#I think deemed problematic because I have a personality disorder

[yonemurishiroku]

Wondering the whole thing about loyalty being Percy's fatal flaw might actually be on a much more personal level rather than an encompassing "children of Poseidon"-trait.

This is to say that Percy's problem with unhealthy 'loyalty' could be a consequence of his upbringing. You see. The whole point is that Percy can be wary, yet once he deems someone an ally/ not-enemy, it's dangerously difficult for him to see them in a negative light. It's this sort of bipolar disorder but the categories are "Friend or Foe", each of which comes with a package of completely separate treatment. He put Luke in the Friend lot and he nearly died for that. He distrusted Nico but he didn't see him as an enemy and fell for the kid's trick still.

Revert back to his childhood. IIRC Percy had two parent figures growing up, i.e. Sally and Gabe. And here's a thing. They are basically two ends of the spectrum of Parenting. Gabe was an abusive, negligent, alcoholic, problematic stepfather whereas Sally was like a saint or something, who had sacrificed for him so much. So Percy had only experienced two types of attitude in his perspective-shaping phase: extremely loving and downright scornful.

This could thus limit his relationship categories, and later create a hole in his view of others' attitudes, I believe. His relationship table basically has only two columns, Friendly vs Not friendly. Percy puts people in those lots based on how they treat him, how they express themselves to him, how he sees them. But people are way more than just one facet. People can be many things at once, and so are the relationships. Percy's system is lacking, so he suffers from being twirled around in complicated, multilayer dynamics.

Imagine Percy, who only has two sets of acquaintances in his life, one of which gives him misery whilst the other fights for him, is thrown into a mess of two-faced lies and concealed intentions. He doesn't have the specialized code of reaction for that. There's no special section in his handbook dedicated to "People you need to beware of" or "These guys seem friendly, but better be safe than sorry". Once Percy has decided to put you in his mind as not an enemy - he would actively refuse to treat you as an enemy because that's not the way he does it.

And because Percy has so few 'Friends', you know, that he intrinsically, automatically puts you in the Friends column as long as he finds no hostility from you. Yeah, he has Sally, Grover, and Annabeth, but he also has Gabe and Nancy (?) and IIRC the bullies. He has always felt like he didn't fit in (no thanks to you, demigod-bonus ADHD and dyslexia). Percy has had to put too many in the unfavorable section that he, subconsciously or not, favors amicable acquaintanceships - that's why Luke got to him so effortlessly, just by treating him decently.

It's quite similar to the other category too. The best example I can come up with now is Bob/ Iapetus. Bob first made his entrance as Percy's enemy aka Iapetus, and later became harmless to him after getting his memories erased. You'd think Percy would rearrange the columns, but the fact is that Percy technically didn't even remember Bob, or Iapetus for that matter, after leaving him in Nico's care. If my theory is of any credit, I suppose Bob didn't make it into Percy's 'Friends' category, i.e. Percy hadn't considered him a friend. Bob landed in as a Foe and he stayed there in Percy's head - at least up until the Tartarus debacle.

So, like I said: a bipolar relationship classifying system.

[theverynothumankai]

NONHUMANS AND ALTERHUMANS AND ALTERBEINGS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN !!! ASSEMBLE !!!

i have made a nonhuman discord server.

who it is for:

questioning alterhumans/nonhumans of any kind that still have zero clue what the hell is going on yet

physical nonhumans/alterhumans of any kind

transspecies creatures

holotheres

zoanthropes, lycanthropes, etc.

otherlinkers

otherfixers

otherkin

therians

otherhearted

fictionflickers/otherflickers/etc.

any creatures who fall under the nonhuman/alterhuman label

cladononhumans, sunnonhumans, cambinonhumans, etc.! all of ya!

systems who are mainly nonhumans/alterhumans, or just have any headmate/alter/etc. who falls under that umbrella and wishes to join!

spiritual nonhumans/alterhumans

non-spiritual nonhumans/alterhumans

neurodivergent nonhumans/alterhumans

those who don’t know or give a fuck what the origins of their nonhumanity/alterhumanity are

if that sounds cool as fuck, then PLEASE come check it out (READ WHO IS NOT ALLOWED FIRST PLEASE FULLY AND COMPLETELY OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED AND THERE WILL BE DRAMA!!!)

who is NOT allowed:

those who are not nonhuman/alterhumans and are not questioning if they are under those umbrellas

OFFENDING zoophiles, maps, pedophiles, paraphiles, etc. (non-offending who are in recovery are alright)

anti-furries

obviously anti-ANY-nonhumans/alterhumans

those against endo/non-traumagenic systems/etc.

radqueers, radfems, etc.

transid (transspecies are most definitely allowed though!!)

queerphobes of any kind (transphobes, homophobes, arophobes, acephobes, xenophobes, etc.!)

those against neopronouns, xenopronouns, emojiself pronouns, nounself pronouns, etc.

sexualizes minors, age-regressors, and pet-regressors

ableists of any kind (this includes those who believe in “narc abuse”, those who demonize those with personality disorders, those who think autism or adhd [or neurodivergencies like those] are not disabilities, those who invalidate someone’s experiences because they haven’t experienced it before, those who do not recognize invisible disabilities as disabilities or say shit like “it’s not real/you’re faking/stop being dramatic/etc.” to those with invisible disabilities, etc.)

those who romanticize or demonize any disorder, mental illness, disability, or neurodivergency

racists

sexists

TERFs

SWERFs

those who are gonna hate on others religions or beliefs

those who support JK Rowling (no, not those who read HP and all, most of yall HATE her anyways and are queer yourselves, just anyone who personally supports HER and HER views and so on, yall can like her books)

proshippers

those who are pro-ED, pro-SH, pro-SI, etc. (those who struggle with those things are allowed and have a safe space here <3 but those who encourage those things are NOT allowed here whatsoever and never will be)

anti-reality shifters (and within that umbrella, that also means those who are anti-permashifters, anti-respawners, and are anti-those who shift to realities where they’re different races)

those against self-diagnosis with research

those against Palestine/those who are pro-genocide/pro-war/etc.

those who can’t respect someone’s boundaries

those against “contradictory” labels, like turigirls, lesboys, mspec monos, gaybians, etc.

literally anyone who starts drama on purpose and shit like that, or can’t have a decent, mature argument/conversation with someone

anyone else i deem problematic

okay, that’s all!!! here is the link to the server (lasts for 7 days)!! look forward to seeing yall <333

[asexualityinhistory]

Welcome back once again!

This week we will discuss and analyze: "Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential" by CJ DeLuzio Chasin. This post hopes to introduce a different perspective on asexuality and how it can resonate with others. Today's source introduces a few ideas about asexuality as an umbrella term. Chasin also explores the different implications of asexuality and its potential. I will provide a lengthy analysis and interpretation of today's source, in case it is unavailable to the public. However, if you have access to an institution, I highly recommend exploring it and forming your interpretation!

Chasin expresses that the term asexuality and its definition is not what made him identify as such. It was rather the community of people who shared similar experiences. He discusses how there should be a more distinguished difference between asexuality and Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD). His main argument is that the defining line between asexuality and potential psychiatric disorders related to external factors is problematic. 

Chasin notes the community of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). This network was founded in 2001 and created online spaces for asexual individuals and groups. After some review, AVEN is a great source for those who want to learn more and connect with other asexual individuals to share experiences. It is a great source to gain a better understanding of asexuality and has multiple frequently asked question categories for different types of relationships. Chasin then discusses how networks and websites like AVEN show that asexuality is broader than what most people would think or believe. For example, gray-sexual or demisexual individuals fit under the asexual umbrella, but their experiences differ from the universal experience of asexuality. In other words, asexuality is a spectrum or scale just like most things we know. 

In the latter half of Chasin’s piece, I found a few concepts interesting and relevant to the discussion. For one, the idea that asexuality is a lifelong sexuality. Knowledge of asexuality in historical and modern contexts is still fairly limited. This concept means that most do not know with certainty that asexuality is a lifelong sexuality because sexuality is often fluid. He also discusses that there is not one way to be asexual or to present as a “real” asexual. This common misconception has proven to be incorrect. Asexuality is often “undermined, misunderstood, and undervalued” by a society that could care less about growing and understanding something deemed out of the normal. However, like all sexualities, there is no right or wrong way to be asexual, but society has made it out to be only one way.

Chasin also discussed the implications of heteronormativity on the asexual community and society as a whole. Heteronormativity challenges asexuality and takes away visibility to the asexual community. However, asexuality challenges the idea and assumption that humans are sexual beings, which makes it harder to advocate for in the long run. Society sticks to "safe" definitions to avoid any strong ideologies. This can be interpreted as a means to avoid confrontation and conflict since asexuality is a newer idea and faces more resistance to accept it as a sexuality over a disorder.

Out of Chasin’s entire article, I found one particular section interesting, and maybe you will too! He stated that it is common for people to think of two concepts of asexuality: 1. A lifelong asexual who is happy with their asexuality. 2. A non-asexual person is upset by their lack of sexual desire. Although these are the two most thought of scenarios, he presents the counterargument of each: 3. An asexual upset over their lack of sexual desire. 4. A non-asexual content with their lack of sexual desire. He explains in detail the differences between real-life scenarios in which all concepts are applicable. The examples provided by him are intriguing and offer a new perspective on how asexuality can be represented and experienced. Additionally, they show how certain stereotypes can be harmful to the asexual community.

To conclude this detailed post, Chasin discusses the matter of depression on sexual desires. It is common for those with depression to lack sexual desire, whether due to the depression itself or medications. This was documented in the past with women who were depressed and heavily medicated. These medications heavily influenced sexual desire and left women with the pressure to continue with sexual behaviors despite a lack of sexual desire. This effect ties into the challenge of heteronormativity placed by societal standards, which placed pressure to be in a heterosexual relationship. Women often feel the need to engage in sexual contact because of this, and men feel the pressure of expectation to 'be a man'. Chasin also discusses how the ideals of feminism and the asexual community often align or overlap in goals of normalizing being sexual and non-sexual. The end goal will be to educate the masses and shift societal perspectives.  

This week's resource had a lot to unpack. The information presented was very insightful, and I learned new things about asexuality, which helped me find comfort in knowing that there is no right or wrong way to experience it. As always, this post is a continuation of asexuality in a historical and modern context. The significance of asexuality will continue to be explored and analyzed in the following posts. Thank you for following along, and feel free to share your insights!

Bibliography:

Asexuality.org. “The Asexual Visibility and Education Network | Asexuality.org,” 2024. https://www.asexuality.org/.

CJ DeLuzio Chasin. “Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential.” Feminist Studies 39, no. 2 (2013): 405–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23719054.

[abdlgossipblog3]

I may be biased because Dwollheart is my friend, but I am sick and tired of the amount of bullying and stress she has endured because of Bandage.

I have never seen Estelle act unnecessarily “problematic” in the community whatsoever.

