#Moral Action Vs Religious Activity | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

doomhands-jr · 3 months

Text

The Devil's Advocate - Chapter 7

Pairing: Delinquent!Noah Sebastian X Pastor's Daughter!Reader

Summary: Noah is a delinquent with a lot of anger at the church. You're a pastor's daughter plagued by moral perfectionism, charged with overseeing the community service he's been sentenced to complete. You've never encountered true temptation before. How will you fare up against Noah, who not only isn't bound by the same rules of purity as you, but actively scoffs at them?

Rating: 18+ Minors DNI

Warnings: Angst, religious guilt, mentions of religious trauma, mentions of masturbation. Mentions of anti-choice propaganda.

Masterlist

Banner by @flowerynerds

Authors note: Maybe grab a cup of tea for this one.

_________

Noah Davis didn’t like to think of his actions in terms of morality. He understood that right and wrong were subjective. That life didn’t exist in binaries of good vs. evil, and that things like virtue and righteousness weren’t so easily defined.

That didn’t mean there weren’t some steadfast rules he followed:

Do his best to act in a way that aligns with his internal moral compass

Reduce harm much as possible

Do what’s best for the collective, while still keeping his best interests in mind

That line of thinking has served him well over the course of his lifetime. He’d freed himself from moral obligations and had done what he truly felt was best, and in doing so, he was able to walk through life with his head held high, standing by his actions.

The idea that some of his behavior was sinful had not entered his mind since he formally left the church.

But now, as he laid in bed, recovering from the tsunami of brain chemicals that just flooded his system, he felt like a sinner .

The sin coursed through his body, sick and bittersweet. It flowed through his veins, infecting his cells and rotting his bones like a poison. Like a drug.

He scrubbed a hand over his face, clammy palm meeting clammy forehead, cock still twitching with the aftershock.

He’d expected you to put up more of a fight. He’d banked on you shutting him down, batting him away and telling him to behave himself, but you’d walked so willingly into his snare, so eager and needy, offering up yourself on a platter with almost no hesitation.

It was a vile thing that you brought out of Noah. An ugly, profane creature that lurked in the shadows of his soul. He’d been aware of its existence in his periphery. It had been a sleeping beast. One he’d hoped he’d never have to contend with.

But now? It had taken its first shuddering breath, and with it, thrown down its gauntlet. Its demand? You—not as a partner, but as a sacrifice. Sprawled out on an altar for it to consume and defile. To claim for the sake of hubris.

Noah longed to find a way to cleanse himself—confess his sins and pray the rosary. Baptize himself in holy water. Take communion and walk forth a forgiven man. Would that be enough?

War had been waged within Noah, and the odds were stacked against him. He was David, standing at the feet of Goliath. Jonah, staring down the gullet of the whale.

He squeezed his eyes shut and the image of you at the apex of pleasure flashed across his vision. You’d made that offering to him. It was sacred. He’d cherish it for the rest of his life.

_______

Noah had no holy water available to him to wash his sins away. He did have a hot shower, though, and at least that was a start.

Turning on the water, he allowed the steam to gather in clouds around his bathroom. His skin had grown sticky with sweat, and his shoulders ached. As soon as he stepped under the spray, the tension began to dissipate.

He pressed his forehead against the cool tile wall and allowed the stream to trickle down his back.

He had a duty to himself—and to you. There was no denying his affection for you, but therein lied a glaring problem: you were ready for more. You deserved more. You deserved to push past these boundaries of purity and explore who you were outside of faith, and that made you vulnerable. Because whatever sickness lived inside Noah was itching to exploit that vulnerability. Not for your benefit, but for its own.

“Help me figure this out,” he whispered against the shower wall. It was a prayer in the most ironic sense. He wasn’t sure if he even believed in what he was praying to, but without any other ideas, it felt like the right thing to do. “I don’t want to hurt her, but I’m afraid.”

He received nothing but silence in response.

He scoffed at his own actions. What did he expect? Divine understanding?

He grabbed the soap, lathering it up before scrubbing it over his disgusting, unclean body. Why did he even bother? He learned long ago that nobody was going to save him but himself. If he wanted his demons to die, he’d have to be the one to kill them.

________

On a snowy Sunday morning, Noah didn’t have a church to attend, but he did have a pair of work boots, a heavy coat, and a trail through the woods that allowed him to commune with nature.

He also had a pre-roll he stole from Nick, which he cupped against his jacket to light. It took a few tries. The wind wasn’t biting, but it was present, and it flickered the flame in his lighter. He eventually got it lit though, and he took a deep drag, holding the smoke in his lungs and waiting for it to take effect.

Exhaling slowly through his nose, he closed his eyes to focus on the high setting in. His body began to lift, a warm, cloudy, hollow feeling expanding out from his chest to his limbs, and ten minutes later, the joint was spent and Noah was intricately connected to the forest around him.

He walked on the trail, delighting in the way the frozen leaves crunched under his boots. He forgot his gloves again, so he stuffed his hands in his pockets as he walked.

You were probably in church right now. Might even be on stage leading the praise and worship music alongside Isaac, where you were safe.

No, that wasn’t true. You deserved more than the life you’d find within the church. If you stayed put, you’d eventually find yourself on the arm of some 30-something with a trust fund and a perfect attendance record at Sunday school. You’d have to hide who you were from society, pretending to fit in where you didn’t belong.

Noah dug his nails into the palms of his hands. He wanted you to have more than that, but he wasn’t the right person to give it to you. At least not in his current state.

Giving up the idea of you was painful, yes. But it also gave him time to figure out how to contend with the ugly parts of himself. If he could let go of his desire for you, then he wouldn’t have to risk that part of him taking over. He could lock it back into the cage he’s kept it in for so many years and continue on in life as if nothing had ever happened.

He’d never have to know that hunger again.

He breathed in deep, allowing the frigid air to sting his lungs and throat. It wasn’t painful enough for him. He needed to toil and sweat and suffer to repent for his sins. He picked up his pace, letting his feet fall heavy onto the ground. Within a few minutes, his heart rate sped up, lungs stretching to accommodate his increased need for oxygen. All systems firing to pump fresh blood through his body.

That helped. Maybe he could sweat the fever out. Force the toxicity to exit through carbon dioxide and leave it as an offering to the forest so it can convert it back to oxygen.

He broke out into a run, thinking back to the time he caught you running in the rain and wondering if you’d been seeking the same energetic cleanse.

You’d cried in his arms that night.

He slowed his pace, down from a run to a jog.

It was the first time he’d noticed something wrong—the first time he sensed that his control was slipping.

A stray root caught his foot and he fell hard to the ground, catching himself with his palms and knees. He stayed there for a moment to assess his body and see if any damage had occurred, and when he found none, he rolled onto his back and laid in the snow and mud, stretching his arms and legs to the side and creating a snow angel.

The snow fell lightly, catching on his eyelashes. He stuck out his tongue, allowing the tiny flakes to melt upon contact and tasting the nothingness of it all.

He closed his eyes, and he was thirteen again. A nude magazine lay open on his floor. He’d just finished masturbating for the third time that day. Sobbing, he grabbed the leather belt hanging over his desk chair and whipped himself across the back with it. Harder this time than last. Perhaps with enough pain, he would learn his lesson.

He bunched a shirt up and stuffed it into his mouth, biting down hard to muffle himself as he wept. God surely wouldn’t forgive him again after this. He would be sent to hell for being so unclean.

For months, he’d tried to break this disgusting habit, but it was to no avail. He was sick and perverted, and lacked the self-control he needed to resist temptation.

He didn’t want to go to confessional. He didn’t want to have to hear his priest’s disappointed voice telling him to say ten hail-marys.

He took a deep, shuddering breath in, noticing how the icy air stabbed at his lungs. He didn’t want to dwell too long on that memory. He could already feel his throat constricting.

It wasn’t until he befriended Ruffilo that he realized he wasn’t uniquely perverted. Ruffilo hadn’t been raised in a church. He talked about porn as if it was something exciting, rather than shameful. He’d been the first one to bring up the subject of masturbation, making casual comments and jokes about how often he got himself off.

Ruffilo’s world—a world without shame—had been a foreign concept to Noah. After being exposed to it, he realized that faith and freedom were mutually exclusive. There was no way to balance the two, so he chose freedom and never looked back.

Noah’s fingers found a frozen leaf. He caressed the edges, feeling how smooth they were and remembered brushing bits of leaves off your coat that time you’d jumped in the leaf pile. He remembered how you gasped when his frigid hands ghosted over the nape of your neck. He could have cut the tension with a knife.

He couldn’t go back to the church. There was too much pain there to revisit. He cut off that part of him a long time ago, back when believing in God meant engaging in his own self-destruction.

Being with you meant dipping his toes back in the water of religion. You and faith were a package deal. He knew that. You weren’t going to give it up any time soon, and certainly not for him.

