#I mean RESPECTFUL discussion

[pally-plate]

I am genderqueer but I am not non-binary.

I am a binary gender. That binary gender is male, and happens to also be genderqueer. Even if that “technically counts as being non-binary,” it doesn’t to me.

I am two genders at the same time, but I am not bi-gender.

I have two gender identities. They coexist at the same time and never change. I am always male and always genderqueer. However, I am not bi-gender. You might be scratching your head and wondering how that’s even possible. How can someone who’s two genders at once which never change not be bi-gender?

Because I’m not. The label just doesn’t fit me. I do not identity with the label bi-gender. I am not bi-gender, I am genderqueer. A genderqueer guy.

Although my gender fluctuates in intensity, I am not gender-flux.

My gender tends to be silly goofy and likes to fluctuate in how ‘intense’ it is. One day, I could be feeling 100% super manly man, boyly boy, and want only to be addressed using he/him/his, no matter what I look or dress like that day. Other days, I could feel a little more ‘disconnected’ from my manhood, and although I still love he/him pronouns, I might throw it/its into the mix too. (But never they/them.) You’re probably thinking that that sounds like the textbook definition of gender-flux. And it more or less is. But it’s not me. Even I don’t know why; I just don’t vibe with the label.

There are certain labels that, although they may “technically” describe someone, won’t fit them. In my opinion, gender should not be defined as what label “technically” fits. It should be defined as how the individual themself feels about it.

A binary trans person might identify as a label such non-binary, for instance, not because their gender itself is not binary, but maybe because they still like dressing in clothes traditionally associated with their birth sex, or because they don’t like being referred to as a woman or man and would rather just be called a person! Or even if they just like they way the label vibes with them and would rather use that instead or “trans man,” or “trans woman.”

Their gender could still be binary, but they are 100% allowed to refer to themselves as non-binary, for whatever reason they want.

If you want to use labels to describe your gender expression rather than identity itself, then that’s alright! You’re allowed, I promise. And if anyone tries to police your identity for no absolutely reason, just remember: it’s YOUR gender, it’s YOUR identity, and it’s NOT hurting anyone!

[arkangelo-7]

I think the scariest part about Batman is the loyalty he inspires. Like this motherfucker has an army of children who might at any given time hate his guts, but are still 100% willing to throw hands for him if Bruce needs them to. And then there’s the Justice League, who also at any given time might hate his guts or find him insanely irritating and/or weird, but will also fall in line and listen to his plans if the need arises. And that’s like the most intense form of power someone can wield—voluntary obedience from people physically more capable than them.

[lucabyte]

Different standards

[crimeronan]

i've seen a couple people in the notes of this very good post about fictional polyamory by @thebibliosphere say things along the lines of "oh, i've been doing it wrong :(" or "how do i know if i did this right??" or "i should probably give up and start over, i wrote this badly :(" and. no!!!!

(i AM seeing far MORE people say "oh, this clarified and helped me so much, i think i know how to fix issues i've been having with my own story" which. YES!!!!)

listen. if you're a monogamous person who's writing a polyamorous relationship, and you've been focusing mainly on The Triad and All Three Together All The Time as the endgame, that's literally fine. that's a perfectly acceptable and strong starting point for your plotting, imo. you do not need to give up on a story that you've started like this.

but the things discussed in the post Can and Should improve your execution!

you can keep the same plot beats and overall relationship arc 100%. polyamorous relationships are infinite in their formations, every one is unique. "basically a monogamous romance but with three people" Does exist, as a relationship type. you're not hashtag Misrepresenting (TM) poly people with it

BUT i do think it will help to read up on some poly people talking about how their relationships Differ from monogamous ones.

so i have outlined some basic important concepts about polyamory.

MORE IMPORTANTLY though, i've broken down some questions that you can answer throughout the writing process to strengthen your individual dyad relationships, your individual characterization, & your characters' individual feelings/experiences. this is a writing resource have fun

future kitkat butting in to say i spent over two hours writing this and it definitely needs a readmore. it is also NOT comprehensive. but everything should be pretty simple to follow! feel free to reblog if you find it helpful yourself or just want to reward me for how gotdan long this took KSLDKFJKDL.

i've grabbed quick links for a couple of the important concepts, some have SEO pitches in them but the info largely seems to be good. (if i missed anything Egregiously Gross on these sites i should be able to update the links with better ones later, since they're under the readmore.)