Anything ever mentioned about her is usually revolving around Bandage. Yes, she had a disagreement with Cinawol and Angelus_bby for allowing a minor friendly account to interact with them, but has since reconciled and share/comment on each other’s posts. If this is problematic to you, venture into the real world with this mindset and see how long you’d survive. Bandage is the only one keeping herself from reconciling with Estelle and the other creators she has wronged.

Estelle is friendly, sweet, supportive and I never have a bad word to say about her. She has never shown behavior deemed to be disrespectful or mean towards anyone, and has shown evidence of her supporting Bandage and trying to become her friend despite Bandage’s behavior. I’ve witnessed this for a long time now, as has anyone who follows Estelle.

I don’t have any shame coming to this blog to defend my friend. She has a huge support system online and genuine friends in the community that interact and care for her, whereas Bandage does not. It so clearly stems from extreme jealousy issues and an untreated mental disorder. Realistically, there is nothing out there that proves Estelle is problematic, mean or disrespectful to anyone. The only person defending Bandage is herself, spreading baseless lies about people for nothing.

And if it’s not her, take a long hard look at the lengthy list of everyone Bandage has hurt and ask yourself if that’s really the type of person you want in your circle.

All in all, I think Bandage needs to stop creating and deleting accounts to escape her behavior, take accountability and issue apologies where it’s due.

[mystiika]

re; adrian clarke

h i s t o r y  ( tw childhood emotional neglect )

   adrian can’t say he had a bad childhood, not really anyway. they lived in comfort & looked like the perfect family from the outside. but he always felt like a stranger in his own home, like he didn’t belong. & it was his family dynamic & childhood is what shaped almost his entire personality. his father died when he was young, & he was left with a single mother who loved him but wasn’t around enough for adrian to ever really feel it. he was a tv kid, he remembered watching & seeing all these people, wishing he could be like them. 

   she remarried pretty soon after & for a time, things were better. he had two parents again, who played with him & spent time with him. but it didn’t last long before his half-brother & sister came along & suddenly he was the outsider all over again. & that’s when his obsession really began. driven by a backdrop of emotional neglect, he saw all the people on tv being happy & laughing & he wanted to do whatever it took to become like them, to be inside the tv where everything was good. 

   growing up, people always wanted to be around him. to be friends with him, had crushes on him, people hang around him because he was instantly deemed "popular" & they wanted to improve their standing in the social hierarchy that is school. & he just accepted it because at the end of the day, its better than being alone. he was depressed all through his teens, not knowing the name for how he was feeling but feeling like his whole life has kind of just been boring. waiting for something, anything to change. its also why he gets so obsessive internally & grabs onto anything he thinks will make him happy even if nothing seems to last.

   he's consumed by the idea of becoming a celebrity because he thinks it'll fix everything. he puts on a cool face, as if he didn’t care about anything at all. but behind the scenes he took acting classes, dance classes ( even singing classes despite having a remarkably average voice ). how hard he works just for the chance to reach his dream was a secret he’d keep to himself as long as humanly possible.

   eventually, he secretly entered himself into a dance contest, even making it to the finals before being the first one cut. it started to shake his standings in school, & he couldn’t help but feel like all eyes were on him, & that everyone would slowly realise that he wasn’t anyone special. but someone who saw him compete hunted him down for a modeling contract. it wasn’t exactly what he wanted, but he grasped onto it all the same. after that he gets one job after another, slowly rising up & making a name for himself, but for what? despite the growing attention, he finds that it's not enough. but still moves on that path anyway because he doesn't know what else to do.

   & so adrian becomes rising star, skipping out on college & going full time into entertainment after high school graduation. he’s finally achieving his dream. but he almost resents the industry despite having worked so hard to get into it at all. it’s all fake. fake smiles, fake friends, fake everything. he’s finally one of those people smiling & laughing inside the tv. but he’s still not happy, it’s just better than being alone.

i n f l u e n c e s

  idk man sad boy vibes meets every celebrity plot you’ve ever seen. strong influence from one piece of media in particular ( if you know, you know ) but it’s got some problematic themes so imma leave the name out of it for now. he probably has some type of anxious attachment disorder too but are we really surprised

[cuntess-carmilla]

Update: I stopped taking psychiatric medication because they turned out to have only ever been of “help” because I have POTS/dysautonomia and one made my blood pressure rise (Wellbutrin) while the other kept it from going up too high (Lamotrigine).

Now that I’m taking meds that are for what I ACTUALLY do have (POTS/dysautonomia) not only do I not need the psychiatric meds, but they were throwing off everything else. I hate psychiatry so much. Can’t believe I turned out to be one of those people who had their physical illness mistreated as You’re Crazy for years haha. :) With that out of the way...

Some Many of my Opinions™ on psychiatry, as a psychiatrized person myself who does take medication, but hates the institutions of psychiatry and psychology, and thinks a large chunk of it is white pseudo-science:

A good amount of the issues that the psychiatric institution addresses ARE absolutely real and, as a society, people who’re afflicted by them should by all means receive help and support so they can live happier lives. I experience many of them and take medication to help myself, I obviously don’t think the difficult experiences people seek help for are made up.

At the same time, psychiatry and psychology as disciplines ARE made up (like every other discipline), making them not infallible or objective, AND they were built on eugenics, patriarchy, white supremacy and capitalist exploitation.

Those very real issues addressed by psychology/psychiatry aren’t actual literal pathologies. They don’t need to be literal tangible sicknesses in order to matter or be deserving of help and compassion. Your literal brain as a bodily organ is not physically “ill”, at least in most cases. It doesn’t need to be for your problems associated with an “ill mind” to be real and to matter. Remember, these disciplines were created at a time in history in which (white, male) doctors and theorists were obsessed with turning everything into a material, scientifically tangible subject that could be objectively measured with numbers and shit, hopefully medicalized or otherwise turned into “hard science”. That’s where ethnography came from. It’s called positivism, which is extremely dehumanizing, white supremacist and capitalist.

Psychology should be largely considered as much more of a metaphysical or philosophical discipline than as objective science, which is how most people perceive it to be. It’s mostly pure theory about emotions, thoughts, cognition, relationships and subjective experiences + perceptions -- which isn’t necessarily a bad thing on itself. It not being hard science doesn’t immediately delegitimize it. Get rid of the white capitalist idea that only (western, white) science and “objectivity” are real or of value. Actually, holding psychology to the standards of hard science turns it into pseudo-science, so... Yeah. I genuinely think we’d get so much further As A Society™ regarding psychology's potential to aid people who’re suffering if we treated it as more of a metaphysical or philosophical discipline than as some objective scientific truth.

Psychiatrists often are super ignorant of the actual way the medications they prescribe work or affect patients lmao. I had that almost ruin a whole semester at college because a shrink prescribed me meds that in combination she should’ve known would fuck me up. Not that much is known about how the human brain truly works compared to other human organs, you can’t expect psychiatric meds to be well tried and true. The research on psychiatric pharmacy is very lacking + biased in favor of pathologizing and controlling psychiatrized people, besides attempting to make the most profit under capitalism like any other capitalist industry, so of course they’re gonna prescribe you shit. Plus, like doctors of every other field, many psychiatrists arrogantly disregard the experiences, requests, questions and ideas of their patients, who’re the ones taking those meds.

Psychologists/therapists, just like psychiatrists, also disregard the experiences, requests, questions and ideas of their patients.

There’s such a strong element of power imbalance in how psychiatry and psychology function. The more a patient knows formal information about anything related to psychology/psychiatry, the more the shrink can get upset, distrustful and dismissive of them, saying they’re faking it, or telling them “not to do their jobs” when they so often do said jobs like shit anyway lmao no matter how thorough the research and understanding of the patient is.

Psychological and psychiatric diagnoses are just as made up as any other human construct (such as language, race, gender, etc). They’re not tangible realities as if shrinks had ran into a previously unknown objective fact of nature. In the realm of psychology, someone takes a bunch of traits and behaviors that by their observation they consider to be interconnected with one another, put them in the same bag, stick a label to said bag, and ask other psychologists if they agree with the bag being a thing. These considerations are heavily influenced by sociocultural bias. You can’t tell me it isn’t true that they’re made up and very subjective when “diagnoses” such as drapetomania, hysteria, homosexuality, gender identity disorder, etc, have been seriously considered at least by part of the psychiatric establishment of their times as legitimate mental disorders. Hell, some still consider being gay or trans to be mental disorders. Don’t get me started on "Oppositional Defiant Disorder”, that shit’s just evil.

A lot of the ideas spread by the psychiatric-psychological institution are legit pseudo-science that researches try time and time again to prove and end up coming with nothing, or they end up tweaking their own research or conclusions to maintain the established consensus that just so turns out to be very convenient to the people who make and sell psychiatric meds.

Many of the traits, emotions, thoughts, perceptions and behaviors that are pathologized by psychiatry and psychology aren’t inherently harmful. If they don’t make the patient or others suffer by their very nature (as opposed to like, homophobic parents “suffering” because their child is gay or a gay person suffering because of homophobia) then there’s no need to alter them. “Correcting” them is a measure of social control that crushes individuality and only attempts to mold people into obedient ~productive~ servants of capitalism. Much of psychiatric medical treatment (not just the diagnoses and therapies themselves) focuses on turning the patient into less of a social “burden”, than on their actual happiness. That’s why you have ADHD and autistic kids being given meds that turn them into zombies and that's been considered a good thing for DECADES. Like, why does the stimming of an autistic person or an “unusual” attachment to stuffed animals as an autistic adult have to be corrected? WHOMST does that harm? Nobody! But it makes allistics uncomfortable because allistics are fucking stupid and can’t mind their God damned business to save their lives like normal people do.

Even non-pharmaceutical treatments for psychiatrized conditions are or can be turned into measures of social control. 

Maybe CBT wasn’t meant to be a tool to control people and shit, but it can be misused as such SO easily! It can go from being therapy to help individuals process inner pain and redirect harmful behaviors in positive ways, to being turned into training someone to react, feel and process abuse and oppression in ways that are convenient to the status quo. 

Don’t get me fucking started on ABA as an inherently oppressive, abusive “treatment” for a psychiatrized condition that does nothing to actually better the lives of autistic people, instead punishing autistic traits, teaching autistic people to painfully repress said traits and ignore their needs, and seeking to appease allistics by prioritizing their convenience and subjective comfort.

Behaviors, emotions, perceptions or traits that on a man or white person would be considered a non-issue or given much more compassionate/less stigmatized diagnoses, are pathologized or given much more stigmatized diagnoses when it comes to female or racialized patients, which reaffirms psychiatry and psychology as subjective tools of social control.

While many of the traits, emotions, perceptions and behaviors of what are considered personality disorders are painful, harmful and real (and thus should be helped, with consent, not hammered down), literal personalities aren’t “ill”. They’re personalities. Pathologizing or medicalizing a fucking personality on itself is ridiculous. It is possible to address those problematic traits/behaviors/etc without saying that a fucking personality is “ill”. So much for “you’re not your disorder”.