He closed his eyes again and felt the sting of saltwater. He wasn’t going to cry. He’d done enough of that in his adolescence. But the feelings were there, and they weren’t going to let him off the hook without being felt.

It was you or self-preservation.

He inhaled deeply and forced himself back up, turning to start the long trek back to town. A conversation needed to be had.

________

There was no priest to whom he could confess his sins, but there was Folio, and late on a Sunday afternoon, he could be found stoned in his room.

“I fucked up,” he announced, standing in the doorway.

Nick was on his bed, controller in his hands and headset on. From where Noah stood, he couldn’t see the screen, but he guessed his friend was mowing down enemies in Call of Duty.

“In the middle of something,” he said. “Give me a few.”

Noah invited himself into the room and sat in Nick’s desk chair, observing the décor. Nick decorated his walls with posters of women in various states of undress. Some of them were holding fish. Others were posed on top of cars.

His fishing rod and tackle box rested in the corner next to his desk. An electric drum kit lined the far wall. Clothes were strewn about the room, along with drumsticks, food wrappers, and half-empty water bottles. A few cans of beer spilled out of the overfull trash can. On the nightstand sat an ashtray with the spent ends of several blunts stuffed in the center.

Quite the confessional booth.

“What’s up?” he said, taking his headset off and turning his attention to Noah.

“I fucked up,” Noah repeated.

Nick blinked twice, but made no other movement. “Okay,” he said. “In what way?”

“You already know.”

“The pastor’s daughter?” Nick guessed, tilting his head lower to stare at Noah through furrowed brows. “Did you fuck her?” His tone was accusatory, and deservedly so.

Noah shook his head. “Not exactly.”

Nick turned on his bed to face Noah head-on. “What did you do?”

Noah deliberated over exactly how much to tell his friend. What happened between the two of you last night was private and he didn’t want to share your business with someone else unless you said it was okay, but he needed to get some things off his chest.

“So,” he began, taking a deep breath and shaking his head. “I think I need to stay away from her for a while. I’ve got some stuff to sort out and until I do, I might hurt her.”

Nick gave himself time to fully process what Noah had just said. He inhaled deeply through his nose, letting his eyes drift away from Noah and relaxing his focus as he mulled it over.

“You really care about her?” he asked.

Noah nodded.

“Want me to stay away from her, too?” It was an honest question, and Noah was suddenly struck with how much his friends cared about him.

Noah squeezed and relaxed his hands a few times to increase circulation in his fingers. They were still cold from his walk.

“No, actually. If anything, I think you’d be a really good influence for her. She could use someone like you.”

Nick’s eyebrows pulled up in the center. He tilted his head to the side. “Why do you say that?”

“She needs to have more fun,” he said. “She’s been repressed for a really long time and I think she’s ready to break out of that and live life.”

Nick’s eyes went wide and he pointed to his chest. “And you want me to be the one to help with that?”

Noah didn’t want Nick to do that. The last thing he wanted was to see you enjoying yourself without him, but if it was between that and you staying miserable under the church’s influence, he at least wanted you to be happy.

“I think you’d be good for her,” he said, working hard to make sure he didn’t sound bitter at all.

“What if I fuck her?” he asked, his momentary sincerity seemingly over.

Noah’s face dropped. “Don’t fuck her.”

“But what if I do?”

Noah clenched his jaw, grinding his molars together as he steadied himself. He knew Nick didn’t mean anything by it. He was just being himself and trying to rile Noah up, but Noah wasn’t about to give in.

“Then make sure you’re on the same page with her about what it means. Don’t lead her on.”

Nick chewed on his tongue. “Where is all this coming from?” He asked. “Why do you think you’ll hurt her?”

“I guess,” Noah said, picking at a bit of dead skin on his lip, “It’s sort of just a gut feeling? I don’t know how to describe it, but there’s something in there that tells me I gotta sort myself out before I get involved with anyone.”

Nick blinked up at his friend, softening. “I didn’t realize you were so serious about her.”

“I don’t know what I feel,” said Noah. “I just need some time to figure that out.”

“You okay?” he asked, hand coming up to scratch an itch at the back of his neck.

Noah nodded. “I will be,” he said. It was true, he would be okay eventually. He was sure of that. He’d survived worse than this. He just needed to figure out what the best course of action would be.

Nick’s eyes flicked back to the paused game on the screen. “So you’re saying it’s cool if I fuck her then?” he said.

Nick could be a real asshole at times. He was abrasive by nature. Many found his personality overwhelming, but the ones who stuck around knew that he was an antagonist, not to be mean, but to challenge people—coax them out of their comfort zones and force them to confront their triggers. He wasn’t always right, and he often stuck his own foot in his mouth, but when he was right, he was so right, it made up for all the other times.

This time, however, he used his skill to diffuse the tension.

“Man, fuck you,” said Noah, slapping the ash tray off the end table. It tipped over sideways and spilled its contents onto Nick’s bed, coating his sheets with ash and spent roaches.

“Bro!” Nick shouted, but Noah was already out of the room, hissing to himself with laughter, and Nick was too couch locked to chase him.

________

“Noah said to tell you he’s sorry. He got called in for overtime again,” Nick said as he walked into the community center seven minutes late.

Your heart sank. Not just because you wouldn’t get to see Noah, but because he could have easily texted this information to you himself.

It was as you’d suspected. Noah was avoiding you.

Over the course of the week, you’d grown more and more stressed. Sunday was fine. You’d woken up feeling well rested, having dreamt of Noah throughout the night. At church, you couldn’t focus on any of the sermon because you were too consumed reliving the previous night.

Monday came and went with no word from Noah. You thought for sure he would have texted you to say hi or check up on you. Some sort of acknowledgement that the dynamic between the two of you had shifted. But you’d also heard it was customary to wait three days.

So you waited.

By Wednesday, your patience had grown thin. You’d given him the benefit of the doubt, wondering if maybe he was nervous and waiting for you to reach out, so you had, sending him a casual hey .

He never responded. You’d been checking your phone religiously over the course of the week, but it had been radio silence on his end.

“Okay. Thanks for letting me know.” You kept a straight face and a steady voice while you spoke, but it took effort. “We’re supposed to be shoveling snow today but since there’s only us, I’m going to veto that.”

Nick sighed in relief. “Thank god . I wasn’t built for the cold.”

“Get inside,” you nodded towards the doors. “We’ll start with windows.”

He offered up a salute and bounded through the doors, eager to escape the cold.

As Nick got to work, you processed this information.

Noah’s silence was deafening.

Was this your punishment? Was God unhappy with your behavior and was this his way of letting you know?

An element to this was fitting. This was the cost, you realized. This was the price you paid for giving into temptation.

A bitter laugh escaped under your breath.

Was the church right about everything? Was there a reason you shouldn’t fall into temptation?

Maybe Hell did exist—and it wasn’t a lake of fire, but the absence of Heaven after you’d already tasted it.

Even after everything, you probably would still have done it all over again if you had the opportunity. He’d introduced you to a part of yourself that had been dormant for a long time and for that, you were grateful.

But the price was steep.

Your biggest regret was that you hadn’t even gotten to touch him before it was all over. You felt so stupid. Why couldn’t you have held out a little longer? Resisted temptation until you had him fully within your grasp?

But then again, perhaps the loss of him would be even more painful, wouldn’t it?

You sighed and stretched your arms up, resting your forearms on your head as you observed Nick spraying down the windows with cleaner.

You could get through this. It would be hard, but it was within your grasp. People have survived much worse. In the grand scheme of things, this heartache was minor. It would hurt for a while, but eventually you’d recover and life would go on.

It was just a matter of getting to the other side.

You wanted to remember this pain. Savor the full impact and hopefully this would be the only time you needed to learn this lesson. You’d grow, heal, and move on a better and stronger version of yourself.

Eventually.

Right now, you needed to focus on the task at hand: overseeing community service without getting yourself into any more trouble. And that’s what you were going to do. ________

That did prove to be a tougher job than you anticipated. Nick was charismatic as ever and kept trying to get your attention.

You’d throw him a bone every once in a while, if only because it genuinely did lift your spirits to be around him. He was a much safer presence.

“How many weeks do I have left?”

You were strewn across the back pew, doing your best not to wallow, but failing pretty spectacularly, when Nick’s voice broke you out of your ruminations.

“I’m not sure,” you said, sitting up and looking at him. He leaned casually against the back of the pew, rag thrown over his shoulder. His fingers tapped a rhythm on the wood. “I have it written down somewhere. I’d have to look.”

“Can you let me know next week?” he asked, bouncing on his heels. You could see what attracted Ava to him so much.

“Yeah.”

“Or actually, maybe this Friday. Isn’t that when your Christmas thing is?”

You blinked stupidly up at him. You’d forgotten all about the upcoming showcase.

“Oh, yeah. It is. I didn’t realize you knew about it.”

