#I think that’s separate from feeling inferior in other contexts

[rosenbraut]

Being called intellectually inferior to my face

[demi-god77]

Saw byler doubt on my tl and I won't have it, so I'm here to try and ease your doubts @lucystark12

(English isn't my first language and I'm currently running on zero hours of sleep. This might be a bit incoherent)

BYLER AND CHARACTER ARCS

First of all, you have to think of this in context to El's character arc as well!

Her arc has always been centered around found family and her own sense of self (the things she lacked for most of her life while she was in the lab, especially since her entire identity was reduced to a number.)

Romantic love (ending the show in a relationship with Mike) would not be beneficial for her arc, as it is not something she lacked prior, she didn't even know what a boyfriend IS when she escaped from the lab. It also sets her back on her path of self discovery (+ she is shown to learn the most about herself when she and Mike are apart).

In an arc about found family, self discovery and independence, forcing her into a relationship that actively separates her from said found family and creates conflict (with Hopper and with the rest of their group), that also doesn't let her figure out who she is, what her interests are and overall stuns her self discovery and independence, would make zero sense. It would not be a progression for her character at all. Especially for someone that has been controlled by others (and men specifically) her entire life.

~~~

About Will now, if his arc was actually about moving on, there was absolutely no reason to make him in love with Mike. All of their conflicts COULD be purely platonic, if their purpose was to signify that he needs to move on/grow up. But they weren't. There would be no reason to make him in love with Mike, he arguably wouldn't even have to be gay for this arc. And yet, his sexuality is mentioned even prior to s1, in the pilot script -clearly important for his character. Him moving on from those feelings would not be beneficial for his arc either, especially since he has already tried to. He has tried to hide from the world, he has tried to repress his feelings and it didn't work out. They even straight up told us he's not able to move on ("[I] need you and [I] always will")

Furthermore, he already believes that his feelings will not be reciprocated, that he needs to let go and that he will never experience a romantic relationship, will never find love. To have him be right does not make for a good story. It sets his storyline back to square one. Him coming into his own and confronting his trauma is definitely a part of his arc, no doubt about that. Moving on from his feelings however, giving up on a love he never let himself believe he could have in the first place, is not.

~~~~

Lastly, Mike himself. I honestly don't really think he has that much of a communication issue. His communication skills are of course not great, they are pretty bad yes, and he obviously struggles with verbally explaining his feelings, but he shows his love through actions and not words. That's something that has been shown since s1 and that's always been how he communicates his emotions. Through actions.

But even so, he has been shown to productively communicate using his OWN words and his OWN feelings before, the shed scene in s2 being a prime example of that (arguably the bedroom scene in S4 as well). His parents' main issue with their relationship is not that they don't communicate imo, it's that they never really loved eachother (and that also ties in to Nancy and her relationship with Steve).

Another thing:

Mike needs to be needed, that's when he feels useful, that's when he feels loved. El is coming into her own, becoming independent, realizing she doesn't need to depend on others, on him. But Will in his monologue confessed that he always will need him, something that will never change.

Moreover, if his arc was truly about learning to communicate effectively, I don't think they would put such emphasis on his insecurities, thinking of himself as inferior and trying to conform. (Also, forcing a confession, especially one based on someone else's feelings would be a horrible writing choice in an arc about self expression.)

Mike actively tries to push aside his nerdy interests and the things he enjoys (who he is) while in the relationship, in order to appear cooler, mature, normal. Pretend he's not himself. THAT is something he gets from his parents. And THAT is not something attributed to bad communication skills, but forced conformity.

And after all, forced conformity is killing the kids.

[superkooku]

This might be a bad opinion but I hate people who insult people who’s first introduction to Greek mythology is something like Percy Jackson or epic the musical.

Like I’m sorry that my first introduction to Greek mythology wasn’t a movie called “Thesue’s big fat booty cheeks vs the titan of time” made in 1576 that was 5 minutes long 😭

Personally I feel like we need to stop attacking people for getting their info from those sources and just tell them the actual facts because myths are all different, there could be 5 different endings to one myth. And I hate people who think it is okay to make fun of literal children for getting their source from Percy Jackson (sadly I have seen fully grown adults make fun of 13 year olds and younger for not understanding Greek myths because they read Percy Jackson.)

It’s just so annoying to see people make fun and insult others for how they got their first impressions on Greek mythology and how people make fun of others for not knowing every detail of a god or story or their first impression is something well known.

Rant incoming :

No, no. Actually it's a very interesting take.

I'll stay on PJO as an example but it fits every adaptation.

So, first of all, I completely agree with the sentiment behind the ask. It's always important to respect people. Even if someone writes a retelling I may deem 'bad' (= it doesn't fit my taste), it's never okay to insult the author.

And especially not the fans ! Especially not children !

No, just because a kid didn't read the Bacchae from Euripides (reminder that this play gets pretty violent btw), it doesn't mean they're inferior or anything. Or that Greek mythology doesn't interest them in some way.

Secondly, I agree with the fact that beginning with Greek myth adaptations is perfectly fine ☺️. In fact, they're oftentimes more attractive because of the modern format and character-driven stories. Or just cool action stuff instead of a 400-pages epic.

Most people only have a very casual understanding of mythology. Just like my very basic understanding of philosophy or fashion. Everyone has different interests.

In fact, I'd go as far as just being a fan of Percy Jackson but not wanting to go in depth about mythology is also understandable.

I like Dragon Ball and Lego Monkie Kid but I must admit that I never read Journey to the West (that inspired both of these series) so my info might be very incomplete.

The only thing is, we all need to separate modern adaptations from ancient Greek myths.

For example, everyone can criticize Zeus being an awful father in Epic as long as we can separate that from his mythological counterpart, who's much more nuanced in my opinion.

Because those tales were made in a specific culture and context.

I'm saying this as a non-greek person, so I'm not as personally annoyed by cultural misinformation. But when it's blatant, I can still see it. Especially if there's a mish-mash of modern takes with actual mythology.

I'm also bothered by retellings that abandon the cultural implications and accepted aspects just to "fix" mythology. That try to "give x character a voice" but said voice being the author's, completely missing the point. Or demonizing a nuanced figure instead of exploring the complicated nature of deities (yes this is still about Zeus 😂).

Or when it's in the USA.

Now, inaccurate ≠ bad. Creative liberties, new storylines or additions are absolutely welcome. There are some adaptations that I really like (I'll talk about them one day).

And flaws in the representation of the myths don't translate in flaws about the independent plot or storyline.

But I personally don't like when retellings stray too far from mythology. There is a limit.

Because it's missed potential not to respect the original sources, or because it's so different that we may as well change the names and make something original.

Then there are adaptations that just change mythology's interesting takes in cliche tropes or dubious storylines. And that's when my complaints get salty.

But those are my tastes and if someone began reading mythology with Lore Olympus, likes it, but knows that it's absolutely inaccurate, then I have zero problem with that.

Have fun and enjoy 😜.

[orionsangel86]

Ive been thinking about this post again today after I saw some posts in The Sandman tag that seemed a bit like gatekeeping to me and using the comics as an excuse to make fun of Dreamling shippers.

I usually ignore stuff like that, but I think its worth reminding fans of a few important points.

1. Whilst I highly recommend reading the sandman comics, it is totally not necessary if you just wanna enjoy the show (and not spoil upcoming stories!) As Neil Gaiman has already previously said, Sandman is for EVERYONE regardless of which media you choose to engage with. No gatekeepers allowed!

2. The Sandman universe in the comics is rich and full of super interesting characters and only gets better the further on you read (Overture my beloved fave!) BUT fans of the show DO NOT have all this context and therefore will only want to explore what theyve seen in the show. Don't be dicks pointing out how show fans are somehow wrong for their show based headcanons.

3. If show fans wanna make up headcanons and fan theories that don't fit in with comic book canon that is totally within their right and it is no ones place to mock them for not following comic canon.

4. Learn to live with Dreamling. Yeah look I get it, its a tiny fragment of a story in a much wider multitude of beautiful stories. Yeah it can be frustrating how fandom has "main charactered" Hob Gadling. Just accept that fandom is gonna fandom. Dont like, dont read. Keep scrolling, rant on your own blog OUT OF THE MAIN TAGS if you must. Hell, make an anti dreamling tag if you must waste energy on negativity but please keep the negativity tagged and separate from positive fandom fun.

4. On the Dreamling note, its worth mentioning that Hob Gadling in comic canon is not a really nice person. He is selfish, he makes bad choices, he is rather rude and tends to be on the wrong side of history. He's not very likeable. He says inappropriate things sometimes. He's not what fandom has made him (because fanon Hob is a fandom projection and self insert character more than anything else at this point). That is not an excuse to piss on peoples Hob Gadling headcanons and smugly point out what an ass he is. Its certainly not an excuse to attack people as if liking him makes them morally inferior to you.

5. Honestly though if you're looking for perfect characters you're better off quitting Sandman altogether because literally all characters in the comic are flawed especially Dream. He's THE problematic fave. He's a bit of an asshole, even though we love him. Tbh even comic Dream and Hob are made for each other in that respect.