sidenote: this is NOT meant to be overwhelming, despite the length. if you can't read all of this, that's Okay. you do not need to give up on your writing.

here we go:

compersion!

compersion is a BIG thing in a lot of polyamorous relationships. it's joy derived from seeing two (or more) of your partners happy together, or joy derived from seeing your partner happy with someone else.

compersion is really important as a concept because it highlights that every individual relationship within a polycule is different -- and that that's a GOOD thing. it's sort of the inverse of jealousy.

by the "inverse of jealousy," i mean that instead of feeling left out and upset and possessive, you feel happy/joyous/content.

i can use personal experience as an example: it's a Relief for me when my partners receive joy/support/sex/romance/etc that i can't (or prefer not to) give them. and i love seeing my partners make each other laugh and be silly together.

it's 100% okay for a poly triad not to be together 100% of the time, it doesn't mean that the third member is being left out or not treated equally when two people do things alone together.

(i have individual dates with my partners all the time! PLUS larger 3-and-4-person date nights.)

if the third member DOES feel jealous or left out, then the polycule can have a conversation to figure out what needs/wants aren't being met, and solve that. this happens semi-regularly in my polycule, as it will happen in any relationship (including monogamous ones)! it's just part of being an adult, sometimes you have to talk about feelings.

metamours!

a metamour is someone who is dating your partner, but ISN'T dating you. this may not be relevant for people writing closed three-person romantic sexual triads, but it's a super helpful term to know.

the linked article also lists different types of metamour relationships with some fun phrasing i hadn't heard before. the tl;dr is: sometimes you'll be domestic cohabitation friends, sometimes you'll be buddies with your own friendship, sometimes you might not interact much outside of parties, every relationship is different.

there's no one-size-fits-all requirement for metamour relationships. sometimes polyamorous people will end up dating their metamour after a while (has happened to me), sometimes polyamorous people will break up with one partner for normal life reasons, but remain friendly metamours.

the goal of polyamory is NOT for EVERYONE to fall in love. it is 100% okay if this happens in your story, it happens in real life too! but it is also 100% okay for characters to be metamours without ever becoming "more than friends."

(sidenote: try to kill any internalized "more than" that you have when it comes to friendship. friends are just as important and special and vital as partners.)

of course there are a million ways for messiness to occur with metamours within a complex polycule, exactly like with close-knit platonic friend groups. however this post is not about that! there's enough "here's how polyamory can go wrong" stuff out there already, so i'm focusing on the positives here :)

open versus closed polyamorous relationships!

i'm struggling to find an online article that reflects my experience without directly contradicting at least SOME stuff. so i'll give a quick rundown

google has a bunch of conflicting definitions of open relationships and whether open relationships are different from polyamory. the general consensus seems to be that an open relationship prioritizes one partnership (often a marriage), but that each partner can have extraneous flings or long-term commitments (most often sexual in nature).

this is not typically how i use the term wrt polyamory. the poly concept is pretty simple. a closed polyamorous relationship is one with boundaries like a monogamous one. there are multiple partners in the polycule, but they are not interested in having anybody new join said polycule.

an open polyamorous relationship tends to be more flexible -- it just means that IF someone in the polycule develops mutual feelings for a new person, it's fine for them to become part of said polycule if they want to! the relationship/person is open to newcomers.

some groups will need to negotiate this all together, others will just go "haha, you kids have fun." just depends on the individuals!

with open AND closed polyamorous relationships, the most important thing is making sure that there's respectful communication and that everyone is on the same page. but there's no one-size-fits-all way to do that.

i wish i could give you guys a prescriptive "You Must Do It This Way" guide, but that's.... basically the opposite of what polyamory is about, HAHA.

feelings for multiple people!

i was gonna tack this on to the previous section but decided it warranted its own lil bit.

a defining feature (....i'm told?) of monogamous relationships is that a monogamous person only has feelings for One individual at a time. they only want a relationship with one individual at a time. or, if they DO have feelings for multiple people simultaneously, they're still only comfortable dating one person at a time & being exclusive with that one person.

this is perfectly fine!

the poly experience is generally different from this. but once again..... polyamorous people all have different individual perspectives on this.

for me, i have never been able to draw hard boxes around romantic vs sexual vs platonic relationships, & i love many people at once. my personal polycule lacks many strict definitions beyond "these are my chosen people, i want to forge a life with them indefinitely, whatever shape that life takes"

some poly people feel explicit romantic or sexual attraction to multiple people at once, some poly people feel almost no romantic or sexual attraction at all. i'd say that MOST poly people feel different things for different partners, which is not a bad thing!