“Yeah,” he said, and then shifted on his feet as if he was trying to figure out a way to avoid saying that Noah told him about it. Which would mean that Nick was also aware of the awkwardness between the two of you.

“Were you thinking of going?” you asked. “You don’t have to.”

“I thought it might be fun to see you sing,” he said, voice soft and lips smiling.

You were momentarily taken aback. You didn’t think Nick cared about anything you were doing. The thought that he might be interested in your life outside of community service was one that hadn’t crossed your mind.

“Really?” you asked.

He looked side to side and nodded, as if it should have been obvious to you.

“Nick, that would mean so much. I would love for you to come.”

“Good,” he said, a self-satisfied smile back on his face. “But try not to suck or I won’t be donating anything.”

You snorted loudly. “Thanks for the vote of confidence.”

“Anytime.”

The conversation died down, and you could feel the elephant in the room rearing its head.

You could ask how Noah was doing. It wouldn’t be too out-of-character. But you’d give yourself away easily if you did.

Besides, nothing good would come of it. If Noah wanted to contact you, he would. If he didn’t, then he was just someone you needed to get over.

Nick lingered, just as hesitant to leave the conversation.

“You doin’ okay?” he asked.

You sighed, leaning into the back of the pew. “Yeah,” you said. “I’m fine.”

“Wanna talk about it?” he asked.

You rolled your head across the pew to look over at him. His face held a neutral expression, but there was softness in his eyes.

“Maybe some other time,” you said. “Thank you, though.”

“No problem,” he said. “I’m here if you need me.” He punctuated it with a squeeze to your shoulder and your hand came up to clasp over his on its own accord. He was warm, and truth be told, you really needed the gesture.

Perhaps you’d be okay.

_______

“And there were no signs prior to this?”

“No,” you said, collapsing on Ava’s bed while she worked on her Contemporary Art project from her desk. It looked like a big lump of Styrofoam. She held a strip of sandpaper, rubbing it back and forth over a corner and causing little pieces to flake off and litter the desk and floor beneath her.

“And neither of you talked beforehand about what it would mean?”

“No,” you grumbled, recognizing your first mistake. You absolutely should have talked about what it meant for the both of you before doing anything, and you can’t understand why you’d been so foolish to skip over that. “It just sort of…happened?”

Ava fixed you with an imploring stare.

“Babe, I’m really sorry that you got hurt, but. I don’t know,” she began. “Aren’t you always the one preaching about that kind of thing? It seems like you could have used a little bit of your own advice, don’t you think?”

You turned over and let out a loud groan into Ava’s pillow.

“Not helping.”

“I know, I know. That was probably insensitive. I just,” she trailed off, turning back to her project. “Maybe this was a lesson you needed to learn? Not to look down on others for the things they struggle with. And maybe also to recognize that we’re all human. We’re all sinners. Even you?”

You pouted. “You really think I needed to learn that?”

“You’ve been known to judge in the past.”

“I’ve been better about that!” you said, throwing your hands up in the air.

“I know,” she said. “I know you have.” She pouted back at you. “Maybe I’m not the best person for this kind of talk.”

You sighed, crossing your arms over your stomach. “No, you’re fine. I think I’m just feeling sorry for myself is all.”

Ava got up from her desk, brushing as many Styrofoam flakes from her clothes as she could, and crawled into her bed with you, wrapping her arms around your shoulders. You melded into her touch. “You’re allowed to feel hurt. He did send you mixed signals.”

“What about you and Nick?” you asked. She chewed on her lip for a moment.

“Nick and I…we talked about it beforehand. We knew it was just for that night going into it.” She rested her chin on your shoulder.

“You didn’t want to pursue anything more?”

Ava shrugged beside you. “Neither of us is looking for anything.”

You leaned your head on her shoulder. It would have been nice had you had the same disposition going into the encounter with Noah. You could have just enjoyed it for what it was and then went your separate ways without any complicated feelings. You admired Ava’s ability to do that.

“You’re right,” you said. “We should have talked about it beforehand. Made sure we were on the same page.”

You turned to bury your face in her shoulder, squeezing your eyes shut to keep any tears from escaping.

“It doesn’t always work out that way,” she said. “Don’t judge yourself for your mistakes.”

She stroked your back as you failed to prevent your eyes from leaking. “Is it okay if I cry on you?” you asked, voice muffled by her shirt, a stray piece of Styrofoam finding its way into your mouth.

“Babe, of course. I’m here for you.”

You nodded into her shoulder, allowing the first of many sobs to fall. She continued to stroke your back, soothing you as you wept.

It hurt. You’d trusted Noah to care for you. You never would have believed him to be the type to get what he wants and then not call.

Plus, he still had five weeks of community service (you’d checked), and there wasn’t any way he could get out of that.

“How am I supposed to face him on Saturday?” you whined.

“Hmmm,” she said. “Is Folio talking to you?”

“Yeah,” you sniffed. “He’s actually been really nice.”

“What if you just talk to him? Use him as a distraction so you don’t have to talk to Noah. Who knows? Maybe having fun with him would help you move on.”

You pulled away to look at her.

“You mean like…?” you trailed off.

She laughed. “I’m not saying have sex with the guy,” she said. “I doubt he’d do that since Noah’s like, his best friend. But he’s a good guy and he’s fun to be around. And you could use that kind of energy in your life.”

You sniffled again and let your head drop back down to rest on her, spitting out another fleck of Styrofoam. It truly was everywhere.

You doubted that hanging out with Nick would help you get over Noah. If anything, it would just remind you of him. But you did need more friends in your life, and he was someone you could see yourself getting along with.

Perhaps focusing on your friendships would help. You squeezed Ava’s middle.

“I love you,” you said. “Please be my friend forever.”

She breathed softly, squeezing you back. “If you play your cards right.”

______

Friday’s showcase had a much larger turnout than expected. People lined the pews and even stood in the back after all the available seats had been filled. You peeked through one of the side doors that entered onto the stage and saw Nick sitting in a middle row. Ava sat a few rows in front of him. She caught your eye and gave you a big thumbs-up for good luck.

Your eyes scanned over the crowd, searching for a tall, tattooed figure and coming up short.

He said he was going to come. He was the one who had pressed you for the information in the first place.

You looked down at your phone screen. 6:53. He still had seven minutes to make it.

You exhaled a deep breath and shook your hands out, trying to calm your nerves.

“Want to pray?” came Isaac’s deep voice to your right. You looked over to find him standing quite close to you. His usual v-neck and beanie had been swapped out for a white button-down and black tie, sleeves rolled up to his elbows. His hair was tied neatly in a bun atop his head.

“Sure,” you breathed, figuring you could use some prayer.

He grasped your hands in his. His were warm. Steady. They helped to soothe your nerves.

“God,” he began, “please watch over us and guide us as we work to spread the good news of Jesus’s birth. Let us not falter. Allow our voices to ring true and fall on ears willing to hear. In your name. Amen.”

“Amen,” you repeated, working hard not to roll your eyes.

It wasn’t that you didn’t appreciate the prayer. It was just that Isaac talked as if he were living a hundred years ago, trying his best to sound profound, and you weren’t entirely convinced it was solely for God’s listening pleasure. He was a performer, after all.

He squeezed your hands, smiling. “Almost time. Are you nervous?” he asked.

“A little bit,” you said, noticing the discomfort in your gut.

“Don’t be. You’ve got this. It’s just the one solo and then you’re in the choir for the rest of it.” His thumbs rubbed over the backs of your hands, and you were about to pull your hands away from him, but it actually was quite soothing. He seemed like he genuinely cared about you. And he smelled nice. Some sort of expensive-smelling cologne that was the complete opposite of whatever spiced oil Noah wore, but in a really good, clean way.

“You look great, by the way,” he added, taking a step back and giving you a once-over. “I like the dress.”

The dress in question was a high-necked A-line in a bright shade of red to match the holiday theme (Christmas theme, your father would correct you, because apparently no other holidays existed to him).

You wore a dark green cardigan overtop, along with a gold necklace and black heels. Your lips were painted to match the dress. It was the most dressed-up you’d been since last Christmas. When you chose the outfit, you were still under the impression that a certain tattooed someone would see it.

“Thanks,” you said.

You could tell by the way Isaac lingered that he wanted to continue the conversation, but you didn’t feel much like talking. Needing an exit, you excused yourself to go get a drink of water.

Weaving through other soloists and members of the church choir, you made your way down one of the two hallways that flanked either side of the main sanctuary. You rounded the corner, where one of the members of your church’s worship band—Darian—was passing out programs for the event.

“Hey! You ready for your solo?” he asked when he saw you.

You smiled, breathing out a nervous laugh. “Yeah,” you said, scanning the stragglers still arriving for any sign of Noah.

“I’d be nervous if I was on first,” he said. You took your eyes off the latecomers and looked to find him smiling encouragingly at you.