6. The show is not the comic. I feel like this should be obvious, but its very clear that the show is telling a kinder story than the comic. The characters are far more likeable already and a lot of the more eyebrow raising stuff (such as Desire raping Unity) has been removed. Therefore anyone using the comic character flaws to somehow justify why Dreamling shippers are morons and their faves are assholes is just a dick. Let show fans enjoy what the show has presented to them.

7. At the end of the day, let people have their fun. The Sandman is an ideal fandom sandbox in that the world is rich and full of potential and a beautiful source for creative inspiration. Fans wanna play in this sandbox and make up their own fun ideas and stories and that is a wonderful thing.

Don't piss in the fucking sandbox.

[amysubmits]

My wife struggles with being viewed as a sexual object, even with her self determination as a submissive to me. I struggle with telling her to do stuff, because i'm a feminist and I worry a lot about becoming the kind of abusive husband my dad and her dad both were. But when I get on a roll and I'm pushing forward with the dominant stuff, she starts to feel objectified, and we have to stop and recontextualize our relationship. I'm not sure I'm even describing this well. But do you have any advice for a couple who have entered a D/S relationship, but both seem to struggle with our roles within the dynamic? we don't want to stop, we both get a lot out of it, everyone is having fun, but we hit roadblocks every now and again that seem to be related to the form of our relationship. I know the communication is important parts, but we talk it out, and then we still end up in the same corners every now and again.

I know I have pretty limited information here but here's what comes to mind for me.

I find myself wondering if the primary issue that results in you guys getting to a place where she feels objectified is the result of you seeing your role as more objectifying than the type of dominance that she's interested in...or if it's more that she struggles with separating submission from objectification, so anytime she starts submitting she ends up feeling objectified no matter what form that submission takes.

I believe both experiences are common. There's certainly a ton of objectifying BDSM and D/s content out there, so I can easily see how someone might look up D/s and think that the role of the dom is to do a lot of objectifying stuff. And if that isn't the type of d/s that the sub is wanting or open to, that would create problems pretty quickly. If this is the case, then you're likely to have to shift your idea of D/s to find a view of D/s that is more compatible with hers. Forgive me if you already know this (you probably do but I never know). D/s doesn't inherently have to include objectification in any form. Not all subs want to be objectified at all. So if that's her, and your idea of d/s was largely about objectifying her, then a big paradigm shift may have to happen before you can find a dynamic that works for you both.

But I also know it's common to have insecurity and even guilt and shame surrounding being a sub or being submissive. I've chatted with subs who spent their whole lives believing that being as independent as possible, as "strong" as possible, as strong-willed as possible, etc is the ideal or is the way to be a valuable person. So for people like that, letting someone else lead, even in pretty subtle ways like deciding what's for dinner or something, might make them feel triggered into feeling weak, inferior, or objectified.

I guess in either case, I'd suggest trying to really flesh out exactly what makes her feel objectified. When thinking back to past experiences, any specific things you've said or done that caused that feeling in her, write those down. Then maybe go over that list and see if those behaviors have always caused her to feel objectified, or if those same interactions have felt good to her at other times.

If there are things that have happened that just always feel objectifying to her, those should probably be considered hard limits of hers.

If you find that there are certain things that have triggered her into feeling objectified sometimes, but have felt good other times, then I'd wonder if the overall relationship balance might be the issue.

Let's take the example of a orgasm denial. If both people like this idea in theory, and have some experiences where it's felt good overall (despite being frustrating, haha), and yet other times it's triggered and objectifying feeling in the sub, it may be context-dependent. Maybe orgasm denial can feel good to the sub when the sub is feeling really connected to their dom, really prioritized by their dom, and has just felt really loved and cared for in other ways. Yet, if a day comes where you've both been busy and haven't made as much time to connect, you haven't made her feel as prioritized or special for a few days, and then you have a sexual experience and deny her...she may find herself feeling used and objectified instead of feeling good. This type of thing can happen with non-sexual elements of power exchange too. Maybe something like a bedtime rule feels good sometimes, but objectifying other times depending on how the rest of your relationship is feeling to her that day. Sometimes when people work to transition to D/s, they stop showing love and care the way they did when vanilla, thinking that "softness" doesn't fit with D/s, I guess. That's a huge mistake in my opinion. In most cases, subs are going to need their doms to give them more affection, and are going to need to feel like even more of a priority and to feel even more respected by their partner while they are D/s than they needed while vanilla.

In cases where what is objectifying feeling and what isn't changes with context, the solution will likely be recognizing certain acts as soft-limits. They might be things that she can submit to certain circumstances (such as when her mental health is in a good place and you've had lots of time to show her lots of love and care) but they might be treated as off-limits if those conditions haven't been met. Or, it might teach you about some core submissive needs that she has, that haven't been consistently met, and if you're able to start consistently meeting those needs, then perhaps this wouldn't need to be a limit. It would just depend on whether the level of care that she would need to be able to do that act and feel good about it is something you can realistically sustain regularly.

Anyway...I think ultimately you guys want to figure out exactly what triggers her feeling objectified, and find ways to then respect those limitations. In addition to analyzing your own personal experiences with this, you might also have her consider what she does and doesn't like in other people's writing, porn or erotica. If she finds that some examples of BDSM feel objectifying to her and others don't, she could share those examples with you and explain what sounds good or sounds bad about it, and you can use those to further flesh out this understanding of what type of submission she wants and what types of submission she dislikes.

I got all this written and then realized I didn't address the part about you worrying about being abusive. I'm sorry that you worry about becoming the man you don't want to be. I'd try to keep in mind that one of the biggest differences between abuse and D/s is consent. If you do dominant things that your sub has specifically consented to, but they make her feel bad, that isn't the same thing as you just randomly making her feel bad. Sometimes the reality of D/s is that we have to try things to figure out what does and doesn't work for us. Sometimes things sound good in theory, but feel bad in reality. You aren't an abuser if you try out things that your wife has given the OK to, but then she doesn't like in practice. Be sure to communicate with her about these worries you have so she can help reassure you. Also keep in mind that if you're ever unsure of what she wants, it's never bad to ask her. It isn't lacking in dominance to double-check consent.

It sounds to me like you guys both know you want D/s and both really care about each other. It's normal for it to take a lot of conversations , trial and error and learning as you go before you find your footing with D/s. Keep talking and I bet you'll get there. :)

[psychreviews2]

World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness Day June 1st

World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness day is June 1st , and I would like to do a small review on some of the precursors to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As much as we hate the damage caused by these abusers, narcissists are still people and they came from families that weren’t dissimilar to ours. Some of the causes are related to inheritance but there are many other early family experiences that contribute to this disorder.

With destroyed relationships, there are feelings of emptiness even in the midst of worldly success. The life of a Narcissist is a no win scenario where real love and peace is denied. The only futile pleasure left is a feared respect from onlookers, who are manipulated by rewards and punishments. There is a psychological isolation for narcissists who are stuck in their sadistic world. It causes a revolving door of victims who are forced to abandon the narcissist when they are tired of being an object in that world.

Emotional Control and Self-Esteem

Recent studies have shown that there is a complex connection between emotional control, and life events that threaten a narcissistic patient’s self-esteem. This is true for most people, but for a narcissist it is even more difficult. The skills to be able to control emotions opens up reactivity to difficult life events which in turn reduces the patient’s ability to control those emotions. The desperate need to regain control can involve “enhancement, spurred by aggression or fear and accompanied by detachment or dismissiveness, [that] can readily shift to inferiority and insecurity, accompanied by avoidance or a sense of loss of control caused by overwhelming shame, fear or powerlessness.”

The comparison problem

Many of these life events that threaten a narcissist are related to “social dominance, professional, physical, financial or material contexts that can cause feelings of worth or worthlessness. When there are shifts in interpersonal attention, from being included, appreciated and admired to being excluded, criticized and ignored, the self-esteem can be challenged. Experiencing loss of control and competence can evoke intense internal self-criticism, with accompanying shame, anxiety, rage or fear, and result in drastic actions to regain or to escape the situation…Emotions can be either rewarding, challenging or threatening to narcissists, mainly depending upon how they are perceived by the [others] and how it affects their self-esteem, and their sense of competence and control.”

Mentalizing

One of the key deficits that threatens the self-esteem in narcissists is the ability to mentalize. This is the skill to see intentions in oneself and in others which helps to protect against self-esteem injuries. Narcissists have trouble thinking and reflecting beyond the immediate experience when these injuries happen. They can fall back on aggression as a protective shield against overwhelming thoughts and feelings. This leads to a failure to understand consequences of their aggressive and self-destructive actions.

Impaired empathy

There is some level of empathy with narcissists but it is impaired, but "the ability to care and have empathy can fluctuate and depend upon both emotional control and self-esteem. This can result in a range of interpersonal responses to others’ needs and reactions; from total ignorance, avoidance or dismissive or even aggressive responses, to extraordinary attentiveness and care in contexts where such engagement also is associated to self-enhancement and possible benefits. People with NPD can appear unaffected by losses, separation or experiences that normally would evoke sadness, pain and anguish. They have even been considered unable to grieve. Nevertheless, [they have] extreme hyper vigilance and reactivity to certain threats, separations or losses of people or conditions that are crucial for their self-esteem.”

