and ghostweb.com:

I opened my eyes and looked towards the middle of the room. I saw a large shadow in the shape of a person. It had no facial features that I could see and it wasn't moving. It was just standing there looking at me... I blinked and then it was gone.

I felt like someone was watching me so I turned to look toward the hallway and there it was in the doorway... It was a black figure. I could only see from the torso up. I felt it was a male and could feel that it was looking at me... I started to walk towards it and it disappeared back into the room.

There, at the foot of my bed, was a tall dark figure like a shadow. It appeared to be almost 7 feet tall with broad shoulders and was wearing what seemed to be an old fashioned top hat and some sort of cape... I watched as it glided past me and out the door of my room.

Correction: Further research suggests that the Chumash did not necessarily have any legend that reasonably corresponds to the Dark Watchers, and thus this link is probably the invention of 20th century ghost story tellers. - BD

It goes without saying that skeptics have long-standing explanations that, from the comfort of your armchair, adequately rationalize all the stories of shadow people. These explanations run the gamut, all the way from mistaken identification of a real shadow from an actual person or object, to various causes of optical illusions or hallucinations like drugs or hypnogogic sleeping states, even simply lying and making up the story. I think that probably everyone would agree that these have all happened, and therefore they do explain some people's experiences. But here's a fact: Try to offer any of those explanations to someone telling you about a specific sighting, and it will likely be immediately shot down. "I was not asleep." "I know the difference between a regular shadow and what I saw." "What about my friend who saw it with me?"

The truth is that it's probably not possible to explain most sightings. If it was some mysterious supernatural noncorporeal being who flitted through the room, no evidence would remain, and thus there's nothing to test or study. It's so trivial to fake photos or video of something as vague as a shadow person that when these exist, they're interesting but practically worthless as far as empiricism goes. Only in the rare case where an actual physical cause can be found, and you're able to consistently reproduce the effect at the right location and the right time of day and in the right lighting conditions, are you able to provide a convincing explanation. Most of the rest of the time, all you have is conjecture and hypothesis, and the eyewitness is likely to reject these.

When I was a kid we once lived in a house where if you walked up the stairs and one of the upstairs bedroom doors was open a crack, you might see a flash of movement inside the room from the corner of your eye. I saw it a number of times, and other people in my family did too. I thought it looked like someone threw a colored sweatshirt across the room. But: I never saw it whenever I walked carefully up the stairs and kept my eyes on that crack; it only happened if you weren't looking right at it and weren't thinking about it. The more you learn about how the brain fills in data in your peripheral vision and blind spots, the less unexpected and strange this particular experience becomes. I have no useful evidence that anything unusual happened, and I have good information that can adequately explain what was perceived. I personally am not impressed enough to deem it worthy of further investigation, but others might be, and that's a supportable perspective. But unless and until some substantial discovery is made, the determination that it must have been a shadow person or ghost is ridiculous. Nothing supports that conclusion. And yet my story is at least as reliable as 99% of the shadow people stories out there. I was not on drugs, I know the difference between a shadow and what I saw, and other people saw it too.

Enthusiasts of the paranormal offer their own set of additional hypotheses about shadow people. One proposes that shadow people are the embodiments of actual people who are elsewhere but engaged in astral projection. This is not an acceptable hypothesis. Like shadow people themselves, astral projection is an untestable, undetectable, unprovable conjecture. Explaining one unknown with another unknown doesn't explain anything, and the match itself cannot be made, since neither phenomenon has any known properties that you could look at and say "What we know of shadow people is consistent with what we know of astral projection." We know nothing about either, so there's no logical basis for any connection.

The same can be said of another paranormal explanation for shadow people, that they are "interdimensional beings". Let's make an outrageous leap of logic and allow for the possibility that interdimensional beings exist. What characteristics would they have? How would we detect their presence? What level of interaction would they have? How would they affect visible light? Since these questions don't have answers, you can't correlate interdimensional beings to the known properties of shadow people. Neither one has any.