“Yeah,” you said, shifting your weight awkwardly. “Isaac insisted for some reason that I open.”

Your stomach sank even more. You couldn’t see Noah anywhere.

“He mentioned it was because your song would set the tone for the evening,” said Darian, but you were only half-listening. “Do you want one of these?”

You looked back at him. “What?”

He held out a program for you to take. “In case you wanted to keep it. For posterity, or scrapbooking or whatever.”

“Yeah, sure,” you said, grabbing it without really thinking.

Your emotional bandwidth had been all but used up, chest tight and head foggy. You felt bad that you weren’t really engaging in conversation, or even paying attention to it for that matter, but hoped Darian would forgive you.

Sensing that you weren’t in the headspace to talk, Darian wished you luck and went back to handing out programs. You thanked him and continued walking across the foyer and down the opposite hallway with no real destination in mind. You were to go on in less than a minute.

You shook your head, trying to get out of it and into your body. You needed to connect with your voice in order to perform, but you couldn’t seem to steady your breathing.

The sanctuary was laid out in a rectangle, with the foyer lining the back, hallways with classrooms running the length of either side, and then a room behind the main stage, so from where you stood at the end of the hall, you could see through the windows of the doors to the stage that the lights had dimmed.

Isaac walked out to the center of the stage from the hallway opposite you. A spotlight appeared on him, and with an abundance of charismatic charm, he thanked the audience that had gathered, before leading them in yet another prayer to bless the evening’s performance and to let God’s will be done.

Throughout the entirety of his introduction, you’d zoned in and out. Your nerves ate at you, consuming your focus and leaving you feeling detached from your surroundings.

You’d performed this song a dozen times at least, and in front of much of the same audience, too. You performed every week in front of the congregation on Sundays. Perhaps you’d struggled with stage fright at one point in your life, a decade ago when you were still fairly new to performing, but these days you were at-home in front of a microphone.

And yet.

Your knees shook. A cold sweat had broken out on the back of your neck, and your stomach clenched and released several times in quick succession.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, please enjoy O Holy Night, performed by my dear personal friend, and co-leader of our praise and worship team,” Isaac began.

You heard your name being called, snapping you out of the haze.

The audience applauded. Isaac gestured to the doorway opposite you, where he assumed you would be entering from.

Taking a deep breath, you opened the door and walked to the center of the stage. Isaac turned when he heard the doors open, looking caught off-guard for a moment, but he recovered quickly, gesturing to you and clapping to signal to the audience that they should keep their applause going.

He slowly backed away and gave you a double thumbs-up before exiting the stage.

Recognizing you were still holding the program Darian had handed you, you clasped your hands behind your back and stepped up to the microphone.

The soft piano intro played out over the loud speakers. You closed your eyes and inhaled deeply.

O holy night,

The stars are brightly shining,

It is the night of our dear savior’s birth.

The first note came out shaky. You’d pushed too hard with your diaphragm, allowing more air than was needed to pass through your vocal folds. You closed your eyes and focused on breath control, feeling the spotlight heat your skin.

Long lay the world

In sin and error pining

‘till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.

Back in the late 1843, a church in the south of France had its organ renovated. After the renovations were complete, the church reached out to a French poet by the name of Placide Cappeau, asking him to write a poem that could be used as a hymn. In response, Cappeau penned the first iteration of O Holy Night.

Placide Cappeau was a known atheist.

A thrill of hope. The weary world rejoices

When the Catholic Church got wind of an atheist creating a Christmas carol, they did their best to bury the song. They claimed it lacked musical flavor. At the time, the idea of all men and women owning souls was highly radical.

For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.

O Holy Night has since become one of the most popular Christmas carols known to western society, thanks in part to John Sullivan Dwight translating it to English in 1855.

You knew this, because you’d written a history of the carol for an end-of-semester project back when you went to high school at Calvary Baptist.

Fall on your knees. O hear the angel voices,

At the time, you’d wondered how an atheist—someone who, in your mind, stood against everything you stood for, could write such a beautiful song that touched the hearts of you and so many others.

O night, divine. O night, when Christ was born.

How could someone with no connection to God write something that so clearly captures the essence of the Holy Spirit?

You chanced a look out at the crowd, once more searching for the familiar face you so wanted to see. The atheist who understood more about Christ’s love than so many in the church ever would, and found no sign of him.

You squeezed your eyes shut, preparing for the high note that signaled the climax of the song.

O night, O holy night.

Your voice rang out, loud and with a pleasing vibrato you’d finally learned to control three years ago. You paused for effect. The music cut out, and you sang the last line.

O night divine!

It was over. You’d done it. The piano melody came back in for the closing notes, and you curtseyed elegantly as the crowd applauded.

You exited through the same doors you entered, heading straight for the restroom so you could take a moment to yourself before you had to be back on stage in the choir for O Come All Ye Faithful.

Placing your program on the sink counter, you ran your hands under cool water, intending to splash some on your face when a small blurb on the bottom of the pamphlet caught your eye.

Collection plates will be passed around. Please help us save countless unborn lives by making a donation.

Unborn lives.

Isaac was donating the proceeds to a pro-life organization.

You’d been unknowingly roped in to an anti-choice fundraiser.

A wave of anger erupted from deep within you, washing over your entire body and pulsating through it.

You snatched the program from the counter, storming out the bathroom, across the foyer, and to the adjacent hallway Isaac stood at the end of.

“What the Hell, Isaac!?” you near-shouted, bounding toward him.

Isaac’s eyes widened upon your approach. He took several steps back, running into two of the other choir members, but it wasn’t enough. You slammed the program into his sternum.

“Whoa!” he said, grasping the program you’d thrust at him with one hand and holding the other out to keep you from coming any closer. “Where’s the fire?”

“What is this?!” you said, stabbing the program on his chest with your finger where the blurb appeared.

He looked at you bewildered, then down to where your index finger pushed into his chest, and then back to you like you were a mad woman. “We said we wanted to give the proceeds to charity.”

“Yeah,” you said, ripping the program out of his hand and throwing it down at his feet. “Like a soup kitchen or a toy drive. Not to Life Alliance!”

Isaac’s eyebrows pulled together in blatant confusion. “What’s better than saving innocent lives?” he said.

“Oh my God,” you scoffed, not caring whether or not it counted as taking the Lord’s name in vain.

Suddenly all the air in the room felt like it had been vacuumed out and you found yourself struggling to breathe.

Taking a step backwards, it dawned on you that this was your limit. The church had compressed you your entire life, and you’d finally reached your breaking point. “I can’t participate in this.” You said it not to Isaac, but to yourself. “I have to go.”

“Hey! Hold on,” Isaac said. “You can’t leave. You’re our first soprano. We need you for the high G.”

You shook your head, turning on your heel. You wouldn’t have been able to hit that note even if you wanted to with how your throat was constricting.

“We can talk about this. Maybe we can do more than one charity,” he said, but you were already halfway down the hall, tears threatening to spill over.

The heels you wore made it hard to run down the icy sidewalk, but run you did. Down the sidewalk, down the street. You didn’t stop running until you’d put several blocks between you and the church.

You’d once thought of it as a sacred place—a home away from home.

Now, the only time you felt at home in it was on Saturday mornings, sharing the space with two delinquents who didn’t even believe in God.

Nowhere felt sacred anymore.

Nowhere except the shed in the backyard of Jolly’s house. But you were cut off from that now, too.

Where did you belong now? __________ How are we all feeling after that? Also, if anyone has any artistic skills and would like to help me make a moldboard or a banner or something for this story, I would be forever grateful!

Taglist: @dem11, @starcrossedwasteland @alm0std3add @reyadawn @karenfranco, @glam-cherry-bomb @simpingforniragi, @koalakoala8, @themorticians-world, @sleepytoken99, @xmagdalenaxbrenaxorestes, @dark-mist666, @fuck-me-muke, @xmads-omensx, @just-randomm-stuff @spookychaosstranger, @gravitysembrace, @somebodyels3, @sundamariis, @noahsebastions, @cyber-tiny @livingdeceasedgirl @xxkittenkissesxx @treacheryinblue @flowerynerds @1toreyouapart @badomensls @rain-down-on-me @ilovemewwwww75 @poisongirl616 Click here to join the taglist!