some poly people are even monogamous-leaning -- they have just chosen one romantic partner who is themselves part of a larger polycule. (so this monogamous-leaning person has at least one metamour!)

or alternatively, they might have one romantic partner AND a qpr, or other ways of defining relationships. (this is a factor in my own polycule!)

i made this its own point because if you're writing a straightforward triad, this is unlikely to come up in the story itself -- but it's worth thinking about how your characters develop/handle feelings outside of their partnerships.

like, is this sort of a soulmateship, 'these are the only ones for me' type deal? in which they won't fall in love with anyone else, and can be fairly certain of that?

that's pretty close to typical monogamous standards but you Can make it work. just be thoughtful with it

alternatively, can you see any of these characters falling in love Again after the happily-ever-after? and how would the triad approach it, if so? what would they all need to talk about beforehand, and what feelings would everybody have about the situation?

it's worth considering these questions even if the hypothetical will never feature in your actual canon, because knowing the answers to these questions will help you understand all of the individuals & their relationship(s) MUCH better.

i've been typing this for nearly two hours and there's a lot more i COULD say because... there's just a lot to say. i'll close out with some quick questions that you can ask yourself when developing the dyad dynamics within your triad

first, take a page and create a separate section for each individual dyad. then answer these questions for every pair:

how does each pair act when alone?

how do they act differently alone compared to when they're with their third partner?

are there any elements of this dyad (romantic, sexual, financial, domestic, etc) that these two people DON'T have with the third partner?

if so, what are they?

are there any boundaries or hard limits within this dyad that aren't shared with the third partner?

if so, what are they?

partner 3 goes out of town alone for a few weeks. what are the remaining two doing in their absence?

(doesn't have to be anything special, it's just to get a sense of how the two interact on a day-by-day basis without the third there)

what is something that each partner in the dyad admires about the other -- that they DON'T necessarily see in the third partner?

what problem do These Two Specifically need to solve in the story before their relationship will work?

how is that problem DIFFERENT from the problems being solved within the other two dyads?

doing this for ALL THREE dyads is VITAL imo. that way, you develop complex and nuanced and different relationships that all have unique dynamics.

those questions should be enough to get you started, i hope

then After you've charted the differences in relationships, you can start to jot down similarities in the overarching triad. what does one person admire in Both of their partners? what are activities that all three like to do together? what are boundaries or discussions that all three share?

but the main goal is to figure out how to Differentiate each relationship!

a polycule is only as strong as the individual relationships within it. if two people are struggling with their own relationship, adding a third person won't fix that.

(UNLESS the third person is the catalyst for those two to, like, Actually Communicate And Work Their Shit Out. i just mean that the old adage of "maybe if we just add a third-" works about as well to fix a miserable non-communicative marriage as, uh, "maybe if we have a baby-")

AND FINALLY.

if you're not sure whether your poly romance reads organically to poly people, you can hire a sensitivity reader with poly experience. if you can't afford that, you can read up on polyamorous resources like a glossary of terms & articles actually written by poly people. (and stories written by poly people!)

you can also just.... ask poly people questions, if they're open to it. i like talking about polyamory and my own relationships so you're welcome to send asks if u want, i just can't guarantee i'll answer bc my energy levels fluctuate a lot and i don't always have time.

polyamorous people are in an uphill battle for positive representation right now & so the LAST thing i want to see is authors giving up on their stories bc they're worried about getting things Wrong. well-meaning and positive stories that treat this kind of love as normal, healthy, & aspirational are So So So Needed. even if you guys end up with some funky-feeling details.

seriously, if you're monogamous then you probably don't have a full idea of Just How Nasty a lot of people can get about polyamory. i wish it DIDN'T mean so much for you guys to want to write nice stories about us, but it does mean a lot. and it means a lot that you want to do it WELL.

in conclusion. this is not a prescriptive guide, it's just a way to raise questions. and also, you all are doing FINE.

[queen0fm0nsterz]

I really like how Little Nightmares explores masculinity and femininity.