What shrinks will deem as hallucinations or delusions can be subjective, and it definitely can be deemed as such out of white-centric cultural bias. Plenty of non-white cultures have considered different perceptions of reality as valid and worthy of respect for centuries, at times related to their sense of spirituality. Not to mention how psychiatry has deemed the real anxieties of oppressed people that they’re being followed, spied on, plotted against and all that, as hallucinations or delusions in order to discredit them.

Many patients are given medication to try to alleviate traits/behaviors/emotions that come from circumstance (poverty, ongoing abuse, trauma, oppression...) instead of addressing the root problems. While I 100% understand using medication as a palliative measure because, bitch, you can’t always fix those problems and you still have a life to live (the same way I take clotiazepam when the insensitivity of the allistics around me causes me sensory overload), this puts the burden of the person’s situation on their own body, as if their body was the essential source of a suffering that comes from outside forces they’re not responsible or in control of. This should ideally be addressed through material change in realities that can be individual (removing the person from an abusive situation, giving economic aid, giving proper treatment to an untreated chronic illness) or social (abolishing white supremacy, the patriarchy, capitalism, etc).

So many times when palliative medical treatments for suffering that comes from circumstances don’t work (BECAUSE THE PATIENT IS STILL TRAPPED IN SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, HELLO?) it’s blamed on a supposed defect of the patient’s body/brain rather than, like... You can give me as many anti-depressants as you want but I’m still gonna be miserable if I’m being abused or suffering from unending physical chronic pain lol. And then, instead of at least having the decency of recognizing the real source of the problem if your shrink can’t realistically fix it, they keep trying more and more different meds on you like you’re a fucking lab rat, keeping on blaming a made up defect you were “born” with. Imagine what that does to a person’s self-image! At least when I loathe my body for the chronic pain, chronic fatigue and more that my chronic illnesses give me, it IS actually true that it’s my body that has a defect that can’t be cured. Why convince a person in suffering due to anything, but especially when it’s due to outside conditions out of their control and your job is fucking supposed to be to help them be happier, that their pain refuses to respond to treatment because their BRAIN is so terribly defective? I don’t wish the hatred I hold for my objectively shitty body on anyone, and causing that to someone when it’s not even true...? Incredible.

Lots of genuine difficulties associated with psychiatric diagnoses are much better helped through accessibility and material considerations, or at least through teaching the patient pragmatic methods to better deal with those, than through pills. But guess what solution shrinks usually give you. Hint: it’s easier for them and they can charge you for it monthly.

Society™ medicalized emotions, bro... WE MEDICALIZED FEELINGS!!! WHAT THE FUCK!!

[thecloserkin]

book review: Meg Rosoff, How I Live Now (2004)

Genre: Young Adult

Is it the main pairing: yes

Is it canon: yes

Is it explicit: no

Is it endgame: yes

Is it shippable: yes

Bottom line: It finally happened, I broke my own “no cousincest—in this house we turn the TABOO dial up to eleven” rule. In my defense this book is gobsmackingly good.

Lately I’ve been mulling on the difference between books about teenagers and books for teenagers. This one is the former, and a joy to reread as an adult. Our American heroine Daisy is sent across the pond to live with her British cousins; a war breaks out; details are scant but who cares about the war, she starts fucking one of the cousins. She describes it as “falling into sexual and emotional thrall” she said THRALL I am living for it. On a scale from “pure” to “problematic” this ship is almost all light and no darkness—what darkness menaces our protagonists emanates from outside the charmed circle of their big ol’ farmhouse and their sheepdogs and their goat:

The real truth is that the war didn’t have much to do with it except that it provided a perfect limbo in which two people who were too young and too related could start kissing without anything or anyone making us stop. There were no parents, no teachers, no schedules. There was no where to go and nothing to do that would remind us that this sort of thing didn’t happen in the Real World. There no longer was any Real World.

The notion of carving out an idyll where you & the object of your desire spend all day doing nothing but drink each other up? It’s attractive even for those of us conducting mundane relationships in the “real” world. Maybe especially for those of us in the real world, where we compartmentalize our relationships and no one person can fill every filament in our universe. Daisy’s cousins live a cloistered life in the countryside and within a week she’s saying stuff like “I felt like I’d belonged to this house for centuries.” Which is an awfully dramatic way of saying she never felt like she belonged in New York. She doesn’t just fall for Cousin Edmond; she falls for the whole telepathic dog-whispering cousinly clan and their big anarchist energy. When Daisy, an only child, says “I had about as much experience with sex and boyfriends as I did with brothers and sisters,” she is intentionally conflating romantic and familial relationships and I am 1000% here for it. Sure it’s technically cousincest but it feels claustrophobic and codependent and everything I want out of an incest ship.

Every step of Daisy’s obsessive infatuation is chronicled with agonizing tenderness:

I wondered if that’s the feeling you’re supposed to have when your cousin touches a totally innocent part of your anatomy that’s fully clothed.

that’s right it’s the thought and the intention and the pining behind the touch, not the bare fact of physical contact.

Things were so intense I was sure that other people could hear the hum coming off of us.

Imagine desire rising like mist from the surface of one’s skin. And the “other people” part of the equation is important, because it’s the sneaking around behind the other kids’ backs that gives urgency to their coupling:

we started sleeping most of the daylight hours so we could be awake at night when everyone else was in bed … Then we would sleep for a little while and eventually reappear and try to act normal

But what is “normal”? There are no adults and no rules; nothing is forbidden save that they themselves deem it so. What then explains Daisy’s conviction that this is “not a good idea”? Why shroud their affair in secrecy if the most powerful reaction they provoke from smol!cousin who learns about Daisy/Edmond is “Well I’m glad you love him because I do too”? That’s pretty anticlimactic given the lengths Daisy & Edmond have gone to be stealthy. It also emphasizes (in case we’ve forgotten that Daisy has both no siblings and no boyfriends) how romantic & familial attachments spring from a common source. I think what the text is getting at here is that it’s dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket the way Daisy puts all hers in Edmond. It’s dangerous and unhealthy to make one person your whole world, as we see later when Daisy comes to much grief. At no point, however, does she regret her decision.

we could try and try to get enough of each other but it was llike some witch’s curse where the more we tried to stop being hungry the more starving we got.

That’s a hard-hitting simile right there. The thing about curses in fairy tales is they don’t always do what they’re designed to do; frequently they accomplish different ends entirely. If we look at what Daisy’s insatiable hunger for Edmond is displacing we note that Daisy is no stranger to the feeling of constant, gnawing, unsatiated hunger because Daisy has an eating disorder. In her own words:

at first not wanting to get poisoned by my stepmother and how much it annoyed her and how after a while I discovered I liked the feeling of being hungry and the fact that it drove everyone stark raving mad and cost my father a fortune in shrinks and also it was something I was good at.

…which is just about the world’s most cogent account of eating disorders as quests for control & autonomy. By the end of the novel she no longer experiences hunger as “a punishment or a crime or a weapon or a mode of self-destruction” and that's something, anyway.

Y’all know I’m a big skimmer right? I mention this because I want you to take my full meaning when I say I read every single word of this (very short) novel. The syntax helped—most sentences are structured like so: “… and …. and … and then …” but it was engrossing af and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use Ironic Capitalization to such devastating effect. The stylistic choice to use zero dialogue brackets means Daisy’s thoughts and Edmond’s thoughts (Edmond’s a telepath) and external action and internal commentary all run together. I didn’t find this confusing btw I just found it extremely effective.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Daisy and Edmond are separated at about the one-third mark and she spends the remainder of the book trying to get back to him, traversing a war-torn countryside with Edmond’s smol!sister and his dog in tow (since Daisy is a city girl who can’t even read a compass, maybe it’s more accurate to say smol!cousin + dog have Daisy in tow):

I guess the difference between Gin and me is that when Gin got shut in the barn she thought Edmond didn’t love her anymore but because I could feel Edmond out there somewhere always loving me I didn’t have to howl all night.

The parallel between Edmond’s girl and Edmond’s dog is not an idle one. There’s consistent strain of anticapitalist sentiment that runs through this book, that comes out most strongly in the relationships between Daisy’s cousins and their animals. Some military junta appropriates the farmhouse and displaces Daisy, her cousins, and the menagerie of animals that depend on them—that’s how Edmond and Daisy become separated, they’re “relocated.” The army is hierarchal and in wartime, the army is in charge. By contrast, Daisy’s cousins model a nonhierarchical kind of relationship with their animals, a relationship based on reciprocal obligations rather than dominating other people. “At times,” professes Daisy, “I thought I was more animal than human.” In other words, human beings live under an absolutely barbaric system, and it’s often more “humane” to behave like animals. It’s Edmond’s sheepdog who proves key to Daisy’s successful escape. City girl Daisy still can’t wrap her head around it:

one of the things I most dislike about nature, namely that the rules are not at all precise. Like when Piper says I’m pretty sure that mushrooms aren’t poisonous.

But nature’s strength lies precisely in the fuzziness of its rules! It encourages interdependence & reliance on others, rather than trying to go it alone as an atomized individual. So surviving on the run actually forces one to prioritize community (however you define it) over individual, which has salutary effects on Daisy, who reports “Somewhere along the way I’d lost the will not to eat.” She’s defeated her eating disorder, that’s good news. Unfortunately, Edmond and Daisy are not even reunited before she’s expelled from England and shipped back to America for Reasons. Dw she comes back! As soon as the borders reopen she comes back:

The soldier had stamped my passport FAMILY in heavy black capital letters and I checked it now for reassurance because I liked how fierce the word looked.

Very powerful passage but now for the ending. Let’s not talk about that ending. I don’t know why I called this a good book I am still incredulous we got THAT ending after everything we went through brb I’m suing Meg Rosoff for emotional damages

[aion-rsa]

Ghost Adventures Checks into the Cecil Hotel: Zak Bagans on Investigating the Crime Landmark

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

In Stephen King’s novel The Shining, the Overlook Hotel is an expansive structure with a dark past, located in the remote Rocky Mountains. Despite its opulent beginnings, the hotel becomes a place where brutal murders occur, madness sets in, ghosts lurk, and evil itself is a permanent occupant.

Relocate King’s Overlook to Downtown Los Angeles’ Skid Row, and you have its closest real-world equivalent: the Cecil Hotel. The hotel’s checkered history, and lore involving curses and ghosts, has made it a dark tourism landmark situated at the crossroads of true crime and paranormal fascination. But despite lots of interest on the internet, the Cecil, since rebranded as Stay on Main Hotel, has never officially permitted cameras inside for a paranormal investigation.

Until now. Enter Zak Bagans.

(Disclaimer: I have previously worked with Zak Bagans on television shows, and currently appear as an expert on the Travel Channel series Paranormal Caught on Camera.)