#noah sebastian x reader #bad omens fanfiction #noah sebastian fic #noah sebastian smut #noah sebastian #bad omens #the devil's advocate #bad omens x reader #bad omens smut #bad omens fic

129 notes · View notes

catholic-character-tournament · 1 year

Text

Round 1 - Side B

Propaganda below ⬇️

Matt

Matt's faith in the show is really important and well explored; one of the first scenes of the show is Matt going to confession (or, well, talking to his priest since he's not really confessing at that point). Matt struggles a lot with what he's supposed to do; everyone's telling him to kill the villain and he kinda wants to, but he literally says: "I know my soul is damned if I take his life". He struggles with his faith and goes with his doubts to his priest, and it's beautiful—also when he finally gets a costume for his vigilanteing he chooses to dress as the devil, lol. (His priest tells him that nothing makes people run to Church faster than the feeling of having the devil on their heels.)

a lot of the show is about how he justifies his vigilante actions with his faith, and whether he's doing the right thing in trying to help people or just using it as an outlet for his anger. the literal first scene of the show has him in a confession booth talking to his priest (who is a really interesting character too). this is not the scene I was talking about but it's such an excellent scene with matt talking to his priest: https://youtu.be/XHZ3NbEIDdw

canonically catholic but dresses like a demon to be quirky

honestly i dont wanna type too much but i feel that matt is a great example of someone who battles with his faith because he rarely loses his faith but rather fights with why he was made the way he was and put through what he was. He believes himself to have the devil inside him but believes that God put him there

ok in the comics barring the most current run matt has Mostly been a non-practicing Catholic that very rarely actually does any catholic Activities but ends up falling back into the Mindset and very occasionally dramatically taking confession (ex. in that one issue where he takes confession, basically tells the father that he is uniquely terrible and is thinking about violently murdering someone and when the father says "you can be forgiven" hes like "AUGFH-- NO!!!!!!!!!!" and runs out) when he's gone through some shit. and i love that its so relatable

hello its me cct organizer. i have to come clean, i made this tournament because i need matt to win something. i dont think hell win the sadboy and he lost the ginger tournament and >:( hes my favoritest guy ever. Also @ who said he has religious trauma is wrong and i will fight u about it (nicely) on my main @usaigi

This guy so catholic he spends an ungodly amount of time just chilling in the church. And goes there whenever there is a moral conundrum about killing people being Bad even though it would solve a lot of problems and stop said people from killing other people. This happens every other episode. Matt is the Catholic Guilt Guy. There's actually a lot of catholic stuff in the show as a whole. Just a compilation would be like three whole episodes long.

Hes great hes catholic enough to not outrught murder people but not catholic enough to not fuck before marriage hes a bisexual disaster at all times hes besties with a priest might i add hes great hes my special little guy

his catholicism is a huge piece of his characterisation he was raised by nuns in a catholic orphanage, the first scene we ever see him (as an adult and not a flashback) is him going to confession, he is good friend with his priest and has regular debates with him, etc also in s3 he has a huge crisis of faith after he lost A Lot where he stops believing for a while and it's linked to his identity crisis where he actually wants to kill another person (a hard line he previously chose never to cross) and wants to be only daredevil and not matt murdock, when he is both and needs both to exist also when he was a kid his grandmother used to say "watch out for the murdock boys, they've got the devil in them" and it created a surprising lot of his issues

So he's both catholic in the comics and the show but he's More Catholic in the show. Like, raised in a catholic orphanage by nuns (ONE OF WHICH IS HIS *MOTHER*), second scene in the show has him in a confession box kind. Matt Murdock goes out and gets the shit beaten out of him nightly and also beats the shit out of other people and purposefully leaned into devil iconography as his theme. When his nurse friend says, he takes a lot of punishment without one complaint he says "That part's the Catholicism." It is a Core Aspect of his character (at least in the show). He makes me insane. Also the same chemicals that blinded him created the teenage mutant ninja turtles and everyone should know that.

They went to confession to a priest who they had saved as their costumed counterpart and the guy recognized them by the voice, proving that it's possible and everyone else is just dumb

he takes "i wanna fight god" to new and incredibly violent levels, while also being a sweetheart and a goofball

Actually strictly WILL NOT kill criminals. Goes wayyy out of his way to avoid it. Fights with the Punisher about it. Goes to confession booth after nightly vigilante excursions. Feels so much guilt. "How have you been holding up?" "Like a good Caltholic boy" "that bad huh" - actual conversation with his priest

So Daredevil struggles with his mission as a crime fighter because killing criminals goes against his faith. He makes it a point to not kill criminals, believing that even bad people deserve a second chance. This philosophy puts him at odds against The Punisher, who is a relentless killer. As a Catholic myself, while I love the concept of a morally conflicted superhero, I think the worldbuilding around Daredevil is lacking. If he struggles with violence and killing, why doesn't he pray to warrior saints like Saint Michael, Saint Ignatius of Loyola (a former knight), or Saint Joan of Arc? Why isn't there a community of other Catholics he can turn to for guidance, considering New York City has a sizeable population of Catholics? And why are the churches he goes to always empty? Doesn't he know that the Catholic Church supports the just war theory? I think that would have made his burden more bearable.

He goes to church and confesses to punching people and says "imma do it again can i apologize in advance" and the father dude says "no you're meant to stop now" and Matt says "no" and they do this everyday. I'm not remembering it properly but this is a canon interaction i swear

HELLO HI YES I LOVE HIM AND WILL INFOR DUMP ok so. he is a vigalantty and he got named daredevil and he is an orphan and after the age of 12 was raised in an orphanage at a Catholic church and his therapist is his priest via confession abd. also his mother is a nun he has a whole mental breakdown over god and called Job a pussy because he liked god until he got better and liked god again he said "I'm dearedrvil and not even god can stop that now" and he's so cool

matt is a freakish little babygirl who was raised by nuns and definitely has religious trauma. i hate him so much (affectionately)

he’s literally fucking insane about it i don’t know what to say here. he thinks he’s chosen by god to go on some sort of holy quest to save hell’s kitchen. joan of arc ass.

i already know hes in by default j just wanted to give him a personal shout out i love this angsty catholic dweeb

how practicing he is depends on the run, but in my favorite he is quite literally confessing to a member of the last extant order millitant who happens to be a priest at a church in hells kitchen.

i love him for having the funniest version of a trope i usually hate (person gets into confession booth and asks forgiveness not for what they've done, but for what they're about to do). usually this trope just looks silly to me bc like. the priest would just say "i can't do that" and you would have to either awkwardly explain yourself or just Leave. it's funny when matt does it because fr. lantom is probably like "what are you gonna do???" and matt's like "lol. lmao. 😊 hehehe." anyway we love this angry catholic man who dresses up like the devil to beat people up in hell's kitchen

Harrowhark

I'm pretty sure you've already got plenty of submissions for her so I'll just say she was raised in what is basically a cult (technically a nunnery but let's be real) dedicated to keeping the body of the thing that will kill God behind the rock. One of their prayers is actually "I pray the rock is never rolled away". Harrow is extremely devout as penance for her earlier heretical actions in the tomb as a child (spoiler!) so the Catholic guilt really comes through

imagine being a catholic nun and you meet god, but it turns out he’s a twitch streamer from new zealand who became god because everything got a little bit out of hand. and just before you met him you gave yourself a diy grief-fuelled lobotomy with the help of your best frenemy. imagine how insane you’d be. now multiply that insanity by nine. that’s the fictional love of my life right there.

she meets god. she’s not inspired

she’s number one practitioner of space Catholicism. The locked tomb is chock full of Christian (catholic) imagery themes metaphors etc. just look at her she’s got a bone rosary

They're Catholicism with extra bones. Everyone is a nun. They have what is basically a rosary made from knuckle bones. They technically worship the same God as everyone else, but they're waaaay more focused on The Body in the Tomb (Mary) and we get a moment where we find out that while everyone else prays the equivilent of The Lords Prayer, they're doing the equivilent of Hail Mary. And they paint their faces with skulls.

She thinks leaving dry bread in a drawer is taking care of someone. She's in love with a 10,000 year old corpse (the same one they worship). She spent ALL NIGHT digging with her bare hands to make sure a field had bones every 5 feet so she could fight her girlfriend - I mean, greatest enemy. Spoiler territory: She's been puppeting her parents corpses since she was 8 years old. Instead of grieving her dead girlfriend, she gives herself a lobotomy. She makes soup with bone in it so she can use the bone IN THEIR STOMACH to try and kill them.

The author is/was Catholic and the entire series had heavy Catholic overtones. https://www.tor.com/2020/08/19/gideon-the-ninth-young-pope-and-the-new-pope-are-building-a-queer-catholic-speculative-fiction-canon/ A good breakdown of how it's Catholic

#matt murdock #daredevil #marvel #Harrowhark Nonagesimus #The Locked Tomb #cct polls #tumblr tournament #tumblr bracket #tumblr polls

759 notes · View notes

ftmtftm · 11 months

Note

Genuine question. But how are radical feminists; women's rigths activist who are exactly trying to detect, address and attack the roots of the patriarcy and it's problems (the literal definition of radical, "By the root") to make the world a better place for women and girls, comparable to religious evangelicals, incels and actual Neonazis?

Dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked those 3 last groups and unlike actual radical feminists, not only they don't support but openly and actively despise and try to eliminate progresive ideals like homosexual rigths, reproductive rigths, end workfield innequality, among many others.