Fear

Despite their lack of grieving, narcissists still sense fear. “Fear can underlie several management and avoidance strategies typical for NPD, [from] achievement, competitiveness, perfectionism, risk-taking, down to procrastination, distancing and avoidance. The fear of negative...aspects of the identity can enforce protective self-enhancement as well as despair and potential suicidality, which can be a last attempt at control.”

How did they turn out this way?

What are the top reasons that lead people to narcissism? Like in all sciences there isn’t always an easy cause and effect relationship. There are multiple causes and effects, including "inheritance, temperament, psychological trauma, and age inappropriate role assignments."

Inheritance

For example, a twin study on heritability of Cluster B Personality Disorders including, Anti-social, Borderline, Histrionic, and Narcissistic, showed that all of these disorders have a high heritability with Narcissism being slightly higher than the others. Although, predicting personality disorders accurately is improved with the understanding of heritability, it is not 100% predictive.

Temperament

How heritability shows up in personality can be measured in different ways, and one way is temperament. Psychoanalysis connected a depressive temperament to Narcissism. Unfortunately prior studies measured grandiosity more than depressive temperament, but in a study by Tritt, a depressive temperament was found to be associated with narcissism, in particular how patients' avoid shame and humiliation to prevent losing admiration from others.

Psychological Trauma

This temperament leads to a vulnerability that can lead to constant trauma related to chasing the grandiose self:

"Kohut identified two disturbed aspects of the self that are characteristic of narcissistically vulnerable individuals: the persistence of the grandiose self and the unending quest for the idealized parent. The former requires that the individual’s special qualities and skills be admired and affirmed. The latter involves the desire to merge psychologically with persons who are perceived as powerful and strong. In brief, the grandiose self expects absolute, omnipotent control over an archaic, self-referential world. The narcissistic individual who experiences injury to the grandiose self responds with rage toward an individual or world that is perceived as not having an independent existence. The outraged grandiose self responds to trauma with, “How dare you do this to me? I deserve better. I’ll show you!” An apt analogy is the spoiled child who expects everything to go his or her way. Set backs are met with temper tantrums that dramatically illustrate the child’s world [where only the self is real]."

Naturally because the world can operate independently of the narcissist's wishes it leads to endless psychological trauma when trying to cope with change.

Age inappropriate roles

How the parent treats the child also forms part of the precursors to Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or NPD. Paulina F. Kernberg says, "the children of narcissistic parents are at risk during their first year of life because of the parents' lack of empathy, which causes an incapability to fulfill the needs of the baby. The parents' own omnipotence leads the child to a cycle of lack of limitation, overindulgence, and inconsistency that maintains and contributes to the preservation of the grandiose self. In the mind of the parents, the child has a role...that contributes to his or her treatment [outside of what is age appropriate]. This can be seen in the cases of divorced mothers with infantile personalities, who treat the child as the spouse or the sibling or as an endlessly infantile or dependent baby, an echo of the mother's own sense of self."

Limited individuation and no support for separation

The child then has trouble separating the personality from the parent and stays limited. "The parent supports the child's individuation - that is, the refinement and distinctness of [the child's] activities - [but only] inasmuch as the individuation rewards the parent's own needs. However, the parent does not support the separation. The child exists in the service of the parent's self-esteem and does not exist as an autonomous being. Paradoxically, the power given to the child to regulate the parent's self-esteem fuels the child's grandiosity even further."

Since the child is dependent on these narcissistic parents, "there is a pathological equilibrium between the child and his or her parents. The child needs the parents and the parents need the child in an interlocked mutual narcissistic way, and the parents' narcissistic needs override the child's normal narcissistic needs. Consequently, the child develops a sense of unreality [with unrealistic expectations against which the grandiose self is erected]. [There is a distortion] of the sense of core self in NPD, especially because the sense of boundary, including the experience of one's own body, may be brittle. There is no acknowledgement of other's intentions, and a reliance on one's own subjectivity infiltrates the whole world, resulting in a sense of isolation and deprivation. In terms of [separating from the adult], the narcissistic personality may have a variety of points of [arrested development] when self-absorption and the illusion of self-sufficiency [a God-like persona] are such that the external object represents a minute aspect in the child's world."

Splitting

"The positive perception of the actual self is fused with an ideal self and an ideal object. This is projected onto idealized external objects that are used and acknowledged only to confirm the individual's own grandiose self. A splitting occurs with all other aspects of the devalued vulnerable self and are projected, resulting in a devaluation of other objects of the external world. The world of others consists of devalued persecuting others and fleeting, unstable idealized others who remain as long as they fit into the grandiose scenario. The grandiose self-structure, consisting of the fusion of actual self, ideal object, and ideal self, explains the sense of entitlement and self-centeredness."

Controlling siblings

When there are new additions to the family they can be another source of a persecuting other. "An exaggerated sibling rivalry can be seen in narcissistic children. This can at times escalate to outright abuse. The aloofness and sadistic behaviour expressed toward siblings serve as a protection to the child's sense of narcissistic injury for not having been the only one in the family. A deep protracted resentment continues throughout the childhood and adolescent years and beyond." [See: 'Little Hans': https://rumble.com/v1gu93b-case-studies-little-hans-sigmund-freud.html]

Controlling school

This need to control the self-image is expressed in the school setting as well. "Grandiosity is a maladaptive way of protecting self-esteem, because the grandiosity requires immature or primitive defensive maneuvers (e.g., devaluation, projective identification, denial, omnipotent control, withdrawal, and aloofness). A consequence of a sense of grandiosity and entitlement is that in spite of superior intelligence, these children [can] have a checkered performance at school. They can have excellent grades, have low grades, or fail altogether, depending on their wish to put forth effort or not."

Controlling the world

The need to preserve this grandiose reality extends to the world at large. "Pathological narcissism in childhood is characterized by deficient social skills and poor peer interactions in terms of level of development appropriateness. This is because of the inability...to empathize with others, their need to control and devalue their peers, their need to avoid any difference between themselves and others in order to allay their sense of vulnerability and envy.  In adolescence, for example, the narcissistic individual may appear charismatic. The grandiose self exerts particular attraction on peers as it resonates with the aspirations of the other members of a group. Thus, for a while at least, the narcissistic adolescent appears to have arrived already at the ideal of perfection, beauty and power. He or she gives an illusion of a reality that the group members seek. In turn, the group confirms the narcissistic adolescent's grandiosity so that he or she can protect himself or herself from any sense of hurt. Two noteworthy aspects of social interactions occur. One is a choice of a more popular, pretty, or handsome partner who is shown off. The other is a choice of a friend who is the least popular, ugly, or physically handicapped. In this case, the narcissistic adolescent can feel admired by the ugly partner who becomes a psychological slave and is masochistically grateful to have been chosen as an object of attention even if the quality of attention is derision." The sense of self then gets regulated by controlling the group members as they periodically attempt to change the power structure to advance themselves against the narcissistic leader.

Duping delight

The psychological reward manifests in tricking, controlling and isolating victims with a pleasure, as described in Psychopathy and the Law, as Duping delight. Getting away with abuse is pleasurable for narcissists and psychopaths. Victims often describe this duping delight smile they witness as reptilian like you can see at the ending of the Hitchcock movie Psycho when Norman Bates gets delight when he thinks he's trapped his victim in the basement.

As sensational as movies can be, the reality is that duping delight, usually more passive-aggressive than you see in the movies, is a shallow form of pleasure and to be locked into that limited happiness for the entirety of one's life is not a rich and fulfilling one.

Gaslighting

This shallowness is exemplified in all the goal orientation towards validating the unreality that is the grandiose self. That unreality leads to conversations that always lead to some aim to get the victim to know what the narcissist wants them to know. A form of impression management that controls and achieves their goals. In Psychopathy and the Law they say, "problem-solving discussions is what Gaslighting is. It involves going from an unsatisfactory state to a more satisfactory state. Gaslighting for the pathological liar is simply a means to an end. Whether it’s lying to people to put blame on others, or to avoid punishment, or to pursue an infidelity, there’s always a goal directed motive."

Other risks

There are some other risks that caretakers of narcissistic children can become aware of that may predispose the children for adult narcissism.

One is adopted children. For example, they were "in the contradictory dilemma of being chosen because he or she was 'the most beautiful baby,' as well as because he or she was 'discarded' by the biological parents. The uncertainties of the period before the adoption are formalized and contribute additionally to the problem because they interfere with the sense of secure attachment.

Abused children. Children who were abused had the challenge of needing to fuse with an idealized parental image to protect [themself] from the external sadistic image of the [abusive] parent.

Spoiled children. Overindulged or wealthy children [could have] a prolongation of infantile narcissism [where one was one's own ideal], but [especially so] if this is combined with narcissistic personality problems in the parents.

Children of divorced parents are at risk when they attempt to fulfill their own infantile narcissism and combine it with the omnipotence derived from fulfilling the wish to replace the other parent and [to gratify] the [step parent] with a blurring of the normal generational roles", [like treating them as a friend].

Many of these factors were in play before the victim met with the narcissist. It's important to be aware of these red flags because once they are in play, the prognosis for the adult narcissist is a life long nightmare of exploitative, shallow, and empty relationships.