But there are phenomena to which we can correlate these stories. We know the details in the eyewitness accounts, and we know the psychological manifestations of conditions like hypnogogia and sleep paralysis. A hypnogogic hallucination is a vivid, lucid hallucination you experience while you're still falling asleep. You're susceptible again eight hours later when you're waking up, only now it's called hypnopompia. But this seems such a cynical, closed-minded reaction. When you suggest hypnogogia as a possible explanation to a person who has witnessed shadow people, many times their reaction will be understandably negative, if not outright hostile. "You're saying I'm crazy" or "You're saying I imagined it" are common replies. Hypnogogia is neither a mental illness nor imagination, and to dismiss it as either is to underestimate the incredible power of your own healthy brain. Too many people don't give their brains enough credit.

I had a dramatic demonstration of the power of hypnopompia — the waking up version — when I was about 10 years old. Early one morning, the characters from Sesame Street put on a show for me in the tree outside my bedroom window. It had music, theme songs, lighting cues and costume changes: A full elaborate production, and it lasted a good hour. To this day, I have clear memories of some of the acts. I even went and woke my parents to get them to watch, but by then the show had gone away. I knew for a fact that I hadn't been asleep. I'd been sitting up in bed and writing down some of the songs they sang. Those writings were real, on real paper, and even made sense when viewed in the light of day. It had been a completely lucid, physical experience for me. But it only existed inside my own brain in a hypnopompic state. My brain had composed music, performed the music, written lyrics, and sang them in silly voices for some director who must also have come from within me. The skits were good. The actors were rough-sewn muppets, independently moving and climbing about, even swinging through the swashbuckling number, on tree branches representing the lines of a great pirate ship. Yet through it all, I'd been conscious and upright enough to actively transcribe the lyrics. That's the power of a brain.

But many believers reject the idea that their brain has such capabilities, and instead conclude that any such perceptions can only be explained as visitations from supernatural entities. One such believer, Heidi Hollis, has gone on Coast to Coast AM radio a number of times with suggestions to defend yourself from shadow people:

Learn to let go of your fear.Stand your ground and deny them access to your person.Focus on positive thoughts.Use the name of Jesus to repel them.Keep a light on or envision light surrounding you.Bless your room with bottled spring water.

Interestingly enough, such actions may actually work (although it's not the techniques themselves that are responsible — plucking a chicken or beating a drum could work just as well, if you think it will). Sleep disorders in the form of disruptive episodes such as these are called parasomnias, and the primary treatments for parasomnias are relaxation techniques, counseling, proper exercise, and the basic lifestyle changes that contribute to better sleeping habits. True believers who reject any notion suggesting their experience was anything but a genuine visit from a supernatural being, but who apply any such remedies as Hollis suggests, do indeed have a good chance of finding relief, when the process of applying the remedy brings them some peace of mind. Even though these remedies are rarely going to be as effective as professionally guided treatment, the fact that they can sometimes work only reinforces the true believers' notion that the shadow person was in fact an interdimensional demon, and that sprinkling holy water around the room did in fact scare it away.

These experiences are weird, and can be scary. But they're also fascinating, once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to experience the true power of your brain. To conclude that it's a supernatural being is to rob yourself of the real wonder of what's probably happening. Fa

[the-far-bright-center]

Thanks for adding your perspective! I'm so sorry you had to go through the heartache that so many of us true fans of the Original Trio have gone through to some degree or another over the years. I'm glad you are now able to hold onto what you love in the face of the attempted destruction.

It's a good point that it can be very, very distressing to realise that a fandom has changed so drastically due to outside forces that it's no longer 'home' for you. This is something I'm still struggling with in regards to SW fandom (or at least, the version of it that exists on tumblr). I've made 'peace' with the fact that the Disney material exists as its own thing, but I still can't help but wish that more fans would have the temerity to withstand Disney's claims that it's all somehow part of the same canon as the original saga.

You're right though that this is likely an approach that only comes with a certain amount of time and experience....something that is no doubt difficult to attain given the insanely short attention span of tumblr fandom. I would also say, it is something that requires a certain level of self-awareness and self-knowledge, as well as the self-confidence to believe that your own views and interpretations matter and hold weight. Fans have to truly take the time to think about what a story really means to them and why they feel that way. They need to analyse what it is about the story that makes them care about it in the first place before they can even begin to consciously reject something that doesn't align with it.