Executive producer and star of Ghost Adventures, the long-running paranormal reality series on Travel Channel, Bagans leads his team of investigators on an exploration of a location he calls “spectacularly frightening” in Ghost Adventures: Cecil Hotel, a two-hour special streaming exclusively on the new Discovery+ service.

For fans of the ghost-TV genre, Ghost Adventures: Cecil Hotel boasts evidence of scratches, disembodied voices, light anomalies, a faucet seemingly turned on by an invisible force, and more. But regardless of one’s personal beliefs about the unexplained, the special lives up to its hype of a “first time ever” examination of the infamous hotel.

Bagans tells Den of Geek the special is also a culmination of a decade-long pursuit that began “before Elisa even died.”

The “Elisa” that Bagans refers to is Elisa Lam, a 21-year-old Canadian student with a kind, sarcastic sense of humor who loved fashion and Harry Potter; she frequently blogged observations about guys she liked, figuring out a place in the world, as well as her own insecurities and mental health struggles. Lam was a daughter and sister, and a real person on a journey of self-discovery before her life ended too soon, and she made the Cecil internet famous. 

While on a solo trip to California in 2013, she went missing and died while staying at the hotel. An elevator surveillance video showed the young woman acting erratically as she pushed buttons, paced in and out of the elevator, and even appeared to be hiding from someone. Her body was discovered in a rooftop water tank weeks after she disappeared. Despite her death being ruled accidental, with her bipolar disorder deemed a contributing factor, questions remained as to how Lam could have gained access to the roof or closed the lid to the tank from within.

But before that two-and-half minute viral video made Lam a popular topic for podcasts — and before American Horror Story: Hotel drew inspiration from the landmark’s past — the Cecil’s reputation was more tied to tragedy than travel despite its beginnings in 1924 as an LA destination, complete with a grandiose lobby.

Multiple suicides took place at the Cecil as well as infanticide and the unsolved murder of Goldie Osgood in 1964. Elizabeth Short, aka the Black Dahlia, was reportedly seen in the hotel bar in the days leading up to her murder in 1947, and two serial killers are known to have stayed there – including Richard Ramirez, who committed a murder spree in the 1980s, and the investigation of whom is the focus of the Netflix documentary series Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer.

“I knew the history of Richard Ramirez there, and the deaths, and knew it was a big creepy building,” Bagans says.

Although prior attempts to gain permission to film there had been rejected, he thinks maybe the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing shutdowns convinced the hotel’s owners to allow it because of the location fee paid by production. “Or maybe they had things happening to themselves and had enough of it,” Bagans says.

Either way, Cecil fits neatly into Bagans’ pursuits, and it comes as no surprise that the hotel has long been on his bucket list. He has a fascination with the darker sides of this world — as well as the next. When not investigating the paranormal on television, he collects and exhibits haunted dolls and possessed possessions, along with “murderabilia” from serial killers, such as drawings by Ramirez.

“I collect his things. I have his death row TV, his sketches, his clothing,” says Bagans before adding, “I study these people.” Bagans says he even visited the Concordia cemetery in El Paso, Texas, where Ramirez “got started” and was said to practice satanic rituals.

As a result, Bagans believes that Ramirez was engaged in a “top-tier possession” with the horrors he was committing ultimately in the devil’s name. Bagans doesn’t give a pass to the murderer but does theorize that the serial killer was generating more negative energy and entities at the hotel.

Saying he believes the Cecil is “saturated with dark energies,” he thinks Ramirez’s satanic rituals added an evil residue to the building. Interestingly, however, Bagans also thinks there’s something supernatural about the grounds upon which the building stands.

Though he references The Shining, he says he also thinks of the Cecil like the vampire-infested strip club in From Dusk Till Dawn. In the final shot of the film, it’s revealed the club sits atop an Aztec temple. Bagans equates the hotel to this, saying it’s part of some ancient “machine.”

“I’ve been to a lot of places throughout the world, but when you walk through the doors of the Cecil Hotel, you know there are other doorways to other worlds,” he says. “If we were to see deeper dimensionally, you would see all these other doors and rooms, and I believe it goes way down into the earth and draws a lot of energy through the earth. It is then magnified by the dark energy and criminal activity of Skid Row, and amplified by the rituals [serial killer] Jack Unterweger and Richard Ramirez did.”

For the Discovery+ special, Bagans says he wanted to be delicate when discussing the circumstances of Lam’s death. He references the hotel’s history of suicide, and murder attributed to temporary insanity, and believes malevolent energies fed off her mental illness and influenced her.

It is admittedly a problematic theory for skeptics and non-believers of the paranormal, but Bagans — like many with lingering questions about Lam’s strange death — looks to her past behavior as telling. Lam had previously disappeared and required treatment but wasn’t known to have suicidal ideations. There were no unusual drugs detected in her system and the initial cause of death was deemed inconclusive.

“It didn’t make sense she was having a manic episode,” he says. “From my research, no one was able to say she had had a manic episode this bad before. If she was having an episode and acting that bad, how could she have taken such a calculated journey to end up in that water tank under that manic sense?”

While Bagans strives not to diminish Lam’s death, he says, “that building has the power to mess with your mind.” During the investigation he says teammate Aaron Goodwin was overcome with feelings of rage, and that his interviewees, including a crime scene photographer, were so disturbed they often needed to leave the hotel.

“You don’t know what you’re feeling there. There’s too many spirits, too much energy.”

Indeed, during the course of the special, the Ghost Adventures crew believe they encounter several spirits, including those of Lam, Ramirez, Osgood, and more. 

For Bagans, investigating Cecil, or even conducting interviews about it, only serves to charge the battery of this machine. But, quoting his favorite film, 1992’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula, he says, “there is much to be learned from beasts.” Bagans is seeking to understand the unknown despite the risks.

Whether or not viewers of Ghost Adventures: Cecil Hotel choose to share his paranormal theories about the building — or simply view it as a strange nexus of true crime — Bagans says there is no denying its inescapable reputation.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

“You can renovate it, change the name, or paint it a different color, but you’re never going to erase the darkness of the Cecil Hotel.”

Ghost Adventures: Cecil Hotel is available to stream on Discovery+.

Subscribe to Den of Geek magazine for FREE right here!

(function() { var qs,js,q,s,d=document, gi=d.getElementById, ce=d.createElement, gt=d.getElementsByTagName, id="typef_orm", b="https://embed.typeform.com/"; if(!gi.call(d,id)) { js=ce.call(d,"script"); js.id=id; js.src=b+"embed.js"; q=gt.call(d,"script")[0]; q.parentNode.insertBefore(js,q) } })()

The post Ghost Adventures Checks into the Cecil Hotel: Zak Bagans on Investigating the Crime Landmark appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2KEBW7b

[arcticdementor]

But this is not the only threat that incoming students face. Universities are front and centre of the new culture war and the dominant culture in the humanities and arts is soaked in an anxiety-ridden politics of negation. It is a world with which I am all too familiar, from many years’ involvement in the far-left, which — stripped of materialist analysis and class content — increasingly finds its base in the university. I had come to see those years as misspent but essentially inconsequential and a little embarrassing.

What is remarkable is not that I found these politics wanting — most who move through these scenes eventually do — but that, shorn of their economics, they now appear culturally hegemonic and unassailable. Today these politics represent what Wesley Yang described as the “successor ideology”, the default politics of a new elite coming of age, and this language is the currency of the professional managerial class in the English-speaking world. They do not seem so inconsequential anymore.

I spent my teenage years immersed in Marxist and anarchist circles and literature, at protests and occupations, squats and reading groups. I would listen to ageing Cockneys give talks on class interest and exploitation in the backrooms of dusty pubs. It may not have been much, but it did at least feel like we could lay claim to the heritage of a genuine radicalism.

…

Some blame academics for the radicalisation of students, but in truth self-selecting mechanisms ensured many of us arrived pre-radicalised, and from there it spread memetically, not didactically. The internet was a far bigger radicaliser than Left-wing academics. The handful of academics involved with the political scene were outliers and most were political liberals.

The next three years played out predictably. The organiser of a gay night was denounced for playing a song by Katy Perry because another song of hers was deemed problematic. A rare working class boy had his Union Jack flag stolen and set on fire during a commemoration for the Queen, while students (many of whom from one elite international school in Geneva) denounced him as a racist. We queued round the block for Judith Butler and we tried, sometimes successfully, to get others blocked from public platforms altogether.

Rumours would circulate about people who were “problematic”, often socially awkward men whose problem was that they interrupted people. Talks on sex work and the radical possibilities of kink proliferated. One of my more sordid memories is of person after person taking turns at a public assembly to declare themselves “disabled”, presumably by nature of their mental disorder, and therefore oppressed. A good friend was condemned in a public blog by his ex for the crime of suggesting that her new activist friends might not have been making her very happy.

At first, there was a rush — the feeling of belonging to a community, particularly one defined so clearly against an other, gave meaning and purpose to life. Taking part in “action”, the more covert the better, strengthened this sense of conspiracy. But over time the world darkened and lost colour. Our intellectual world shrunk and everything was subjected to the same dreary analysis. Real conversation became impossible, replaced with irony, intersectional bromides and endless talk of mental illness.

The college was a bucket of crabs and happiness itself suspect, a mark of privilege, as with the rugby lads who had the audacity to actually enjoy themselves. When there was laughter it was heavy and jarring, filled with irony and bitterness, never light or free. The elitism of the university discounted even appreciation of the beauty of its buildings or the surrounding countryside, although by then we were probably too far gone to notice. Though we were aware of our enormous privilege we contrived to see our time at Cambridge as some grim fate foisted upon us.

…

Few have described this process as well as Philip Roth in American Pastoral. The lifelessness of it all and the impossibility of any lightness or dialogue, as he put it: “The monotonous chant of the indoctrinated, ideologically armored from head to foot — the monotonous, spellbound chant of those whose turbulence can be caged only within the suffocating straitjacket of the most supercoherent of dreams. What was missing from her unstuttered words was not the sanctity of life — missing was the sound of life.”

Roth wrote of the manipulative potential of compassion, the only recognised virtue: “There may not be much subtlety in it, she may not yet be its best spokesman, but there is some thought behind it, there’s certainly a lot of emotion behind it, there’s a lot of compassion behind it…” On top of this there was the moral certainty that erases any concern about means. “Rita was no longer an ordinary wavering mortal, let alone a novice in life, but a creature in clandestine harmony with the brutal way of the world, entitled, in the name of historical justice, to be just as sinister as the capitalist oppressor Swede Levov.”

…

Social theorist Mark Fisher described from first-hand experience the manipulation of this scene as a Vampire Castle which “feeds on the energy and anxieties and vulnerabilities of young students, but most of all it lives by converting the suffering of particular groups — the more marginal, the better — into academic capital. The most lauded figures in the Vampire Castle are those who have spotted a new market in suffering — those who can find a group more oppressed and subjugated than any previously exploited will find themselves promoted through the ranks very quickly.” The Vampire Castle recruits on the promise of community and self-healing. The reality is an ouroboros of emotional manipulation, stripped of the political and of all that makes life interesting and worthwhile.