World Narcissistic Abuse Awareness Day Summit, June 1st

Disorders of Narcissism edited by Elsa Ronningstam (excerpts and paraphrases from Paulina F. Kernberg): https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780765702593/

Psychopathy and the Law by Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, and Jan-Olof Nyholm: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780470972373/

Robert I. Simon (2009) Distinguishing Trauma-Associated Narcissistic Symptoms from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Diagnostic Challenge, Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 10:1, 28-36, DOI: 10.1080/10673220216206

Ronningstam, Elsa. (2017) Intersect between self-esteem and emotion regulation in narcissistic personality disorder - implications for alliance building and treatment Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 2017, Volume 4.

Ronningstam, Elsa. (2016). Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Recent Research and Clinical Implications. Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports. 3. 10.1007/s40473-016-0060-y.

Svenn Torgersen, John Myers, Ted Reichborn-Kjennerud, Espen Røysamb, Thomas S. Kubarych, and Kenneth S. Kendler (2012). The Heritability of Cluster B Personality Disorders Assessed Both by Personal Interview and Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Disorders: Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 848-866. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.848

Tritt, Shona M. et al., Pathological narcissism and the depressive temperament. Journal of Affective Disorders, Volume 122, Issue 3, 280 - 284

Psychology: http://psychreviews.org/category/psychology01/

[horizon-verizon]

Hi just recently started following you and finished watching the show,I love your posts thank you for sharing them!

As for the green dress debacle,I don't know I think it's worse than anyone thinks because if you just came into this show,the scene holds no significance whatsoever?

It's not even a establishing moment,you wouldn't even notice it if not for the color change and those two extras giving exposition in the most lazy way ever?

I am just not a fan idk.

Many things in this show make no sense because the context is changed and there is obvious bias towards one side and the one side they biased on are the villians.

Seriously this show should just be called misery,who watched this and actually came out rooting for anyone?

A whole bunch of the decisions make no sense,like a short headcount here:

Aegon is pathetic and entitled and supposedly plays a big role in here but half of the time you forget he is there,Heleana is a weirdo who is supposedly a dreamer and what she is completely fine with the fucked shit that is gonna go down and happen to her and her family?

Not to even mention the icky implications of her being autistic and that somehow being connected to that trend of only autistic people have special powers and also giving autistic traits to someone who has such a terrible fate in canon,and for what?

Aemond is a psycho with a brother/mother/sister/inferiority complex and daddy issues that the plot continues to justify because he was bullied?

Daeron isn't even there.

Alicent might as well not be there for all the fucking nothing she did. And she is a hypocrite who peddles the system because she gains from it.And despises everyone who isn't as miserable as her?Like really?

Also considering the age they all are supposed to be how is everyone still so political inept and naive?

This show is just weird,like it goes out of its way to demonize anyone with active agency and praises anyone who rolls with the system and this is supposed be realistic?

What kind of political agenda is this?

They went out of their way to take all the agency from Alicent because the evil stepmother trope is apparently sexist?

Yeah because evil woman don't exist right?

We are all saints and man are ruining everything.

Ugh.

Any time Rhaenyra makes a decision she is a evil whore that is controlled by her passions and any time Alicent continues her impressive impression of a doormat,oh gee she is suffering for everyone we should praise her,what a good woman/wife/mother.

Supposedly this is feminist.

Seriously I get the feeling that the show is trying villianize the Targaryens but is only popular because of them?

You know the writers just hate them because the favorites of the people they go out of their way to demonize and the ones they like they literally completely rewrote.

I am baffled.

Thank fuck for the decent cast.

@shokos-lazy-life, thank you for reading them!

I recommend alinahams, sweetestpopcorn, xenonwitch, azureflight, la-pheacienne, theblackqveen, mononijikayu, rhaenyragendereuphoria, jackoshadows, the-king-andthe-lionheart, thelustybraavosimaid, hamliet, darklinaforever, lady-corrine, and ozymalek for more in-depth analyses of the ASoIaF novels, AWoIaF, and F&B and the fandom. (If I pinged you, I tried not to, I'm sorry!)

"Not to even mention the icky implications of her being autistic and that somehow being connected to that trend of only autistic people have special powers and also giving autistic traits to someone who has such a terrible fate in canon,and for what?" I never considered that. But it is making these two separate things parallel like in more-faith-based views of the world that demonized or othered disability. Great catch!

Yeah, this show would be nothing without such amazing actors like Matt Smith, Emma D'Arcy, Paddy Considine, Olivia Cooke, Tom Glynn Carney, etc, Eve Best, Steve Toussaint, etc. There's too many. HBO relies on great actors to make up for their writers' terrible and misogynist scripts. It is known.

I mean, the costumes and hair....*shivers.

[cljordan-imperium]

FIND THE WORD TAG

I was tagged by @aohendo

I'm tagging - @frostedlemonwriter, @dogmomwrites and @silvertalonwritblr as well as Open Tag for anyone else who wants to

Your words are: revenge, inch, quaint, cup, and context

MY words are: manage, risk, hazard, assess, and mitigate

MANAGE

The tavern was full of different members of the legion in all manner of being, and all genders.  They mixed freely, being off duty and out of battle gear made them equals for the night.  There was no formality, no rigidity, and the atmosphere was relaxed and casual.  Despite the large crowd, neither Marcellus nor Sorina let the other out of their sight.  For a few hours they drifted around to different groups that were on opposite sides of the expanse of the tavern, but did manage to find their way back to being near one another at the bar soon enough.

RISK

I apparently didn't have risk in anything, so....some nice lore

Due to how deity bloodlines work, Cruz and Abriella are twins. While they are separated by approximately 1500 years, their mother is the same and their fathers were biologically the same. Lucifer had two sons by the same mother. One was Cruz's father, the other Abriella's. With their Divine blood, all impurities were driven out, leaving only the purity which makes them identical to one another. This is one of the reasons that Cruz is so protective of Abriella. He feels that this makes her uniquely able to be the only one to understand him. Additionally, when she came to the Chicago Sanctuary originally, she accepted him without question. Their love and bond is stronger than any other Imperium, Heaven, or any realm that has been visited so far by anyone you will meet. They are truly the epitome of the saying, "Family First, Family Always".

HAZARD

Another one that I have nothing for, so I'm going to give you the origin of a character. Thinnius, Co-Captain of the Queen's Royal Guard, Father of Talon, Former Knight of Abbadon, and best friend of Cruz.

As you can see he has quite the pedigree and standing. How he came to be is the most original way I have had one show up on scene yet. I am an Imagine Dragons fan and have been for years, even attending their concert in NOLA once. Their music has been inspiration for many a story of those you will read about in @theimperiumchronicles. When "Thunder" came out, Cruz and Arch latched onto it for some reason especially. As I was watching the video for some odd dozenth time, I had a small army (have you seen how many characters there are in my head) screaming they wanted Dan Reynolds as a character, specifically a Chaos Demon. He started out just as a lackey of Abbadon, a smart mouth chaos demon. Then Natural came out and it became the background for a piece with Cruz and Thinnius and it's just gone from there. Now he is in the middle of it and I think if I ever tried to take him or the ID music out of my writing, I'd have a full on revolt.

ASSESS

Something was off about the situation.  Kellen kept his thoughts hidden behind a mask of smug indifference and slight annoyance, only his eyes moving between the two males as he assessed the situation.  His expression didn’t falter when he figured out what it was, and he was impressed.  It was a test.  No doubt he was not the first to visit the Queen.  Why would she waste her time on those who could not conduct themselves properly and rein in their anger when prodded by those that royalty would normally consider inferior.  Let the mouthy guard prod and poke, those with less decorum would lose composure and she would not be required to deal with them.  A point in her favor before they even met. 

MITIGATE

Kellen stood for a moment considering what to do in order to keep the peace and mitigate the damage that was going to come of this delicate situation that he found himself in because of someone else’s failure.  Grae was being completely defiant and more protective than he’d ever seen him of anyone aside from himself, which told him that if he was not careful Persephone was going to be the least of his troubles by far.  Grae couldn't know who, let alone what, she was; therefore there was more at play than just egos, which meant Kellen had to act strategically in order not to have a war under his own castle’s roof.   “Slave, have you always served my sister?” He asked finally, deciding it was best to start at the beginning and get a good grasp on the situation he was facing.  When Grae opened his mouth to say something Kellen shot him a look that had him closing his mouth, but glaring at him in a way that made Kellen very glad Grae was not able to kill by just looking at someone.

THE IMPERIUM CHRONICLES TAG LIST (to give ya all sneak peaks and info too) - @writingpotato07, @saltysupercomputer, @careful-pyromancer, @late-to-the-fandom, @kjscottwrites and @ceph-the-ghost-writer

[nicknelsonmyson]

Getting into the discourse again because I just can't help myself. I have such mixed feelings about this article. On the one hand, I do think there IS a strand of purity culture running through SOME of the praise that exists for Heartstopper's lack of sex. I do think there is a sex-negative subtext to SOME of that conversation. And frankly it scares the ever-loving shit out of me. I think some of the trends this person has identified are real, and ARE problematic. Because here's the thing: LGBTQ people historically were victimized primarily because of the sex they had (or were presumed to have). The sex was the outrage. The sex was the crime. The sex was the Against God's Will/Plan. The sex was the thing that was demonized and that JUSTIFIED all the other injustices. The sex was the primary thing that made it 'evil'/sinful/wrong/bad/inferior/dirty/etc. (Which is why I HATE HATE HATE that people so often use the word "pure" to describe the show)

The sex was the ultimate Bad Thing about queerness.