The experience of a female presenting LN protagonist (and even character, if you want to extend to the antagonists, notably the Pretender) is generally one of survival induced solitude, where companionship can be sought but ultimately denied due to circumstance - especially among each other. Six, Noone, Alone and Raincoat Girl all display different degrees of longing for someone to understand them - Six being an extreme on the side of isolation with the occasional source of comfort (the Nomes), Alone being a comfortable middle where she is indipendent and curious while also having a companion, and Raincoat Girl being the other end, an helpful force who seems to desire companionship. In Little Nightmares 1 especially femininity is displayed as the painful experience it can be. It's raw, visceral, and worst of all it's isolating both when you conform to it until it destroys you, like the Lady does, and when you reject the standard of what is expected of someone like you, like Six.

The pain you feel, physical and emotional, doesn't seem to be as important no matter how deep it cuts you. Noone's tumor being hidden and neglected, her headaches being dismissed... and of course Six's hunger, unforgettable in how much it hinders her, but I could also point to her monster form and the physical and mental toll the entire ordeal in the Tower has left on her.

The conflict between Six and the Lady becomes especially poignant under the lens of this argument because it is a confrontation of the two opposing sides of the spectrum, metaphorically. It's a little girl who has yet to experience the devastation of conformity performed as a means of survival facing a woman who lived all her life so set on following these rules that anything outside of them is perceived as a threat.

(One can't ignore the more obvious point of the class difference with Six being at the very bottom of the chain and the Lady being at the top, which certainly influences the dynamic, but I digress.)

Femininity is hyperindependance in the Little Nightmares world. It's the desire to be left alone while also longing for understanding. It's ambition and curiosity, but it's also the loss of identity both in the pursuit of it and in defiance of it. You end up being alienated either way; you can't really win.

On the other hand, I find that generally, masculine Little Nights protagonists tend to be driven by sentimentalisms and emotion. They are often defined by what community surrounds them, be it a single friend, family member or group; the most lampant example of this are, of course, Mono and the Thin Man, but the same argument can be made for the Runaway, whose story ends up leading him into finding a genuine community with the Nomes, something that no female protagonist experiences. You could argue it was clever foreshadowing, and it was! But does it make the observation any less valid? Personally I don't think so. Low also seems to be pretty set on keeping Alone by his side, although it might be too early to tell; however we do know he's a dreamer who dreams of a future where he and Alone can escape the Nowhere. You could call him a romantic.

Masculinity in this world can be care and fortitude, but it's also singlemindedness. It's the ability to find companionship and meaning while also letting one's own hubris destroy it.

Otto himself is an incredibly interesting example of this because we can hear how his desires, his emotions, are eventually what ends up driving Noone into the arms of the Ferryman. It's a prime example of how masculinity and femininity clash with one another -how his emotional wounds and eventual loss of clarity caused a little girl to fall prey to that hyperindependance where she refuses to be helped by him even when he does mean it.

(Along with his vaguely misogynistic remarks, but again, I digress...)

This singleminded focus on one's own emotions is what I think makes the Thin Man and Mono as relatable to many as they are. His is an endless cycle of violence caused by his own hand; by his own inability to process his emotions in a way that can allow him to progress and move forward. It's not a justification of Six, whose eventual exhaustion was what caused her to react the way she did, but rather it is an observation through again metaphorical lens.

The Thin Man is stuck in a dark room that gets progressively smaller because his inability to understand his wrongs causes it to shrink. He's locked in a bubble that is not entirely of his own making, but it is his responsibility to burst. But how can you burst it when you have no conscience of the fact that the room has been getting smaller to begin with? How can you care, when all you can think about is the emotional hurt that brings out the worst of you, the part that you don't even realize is the worst of you?

Masculinity can be just as isolating as femininity not because it's visceral but because it's fragile. It's unaware of itself while also being incredibly concentrated on the self. It's based entirely on how one is perceived and treated and thus easily destroyed once one is left alone to their own devices, which is why it requires community. Once that community is taken from you, it shatters, and leaves one without the tools to rebuild it.

I suppose the true difference here is that, at their worst, while one is self aware to the point it is actively damaging to the self and everyone around you, the other is so out of touch with itself that it can cause unintentional hurt to the self and others which can't be processed properly.

At their worst, they're monsters that help make each other, you could say. At their best, they're companions who help each other.

(This is in no way an attempt to diminish one or the other, by the way, nor does this reading apply to every single character. Both social constructs have their good sides and bad sides. The main quartet of Six, Lady, Thin Man and Mono are very strong cases, but I was simply making a general observation.)