Context: This anon is in response to this post. I do want to apologize to anon up front, because I assumed they sent this ask in bad faith based on several other bad faith asks that have been sent to me in the past. They however, did ask this in earnest. I genuinely hope this is a valuable resource to you and anyone else this post crosses paths with.

Okay so there's a lot of things I want to get into here and it's gonna get long so I'm going to break it into chunks. We're gonna look at what political extremism is, what a rhetorical fallacy is, what Feminism is (broadly speaking) and then do a deep dive into the actual nitty gritty people and politics of Radical Feminism in opposition to other types of Feminism.

TL;DR - Radical Feminism is an extremist, female supremacist, hate movement. It has more in common with Political Right / authoritarian extremist movements than it does with any Politically Left / liberation based radical movements.

So let's start with examining political extremism. What is Political Extremism? In turn, what is Political Radicalism?

Political Extremism is a very broad category of belief and action that gets thrown around a lot. Most people just use it to mean "strong politics that exist outside the status quo" however, I'm more interested in the way Astrid Bötticher defines Extremism vs Radicalism. In her definitions (here) she essentially describes that "Political Extremism" tends to get applied to Right Wing leaning politics and "Political Radicalism" tends to get applied to Left Wing leaning politics. She states that there is a fuzzy line between the two (think about the application of the phrase "Go so far left you go right") but that finding ways to define and distinguish the two is still important to political discussion.

Bötticher describes that Radical Politics tend to have a focus on:

anti-violence/selective use of violence

building a positive future

democracy/emancipation

pro-human rights, specifically in the context of providing them to the under privileged

disrupting status quo without a total destruction of society/diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment

coexistent withdraw with society when existing in small numbers

universal morality - a moral system that applies to all

egalitarianism/sovereignty of the common people

ideas inspired and informed by philosophical movements, starting with the 18th century Enlightenment onward

In contrast she describes that Extremist Politics tend to have a focus on:

violence as a legitimate form of action

looking towards an idealistic past

anti-democracy/authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society

particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group

totalitarianism/authoritarian control

ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

As you can probably gather, under these definitions generally speaking one would define most progressive movements as Politically Radical and most regressive movements as Politically Extremist. The Feminist Movement is, by and large, a Politically Radical Movement. Our conversation doesn't end here though. We have a lot more ground to cover. This is just the framework.

So, now that we've established the characteristics of a Politically Extremist movement, let's delve into the rhetoric they use to assert those aspects of themselves.

What is a rhetorical fallacy?

Rhetorical Devices are an important part of not just politics, but every day life. We use them constantly - I'm using them now, you use them, everyone uses them. When I speak to you, the reader, and appeal to you directly I am invoking Pathos (Emotional Appeal) by creating an air of casualness - as though we are engaging in a conversation. When I give definitions, statistics, cite sources, I am invoking Logos (Logical Appeal) by showing there is traceable, factual, credibility to the things I am saying. When I say that I have been studying Political/Feminist/Philosophical Theory both academically and in my own free time for the last decade of my life I am invoking Ethos (Ethical Appeal) by asserting that I have put an immense amount of time and dedication into this topic to showcase my own credibility.

The important thing about Rhetorical Devices here is how they are applied - especially in political discussions. When applied incorrectly or maliciously Rhetorical Devices begin to fall into Fallacies.

Fallacies are errors, or tricks, of reasoning. The provided link is from a college writing textbook and I highly recommend reading it over if you're able (genuine shout out to LibreTexts for their efforts in making textbooks free and accessible to the public). It gives a good enough explanation of fallacies as a whole that I won't be going too in depth myself, so as not to distract from my main points.

The specific type of fallacies that I'd like to get into are Linguistic Fallacies (equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent, and form of expression) because they are a type of fallacy that Political Extremists (and really? also most people in politics with weak argumentative skills) like to employ a lot to make their points seem stronger or to manipulate their image. Though it is not listed as a part of the six Linguistic Fallacies, I consider Etymological Fallacy to be a kind of Linguistic Fallacy, as it relies on the explicit dissection of language.

Political Extremists and other oppressive regimes often obscure their nature through carefully chosen linguistic descriptors that rely on fallacious intent. Early Nazis called themselves National Socialists when they were, in fact, not Socialists. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not a Democratic Republic for the People - it is a Dictatorship - and the Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is not Communist and China is not a Republic.

To obscure yourself behind intentionally chosen progressive sounding language to gain yourself more followers who simply say "Hey, Democracy and Socialism are good! Those guys must not be that bad!" or "Hey, I agree with women's rights and liberation! I think the world should be a better place for women and girls! Those Radical Feminists must be onto something!" is to rely on an intentional political obfuscation tactic that uses the Fallacy of Equivocation.

What is Feminism? What are the different schools of Feminist Theory?

A distinct and important part of Feminist Philosophy is quite genuinely - debating how to define Feminism and it's goals. Though they all follow similar themes, there are a lot of variant ways of defining this. Some definitions of Feminism include:

"The belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes." - Britannica / Merriam-Webster

"[The goal of feminism is] all genders having equal rights and opportunities." - International Women's Development Agency

"[Feminism is] the movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." - bell hooks

Generally speaking though, Feminism places itself as a movement for the advocacy of Women as a Class of people, operating under the context of combating / eliminating gender and/or sex based oppression - depending on the Feminist school of thought you are looking at.

Allison Jaggar, feminist scholar, defined four types of Feminism in her 1983 book Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Those types are: Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism, and Radical Feminism. These tend to be the schools of thought you see brought up most often today.

I, personally, however, think that it is worth recognizing that there are in fact more schools of Feminist thought than just those four. In particular Intersectional Feminism, which was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, and Postcolonial Feminism which began to get its footing in 1984 with the publishing Audre Lorde's essay The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House (taken from a 1979 speech) and Chandra Talpade Mohanty's 1984 essay Under Western Eyes.

Postcolonial and Intersectional Feminism exist in direct critique of the Whiteness that was (and still is now) pervasive in Feminist Literature through the 60's-80's and into the beginning of the Third Wave of Feminism, which I will get into shortly.

Who is Radical Feminism by and for as a political movement? Who are the people creating the theory, past and present? Who are the people running the movement via theory, political organizations, and who are the faces of the movement? Who do they truly center?

Let's start with some basic Feminist history for a moment. The Feminist movement is broken into several waves. Presently, we are in what scholars are beginning to define as the Fourth Wave of Feminism, so let's briefly look at all four.

I want to state right off the bat that Feminism and feminist history as a whole is very US American and British centric. The First Wave of Feminism is defined by the Suffrage Movement and (White) Women gaining the right to vote in the USA in 1920. The Second Wave of Feminism is defined by the sexual liberation movement, the beginnings of Queer Theory, and the foundation of Radical Feminism as an organized political movement in the late 60's ('67~'68) on the coasts of the US and in England. The Third Wave of Feminism in the 90's is looser and exists as a dialogue between movements like the Riot Grrls, long standing Radical Feminists, and Feminists of Color (particularly Black Feminists) critiquing the Feminism of the previous few decades. The present Fourth Wave is currently being defined socially by social media usage and the MeToo movement and academically by its continuing recognition of Intersectional Feminist work.

I do think it is deeply important to note the racial dynamics at play here and address the fact that the Feminist Movement has also always been extremely White in many ways. This is not to discredit the work of Feminists of Color, but to say that their work, labor, activism, and theory often goes unrecognized by White Feminists. As previously mentioned, the First Wave of Feminism is largely defined by the Suffragette Movement and women's right to vote - however, Black Women and other Women of Color were not allowed to be fully included in this movement by White Suffragettes. Black Women did not receive suffrage until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. This was just 2-3 years before the beginning of the Second Wave. I have written about this to a larger extent here so I won't be diving too deep in this ask, since we're already getting very long here.

So let's dive deeper into the Second Wave and Radical Feminist history. I would personally argue that the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto and Valerie Solanas' attempt on Andy Warhol's life is what kick started the Radical Feminist movement. I have talked about this to a larger extent here in relation to Political Lesbianism and really - I just don't want to retype an essay I've already written.

TL;DR - While the SCUM Manifesto may or may not have been satirical (Solanas went back and forth on this publicly) it was the first published work to describe ideas integral to Radical Feminist literature. It was born out of the same New York spaces as the rest of the Radical Feminist Movement and spread thanks to the New York gay newspaper, The Village Voice, and the publicity from Solanas' attempt at Warhol. Male Dominance Theory, the inherent violence of males, the idea that women are safer with other women than with men, the idea that lesbianism or celibacy are the only safe sexual avenues for women, etc. etc. were all published first in SCUM in 1968.