While it's easily said, I absolutely get that not everyone was in that mental space when TFA first came out. While I was definitely not looking forward to TFA, my exceedingly naive expectations were that it would be a harmless blockbuster cheesefest at worst. So I was completely blindsided by just HOW horrible and destructive it actually was. But from the first moment the opening crawl went across the screen, I already had a terrible, sinking feeling and wanted to run screaming out of the cinema (oh, how I wish I had!). There was no way I was going to risk a repeat of that traumatising experience, hence why I only ever watched TFA and then refused to even acknowledge the rest of the Sequels. But I also took some time in the summer of 2016 to work through my distress over TFA, and in the process I came to an even deeper understanding of what I believed the saga was truly 'about' and what it meant to me personally. That's how I started this blog, and I've been doggedly trying to uphold the memory of 'the Real Skywalker saga' ever since.

Of course, I've always understood that it was an uphill battle, an impossible swim against the mainstream tide. While it's been gratifying to see others come around to sharing some parts of my perspective, it's also been frustrating and depressing at times to see how much awfulness some fans are willing to put up with just for a little morsel of something half-way decent in the the mix. It's also difficult to see how some people are willing to accept Disney's (decidedly lesser) 'reframing' of the saga and its characters as some kind of implicit 'truth' without even questioning it. But as you say, it's up to everyone to pick and choose what they are willing to accept, what they will outright reject, and everything in-between. I've made my stand on that subject, in terms of what I believe is 100% canon, vs. what I believe is optional supplementary material. Oddly enough, it's actually quite easy for me to ignore the Disney material itself these days. Where I struggle is with the way fandom perceives it and engages with it. That's not something I can control though, so I just have to continue trying to live with fandom's easy acceptance of so much that is anathema to me, and/or ignore it as best as I can. :3

Things I will never understand: why do so many Star Wars fans agree that the Disney Sequels were terrible and destructive to the original Lucas saga, but then still passively accept them as 'canon'???

Why not just... reject that nonsense??

As others have stated before, fandom is not obligate consumerism. You are not REQUIRED to accept anything you don't agree with (or that you feel destroys everything you love most about a fictional story) as canon.

[nyutheatrepractices]

Sunday, January 13: Colors, Community, and Creativity! (By Lauren Extrom)

And the adventure continues, this time with more community collaborations! Since there are two posts for this day, my post will focus mainly on our first half of the day (see Si Yeung's post below for more specifics on our workshops with the local students in Yauco!)

On Sunday, January 13, our group woke up extra early to board a bus to Ponce, which is about an hour and a half drive from San Juan. On our sleepy and slightly bumpy ride up through the mountains, we watched through our windows as the terrain changed from tropical and humid to mountainous and...well, it was still very humid (I have photos of my poofy hair to prove it!) Regardless, we mentally and emotionally prepared ourselves for what we expected would be a very long but incredibly rewarding day full of art, conversation, learning, and fun (and indeed it was!).

At 10:30 am, our bus pulled up to Antonio Martorell’s studio. As soon as we walked inside, we all began to express our collective awe and wonder of the space before us with gaping mouths, as we were quite speechless (Sidenote: for those of you who aren’t familiar with him, Antonio Martorell is an interdisciplinary artist who is quite famous in Puerto Rico--he does mostly visual work, but has also written plays and has done some work with documentaries, too. In short, he is incredible and an inspiration to all of us!).

I have seen works of art at museums and art galleries before, but never in my life had I seen what I saw on this visit. My surroundings became full of colors, ideas, and even physical manifestations of feelings. There were so many shapes and patterns and textures—it was a full-on sensory experience.

As we walked through the space, Antonio encouraged us to simply observe and take everything in for ten minutes before taking pictures, so that we could take advantage of the present moment and of the experience. As I did so, I was reminded of an earlier time in my life when I allowed myself to take the time to fully observe my surroundings, and to let my curiousity take over and not feel guilty about it; spending a few extra minutes lingering behind on class trips to museums and zoos as a child allowed me to absorb more information and be more connected to the exhibits. By allowing my curiousity to take over in Antonio's studio, I could feel myself becoming more connected to the space and to the works of art, too.