And a lot of you have been playing into that idea (whether intentionally or not) by praising the show's lack of sex. Sorry. You have. I know you mean well. And I know a lot of you want to have (what is actually) a reasonable conversation about the issue of making teens into objects of sexual consumption for an adult gaze. Which is a fair conversation to have. But the way in which that conversation has taken place has been incredibly pathologizing to queer sex (if only unintentionally). And it is so incredibly, INCREDIBLY dangerous to get anywhere in the vague vicinity of pathologizing queer sex in the context of queer politics. That is SO regressive and harmful. Because you need to remember, the sex is the thing that is the most pathologized about queerness. Contributing to that demonization (even unintentionally) is SO goddamn dangerous. And a lot of you are at best getting dangerously close to pathologizing queer sex in the way you talk about Heartstopper.

That being said, the use of the term "heteronormative" here as a critique feels incredibly off-base. And in fact, if anything, Heartstopper's lack of sex is sort of the OPPOSITE in the sense that heterosexual teenage life has (at least since the 90s) been shown as VERY sexually active. Heartstopper is decidedly NOT conforming to norms of how most straight teen sex appears in media. (Granted, I think this person is using "heteronormative" more in the sense of 'societally palatable' as opposed to "norms established by heterosexual hegemonic culture") But nevertheless, if anything, Heartstopper is being held to entirely different standard than the teens in a lot of more 'heterosexual' media.

I have a lot more thoughts about this issue, but I'm going to leave it there for now. But yeah.

As much as I think it is reasonable to push back on the media trend of Teens as Sexual Fantasy for Adults, I also think that conversation w/r/t Heartstopper is not nuanced enough, and frequently plays into pathologizing queer sex, if only unintentionally. I also think there is a kind of general sex negativity that hangs around SOME of that conversation as well, and pardon the pun but, that crap needs to be put to bed.

[protagonistheavy]

I dont have time to rant much about it but JCA season 5 is off to a sucky start. Im glad there's only a handful of episodes left because man it's really lost the charm at this point.

First off, maybe most important even... why the fuck did they straight up ruin the theme song???? For WHAT reason!! They removed the first few measures of build-up from the song so the intro just BEGINS right in the middle, but the animation still plays from the beginning, so you have this intense music replacing what used to be a snippet of "urgent mystery." And seriously, for WHAT REASON? They don't add anything to the intro animation!! In fact it's actually shorter because they put Jade and Uncle's animations side-by-side rather than separate. Yet not only does it play the whole song, but it has to awkwardly loop one of the parts because it isn't long enough! I think they did this so the intro credits could have a few more seconds to show off a few more names lmao, which is just terrible. It's not like JCA had a boppin theme song but it got me in the mood! And now it just looks and sounds so bad, the action doesn't line-up, ugh.

Drago is an interesting concept for a villain but his ineptitude and attitude as a child/teenager makes him unimpressive as the main villain. Honestly the series has a had hard time since season 2 making new villains feel like proper successors; the move from Shendu to Shendu and his demon siblings was an AWESOME transition of power/stakes, but Daolong and Tarakuda were lackluster. Drago has way too many one-liners for a guy that gets kicked into walls by Jade.

That last point is another problem, which is that the action went back to being lazy again lol. It picked back up in season 4, but it's returned to season 3 levels of "just guys hitting each other," with not enough circumstance and environmental fighting. Jade doesn't have to do any tricks or kiddish maneuvers, she just kicks people around; Uncle zaps people with his magic fish while Tohru becomes less and less competent.

And oh Tohru, god they've made him a giggling child. It's honestly disturbing how little of his old self still seems around. I legitimately wondered if he went back to having Jade's chi like in that vampire episode lol, he's just so childish and naive now. A real bummer since Tohru was for sure one of the most compelling characters.

The Enforcers aren't around : ( Bad move, these are just such good and funny characters, and their replacements are simply not worthy. It IS funny to see Strikemaster Ice make a comeback, I wasn't expecting that lol, but him and his two buds are nowhere near as interesting as the Enforcers. Additionally, their Drago-given dragon-forms are just sooooo ugly, oh my god. Considering we already did the "turning henchmen into super-henchmen" thing once before, this is pretty hard to look at, clearly the inferior take on the idea. It's taken lifeless characters and made them look even more lifeless, harder to tell apart, and with nothing making them unique; when the Enforcers became Dark Chi Warriors, they had individual weapons that made them varied as fighters, but these guys are all just dragon things with fire powers, it's a real downgrade and just straight-up looks worse.

So this might be a disappointing end to JCA. I think what's unfortunate is that the series had so much innate charm that the writers didn't capitalize completely on, I genuinely think they just didn't have the creativity to make strong and emotional episodes that an adventure series like this needs. I think A LOT about one particular quote from Alex Hirsch... a show ten years ahead of JCA lol but still relevant. Alex explained that when writing an episode for Gravity Falls, the episode couldn't just be "evil tooth fairy," it had to be a compelling plot about, like, Mable loosing her teeth, or going to the dentist -- there had to be a human character arc that made the evil tooth fairy aspect have context and relevance. JCA badly needed this sort of emotional touch and thinking, because they clearly understand what COULD make the characters more compelling, but they failed to weave that into the episodes themselves. Take the episode about Jade's birthday -- which has NOTHING to do about Jade's birthday, other than it's something she keeps complaining about while they do typical episode stuff. In a better written version of the episode, the plot of Jade's birthday would be interconnected with things happening, it would serve a purpose -- but it's just a random element here, a random point to put pressure on the characters, that ultimately goes nowhere related to the rest of the episode.

Anyway I do love this show but after watching it almost completely, I suppose I do understand why this show didn't retain popularity. The first two seasons are great, but not so fantastic that it shines through its later, less impressive seasons. My brainrot tells me so many ways this series couldve been way more interesting lol, but something like this is super unlikely to inspire any remakes or reboots, so, it is what it is. A cute toon. The ultimate question I have to ask is: is it better than Kim Possible? It isn't. Kim Possible claims another head.

[otomeiromylife]

I finished Mashiro Kanoe’s route in Folie Fatale recently, and just wanted to write down a few thoughts into the internet void. This is a route and character analysis. For preface, he was my first route, this post contains spoilers, and heavy trigger warning for dark topics (in hashtags).

Here are my thoughts on Mashiro Kanoe.

When I first saw his description as the ‘kouhai, genius, self harmer’, I was expecting someone more like Azusa Mukami (DiaLovers) But Kanoe was surprisingly tsun! It makes sense why he is tsun and comes across as mean/apathetic. If he has no siblings or friends, a neglectful mother, and gets bullied at school, most of his interactions are going to be negative. I was curious as to why he so adamantly denies being bullied. I think this is because he is so deprived of interaction, that he doesn’t want to limit this into just ‘bullying’, as that label would dismiss the social interaction aspect. As evidenced by his endings (he stops self-harming because he doesn’t want a weak body, or he goes ballistic over being pitied), he clearly is also prideful. He views being bullied as pathetic, and something that makes him a victim, a label that he hates. Also, it could be alike to how his self-harm developed. He grew into masochism as a result of his self harm, so he probably finds it easier to deal with cruelty. Though, I don’t think he enjoys the cruelty, like a stereotypical ‘masochist’. I think he is only a masochist when it comes to physical sensations. I also think he is a sadist which I will touch on later.

I also think that his relationship with his peers is interesting. We don’t see much interaction with his classmates, other than the one bullying scene where they pretty much just call him a weird loser. Natsuki is his senpai, so above him in the hierarchy, and she also stands up to his bullies, so is not influenced by his peers that look down on him. This creates a degree of separation between him and Natsuki, which I think was what allowed their relationship to flourish. I was curious as to why he actually gets bullied. Because of his tsun/kuu nature, he acts in a way that people his age probably find ‘cool’. Because of the advertising of the game being ‘yandere men who go crazy for you’, and Kanoe being listed as 5/5 on the Radical measure on the official website, I was surprised by how easy he was to talk to. His route felt wholesome, even. He is weird, sure (Like when he said he told his mother that he is glad she neglected him, because it led to his self harm which he gets off on^? gets pleasure from.) but I think this is because of the degree of separation, him deeming Natsuki a nice person, and also her being his favourite person. I doubt he is saying things like that to his bullies/random classmates. His relationship to Natsuki’s senpais (Ren, Haruki, etc) is also interesting. He is seen to get very jealous of them. I think this is also because of the degree of separation. He feels like her classmates/senpais are closer to her because of their more shared context. And after he finally found his one friendship, this makes him feel like an outsider again. Also, his pride makes him hate being inferior. Because her senpais are above him in the hierarchy, this makes him feel pitiful and also threatens his masculinity. Which he wants to maintain, especially in his relationship with Natsuki.