…

Undergraduate wastefulness, self-absorption and misery are nothing new, but the form they took presaged what was to come. In another age, we would have been conservatives — frightened of the outside world, haunted by anxiety and guilt, unafraid to speak or think freely. But instead, the politics of my old friends set the national agenda.

We would have laughed at the idea we formed an elite and we certainly didn’t act like one. But we were the vanguard for a movement that has swept the English-speaking world in the subsequent decade. We still professed to be fighting the old powers — patriarchy, white supremacism, the nuclear family, colonialism, the university itself. But in truth we represented what Christopher Lasch called psychological man, “the final product of bourgeois individualism,” and were being trained in elite formation for the therapeutic age just as surely as our forerunners had been for the previous, paternal age.

[the-stars-in-sapphos-eyes]

An open letter to one Ms. Taylor Alison Swift (@taylorswift - swifties please reblog!)

     So I’m writing this because I genuinely get the sense that Taylor cares a lot about her fans and wants to be the best version of herself possible - there’s obviously been a lot of drama in past years and, without reopening that wound, she dealt with it really well and seems like a very sincere and compassionate woman. She’s clearly demonstrated that she values her fans’ voices and wants to make her music and performances welcoming and safe for everyone. All in all, this gal has as much of my support as anyone can, given my cynical nature. It also helps that I’m autistic and she was my SpIn (special interest; it’s an autistic thing where we’re basically just wholly obsessed with a certain thing for a period of time) for years when I was younger, and also was the first (and only, for a long time) American artist who’s music I was allowed to listen to.

     Okay, long-winded backstory aside, I’d like to point something out.

     I love ME! Super catchy, super fun, super I-don’t-give-a-fuck-if-you-think-i’m-cringey-i’m-having-fun! That last point is also super important to me as an autistic person (yes I keep mentioning that I’m autistic for a reason), because neurotypical people tend to find us cringe-y when we are really enthusiastic about things that may seem trivial to others. So, imagine: I’m listening to the boisterous snare drums of the opening (another plus because I’m in marching band) and the silky sweet and infectiously gleeful vocals of Taylor Swift come in, serenade me about wholesome love over big brassy chords (...I play a brass instrument!). I’m ready to BOP to this.

     Then I get hit with ableism and a slur. I’m only writing this whole think because I am 100% sure Taylor has no idea that the word “ps*cho” is a slur and that “lame” has origins in mocking disabled people. At this point, they’ve become colloquial in their use and no one really gives them a second thought, even if they are vaguely aware of their problematic histories. Except, of course, for disabled people who are still targeted by them.

     I didn’t know ps*cho was a slur until about a year ago, so let me give a brief explanation. Ps*cho is a shortening of ps*chopath, which is closely related to so*iopath, and this explanation really applies to all of them. The words are used to refer to people who have low to no compassion to the point of being violent and aggressively anti-social. This is a stereotype of people with cluster b or personality disorders. Actual people with personality disorders can have trouble with empathy (which is different from compassion) and socializing, but there’s a disgusting and pervasive stereotype that this makes them dangerous and threatening, when in actuality they are far more likely to be victims of violence and abuse than perpetrators.

     I don’t think “lame” needs much of an explanation, but I will remind all of us that it began as a way to describe disabled people who don’t have full use or control of their bodies, which was always viewed as a negative thing to begin with. Disabled people have always been devalued and dehumanized. But the word has now evolved to have a purely negative meaning that describes anything that neurotypical and able-bodied people deem below them. Surprise, they view us disabled people as below them, too! Another point arises in the music video: when Brendon Urie (whom I also love) sings about “lame guys” we see a bunch of men floating around on umbrellas and, although I’m not sure if it was intentional, a lot of them look like they’re trying to be creepy and predatory, which is a hugely pervasive stereotype of neurodivergent men. For more on that, look up why neckbeard is an ableist term.

     Okay, do you guys remember 2006? I don’t because I was four, but remember a little song called “Picture to Burn”? With lyrics “so you can tell your friends that I’m obsessive and crazy/that’s fine I’ll tell mine you’re gay”? (side note, cr*zy is also pretty offensive and also has ableist roots). Remember how Taylor re-released it with a changed lyric so that the song wouldn’t be homophobic? That was way back when it was totally cool to be homophobic, but this teenage girl still realized she could do better, and she did. Obviously, it’s not really applause-worthy to be a decent human being, but that still gave me a lot of hope. (Oh have I mentioned I’m gay? I am).

     So now I have hope that this will reach Taylor. She’s active on tumblr which is super cool, honestly. We stan that. I know she cares about the message her music sends, and I know that if she sees this she will do what she can to change the fact that a lot of her disabled fans feel really uncomfortable listening to this song. We know she doesn’t mean any harm, but it’s still being done. And thankfully, it’s not a hard lyric to change! I’ve thought of a few acceptable alternatives for myself when I’m singing the song in my head, so I’m sure such a stellar songwriter isn’t going to have any problems coming up with an even better lyric to put in.

     Just to highlight the problem, I’m going to include a few links of others who have raised this same concern:

https://twitter.com/jackdrat/status/1126213531378995200

https://themighty.com/2019/04/taylor-swift-brendon-urie-me-lame-psycho/

Okay, so all that being said! I know there are also tons of disabled swifties on this site, as well as abled ones who genuinely care about us! So I would really appreciate it if you guys reblogged this and/or tagged @taylorswift, because I know that she’s going to take action if she sees this, but she probably won’t unless we really circulate it.

[scarletwitching]

I know you would probably hate this, but, what do you think makes House of M popular? How this comic cloud people's judgement? How it affect new readers/casual fans's views? What are the factors that draw people in and fixed their impression? Just some observation, some people seem to enjoy the touchy family "feels", some may just like heroes snapping(like it's so cool), and sometimes it's Power Parade(it's deemed disrepctful to say she is less powerful than someone else).

It’s popular(ish) in mainstream fandom because its effects lasted a very long time, which makes it seem important, and because it’s a mash-up of a couple of enormously popular and beloved storylines, Dark Phoenix Saga and Infinity Gauntlet, set in a then-new alternate universe. It’s two old things smashed together and combined with a new thing.

That’s the short answer. The long answer is… long, and it’s actually about the underlying reasons people are okay with some offensive stuff (because that’s what I wanted to talk about). I’m putting this under a cut so that, when people who don’t agree with me inevitably read it, I can link them to this.

There really is a country song for everything.

It maybe goes without saying, but this is a House of M post so it mentions, however briefly, the usual HOM-related subject matter: ableism, infertility, people on the internet glorifying genocide.

Everyone likes things that have somewhat unsavory elements or unfortunate implications. With superheroes, the whole thing is – forgive me – problematic. You can find meaning and value in parts of it, but something is rotten at the core. One of the uncomfortable aspects of speculative fiction fandoms is how terrible things become normalized. Because we’re only talking about fiction. That makes it okay, right? It’s tempting to parrot these notions of “good” queens and “rightful��� kings or to go along with the canon logic that justifies violence and ignores the sovereignty of nations that aren’t the US.

I bring up that last one because, in modern superhero fandom, buying into the canon logic often means defending US imperialism under the guise of defending a specific character or story. There’s always a justification for it in-universe, so the way it relates to the real world becomes some extraneous detail that only a jerk would mention.

It’s the Thermian Argument. It doesn’t matter what the underlying message or consequences, however (un)intentional, are. It matters that I like Thing and any problems you find with Thing are the result of you not focusing on very specific details that make it “make sense” in the story. Remember the old Tumblr adage that you can like problematic things so long as you acknowledge the problems? I would just say you can like whatever so long as you don’t bury your head in the sand and scream, “It’s fine! You just didn’t pay attention to the story!!”

What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of justifying how bad literally every part of the story is by saying it all “makes sense” and so all criticisms are invalid. If a person is traumatized, it just makes sense that they would [waves at the entire story] do that. It’s very sad when your imaginary kids die, y’know?

The people who like House of M tend to cite its fetishizing gaze on women’s mental illness as a feature and not a bug. The fault in that argument is that, as far as I’ve seen, none of the people making this argument have Schizophrenia. Or Schizoaffective Disorder. Or any personal experience with psychosis whatsoever. At the very least, the vast majority of them don’t, so they’re not part of the group being misrepresented.  

The issue of what is “good” mental illness representation is complex. Sometimes, people who are struggling or have struggled relate to characters who lash out or do destructive things. People can find solace in imperfect places. Everyone’s just trying to get by in this hellscape, and if a comic made you feel understood or just plain better in some way, that’s a good thing. But It’s a very “I got mine” argument to focus on that and ignore how those stories might affect others. You can’t reclaim something that wasn’t insulting you in the first place. I find the claim that there’s something universal about Sad Wanda Crying unconvincing given how emblematic HOM is of media representations of psychosis. If you’re not always being portrayed as a serial killer, the weight of this story will easily fly over your head.  

Then there’s the not-small matter that the people being insulted – really, specifically insulted – by HOM are groups that aren’t a big part of public discourse. The severely mentally ill and people with fertility issues. Not that those are on equal footing, but they both have a certain invisibility and the idea that something might be hurtful to them is treated as a joke. Reproductive issues are intensely personal, and most people want to keep them private. There is a lot wrong with media representations of infertility, but if talking about it means opening up about your experiences, it’s no wonder people don’t want to or are only willing to in a receptive space.

Also, I suspect a lot of people didn’t read the X-Men stories that came after and are viewing this entirely from Wanda’s perspective. There’s something narcissistic about sad, sad, sad characters being sad about their sad, sad, sad life. It invites the audience to focus on that one person’s struggles – often as a stand-in for their own problems – and ignore everything else going on. This is one of the critiques of “manpain” storylines. There’s a layer of self-involvement built in. Killed a bunch of people? But they were sad! Sad, sad, sad! We’ve all got problems, man. The world breaks everyone. Not everyone kills Hawkeye two different times.

This is particularly true in spec fic where every backstory is a trauma conga line. Your fave may have suffered, but realistically, so did everyone else.

Redemption arcs can have that air of narcissism too. Woe is me, I have done bad. If they get really self-obsessed, you get The Very Worst Kind of Story, the one where the villain is someone who has been wronged by the “redeemed” character and they want revenge. It’s a way of appearing to confront the damage done while actually minimizing it and discrediting the victims. Protagonist-centered morality to the extreme. Only Good Victims™ matter, and therefore, the redemption seeker is exonerated. All charges dropped on account of the victim turned out to be a jerk!

(That’s not what this post is about. I watched a movie the other day that had this problem, and it gave me a lot of feelings. It was Power Rangers. Leave me alone.)

Getting back to what I said at the beginning, the thing that bothers me isn’t so much that people like something I don’t like. I agree with Grant Morrison’s assessment that HOM is lukewarm at best, but I can still see why someone might like it. The bigger problem is how people like quote-unquote problematic things.