Ti-Grace Atkinson could, and should, be credited with the foundation of organized Radical Feminist politics in written works with her 1969 piece "Radical Feminism". She was an active defender of the SCUM Manifesto and Solanas - going so far as to get in trouble with NOW (The National Organization for Women) during her time as the organization's president for defending Solanas and attempting to involve Flo Kennedy in Solanas' legal defense (pay-walled article, unfortunately). While Solanas wanted no involvement with Atkinson, Kennedy, or NOW it's clear her ideas and actions deeply impacted them and other Radical Feminists. The events with Solanas inspired Atkinson to leave NOW and form the October 17th Movement, which then became the Radical Feminist group The Feminists.

If we look at other foundational Radical Feminists from the late 60's and 70's - Shulamith Firestone, Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, Roxanne Dunbar, Naomi Weisstein - they all also share one trait in common with Solanas and Atkinson beyond their politics. Whiteness. The only Woman of Color present so far in this history is Flo Kennedy, and Flo Kennedy was open about "Not feeling Black" and not really having community with other Black people. Her work definitionally was more Intersectional than Radical Feminist, however she dedicated most of her efforts to time in Radical Feminist spaces. Unfortunately as the linked book review begins to describe, like a lot of Feminist history, Flo's actual person-hood has been stripped from her work. She is often either used as a Token Black Radical Feminist or as a Token Black Intersectional Feminist in Radical Feminist Spaces, depending on where you look and who you ask.

I don't have the time nor space to do an entire history lesson on Radical Feminism, but suffice to say the works of the women I have previously mentioned very much inspired the works of more commonly cited, more modern Radical Feminist authors like Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, Catherine MacKinnon. Again, all White Women. You look to modern Radical Feminist and Women's Liberation activism and you see the same reflected in your average Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist as well as in the women in pop culture who are being celebrated by anti-trans Radfem spaces, like JKR and Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker. Both of whom, by the way are actively buddy-buddy with conservatives and Neo-Nazi's. Shaun, the video essayist, has broken this down better than I can here (JKR) (Posie Parker).

Why talk about all of this? What is the relevance of political extremism and rhetorical fallacies in this conversation?

We began this essay (because, let's be real, that's what this is) discussing Political Extremism vs Political Radicalism so let's come back around to that and my claim that Radical Feminism is Politically Extremist, not Politically Radical now. Radical Feminists, like in this ask, have been in my ask box recently arguing that the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the root" - like a mathematical root. That it means "Getting to the root of Patriarchy". However, I genuinely have not been able to find any such claim in any of my research. The "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" has always been used in the political sense of being "politically radical" in all of the reading and historical research I've done. Show me a legitimate source of this claim and I'll take it into consideration though.

I would like to breakdown Bötticher's list of traits of Extremism/Radicalism in relation to Radical Feminism now though, since we have established we are explicitly talking about Political Radicalism several times over.

1. violence as a legitimate form of action

Radical Feminism is founded on the idea that society needs to be completely dismantled in order to procure the safety of women. Be this by genocide, as SCUM suggests, or by a women led revolution as women like Firestone suggested there have always been roots of violence in Radical Feminism. Violence is a complicated topic in of its own right, which I've talked about my own feelings on here. I personally believe that the Radfem idealism towards violence and wanting to "flip" the violence of the Patriarchy back onto men - regardless of it is satirical or not - and the idea that violence begets violence falls under this category of Extremism, rather than under the category of Radicalism.

2. looking towards an idealistic past

I am of the opinion that the way Radical Feminism of the 60's and 70's idealized the Suffragettes and their work is a form of this. It is happening again now with the way modern Radical Feminists idealize the politics of Radfems of the 60's and 70's. There's this idealized version of Feminist history in Radfem spaces that completely ignores or denies the presence of Feminist authors that disagree with or criticize Radical Feminist thought. This happens generally via unwarranted assimilation (You see this happen a lot with theorists like Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and even Leslie Feinberg) or complete dismissal (you see this happen a lot with theorists like bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Roxane Gay). You know the thing those authors have in common? They are all either Black or non-binary.

3. anti-democracy/pro-authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

Current Radfem culture really hinges on dismissing anything Radfems disagree with as "Liberal Feminism" - referencing Jaggar's previously mentioned work. This is something I've noticed a lot in my own conversations with particularly young Radfems who are new to Feminism. There seems to be this idea that you can only be a pop culture-y, soft, liberal feminist OR a to the teeth, political radical feminist - with no thought for what might exist outside of that binary. Even Jaggar herself talks about Socialist and Marxist Feminism, which are in fact distinct Feminist movements in their own rights, and as previously mentioned Intersectional Feminism and Postcolonial Feminism, among many other types of Feminism also exist. To treat Feminism as though it was a binary dichotomy with a right answer is to fall under this category of Political Extremism.

4. anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

I've gone almost this entire post without going too in-depth on the subject of anti-trans rhetoric in Radical Feminism because that is, at least presently, something many, many other people have covered in the past. However, Radical Feminism as an ideology is in explicit opposition to the human rights of transgender individuals. This is not the post for that analysis, so I won't be getting into it to much deeper here. You can see my extended watching section at the bottom of this post if you're truly interested in this topic.

5. reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

Many Radfem spaces and a lot of Radfem literature tend to universalize the "woman" or "female" experience without consideration for the nuances and complexities of those experiences. Given the White American roots of Radical Feminism, I see this as an extension of the phenomenon of White Homogenization - which is the phenomenon related to the history of xenophobia towards groups like Irish and Italian immigrants and their subsequent assimilation into American White Identity once it was deemed convenient for White Supremacists. This is, in part why I would classify Radical Feminism as Female Supremacy. It's got all the makings of White Supremacist rhetoric thanks to the race of its founders, just twisted slightly to fit the means of White women rather than White people as a whole.

Radical Feminism constructs this status quo idea of universal womanhood and regularly shuts down conversations that question the authority of that experience, particularly in relation to Race, Ethnicity, Transgender Identity, and Intersex Identity.

6. standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

I feel like this one is self explanatory following the last few points about the universalism of womanhood and the way Radfem culture simplifies Feminist theory. Yes, Radical Feminism stands opposed to the Patriarchy and also it stands opposed to any other Feminist thought that might disagree with it to the point of ostracization, misindentification, and outright dismissal. The way many Radfems resort to pejoratives (as I've been experiencing in my ask box with an influx of asks calling me a tranny pooner among many other expletives I won't be posting) and dehumanizing language like calling trans people "TRAs" as a play off of "MRAs" is a good show of this.

7. provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society 8. particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group 9. totalitarianism/authoritarian control

Grouping these three together mostly for the sake of brevity, as I've been working on this post for about 4 days and admittedly, I am getting exhausted exposing myself to rhetoric that fundamentally believes my own existence is incorrect and a bunch of other anons telling me to kill myself.

However, I do briefly want to take time here to address the fact that the way Radfems universalize womanhood ends up perpetuating this idea that women are inherently safer than men. That women, or females, are incapable of abuse because that's what men do. This separatism, this isolationism, is in of itself a breeding ground for abusive people to take advantage of others. These last three points are all three points that I think highlight the cult-like nature of Political Extremism. "Violence is good and justified when women do it to men because men are violent to women" type thinking. It preys on unresolved trauma - which I've briefly spoken about here. I could absolutely go into point 8 farther, and I have a lot more feelings about it that I'm getting into here - but I'm tired. I'll make another post another day and update this one when I do.

10. ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

This is one of the most important points in this list I think. A lot of Radical Feminism positions itself in a way that places itself and it's followers as arbiters of truth. If you disagree with Radical Feminism, you're a misogynist, you're a self hating female, you're wrong, you're ignorant, you hate women and support the Patriarchy. It's classic "Us vs Them" rhetoric.

I brought up rhetorical fallacies earlier as a primer to the fact that Radical Feminist rhetoric is full of rhetorical fallacies. Most specifically notably in this ask is the etymological fallacy of saying the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the Root". "Woman = Adult Human Female" is also an etymological fallacy. Acting as though there are only two types of Feminism (Liberal vs Radical) is an argument based on fallacy. The list goes on, as most of the requirements for Bötticher's definition of Political Extremism rely on fallacy on the part of the Extremists because Extremism requires a skewed perception of reality based on the manipulation of facts.

That is all why I classify Radical Feminism as a Politically Extremist Female Supremacist Hate Group - especially modern Radical Feminism. That is why I classify it in the same extremist camp as Evangelicals, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Incels. They all rely on similar rhetorical tactics to further their goals:

"You are only safe with your own kind. You will only find strength with your own kind. Outsiders are the enemy and you cannot find sympathy or empathy for them, lest you become brainwashed."

What are the alternatives? How do we move forward from Radical Feminism?