Throughout his route, there was a question lurking in my mind; ‘Does he get sexual pleasure from blood/pain?’. It’s never properly addressed, but he says several things that could lead to the conclusion that he does. I wanted to explore that a little bit further. It is stated that he developed his self-harming habit as a way to calm himself down. When he feels his emotions overwhelming him, which he claims happens often and uncontrollably, seeing blood leak from him is soothing. This probably stems from his lack of control. He doesn’t have a reliable mother, which has a knock on effect of making his meals unpredictable, his house a mess, and he has no one to advocate for him. The self harm leads to emotional control, which is the only control he can have. This is understandable. However, he also claims several times that he gets pleasure from self harming. It is difficult to say whether or not he is conflating pleasure with relief. Let’s look at the scene of his first CG. As we discover him cutting himself, he doesn’t seem visibly in pleasure. Rather, he seems to be very emotionally fragile in this moment. He is anxious that Natsuki likes other people more than himself, and he even seems to feel a little bit guilty that he is making her witness it. His line ���I did already tell you I cut myself, so you shouldn’t be surprised’ comes across to me as recognising the distress that she is experiencing, and reassuring her that it is nothing to worry about. His Unease ending also has a CG which shows wounds on his lower abdomen and wrists. He doesn’t look to be in pleasure at this moment. The position of the cuts is strange however, why are there some right above his groin? This could be because that’s where he thinks will cause the most damage, or possible sexual pleasure, but that seems unlikely. It was just an interesting artistic decision that I wanted to flag up briefly.

His character design can also give us a few hints that may help answer my question. His casual outfit, which he wears on their date, has his blood type written on his jacket, there are blood-filled syringes, and an ocean of blood (not real hopefully) towards the bottom. This definitely shows that he, to some extent, worships/idolises blood. His bloodbag earrings, which he also wears to school, show blood is, for him, a positive (A Positive, if you will). The way he discusses his self harm is also abnormal. It is almost like he is bragging about it. He also has this slightly braggadocios tone when talking about other sad things in his life such as his absent father. This seems strange, as he hates being pitied. But if he talks about it as if it were a point of pride, it becomes a point of pride. In his mind, it gives him ‘cool points’. What I don’t think he understands is how this instead leads to people pitying him. Circling back to the blood topic, I think he idolises blood because of the control and relief/pleasure it gives him. Since he has no other people, he instead worships objects. This is evidenced by his Remission (good) Ending, where he gives up self harm now that he has Natsuki by his side. However, in that ending, he also takes her to a blood donation centre? He also spoke of it as ‘the place where we can feel good’, which led me (and Natsuki) to believe they were going to a love hotel.

The Insanity Ending can also tell us about his relationship with pain. Why I said he is a sadist earlier, is because of how he treats Natsuki here. It is important to note that this is the Insanity ending for a reason, and his actions may not reflect his character in this moment. It depends on whether you think his actions are a reflection of his inner desires, or not. In this CG, he has made several cuts into Natsuki’s body, enough for her bleeding to make the bath water opaque with red. Whereas, Kanoe himself is (visibly) unharmed. This could be because he is punishing Natsuki for pitying him. However, because of his idolisation with blood, he could also have been trying to share his own pleasure with her. Another possibility is that he enjoyed hurting her, just as he enjoys hurting himself. This would make him a sadist. But is this sadism sexual in nature? In the CG, she is naked and unconscious. He is also naked and pressing her body against his own. This is sexual assault. Even if he didn’t intend for it, it is definitively sexual assault. It is unclear what he did to her body whilst she was unconscious, but we know he at least stripped her, and cut her with a knife. It is not definitive, but it is also possible that he raped her. That is what I think is being implied by this scene. I think this shows some element of sexual sadism. This is backed up by the instances strangulation and murder, where he is seen smiling.

It is difficult to answer my question ‘Does he get sexual pleasure from blood/pain?’. Whilst writing my analysis, my opinion shifted somewhat. I now think that he does not get sexual pleasure from it. However, it is complicated. I think his emotional state is very messy, which is clear from his description of overwhelming emotions. I think the line between pleasure and relief is highly blurred for him. Though it is possible that it shifted more into pleasure overtime, I think it is more likely that he is trying to convince himself he receives pleasure, as relief is a less positive emotion. He also thinks that he cannot experience happiness or unhappiness, which is clearly untrue. This evidences that his descriptions of emotions may not be entirely accurate.

Another thing in his route that I wanted to talk about is his trait of being a genius. I do not think that it is written well. However, I do understand that Folie Fatale is a short, indie game, so there was not much time in his route to explore this trait. The only mentions of his intelligence is in reference to his app, or his good grades. The app is very important to him, and it is very impressive that this 15 year old can code, however, does that make him a genius? He is definitely talented, but it is not really shown why he is a genius. Because of his official character description of ‘天才x自傷癖’ (genius and self-harm habit), I expected his intelligence to play more of a role in his character and route. His high grades are also impressive, but I think it would have been better if they weren’t just mentioned in a small, optional bit of text. If he is truly a genius, I think it would have been better if this was shown in his dialogue. I don’t mean he should’ve spoken with lots of academic lexis, but rather, he should’ve had moments where he outsmarts the other characters, or knows things they don’t. Another small criticism I have with his route is that it’s never really explained why he has lots of time off of school? It is in his character description on the official website, but as far as I remember, it’s never actually addressed or explained in his route. Given what his route revealed about his character, it could be that his improper housing led to illness, his app development took up lots of time, he was too depressed to go to school, he didn’t want to be bullied that day, etc. It would have been nice to have some clarification

Despite my criticism, I really enjoyed his route! It had a nice mixture of wholesome and dark, and I just like the guy. He kind of reminds me of myself when I was his age, which definitely reflects poorly on me, but it led to me developing extra sympathy for him. I don’t think he is a bad person, but he is clearly very broken, and in need of a very talented counsellor. The Japanese level was also quite tough. I am an intermediate learner, and I struggled quite a bit with this route, however you never learn if you don’t challenge yourself. It also didn’t feel short for me, because I was constantly pausing to look words up in the dictionary, lol. The game was also cheap. I bought it for £4 on Steam and it is worth way more than that! I am feeling very excited about the future routes, and will be playing Ren’s next. If you are still reading this and you haven’t played the game already, I highly recommend it! Just do it!

There may be some things I missed, due to memory, poor Japanese comprehension, etc. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts and opinions on Kanoe and this game! This game really needs more love in the anglophone community.

He is also just really cute… ♡

[bilbobagginsomebabez]

tbh they’re engaging a bigot in argument with other bigots watching; I wouldn’t take arguments in that context as the true nature of their whole belief system.

the person who said “if you feel this way, fine” is appealing to the conservative sense of dignified pageantry and white supremacist notions of what constitutes a ‘civilized people’ in order to civility-politics conservatives into controlling their racist bloodlust in public. which, if effective, does create a chilling effect on unabashed displays of violent fascist fantasies by people in a position of power (a good thing). the person prefaced this civility politics argument with a separation between themselves and their argument from arguments that have already been dismissed as the petty concerns of woke snowflakes. in essence, “i’m Different from the people you’ve already dismissed and I also say shut the fuck up but for a new reason you should take seriously.”

this is why I say it’s a skill to argue with fascists and just not to engage if you don’t have any rhetorical versatility. because this is what it looks like. fascists are familiar enough with leftist language and leftist ideology to dismiss anything related to it or similar to it. you have to hide your argument inside their rhetoric and expectations. in this case, using their own purported expectation of appropriate and civil behavior against them.

that being said, I do not think that this is an effective argumentation tactic and it’s not one that I would use. it fails because conservatives only demand civility on behalf of people they consider fully human, not to those they’ve already unpersoned. pretenses of civility only remain until there’s an excuse to drop them and “meet savagery with savagery,” a belief rooted in eugenicist theories of racial hierarchies and how “inferior” “savage” races are physically stronger and more violent while “civilized” “superior” races are physically weaker but more intelligent. when white supremacist fascists are met with the consequences of their own violence (like anti-American sentiment fomenting in the 20yr long war zone we caused), they take it instead as proof of their racial hierarchies and permission to leave behind their intellectual superiority and embrace brute violence to fight against a physically stronger and “savage” threat.

so while I think this is a bad and ineffective argument, i’m not as inclined to automatically assume that this person is a fascist or happy about and supportive of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry or calls for violence against them. I think they’re probably saying shit that they think (or hope) will convince fascists to be quieter. they could be tho! they could actually be fine with the racism and truly believe that civility politics are important for respectability and white civilization. I do not know. but neither do you. tbh it’s close to impossible to judge someone off of two sentences.

[pacificleo]

The COURAGE TO BE DISLIKED

No experience is in itself a cause of our success or failure we do not suffer from the shock of our experiences - the so-called trauma - but instead, we make it of them whatever suits our purpose. We are not determined by our experience but the meaning we give them is self-determining.

Regardless of what may have happened in the past, it is the meaning that is attributed to it that determines the way someone’s present will be.

People are not driven by past causes but move toward goals that they themselves set.

Answers from others are nothing more than stopgap measures; they are of no value. Take Socrates he spent his days having a public debate with common people. Real learning is the process of learning.

We can't change what we are born with. It is not a replacement we need but a renewal.

The greek word for good is “agathon“ does not have a moral meaning: It just means “useful”. And the word for evil is “kakon” which means “not useful”.