Which is to say oh my god, you guys have to stop acting like genocide is cool and badass. Finding a story valuable is one thing. Claiming that Wanda is so awesome because she can warp reality and wipe out all the mutants and “when will your fave” is another thing entirely. It is not okay to brag about genocide. Ever.

EVER.

Not even when you’re talking about fiction.

I know that saying a character is more powerful is the unquestioned trump card of comics fandom, but 1) that’s iffy in the first place and 2) it’s especially bad in this case. I used to think of the “my fave is more powerful than yours” dick-measuring contest solely as an expression of Boys Club thinking, something juvenile that celebrates physical strength above all else. But there is something more insidious to this logic. Saying that having more power – by which you mean a greater ability to commit acts of violence and hurt others – is the same thing as having more value is disturbing logic. The way that superhero comics equate power with goodness is part of why they’re considered fascist. Every time you indulge this fantasy that having more power makes something better, that power is virtue, the spectral form of Alan Moore appears and hurls copies of Watchmen at your head.

Buying into this furthers one of the worst messages in the genre. I’m not saying anyone who argues over which character is more powerful is a fascist, but this logic should not go unexamined. Why does it matter so much which character is the better at inflicting harm than all the other harm inflicters? You can use the cheap argument that they’re heroes and they’re doing good, but superheroes are, to a worrying degree, used as avatars of the US military. They’re only unblemished, pure-hearted Social Justice Warriors™ if you don’t pay attention to any stories featuring them.

And when you’re not just arguing that being powerful is better, but that the act of committing genocide is a key part of that superiority?? That’s beyond disturbing. How can people not notice how terrible that sounds? Outside of the narrative and the twisted reasoning of superhero comics, what are you really saying when you say that? Might makes right is questionable enough, but when the expression of “might” is ethnic cleansing?

Someone, please explain the thinking that leads to these posts. I’m lost in a flurry of question marks. What compels a person to declare, openly, that what’s cool about Wanda is that she got rid of all the mutants? How does someone conclude that glorifying genocide is okay because it’s a fantasy genocide? Why do thousands of people reblog these horrifying posts?

Why?

Why?

WHYWHYWHY?

On second thought, don’t explain it to me. I don’t want to know.

[rdclsuperfoods]

We’re in the midst of a global pandemic and national political upheaval unlike anything we’ve seen in the past 150 years. Still, wellness influencers, major news outlets, and even the CDC are finding plenty of time to fret about dieting and weight gain. In response, anti-diet nutritionists, therapists, and activists have taken to social media to point out that a too tight grip on your eating habits can cause anxiety and unhealthy patterns that leave you frustrated and physically uncomfortable.

I agree. In April I wrote about how quarantine-induced worries linked to food and exercise can backfire, and why a more relaxed approach to food leads to better health. However, this is easier said than done. Our relationship with weight and diets is complex, and it can be tough to distinguish a healthy habit from an unhealthy one. If you’re working toward a healthier mindset about food, a good first step is to identify your own food rules and then challenge them.

A food rule is any kind of black-and-white thinking about food. Some might be holdovers from a specific diet you’ve tried in the past, like the idea that you should avoid carbs, or that there’s a static number of calories you should eat in a day. Others are extreme versions of generally sound advice, like the idea that you must only eat whole foods, or that sugar and processed goods are explicitly off-limits. 

Some of these ideas are grounded in evidence, but there’s a critical difference between food rules and healthy eating habits. The latter are flexible: you prioritize nutritious ingredients but don’t agonize over what to eat and aren’t stressed if you go a day without vegetables or finish a meal feeling overly full. Food rules are rigid: you have strict parameters around how you should eat, and feel guilty or anxious (or like you need to compensate) when you don’t eat according to that plan. “Following food rules can be physically, mentally, and socially exhausting, which impacts overall quality of life,” says Taylor Chan, a dietitian and certified personal trainer. Here are six new anti-rules to learn in the new year. 

There Are No Bad Foods

Morality has long snuck into the way we talk and think about eating. Look at the way that various foods are marketed: something low in calories, sugar, and fat might be labeled “guilt-free.” High-sugar, high-fat, and high-calorie foods are deemed “sinfully delicious,” an indulgence to feel a little ashamed of. It might seem normal to think of certain foods as good or bad, seeing as how moralizing eating patterns is a natural product of our culture’s fixation on healthy living. But that doesn’t mean it’s helpful, says Chan.

If a certain food is deemed inherently bad, and eating it is bad behavior, it isn’t a huge leap to think you’re a bad person for eating that way. Food quickly becomes a source of stress and shame, rather than nourishment and pleasure. Dalina Soto, an anti-diet dietitian, expertly called out the problem in an Instagram post: you aren’t a horrible person with no self-control because you ate some ice cream; you just ate something delicious because you wanted it. Thinking of it this way makes it easier to let go and move on. The point isn’t that ice cream is nutrient packed or that it should be the cornerstone of your diet—those wouldn’t be accurate or helpful, either! It’s that there’s never a reason to feel guilty about eating, no matter the nutritional value of the food.

Forget About Clean Eating

Clean eating is such a common phrase that it might not raise an eyebrow, but it’s problematic, too. It implies that other foods and ways of eating are dirty, which falls into the same moralizing trap mentioned above. Plus, there’s no real definition of what “clean” means. “People start developing arbitrary rules about their food, which leads to restrictive and unhealthy food patterns,” says Heather Caplan, a dietitian who specializes in intuitive eating and sports nutrition.

There’s evidence to back this up. A 2020 cross-sectional survey of 1,266 young adults published in the journal Nutrients found that over half the participants had heard of clean eating and thought of it as healthy, but that their definitions of clean were all over the place. The researchers pointed out that while clean eating is often portrayed as healthy, it is often linked with disordered eating. It’s a dichotomous way of thinking, “characterized by extreme ‘all bad’ or ‘all good’ views toward food,” the paper states. Additionally, someone can use clean eating to mask behaviors like severe calorie restriction, claiming that they’re avoiding various foods for health reasons when in fact they may have an underlying eating disorder or disordered-eating behaviors. The researchers also found clean eating to be associated with nutritional deficiencies, since restrictive behavior can go undetected and unchecked for so long.

If you want to eat healthfully, a better approach is to prioritize nutrient-dense foods—fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, healthy oils, and lean proteins—without vowing to only eat these foods. It’s a flexible and realistic approach that won’t have you constantly questioning whether certain foods are clean enough or not.

Stop Tracking Your Intake

Religiously counting calories or macros (carbs, fat, and protein) probably isn’t going to have the effect you want it to. One 2013 review of 25 existing studies published in Frontiers in Psychology found that restricted eating habits rarely led to weight loss and, in fact, often corresponded with weight gain. 

There’s no consensus on why exactly this happens, but a 2015 article in the International Journal of Obesity explains that the body is designed to protect against weight loss. Restriction-induced weight loss precipitates physiological adaptations, including fewer calories burned overall, less fat oxidation (converting stored fat to energy), a decrease in the fullness-signaling hormone leptin, and an increase in the hunger-signaling hormone ghrelin. Even if someone who has lost weight successfully manages to override their hunger signals, their metabolism may still be slower than before, making it increasingly harder to keep burning fat. This might be why many dieters don’t see the results they want from calorie counting.

Soto instead encourages an intuitive eating approach: eat what you want, when you want it. Our bodies know to seek out the variety of nutrients that they need to function, and proponents of intuitive eating explain that paying close attention to your cravings will naturally lead to a nutritious diet. When it comes to gauging how much food your body requires, it’s far easier to eat until you’re satisfied than it is to count and track calories.

Don’t Demonize Macronutrients

Popular as the keto diet may be, there’s no evidence that a low-carb diet is any healthier than one that includes a balance of all macronutrients. The same goes for low-fat diets. A 2020 review of 121 previously conducted, randomized controlled trials published in The British Medical Journal found that none of the diets limiting certain macronutrients like carbs or fats are any more effective at improving health than a regular, varied diet.

Still, it’s common to demonize certain carbs or fats, even if you aren’t on a particular diet. Maybe you pass on the bread basket because you don’t want to eat too many carbs, or always use nonstick cooking spray instead of oil because you’re wary of adding too much fat to a meal. Soto says this isn’t necessary. All three macronutrients play an important role in health and function. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend getting anywhere from 45 to 65 percent of your calories from carbs, 10 to 35 percent from protein, and 20 to 35 percent from fat. There’s a lot of wiggle room there. Most people’s intake already falls within these ranges, so striking the perfect balance of macros day after day isn’t something you should overthink.

You Don’t Need to Burn Anything Off

Food is more than just a source of energy, Chan says. “We eat food for so many reasons, and it’s important to honor those,” she says. “We connect with our culture through food, we connect with others over a good meal, and we eat for pleasure and nostalgia, all of which supports overall well-being.” But the idea that you must earn food with a grueling workout is still pervasive.

Trying to compensate with exercise when you feel you’ve eaten too much can have a significant negative impact on your quality of life, Chan says. At worst, it sets into motion a cycle of overeating, compensating, and overeating again. Instead of beating yourself up, or trying to atone for eating more than feels comfortable, just let your body do its thing and digest. You’ll feel fine again soon, and chances are you’ll feel less hungry later on.

Yes, there’s nuance here. Food still fuels movement, and there’s nothing wrong with adjusting your intake accordingly when you’re training. The important thing is to not be too rigid or punish yourself for eating too much. A strict calories-in, calories-out approach to fueling isn’t very effective anyway. There’s strong evidence refuting the popular idea that eating 3,500 calories leads to one pound of weight gain, and equally strong evidence that fitness trackers are notoriously terrible at measuring the actual number of calories burned during a workout.