After familiarizing ourselves with the space, Antonio invited us to gather around in a circle to have a conversation together, and to ask him questions about his work and his life. Though I am sure each one of us has many pages of wisdom and quotes written down from that conversation, I am aware that I can't include all of that information into one blog post. However, there are a few pieces of information that I think should at least be highlighted here. The first involves Antonio's description of his view on the purpose of art, and how we, as artists, can be affected by it. He reminded us that art should be enjoyed, and that the experience of engaging with art involves learning. So, when we create or engage with art, we should try to remember to not treat it as work or a struggle, but instead as an opportunity to gain new perspectives and take in the beauty and sensation of an artistic work. In other words, "knowledge is pleasure."

Another takeaway I have from our conversation with Antonio involves his advice for us on following through with our artistic dreams and endeavors. He reminded us that the "most important quality in an artist is awareness." He believes that art arises when people start to become aware of their surroundings and of happenings in the world, and that art is a way to communicate one's responses to all of these things. He also emphasized an important note on the connection between an artist and their work: "you transform the object, and the object transforms you." According to Antonio, it is almost as if the artwork's purpose is to inspire change and introspection within the artist. There is no need for the artist to impress or compete; there exists a beautiful and honest relationship between the artist and the artwork, and it is that relationship that brings out the beauty in both of them.

After our heartfelt conversation with Antonio, we proceeded to the next phase of our visit, which involved a tour of his studio and a workshop. As we passed through the space, we learned a bit more about our host and about his projects. A few pieces that come to mind include his collection of pieces commemorating the 2,975 people who died in Hurricane Maria, in addition to the numerous masks and portraits that filled the space on the walls and on the ground.

Once we finished the tour, we headed outside to his backyard and workstation, so that we could begin our workshop. He demonstrated to us our task: roll paint onto the designated recycled objects, and then stamp/stomp the object onto the fabric squares that we were each given, either using our hands or our feet. Though things certainly got a little messy, the stains on our clothes were well worth it! We took turns rolling the red, black, and white paint onto squished water bottles, paper cups, and metal-like cursive letters (and for some of us, our gym shoes!), and then stamping the objects onto our pieces of fabric.

We also created a group mural together, each adding our own personal touch to the work. Antonio helped us figure out where to add certain colors and shapes, and even had the idea for Asha, Quenna, and Kate to stamp the bottoms of their shoes as a way to frame the entire piece.

After taking a few group photos and exchanging final thoughts and hugs, we said our goodbyes to Antonio and his studio assistants as we boarded the bus to head off to our next activity of the day in Yauco.

About a half an hour drive from Ponce, Yauco is a small yet vibrant city closer to the west coast of the island. As we arrived, we were greeted by Rafael Mejía, Executive Director of Art, Culture, and Tourism of the City of Yauco and Director of Teatro Ideal. Rafael and a few other community members gave us a tour of Yauco, stopping at community hotspots such as the set of stairs painted by students from the Magnet School of the Arts Ernesto Ramos Antonini, and a strip of homes that were painted in bright colors by the community and by local commissioned artists. We learned that the community in fact plans to continue painting more homes in bright colors, as it has become a way for the community to come together and curate their own space.

Following the tour and a short stop at a local historic site/museum, we then made our way over to the local theatre to greet the students from the Magnet School who we would be working with that afternoon. The workshops we led were based off of themes that we have learned from our puppetry, physical theater, and Theater of the Oppressed work with Alejandra, Rosa, and Deborah. We spent about two hours interacting with middle school and high school students through these activities, and we enjoyed every single minute of our time there (Amy pointed out in a later conversation that we all were smiling and very joyful the entire time...I think it is safe to say that we enjoyed pretending to be animals just as much as the students did!). In this space, we not only were facilitators; we were also learners, and we did our best to give each other the space to facilitate and learn simultaneously, so as to avoid creating unnecessary power structures in that environment.

After the workshops ended and we took our final group photo, our NYU group and the community members from Yauco all headed over to a local restaurant to celebrate a successful day of arts learning and educating.

All in all, Sunday was a day certainly full of colors, community, and creativity (not to mention a two for one sangria deal to top it all off!). I cannot wait to see how else we engage with and learn from our collaborators here in Puerto Rico.

¡Hasta la próxima!