Although there are some minor inconveniences and limitations, we probably think that the lifestyle we have now is the most practical one. and that it's just easier to leave things as they are .

We are unhappy because we lack the courage to be happy.

it is only in the social context that a person becomes an individual. To feel lonely we need shadows of other people. To feel lonely we need to be felt excluded from them.

The inferiority complex is just the tendency to use feelings of inadequacy as an excuse.

We are not the same but we are equal.

Two rules of transformation: “ I have the ability” and “People are my comrades”

Etiology: the study of the cause. Why something happened,

Teleology: Study of goals, What purpose it is serving?

The need for recognition from others implies the existence of a hierarchy . We are NOT leaving to fulfill other people’s expectations.

The need of recognition is a result of reward and punishment-based education

SEPARATION OF TASKs.

With family and friends, there is very little distance so it is more important to have clear boundaries and separation of tasks.

Children who have not been taught to confront challenges will try to avoid all challenges.

A desire for recognition is just a cover for the lack of courage to be disliked.

Courage to be happy == Courage to be disliked

Emotions don't exist without intentions. We feel a certain way because we want to be a certain way.

Do Not rebuke or praise. Both instill hierarchy.

Avoid all vertical relationships, Always look for horizontal relationships.

The assistance should not become an intervention.

It's not the self-affirmation that we are concerned with but self-acceptance.

Resignation is an act of seeing clearly with fortitude and acceptance.

IF you are SAD be SAD fully.

Accept yourself on the level of being not just on the level of act. you don't have to be useful to world , you just have to BE.

Live Life like you are dancing.

Life is a stage. Shine a bright light on yourself. when you do so you can’t see tomorrow . you live in present.

Life is simple World is simple .

[bookwyrminspiration]

Keefe definitely sees the Elven world differently now that he has lived in the human world. The Elven world always irritated me in a way because the adults seem so young. Most elves have hardly dealt with anything complicated or difficult, so they seem to be very young emotionally. They are always happy or excited, which is particularly irritating to see. The human world is a lot more complex than the Elven world, as humans have to deal with disease, assault, and death a lot more often than elves do. Their feelings are also a lot more complex, as the elves only seem to feel happy, sad and jealousy. I think Keefe will go back to the Lost Cities, then realize that he has outgrown the Lost Cities. He wants to go back to the complexity of human emotions, and their complex societal systems. I think he should talk to Sophie about this, as she would most certainly understand where he is coming from. Perhaps she could bond with him over this.

I agree, I doubt everything that happened in that period of his life can be passed off, the matter is just what changed about him and to what extent. We don't know what he experienced, so knowing what he's learned and how it impacted him is difficult.

One question I have is whether Keefe could be said to ever belong to the Lost Cities, and if he can truly outgrow them if they were never his. The Lost Cities, while his only home, aren't a place he fits. It hasn't been kind to him, nor him to it (although in different ways than other characters, like Dex and the twins). He has no particular attachment to it that I can see (he's not close with many people) and little problem leaving it behind.

Another is whether Keefe would prefer complexity or ease in emotion. While human emotions may be more complex, they're sensed through the air. Is that, even if he wants it, a sustainable option to pick? He's already gone partially numb, and Sophie spent seven years of her life in misery from the constant barrage of thoughts; emotions can't be much better. Even if elves can be said to be inferior emotionally, is the peace of mind more valuable than risking himself?

I do think it's a valuable bonding opportunity with plenty of potential. Even the few weeks he had is more than all her other friends (Fitz just visited from the sidelines), and it's a common ground she only shared with Forkle, who never says anything on it. Some of the things he now knows may give him insight on what it's like to be Sophie, who has a completely different set of knowledge and background than everyone around her. She may also be able to further explain some of his experiences and provide context/guidance for them.

I hope we get to learn more about his experiences in the Lost Cities, because while I understand that he needed to leave to process and separate himself from everyone, at the same time everything happening with him was made very important to the plot, so having this huge gap is a tad annoying. I mean, he left afraid to speak a word and comes back numb with full sentences. I'd like to see the bridge between those two.

[goblinofthesun]

(For context, right before we start, I am going to be earning my doctorate in clinical psychology at the end of this month and I specialize in developmental trauma and its consequences.)

The idea that "mental illness is just wonky brain chemistry" is a fairly new one, and the way it was developed is pretty backwards. It comes from studies looking at how antidepressant medications impact brain functioning. When these studies were first done, researchers noticed that after taking an SSRI, the patient's brain had way more available serotonin in it (this is a way simplification) and so they concluded that their findings must mean that depression is just a lack of serotonin. But this logic makes absolutely no sense. Like if a researcher sat me down and fed me cereal to see if they can fix my hunger, and after I ate the cereal I no longer felt hungry, so they would conclude that my hunger must be because I don't have enough cereal in my body. It is so infuriating because not only is it bad science, but it's also probably not true!

Sure, there are mental health conditions that are largely based on brain chemistry and/or structure like bipolar or schizophrenia, but there is also no way to know which came first. For example, in the brains of people with schizophrenia, the ventricles (cavities in the middle of your brain designed to hold cerebral spinal fluid, again an oversimplification) are enlarged. But is schizophrenia a result of enlarged ventricles, or are enlarged ventricles a consequence of schizophrenia? In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

(As a side note, different theories for the development of psychotic/schizospec disorders is really interesting. A theory that I'm particularly drawn to is that in the childhood homes of people who later develop schizospec disorders, there's a lot of "crazy-making" happening. By that I mean that parents of these children will just outright deny reality, as in something will happen and the parents will gaslight their children and basically say "no it didn't." The theory is that this is really confusing for a child and they have no way to differentiate fantasy (their parent's report) from reality (what actually happened) and this pattern of cognition is what snowballs and leads to the development of schizospec disorders. Even here, we can see the influence of developmental trauma.)

As a clinical psychologist, I am trained to look at mental health and people through a theoretical lens. The one I use is Adlerian, the branch of psychodynamic psychotherapy led by Alfred Adler. One of the core tenets of Adlerian psychology is that of teleology, basically that every behavior happens for a reason, that behavior is purposeful and is an attempt to move us toward our goal of superiority (moving from a "felt minus to a felt plus") and perfection. (Adlerian psychology could be its own post, but, again, I'm simplifying it for the purposes of this reply). Mental health is no exception. Going back to my depression example, in an Adlerian lens, depression is used as a way to withdraw and, in essence, take a break. The person's subjective world is so overwhelming, they often feel they have no ability to decrease their load or stress, things just keep piling up and spiral out of control. In order to feel better, move away from feelings of inferiority, they have the mistaken goal that if they withdraw, if they self-isolate, their demands will decrease and they'll be less overwhelmed. I said "mistaken goal" here on purpose because while depression does achieve the end of lessening their demands, it creates other problems and will probably not move them toward a "felt plus." In therapy with a client like this, I would work on recognizing limits, setting boundaries, increasing encouragement and self-confidence, and engaging with community in ways that are manageable and not so overwhelming.

But to get back to the original question, I do think that you're right. Separating out mental illness from "physical" illness is a form of Cartesian dualism and it's a more polite way to say "it's all in your head." I read a really interesting article this morning that pointed out the dangers of Cartesian dualism.

"What is so destructive about Cartesian dualism of mind and body is that it abstracts subjective life from the objective conditions of its existence, obscures how the socio/economic forces infiltrate and infect subjectivity, and tends to lead us to other forms of dualistic separations: rich vs. poor, first-world vs. third-world, women vs. men, Caucasians vs. all other ethnicities, in which one side of the dualism is valued for their exceptional minds (they are the subjects of modern society), and the other side is reduced to their bodies--they are the physical laborers or have bodies men desire (they are reduced to objects to be used by the subjects)" (Riker, 2020, p. 232).

Cartesian dualism is an artificial separation of our Self from our physical existence. The "mental illness is just bad brain chemicals" is one outward representation of this concept. If we can just "fix the problem" (i.e., change one's brain chemistry), then we don't have to think about the ways in which our capitalist society is creating the problem in the first place.

"Economic society needs such masterful, bounded, empty persons, for they keep insatiably consuming the disposable, non-essential goods of capitalist production in an attempt to fill up the emptiness they experience at their cores. And, in order to keep insatiably consuming, they have to keep ceaslessly working. That is, capitalist society is creating just the kind of human beings it needs in order to sustain its feverish productivity and lifestyles" (Riker, 2020, p. 231).

The brain-chemistry theory of mental illness is a distraction and is a tool used to distance us from our Selves, from those around us, and from the real problem, capitalism.

As someone who has studied and works a lot with developmental trauma, I honestly don't think that anyone can grow up in our current society without incurring some level of developmental trauma. Most of the time, the trauma I see in my office comes from parents, but I've also seen schools, peers, medical professionals, teachers, politicians, random strangers as perpetrators of developmental trauma. Capitalism is inherently traumatizing. Kyriarchy is inherently traumatizing. School is inherently traumatizing! There is no way to escape from it and I see the consequences of it every single day. Even someone without "trauma" and "simple" mental health problems like depression or generalized anxiety, I can usually find some traumatizing instance during their developmental years, even if they do not recognize it as being traumatizing. (Another side note: a trauma does not have to be traumatizing. A trauma becomes traumatizing when it overwhelms your ability to cope, but that doesn't mean it has no effect on the individual experiencing it. It just doesn't rise to meet the level of posttraumatic stress.)