[descendant-of-truth]

I think the other reason I don't really get into ships as portrayed by fandom culture is that it seems like the mindset is more like. "I want these characters to be in a Romantic Relationship(TM)" instead of "I want these characters' relationship to be romantic"

What I mean here is that, so often I see pairings enacting romance tropes to the point of heavily altering or downright replacing their original dynamic - as if the people behind it only understand romance as a series of checklists to tick off. Couples like to kiss and sleep in the same bed and flirt with each other, so it doesn't matter who the characters are, if they're a couple then naturally they'll do those things, right??

And that's where the whole thing starts to lose me, because I would assume that the appeal of shipping characters is, y'know... the characters? Rather than just, the idea of a couple? If I'm thinking about how it'd be cool for them to be in love, my first thought is always "so how would they show it," because just like everything else about a person, the answer is going to be different on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe the characters involved aren't really into kissing, but they like arranging date activities. Maybe they aren't committed to the structure of dating at all, and just want to be around each other whenever they can. And even if they are the types to like doing traditionally romantic things, that doesn't suddenly erase whatever else they had going on before they started adding that on top of it.

I'm not saying that the more typical romance tropes and activities are bad, just that they're applied kind of excessively, regardless of whether or not they actually work for the characters involved. I want to see my favorite characters having relationships that are true to who they are, not what the stock depiction of a couple says they should be.

[somegrumpynerd]

Actually it turns out I had more thoughts about that post that I forgot about lol

Would Nightmare actually give up his boys? Yes and no

If it was just a black and white situation of they're miserable, they don't wanna be here, they have somewhere better to be, then yes. He would leave them out to wherever they needed to be despite his own feelings and very quickly realise afterwards just how much he'd gotten used to the noise and company. I think he would get a little clingy with Dream about it, which I'm sure Dream would find very weird after everything but not unwelcome, he did miss his brother after all.

(If he couldn't attach himself to Dream's side for whatever reason, I think he might just sit in his castle and go insane. Or maybe he'd just spend all day at Ccino's trying really hard to project that he just likes the atmosphere and isn't lonely as hell)

But the thing is, most of them don't have somewhere better to be. Horror has his au, and Nightmare would keep up the supply of food even if Horror said he wanted to quit at this point, so he would understandably let him return home. Killer, Dust and Cross effectively don't have aus anymore though, and they tend to get into self-destructive habits when they're left to their own devices. (Obviously bringing Color and Epic into the mix to make sure Killer and Cross are taken care of eases matters, but Dust doesn't really have any friends outside their group he could go stay with - that Nightmare knows about at least).

The flipside of this is that his boys may not necessarily want to be given up. I think if Nightmare got really in his head about this he could easily end up convinced this is the right thing to do without ever asking them if it's what they want, with potentially terrible results. He's established such a pattern of always returning to find Killer when they get seperated, that if he never showed up Killer might just keep sitting there and waiting for him greyfriar's bobby style, refusing to leave because he's certain his boss is coming back.

[aroaceleovaldez]

Something something Jason feeling like he doesn't quite fit as "Greek" or "Roman" as a metaphor for bisexuality, particularly the semi-canonical bi-coding in his half of experiences during the Cupid scene and how Favonius and Cupid speak to him in parallel to the scenes confirming Nico is gay.

Something something the camps as metaphors for traditionally acceptable forms of relationships and Nico living as a rogue outside of them, rejecting expectation (ergo in himself representing a metaphor of queer identity and living outside of boxes and defined/usually hetero-allonormative/binary ideas of what love/relationships should look like) versus Jason struggling with the expectation to conform to a label and even discussing with Nico both of them remaining at CHB together.

Something something the inverse of Jason shifting away from the camps after he breaks up with Piper, feeling lost and unable to find a place between the camps as he begins to explore his queer identity properly for the first time versus Nico only remaining at CHB because he has entered a relationship. In this essay I will-

[impmansloot]

i desperately want kcd fandom to be one of those Radioactive Cockroach fandoms that exist for years and still have people discussing miniscule lore details, but if it were anything like them people would still be discussing my girl johanka. have you guys even heard about johanka? anyway this post is about johanka of skalitz-

[foursaints]

bbg i’m sure you’re already aware, but i don’t think it’s okay to ship siblings especially TWINS

not having discourse with you guys until you read "Gothic incest: Gender, sexuality and transgression" by Jenny DiPlacidi (jstor) and come prepared to critically examine how the merging of erotic/familial love in gothic literature has historically been used to disrupt the gendered boundaries that define the genre....

we're being so scholarly about this one. match my freak.