Be Mindful and Flexible

“Ditching food rules opens the door for nutritious foods, not so nutritious foods, and everything in between to be enjoyed,” Chan says. The goal isn’t to give up on good nutrition but to make it less stressful and more sustainable. If your intention is to feel your best, be mindful of how different foods affect your mood and energy levels. Use that to guide what you choose to eat, instead of sticking to black-and-white rules that set you up for failure.

via Outside Magazine: Nutrition

[whitebookposts]

One of the things I really hate about the "people interpret things however they want" is that people often forget what the word "interpretation" means. the word "interpretation" is used solely for things that are not CANON or CONCREATE. For example, Sky's lore, due to its vagueness, is up for interpretation. The elder's ages are up for interpretation, simply because TGC never confirmed what their ages are, except for the fact that they are very ancient. The spirit's personality and relations are up to interpretation, because other than the two Valley Elders, we don't have any familial relationship confirmed. Is the king and the prince the same person is also up to interpretation, simply because of how little there is about him. But the thing is - Lamed wearing a hijab is NOT up to interpretation, simply because it was CONFIRMED BY A DEVELOPER TO BE A HIJAB. IT IS CANON. You can't say that a thing, confirmed by the developers, is "up to interpretation". It's like saying that the fact that the earth is round is up to interpritation. Moreover, don't you think that a white, Chiristian woman deliberately choosing to interpret a feature that is an important thing to a minority group differently is a bit concerning? Don't you feel that the person that did it feels too entitled over others culture and religion? I said it before and I'll say it again: your right for "drawing whatever you want" and "interperet things howver you want" ends at other's right to be respected and represented. Another thing is that most people here lack the context behind the person that started all of this. Was this a random person, me and my friends would in fact, see it as a simple mistake, and would gladly ask them to change it politely (though, even with Kuroi, we stayed respectful and calm all the way throuh). The problem is, that it's not Kuroi's first time doing problematic things. I really don't want to dwelve into details, but Kuroi has a long, long history of drawing and doing problematic stuff, like (tw: mention of abuse, dehumanization of people with DID, fatphobia): using physical and verbal abuse as a comedic relief in her comics, using the trope of "the evil alter ego" which is a harmful trope to people with personality disorders, using the "a character ate a whole cake and now feel bad because they are going to get fat" trope which is fatphobic. Whenever she was rightfully and, I repeat, POLITELY critisized about this, she would start guiltripping everyone around her so that people would pity her, and use her autism as a shield to cover for herself. MOROVER, she has a history of harassing a minor, namedropping people that blocked her, suicide baiting her followers (which mostly are minors), guilt tripping said minors in her discord server, posting nsfw on her main twitter account that was followed by a bunch of minors. So with that in mind, you can agree that my friends (I wasn't really a part of this as I was asleep + was going through a surgery at the time) had a reason to react. Even if it is an "au", don't you think it's a bit concerning how the only things Kuroi changes in her au are things that are deemed "not attractive" by societal standards? like slimming down fat characters, getting rid of baldness and age sighns, and now getting rid of Lamed's hijab. don't you think it's just a tiny bit (/sarcasm) starnge? When you are doing an au, you must change everything. If she would have done an au in which she changed the culture\religion of the characters, she should have done so to everyone. But she didn't. she changed only the things that are mostly deemed unattractive by christian white people. So I'm very sorry, but it's very hard for me to take "this is an au" argument seriously.

sorry bout the shitshow i got a little mad lmao

also as a reminder: if youre gonna make your personal interpretation of characters do NOT erase features that code them as poc/non-christian bc thats an asshole move and it probably says something about how you view those features

[her-culture]

The “Beauty” of Mental Illnesses

Open Instagram, Tumblr, or any social media of your choice. Scroll and explore through the seemingly infinite amount of content and you’ll see a variety of posts. From memes to sophisticated and professional art. From fan edits to arm-chair social justice rants. The possibilities of self-expression are endless. And ever so slowly, the waves of sad “relatable” posts and quotes are taking over. All of those unrealistic black and white images that are paired with melancholy or masochistic quotes are popping up in every corner. They highlight and perpetuate the perception of beauty in tragedy. In fact, more and more people are beginning to admire the “beauty” in depression and anxiety. But, is there any beauty in mental illness?

According to a 2015 article by Bri Ray published by the Elite Daily, the romanticizing and glorifying of these illnesses is obsessing more and more people. This “trend” is easily perpetuated by those who like posts, tag their friends under the posts, or repost the posts. This is a huge offence to those who may actually suffer from clinical depression or anxiety disorder or any other illness, because they do everything they can in order to not be in this condition.

I have seen this glorification of anxiety and depression every day, and have grown concerned in this issue. Furthermore, I volunteer at a non-profit organization that deals with women and children who face severe mental health concerns that are not beautifully tragic. Mental illness is not meant to be idolized. We need to stop the glorification of mental illnesses in social media. I hope that by discussing the issue of how mental illness is portrayed in social media, and its effects on people like you, you will all be willing to stop the glorification of mental illnesses in social media.

The glamorization of mental illnesses, specifically depression, in social media is on a rise, and it is negatively affecting those facing mental illness and those who are exposed. According to a 2015 report published by the Pew Research Center, 90% of 18 to 29 year olds use social media. Through social media, a culture has developed that idolizes mental illness, and encourages self-harm, self-medication, and suicide. These images and quotes confuse young adults, and people in general, on what it means to be clinically diagnosed with mental illness. Unfortunately, it has become quite the trend among us as people are beginning to accept mental disorders and their consequences. And while it is good that people who face mental illness are provided with a space to discuss their issues, the act of romanticizing it can lead to normalizing this issue. Greg Palatto, a psychologist at Charter Oak High School, stated in an article published by the LA Times that “the hashtags, the shared FB posts, black and white pictures of scars on Instagram--all make it common” This affects not only those that face mental illness, but those that see the trend. College students are still in the process of defining themselves, and the constant negativity that we are exposed to through social media can create a negative person. And while some may not be affected, some are. According to a 2013 article by Anne-Sophie Bine, a journalist, published by The Atlantic this increased exposure to social media has led to a rising number of people who seek out and share imagery associated with depression and torment. However, most of these people are not clinically depressed. Instead, they believe in their own pain and convince themselves that they are depressed. This ties in to the increased trend of self-harm among users of tumblr and instagram as noted by Kimberly Leonard, a health care reporter for US News. Studies show that 1 in 12 teens harm themselves through life-threatening behavior. And while most are not mentally ill or depressed, that’s not to say that the people’s feelings are not real. They do feel valid emotions, but by seeing depression and suicide expressed through social media, their views on mental illnesses are altered. This blurs the line between depression and commonplace negative emotions which makes it difficult to tell who is actually clinically depressed. This is a severe consequence of the glorification of mental illnesses as it makes the symptoms more widespread. Posts also have negative impacts on those who face mental illnesses like Meaghan Lis, a college student that battles depression. In a 2014 blog post, she stated that “having your pain displayed on a tumblr post or instagram post with poorly photoshopped images can feel incredibly invalidating. It can feel as though your battle with mental illness is simply a trend, and not something that holds significant weight in your life.” The glamorization can also cause people dealing with mental illnesses to feed into the attitude that embracing their mental illness and glorifying it as tragedy is better than tedious therapy. The focus on the people with real mental illnesses should not be neglected.

Now that we have briefly discussed the issue of glorification of mental illnesses and its negative effects on people, we will talk about the cause. There are multiple causes for this strange phenomenon, but the core reason is that everyone wants to fit in and feel special. Society enforces the idea that “it’s not okay to just be okay.” You are expected to be the brightest, strongest, best looking, richest, or most powerful in this world. If you are not, then you are deemed unimportant and not special. As a result, people assume there must be something wrong with them and begin to seek attention elsewhere. Specifically, social media. A 2011 journal article published by SAGE Qualitative Health and Research showed that people share posts and quotes on social media to receive acknowledgement in an attempt to feel special and gain attention. Like sad songs and movies, we are naturally attracted to sad posts on social media. As a result, these sad quotes attract likes and comments because users of social media empathize or relate with them. Then, this trend spirals. It is very easy for sad posts to gain attention, comments, likes, or reposts because it's “breathtakingly sad aesthetic” is relatable.   This act of shared sadness and shared feelings is growing because you are able to connect with strangers that may be facing the same situation. Users of social media thrive because they are able to develop online relationships with people who have similar interests. However, this can be problematic because it can have a negative impact on the user’s mental health.

Now that we have established the problem and the cause of the problem, we will talk about some simple solutions to stop the glamorization of mental illnesses. Although it is a large issue to combat since it is so widespread across social media, the solution to this problem is fairly simple. We need to learn that mental illness is not an aesthetic or style. Recognizing the damage that trends can do to marginalized communities is important. People with mental illness have a difficult enough time being heard without others speaking for them. We need to have empathy for others. We also need to recognize posts that glorify and romanticize the idea of mental illnesses and stop them from spreading. Although it seems like a fairly obvious solution, some posts do not seem to glorify mental illnesses at a first glance. Mental illness, self-harm, and suicide are not beautiful. Black and white photos of cuts or burns with a quote about dying written over it isn’t beautiful. We need think before we act. Think before you like a post, comment on a post, or repost a picture that distorts mental illness. If we are able to give those romanticized posts less attention, people will realize that it’s not just a simple trend. People need to stop treating serious mental illnesses like a fashion trend or a competition to have the most “tragically beautiful” look.

In order to stop the perpetuation of mental illnesses and the harms it has on people, we need to think before we act. Remember, the glamorization of mental illness in social media is widespread and a serious issue that has many negative effects on social media users and those who are facing mental illnesses. It is caused by society’s need to fit in and feel special, but it’s perpetuation can be stopped through education and action.So please, before liking, commenting, or posting another black and white image of some sad pale girl with a quote talking about how lovely death is, stop. Take a moment and picture those who are battling mental illnesses and don’t.

[lasermeup]

LONG PSA: Regarding Killing Stalking

So guess who finished reading what’s available of Killing Stalking recently? That’s right, me! And that’s after seeing two sides of the–uh,  what we might consider the community I guess. So here are my loooong two cents regarding what seems to be the main issues with the series in context of those reading it and enjoying it aka the newly growing fandom.  This assumes you don't already understand how fucked up the story is and you're reading it and responding in an inappropriate way.

1. Please understand this is not a story about a healthy and loving relationship.

I repeat, this is NOT a story about a HEALTHY AND LOVING relationship. This is literally a story that is a study of two individuals, both who have a long list of trauma from their childhood that have shaped them into who they are “today.” Both individuals express several key behaviors and types of personalities that would make any psychologist, sociologist, and/or those who are studying mental behaviors, abnormality, and the relationship of individuals and their society perk up with morbid curiosity. Why? Because they literally are expressing traits that usually are linked to those we would diagnosed or be evaluated as within the spectrum of sociopathy/psychopathy aka antisocial personality disorder.

What IS antisocial personality disorder? Antisocial personality disorder as defined by the DSM-5 is the diagnosis assigned to individuals who habitually violate the rights of others without remorse. Those who are diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder tend to be individuals who showcase a lack of remorse for safety (mental, physical) of others and those who impulsive, liars, and highly manipulative (whether it is subtle or direct). Antisocial personality disorder diagnosed individuals also showcase a lack of guilt as well. Most importantly, they tend to disassociate themselves emotionally and mentally from their choices or acts.

The difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is the “root” of their risk. While both are individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, psychopaths tend to be more based on genetics (so self focus) and sociopaths tend to be more based on environmental factors (so the circles in which the individual interacts with aka school, home, family, etc.).  This is NOT to say that psychopaths are not affected/can’t be affected/do not experience trauma relating to their social circles, but the difference between the two tend to stem from the source of their risk. 

P.S. High risk vs low risk : those who experience trauma, particularly extreme violence creates a higher risk for antisocial personality disorder for a multitude of reasons. It’s important to TAKE NOTE THAT THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED HIGH RISK DO NOT ALWAYS OR ARE GUARANTEED TO DEVELOP ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER. They are simply at higher risk to do so. 