There's this idea in trauma-centered therapy spaces that you cannot heal in the environment that traumatized you. But what if the world is what traumatized you? What then? What do you do? It feels so hopeless and the individual feels so helpless so it's better to just not acknowledge the actual problem and focus on something we can "fix" like brain chemistry. (And there's not even great evidence that psychiatric medication helps all that much! Most studies looking at the effects of, particularly, antidepressants show that they don't work better than placebo! Which is just more evidence that the "brain chemistry" theory of mental illness is inaccurate.)

This is just my own musing and I’m sure someone else who knows about the social history of psychiatry/psychology has an actual answer but the more I learn about developmental and relational trauma the more the idea of “mental illness is just weird brain chemicals for no reason 👀” feels like a devil’s bargain we made as a culture. Like, stigma around common mental health issues can start to lift as long as we can agree to look at it in a vacuum and don’t poke around too much.

And that’s parts of that agreement that are very limiting and slows systemic change but at the same time it feels protective and in a way I’m glad I can hide under it? “A lot of people are anxious / depressed just because ” allows for privacy and selective disclosure.

[yiling-daddy]

Yes, that was me! I can definitely expand on my thoughts re: how Madam Yu’s behaviour reads differently to me due to my traditional, Chinese upbringing.

There is a lot of subjectivity as to whether Madam Yu can be read as abusive, and this reading is often influenced by culture—hence you often see completely off-base takes floating around. However, to me, the way that cultural context influences the reading will actually change depending on the relationship, so I will discuss each one separately. Most of the culturally insensitive takes are about her being an abusive or uncaring mother (she’s not), or that she’s a spurned woman (it’s more complicated than that), so you can skip down to the JC, JYL, and CSSR sections for that.

Madam Yu and Wei Wuxian

As a trend, I think western fandom tends to simplify Wei Wuxian’s dynamic with the Jiang family into an entire adopted family. Consequently, Yu Ziyuan gets perceived as this two-dimensional, evil stepmom figure—but I think this doesn’t capture the truth.

There’s a bit more variability among Chinese audiences when they read the Jiang family dynamic, partly due to our deeper familiarity with wuxia tropes, but mostly because there's a mediocre Netflix translation colouring the western interpretation. Though many Chinese fans do view them all as a sort of family unit and read Madam Yu as a stepmother, I do not. To me, Jiang Fengmian and Jiang Yanli view Wei Wuxian as family—but Madam Yu does not. Madam Yu views him as a servant, a disciple of the sect, and an outsider at the dinner table—and it’s not wrong for her to do so. It’s not gracious, but it’s not unfounded. I don’t think Wei Ying ever gives any indication that he views her as a mother, either.

If you agree that they don’t have anything like a mother-son relationship, all these insults/complaints that Yu Ziyuan levels at him—that he’s the “son of a servant”, that Jiang Fengmian is weird for openly favouring Wei Wuxian over his own son, etc.—these start to make sense? Like, it’s shitty to listen to, but none of it is wrong. Suddenly it reads less like pointless insults and more like actual points.

Additionally, if we consider that Wei Wuxian is a disciple of the sect who goes around and raises the ire of the Wen clan, corporal punishment suddenly looks very normal (again, within the culture). Hence, when I watched the donghua and CQL, I hated seeing Wei Wuxian getting whipped, but I didn’t perceive this as abuse—especially because of the political nature of the decision.

But it is definitely still possible to mistreat a disciple.

In CQL, you see Madam Yu throwing an unnecessary amount of vitriol at Wei Ying. In the novel extras, it's revealed that she regularly whipped him but never whipped the other disciples, indicating that it wasn't normal corporal punishment. She also whipped him for absurdly stupid reasons. To me, this signals that she tended to abuse her authority over him. Even if you don’t view her as an abusive mother to Wei Ying, it's fair to read her as an abusive authority figure.

Importantly however, "abuse" is a loaded word suggesting a violation of social norms, and again, the situation is complicated because the social norms of the setting don't match those of the modern world. Madam Yu is not overstepping her bounds as master of Lotus Pier—hence, people do not think very much of this treatment in-universe, including Wei Ying himself.

Madam Yu, Jiang Cheng, and Jiang Yanli

Okay, when I first watched CQL, I cringed when Madam Yu started dragging her family because she sounded like My Actual Chinese Mother. I felt for a second like I had transmigrated into Jiang Cheng’s body and I was experiencing his agony firsthand!

Madam Yu reads very realistically, and I think this is why it gets personal for a lot of Chinese people when this fandom discusses her character. Yes, she belittles and hurts her children for their perceived failures, but many Chinese people can tell you that this is just a common parenting style. And while it might look like bullying to an outsider, this behaviour is usually motivated by love. It is often also motivated by fear that the child’s future will be substandard. This is textually obvious when you consider what exactly Madam Yu yells about:

She snaps at Yanli to stop peeling lotus pods, because she shouldn’t act like a servant. If Yanli keeps behaving so passively, what kind of role is she going to fall into in the future—especially given that she is not a cultivator?

She berates Jiang Cheng for always being inferior to Wei Wuxian no matter what he does. If Jiang Cheng is constantly overshadowed by Wei Wuxian, what will that mean for his future as sect leader? Or his future status and reputation among the sects?

I can do these Chinese Mom Translations because parents in real life will actually say things like this out of concern for their children (insults included), in an attempt to motivate them... and it really does light a fire under our asses. I attribute many of my personal successes to this parenting style. Thus, when I see posts like “Madam Yu didn’t show any sign of caring for others” or "Madam Yu was a purely selfish and arrogant person" or “Madam Yu is an abusive mother and nothing else"—well, I can tell most of these people are not Chinese, or if they are, then they likely did not have a traditional upbringing.

While I don't think these uninformed readings of Madam Yu are necessarily racist, I do think they they are unpleasant for Chinese fans to constantly see. For those of us in the west that had this type of upbringing, we often struggle with trying to frame and process our relationships with our parents. For me, this was partly due to the emotional baggage of my upbringing (Jiang Cheng winning!!!)... but it was also because white society kept telling me that my parents didn't give a shit about me when obviously they did. That’s fucked up to experience. It reeks of cultural imperialism. Thus, when I see Chinese people getting annoyed at these Madam Yu takes, I’m not surprised. This is unfortunately a fictional discussion that very much resembles a real one for us.

Yu Ziyuan, Jiang Fengmian, and Cangse Sanren

A lot of people view Madam Yu as a spurned woman and assume that is her motivation for constantly antagonizing Wei Wuxian and her husband. But because I assume that a lot of her chaotic yelling stems from her concerns as an Actual Chinese Mother, my take is different.

Remember the scene where Madam Yu catches Jiang Fengmian scolding Jiang Cheng just after praising Wei Wuxian? She drags Jiang Cheng up to his father and, in both CQL and the donghua, says something to this effect (paraphrased from memory):

This is your son, the future master of Lotus Pier! Even if you don’t like him because he was born to me, his surname is still Jiang!

And in CQL, she also says this right after berating Jiang Cheng for not measuring up to Wei Wuxian:

But it’s not your fault. Your mother is no match for his mother.

Yu Ziyuan isn’t angry about Cangse Sanren because she’s jealous; she is angry about Cangse Sanren because she thinks Jiang Fengmian’s feelings for her are jeopardizing his competence as a father to Jiang Cheng. Viewed in this light, it also makes sense why Yu Ziyuan is hostile to Wei Wuxian in a way that alienates him from the family—constantly calling him the son of a servant, pointing out the rumours about his parentage, etc. She’s not doing this because she hates Cangse Sanren or Wei Wuxian; she’s doing it because Wei Wuxian’s presence in the family is threatening Jiang Cheng’s future in her eyes.

Bonus: Did Yu Ziyuan love Jiang Fengmian?

Yes! In both the donghua and CQL (I ashamedly admit I don’t clearly remember the novel), I thought their final moments made it quite evident that they cared for each other. They fought together, died together to protect their home, and reached out to one another in their final moments.

But when I rewatched Madam Yu’s scenes in CQL and the donghua, I realized we got other hints that westerners probably missed. I'll focus on CQL:

Right before Jiang Fengmian sets off with Yanli for Lanling, Madam Yu sees them off. She gives Yanli some snacks and then—without making eye contact with Jiang Fengmian—says that she’s also giving them medicine in case someone gets a headache. Jiang Fengmian pauses, because it’s obviously for him.

This is recognizable behaviour for a lot of Chinese people. I can’t tell you how many times my mother got apoplectic at me, and then the only follow-up was her going out of her way to make me my favourite meal. The chaotic yelling you see between Jiang Fengmian and Yu Ziyuan is also pretty typical to many Chinese parents, and again, the follow-up in my household was often one of them going out of their way to do something for the other.

This is just how the culture is in a lot of families. “Sorry” isn’t expressed in words; it's expressed in actions. “I love you” isn’t expressed in words; it’s expressed in actions. In Chinese culture, the dominant love language is acts of service. It's fleeting, but we get glimpses of that kind of love between Yu Ziyuan and Jiang Fengmian.