[rogloptimist]

reading through this interview with tadej’s parents and hmmmm being conflict averse soo fun i think something could be said about this

[mathewton-cl]

As An IzuOcha Shipper…

…them not ending up together isn’t the problem.

Horikoshi taking the “leave it up to interpretation” approach and then proceeding to COMPLETELY AVOID ADDRESSING their relationship status is the problem.

Horikoshi failing to tie up that one last loose end for Uraraka’s character arc (not closing off her feelings) is the problem.

Again, I ship IzuOcha. Still do, because I’m stubborn. Would I have liked for them to end up together, even if it was only a somewhat blatant implication that could be handwaved? Obviously. But you know what? Maybe I would be upset if the story went out of its way to explicitly de-confirm any chance of Midoriya and Uraraka being a romantic pairing, but I’d at least respect it and understand it a lot more if the story let Midoriya and Uraraka actually talk about this, or at the very least SHOWED US them talking about this. I’d understand if Uraraka completed her character arc by having a heart to heart with Midoriya and telling him that her feelings have changed, her priorities have changed, and Midoriya understands and they remain good friends. Let’s be real, romance isn’t Horikoshi’s strong suit, despite his many attempts to leave romantic implications throughout the series. I’d completely understand if he just had Midoriya and Uraraka talk and they didn’t end up together, because at least then it still provides both of their characters with closure.

But no, that’s too simple. Let’s just “leave it up to interpretation,” because it clearly wasn’t that important, right?

Well, as many people on the internet have already brought up, if it wasn’t so important, why did you spend so much time putting emphasis on it? Why did you have Uraraka, up until the FINAL WAR, have her crush on Midoriya be a crucial part of her character (it wasn’t her only character trait, mind you, but it was still important)? Why did the penultimate chapter have the class come to comfort Uraraka and tell her that they can talk to her… and then come the next chapter, Uraraka apparently hasn’t done anything regarding her supposed crush on Midoriya? For literal YEARS!?

…see, this isn’t even a shipping problem anymore. This is a character problem.

Horikoshi, for whatever reason, chose not to include a romance for the main character and his supposed love interest. And again, that’s fine, not every story needs to be a romance. Two problems with it here though (well, one problem and an observation):

1) Choosing to not at least address the romantic subplot with a “I think we’re better off as friends” encounter, thus actually concluding the subplot and providing a sense of closure, not only leaves the result feeling underwhelming and frustrating, but also actively damages Uraraka’s character arc. We can have her address the problem that caused people like Toga to exist, but heaven forbid she talks about romance with Midoriya.

2) Despite his supposed aversion to romance, Horikoshi still went out of his way to give Gentle and La Brava wedding rings… he’s willing to establish a side romantic pairing without bringing too much attention to it, but he can’t be bothered to do something similar for the arguable MAIN pairing? It’s the “Togata has special clothes so he doesn’t end up buck naked, but Hagakure’s still gotta go commando” debacle again…

I’ma go ahead and wrap this up ‘cause I don’t wanna keep y’all much longer, but like… being optimistic, this ending was… functional. I’ve got my problems with it, obviously, I don’t think it was BAD bad… but it certainly wasn’t good. It works. Barely. And it’s ‘cause of stuff like this.

Midoriya and Uraraka didn’t need to end up together, truly. All Horikoshi had to do was put the smallest amount of effort and give us something of substance, something with closure. Instead, we got what we got.

I get that he was exhausted and wanted the manga to be over… but that excuse only holds up for so long.

[historyartthings]

It’s the daily mail so i don’t know why I’m surprised but, what is wrong with you? you’re an actual freak

[thewhizzyhead]

one day I wish I could actually like understand songwriting especially for theatre so that I can I dunno actually put to use the random tunes I have in my head that just spontaneously appear while I'm doing the most mundane of shit. anyways patron has the concept of an opening number now

[iniziare]

Salt, salt, salt. Words have meaning, words have meaning. Respect, courtesy, I just.

... And why is Dorian the pick for a salty post, you ask? Probably because of his little tidbit about the Inquisition having 20 volumes on whether Divine Galatea took a shit on Sunday. It just fits a mood.

[you-are-a-saucy-boi]

some of you guys need to go outside and make friends that aren't on tumblr and be niceys to them. it's very important to discuss ideology in real life and not online because people that haven't gone down the rabbit holes you have will notice when your arguments aren't sound and then you have to figure out which things you actually believe and which things you heard on tiktok and felt like you had to repeat in order to be a real leftist