P.S.S Antisocial personality disorder/psychopathy/sociopathy does not guarantee violence. Violence is not something that is a “must” or a “plus.” It is there in most cases but it is not the main reason for why someone would be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. 

2. Stockholm syndrome, stalking, and murder is not cute.

Like, I’m not even sure why this should be something to discussed because the truth and reality of it all is that those three words are not linked to anything positive at all. Stockholm syndrome is often seen as a mental adaptation to what is a very terrifying and traumatizing scenario.  It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION that creates feelings of safety (and yes, at times affection) toward kidnappers or captors from victims and hostages. This, however, is NOT LOVE. This is your mind literally creating what appears to be a safer scenario in which survivability increases. This is not something victims choose to have. This is a condition that appears usually because of trauma. Romanticizing Stockholm syndrome is honestly disrespectful to victims who have gone through it because you are literally pretending it is something that people choose and something that is wanted or desired. No one should be wanting to be placed in a scenario in which you either make yourself love your captor or you go through hell. 

Stalking, again, is not cute. It is an act of violence against an individual because it ignores all the rights, desires, and autonomy of said individual. Yes, stalking isn’t always violent. Not all stalkers come to attack their victims but most stalkers know what they are doing is abnormal and outside the category of normative social interaction. Stalking creates intimidation, a false sense of reality for the stalker (because the perspective and view of the world from the stalker is very different from the view of the victim), and often results in acts of violence if that “reality” is changed or altered. ROMANTICIZING STALKING IS SO PROBLEMATIC I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START. This is a thing that is REAL and that affects people and causes FEAR. It isn’t something funny, or loving, or whatever you want to call it. It’s not fluff. 

MURDER IS NOT CUTE. MURDER IS NOT CUTE. MURDER ISN’T LOVE. YOU DON’T KILL FOR LOVE AND YOU SURE AS HECK SHOULD NOT BE THINKING BEING KILLED BY SOMEONE YOU LOVED IS THE BEST WAY TO DIE. Murder should NOT be romanticized because please don’t forget that murder takes away someone’s right to live without remorse or care about what they want. I mean, quite honestly, we shouldn’t be romanticizing suicide, double suicide (or lover’s suicides as some know them by) or murder. Period. Romanticizing it is taking away the truth of what it is. Redefining it as an act of romance ultimately adds into issues in which we ultimately condone these acts if they’re “acts of love” (which they are not). 

Romanticizing any of the above is pretty fucking shitty in general but to romanticize them within the context of Killing Stalking is even more so. 

3. Please take note that Borderline Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder are two very similar sounding things but are two very different diagnoses.

Those who are diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder experience a series or a pattern of swings and these are often longstanding. Bipolar Disorder diagnosed individuals usually experience what is deemed as “episodes” or “periods” of mania. This means that they can experience depression (suicidal thoughts, lack of energy, loss of interest in hobbies, etc.) or mania (excessive happiness/anger/sadness, higher risk taking, impulsiveness) in episodes or periods. Both BPD and BD are “swing” disorders but BPD is long lasting and BD is alternating (though you can experience both depression and mania at the same time).  Romanticizing either of these are no no, by the way. And generalizing these as the same is also a no, no (as treatment differs for a reason and effects are different). 

Now let’s get to actual Killing Stalking part related part with the fandom.

1. This is not a healthy story and so you should not read it as if it is a normal, romantic, sweet, healthy story. 

Please look at what I wrote above if you honestly need a reminder about why this isn’t a story about healthy love or really, love in general. 

2. Stalking, psychopathy/sociopathy, disorders in general should NOT BE ROMANTICIZED or GENERALIZED.

People have gone through many things, many experiences. Many are also at risk for these disorders and/or others. Many people are also living through trauma or abuse. Romanticizing any of it is disrespectful to those individuals and also disrespectful to the scientific and health community who have worked their asses off to get rid of negative connotations and misleading bias toward these disorders and individuals who are diagnosed with these disorders. These are things that affect people, affect society. Treat them with respect. Going kyaa, Stockholm Syndrome!! I want that!! is not the way to go. And quite honestly, that’s seriously immature of you to even have that thought in the first place. And honestly, if you are interested, please consider picking up articles about these disorders and case studies. Educate yourself on these topics because trust me, it gives you a whole new perspective on actions and behaviors. 

P.S. If you have a fucked up definition (aka, one NOT IN THE OFFICIAL BOOK OF DEFINING THESE DISORDERS), don’t you put that definition onto people in real life. Just, no. 

P.S.S. this is also the same for real life serial killers. Bundy, Zodiac Killer, Killer Clown, Leather Man, none of them are meant to be romanticized. REAL PEOPLE HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS. Okay? Okay. 

3. Please consider reading this as if it is a very creative, possibly exaggerated and visual mini study of a very intricate but also problematic relationship between two individuals with a lot of extreme history of their own. It’s a story about abuse but if you used a correct perspective (in other words, I’m saying if you read it with the understanding this shit is not representative of anything healthy or good or nice or LOVING), it can be a very good small study for those who are interested in a visual representative of how an individual can affect another individual and how personal traits, factors, and decisions can ultimately “change the game.” 

This is by no means to say you should take this story as if it’s a real case study because it’s not. It is, however, a direct and unsubtle visual thriller about a serial killer and a stalker and their history (personally and together). If you can look at it as all the sick shit it is, then that’s all you need. Don’t associate it with love, don’t force love on it, and you should be fine. In all honesty, as a psych major, I do find the story interesting because I just 1. do not see love in this, 2. do not romanticize this in any way, 3. prefer to analyze character development and the author’s depiction of disorders/behaviors. Which leads to—

4. You can enjoy the story for what it is without condoning violence or assault. Finding a story narrative interesting, even if it is violent, does not mean that you condone the violence in it or the actions or the behaviors or anything in it. It just means you find it interesting. This goes for characters as well. Problematic characters can be visually and emotionally interesting for individuals BECAUSE they are problematic. It does not mean that the individual condones that character’s actions. Now, if you think this shit is the bomb and you wanna go kill someone too for the sake of killing, then it has nothing to do with the story and it all has to do with you (and please consider talking to someone regarding your compulsions or desire on a very serious note). 

IF THIS STORY MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE, YOU ARE WITHIN ALL RIGHTS TO GET IT AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM YOU. Unfollow people, block posts, create a safe space for yourself. This is fine, this is good, this is preventative and healthy. However, if it makes you uncomfortable and disgusted and unhappily, please do not force yourself to go into it, to delve into it, and to essentially trigger yourself with anxiety, fear, and more. This is part of self care and self love – make your choices wisely for your own health even if it means crushing curiosity and getting away from the masses with opinions and arguments. 

Tldr; Don’t fucking romanticize or generalize disorders, problematic/violent behaviors (such as stalking and murder), don’t force yourself into triggered episodes so make decisions to create safety for yourself if you can, don’t shit on other people if they like it (honestly, no amount of problematic perspective on problematic behaviors condone spreading hate or violence) or if they don’t like it since a person’s interest in problematic characters or narrative or development does not suddenly make them problematic as well (because again, the relationship is not as simple as “I like thriller stories which means I AM A MURDERER!!!! I CONDONE MURDER!!!!”) , and don’t call it love or healthy. Take it as what it is and enjoy without the bullshit additions: an unapologetically in your face story about violence and abuse and two individuals. Educate yourself on topics of disorders, of behaviors, of trauma and abuse through articles, studies, etc. (not through the series ok because again, we have published journals for a reason) because it’s stories like these that can actually create interest and the desire to learn (which honestly, is always a good thing). 

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. I REPEAT. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. 

Also, JUST BECAUSE THERE’S GAY SEX IN IT AND ONE OF THE CHARACTER LOVES THE OTHER AND THEY’RE BOTH GUYS DOESN’T MEAN THIS IS “TRUE LOVE YAOI” or THE ACTIONS ARE OK. You can be gay and still be a murderer. I mean, srsly, look at John Wayne Gacy. Don’t you go romanticizing murder just because you want to look at it with rainbow eyes. Also, romanticizing murder within the LGBTQIA+ community disrespects and condones the violence in which queer individuals experience due to who they are and their identification and/or expression. 

Seriously. Just read it as what it is and be respectful to each other. If it isn’t your thing, that’s okay because it’s not meant to be everyone’s thing. If it isn’t your thing, take the steps needed to make yourself feel safe and good. Don’t let someone tell you that you can’t. 

And honestly, there is no problem in calling out those who are being problematic in a way where it affects other people (romanticizing/generalizing disorders or violence for example) but if it’s just someone who likes it because the story is interesting—??  If it is someone else’s thing, don’t pass immediate judgement and start demanding they off themselves because they’re a scourge to society or something. An interest in these types of things do not equate to a future murderer or a murderer in hiding. 

[rsyatsuknenko]

4/21/19

Reading Rachel Reinke’s chapter regarding Jazz Jennings was very interesting in light of a lot of similar discourse I have been hearing in the queer community. In a Clean and Clear advertisement, Jazz was portrayed as a whitewashed, cis appearing, heterosexual girl. As Reinke puts it, Clean and Clear is “capitalizing on Jennings’ transnormativity.” This is incredibly problematic because it creates a false idea of what a trans woman should look like when in reality there is no specific way a trans person should appear. There has been a major issue in the LGBTQ+ community in people putting people in boxes with queer identities and it perpetuates toxic gender roles our society has instilled in us. Jazz is not cis. She just happens to be fortunate enough to have been raised by parents who supported her and were able to allow her to begin transitioning at a very young age. Most trans people do not have this luxury and have to begin to transition when they are older. In the advertisement Jazz also states that she was “a girl trapped inside a boys body” which oversimplifies what it means to be trans in a way that is not positive.

I have watched her reality TV show “I Am Jazz” and her life is very different than the way she portrayed it in this advertisement. Yes, she has had a much more privileged upbringing than the majority of trans people but she has struggled with many issues. She had a binge eating disorder and was deemed too heavy to have ‘gender confirmation’ surgery until she lost 30 pounds. She has also struggled with anxiety, depression, and body dysphoria. These problems have not just disappeared, it is something that she has combatted with for a long time and still does so today. Another important aspect of her that the advertisement glossed over is her sexuality. Jazz identifies as pansexual and has even been shown on her show having crushes on girls. This short ad erases all of Jazz’s story and creates a digestible one for the audiences that is not the reality.

I understand Clean and Clear wanting to do an advertisement with Jazz despite personally not thinking it is the right thing to do. For it to have been successful, they should have been more focused on intersectionality. First of all, they could have had many trans people featured in this ad. Second they could have acknowledged Jazz’s different identities in a way that can help educate people and show that these gender conformations are unhealthy and pointless.

Overall this advertisement was poorly executed and companies should not be using people and social issues to promote their product.

work cited

Reinke, R. Chapter Two: Just Having Fun Being One of the Girls: Jazz Jennings, Trans Girl Citizenship, and Clean & Clear’s “See the Real Me”. In Mediated Girlhoods, Volume 2.