One of the most important solutions I can offer, in my opinion, is the encouragement to go and do your own research into Feminism and Feminist history. A Radfem view is one of many, many possible Feminist approaches as I've discussed at length here. I personally think "good feminism" is well-rounded Feminism that takes an Intersectional approach to Institutions of Oppression. Essentially, Feminism that recognizes that the Patriarchy is only one aspect of the oppressive forces of the world and that it works in tandem with other systems to cause direct harm to the oppressed.

First and foremost - I keep a reading list on my blog. I need to go through and do some serious updating to it but what it currently has is still a good jumping off point. The list isn't just reading materials, but also includes talks and interviews and audio books, if those things are more accessible to you personally.

My personal favorite feminist thinkers are bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Leslie Feinberg. Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and Kate Bornstein are also excellent reads when it comes to theory. I'm also including some extended watching recommendations at the end of this ask because I know for many people watching a video or listening to a talk can be more accessible than academic text. I do however, recommend popping into my reading list and looking at the talks and interviews that I have listed there as well.

If you made it all the way down here? Holy shit - congratulations and thank you for reading all of this, regardless of if we agree on this topic or not. This was a pain in the ass to put together honestly and I'm real fucking tired. I'm gonna go spend a week getting high and listening to live music with my best friend now.

Just remember: Do what you want forever :)

Extended Watching (Interviews + Talks):

In Life: Interview with Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg (captions recommended)

Leslie Feinberg in Buffalo, June 2, 2006

Leslie Feinberg Celebrating Stone Butch Blues at Charis Books 1993 (captions recommended)

Berkley professor explains gender theory | Judith Butler

Feminist icon Judith Butler on JK Rowling, trans rights, feminism, and intersectionality

Extended Watching (Video Essays):

JK Rowling's New Friends - Shaun (previously linked)

Keelie-Jay & the Neo-Nazis - Shaun (previously linked)

Social Constructs (or, 'What is A Woman Really?') - Philosophy Tube

Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story - Philosophy Tube

Transhumanism: "The World's Most Dangerous Idea" - Philosophy Tube

Autogynephilia - ContraPoints

Gender Critical - ContraPoints

#sorry anon i didnt get into the dog whistles like i said i would but i'm much to tired and the scope of this ask got much too big #asks #anon #radblr #terfblr #radical feminism #radical feminist #feminism #intersectional feminism #intersectional feminist #feminist #feminist literature #feminist theory #intersectional feminist theory #(wow unrelated note but desktop text editor sucks now-#I haven't edited a post on desktop in a hot second and haven't set up my extensions well enough yet)

126 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year

Text

By: Christina Buttons

Few topics are more politically volatile right now than trans issues. Matters such as pediatric medical transition and questions about access to and the purpose of women's sports and spaces are complex debates that require nuance and time. Unfortunately, discussions of these issues are generally dominated by extreme, intolerant ideologues who fail to distinguish between ideas and people. As someone deeply concerned about some aspects of trans ideology, it pains me that the discussion of these delicate issues more often resembles a Jerry Springer marathon than a meaningful public policy debate.

The currently dominant, no-holds-barred strain of trans activism has spawned a right-wing backlash that has troubling implications for the broader gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities. During Pride month, this became even more evident. The right led boycotts against stores with Pride displays, leveraged the excesses of trans activism to give new life to old arguments — that the legalization of same-sex marriage was a “slippery slope” — and broadcast alarmist warnings about “state-enforced homosexuality.” This has emboldened religious fundamentalists and opportunistic provocateurs eager to seize this opportunity to propagate homophobic messages. The backlash has sent the right veering ever further towards extremism that may have the political result of curtailing the hard-earned basic rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

Pushback against the more extreme aspects of the transgender movement is absolutely warranted, but it isn't a partisan issue, despite how frequently the political left and right portray it as such. Like so many issues that get caught in the warring political tribes dynamic, we should refrain from seeing ourselves in an existential fight against evil, irredeemable forces. The fact remains that most people across society are good and have good intentions — even those who disagree with you politically. Those of us who are critical of the excesses of trans activism need to raise awareness and a better understanding of the actual issues. And currently, it is the left that will require the most persuasion from us.

The stakes are too high to take the wrong approach. Pediatric gender medicine needs to be subjected to systematic evidence reviews. The widespread implementation of “gender-affirming care” — a dangerously broad medical model supported by weak evidence — is a genuine cause for alarm. If we do not want the left to dismiss our valid concerns as mere bigotry, we must approach these matters judiciously. Otherwise, US-based medical organizations will continue to dismiss even the most reasonable calls to reconsider their treatment protocols as simply part of a right-wing moral panic.

It is natural to feel frustrated and angry in the face of what many of us sincerely believe to be an unfolding medical scandal — but we must redirect this energy into constructive dialogue and strategic action rather than resorting to counterproductive hyperbole. People’s beliefs can change with exposure to new information. I’m living proof: I used to be a so-called “social justice warrior”, but I changed my own views on “gender medicine” (and other important issues dumbed down by the culture wars) after discussing the issue with people who presented compelling evidence and reasoned arguments, rather than inflammatory rhetoric.

Our best chance of facilitating positive change is to try to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved, learn how to communicate more effectively, base our arguments on credible evidence, avoid taking part in online pile-ons, and employ precise, careful language that addresses beliefs or specific policies — not individuals. The first step is understanding the beliefs and policies involved. Conversations about transgender issues can be difficult because there are so many different interpretations of the relevant terminology. Even the basic definition of what it means to be trans is a subject of intense debate.

Many people on the political left insist that everyone possesses an innate and immutable “gender identity” present from birth, which can be known from a very young age, and rarely, if ever, changes. In this view, being transgender is an inborn trait (like sexual orientation) rather than a choice: people are born that way, and they have no say in the matter. For many, to question these views is to attack the very existence of trans people.

This belief is sincere, but it is not accurate. The empirical evidence does not support the idea of an inherent, hardwired “gender identity.” There is currently no objective test — neither neurological nor of any other kind — that can differentiate between an individual who identifies as trans and one who does not, especially when we control for confounding factors like sexual orientation. Even most definitions of gender and “gender identity”, increasingly cemented into law and public policy, are circular and self-referential.

However, there is a wealth of evidence that gender nonconformity — encompassing preferences, behaviors, traits, and presentations that deviate from the norm associated with one's biological sex — is a natural part of human variation, influenced in part by prenatal testosterone exposure. Gender nonconformity is strongly associated with homosexuality and is particularly prevalent among those with autism. Prior to 2006, gay male children dominated pediatric gender clinic referrals. That has changed dramatically in recent years. Nowadays, adolescent females, many of whom are autistic, make up the majority lining up at gender clinics. For activists, this apparently doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. It is simply a sign of greater societal acceptance. For me and many others, given the permanent impacts of gender medicine, such a rapid flipping of demographics warrants, at a minimum, closer inspection. Up to 35% of adolescents referred to the largest gender clinic in the UK displayed "moderate to severe autistic traits", with some pediatric gender programs reporting that approximately half of the youth in their studies are autistic. Shouldn’t that set off alarm bells?

People are born with various inherent traits, such as gender nonconformity, sexual orientation, and neurological differences like autism. Additionally, some individuals may be born predisposed to psychiatric conditions, which may include gender dysphoria — the significant and persistent distress with one's biological sex. However, a predisposition towards gender dysphoria does not guarantee a transgender outcome. In fact, the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria do not identify as transgender into adulthood. Most of them simply end up as homosexual adults.

Many scientific and civil rights organizations, however, have begun broadening the definition of “transgender” to encompass all instances of gender nonconformity. According to this wide classification, if a person's behavior or gender expression doesn’t align with traditional expectations for their sex, they are transgender. This expanded definition, a symptom of concept creep, is likely playing a large role in the rapidly escalating rates of people identifying as trans. Certain individuals who are born gender-nonconforming may interpret their sex-atypical traits and behaviors (including same-sex attractions), along with any distress their gender-nonconformity may cause them, as evidence that they have a "gender identity" mismatched from their body. As a result, they may wish to identify as transgender, be acknowledged as the opposite sex, and seek medical procedures that they believe will bring their bodies into alignment with their perceived sense of self.

Worryingly, many well-respected medical organizations and healthcare officials in the US are perpetuating this confusion. Informed by a misguided and imprudent model, they are prematurely “affirming” newly-adopted cross-sex identities by psychosocial, chemical, and surgical means without sufficiently investigating the root causes of the individual's gender-related distress. Meanwhile, the “Dutch Protocol” which guided, inspired, and justified the establishment of current American gender care standards, involved extensive counseling and other safeguards — safeguards which now have been largely removed in the US.

Most people are not aware of any of this. When this information is presented to them in alarmist language that suggests the speaker is primarily motivated by partisan scaremongering, they are less receptive to it and may even feel attacked. But if we present the facts calmly, people are reachable. By fostering sincere and compassionate communication, we can also assist those who might regret transitioning in the future to make informed decisions while still respecting the choices of adults who wish to maintain their trans identity.

Those of us who are critical of some aspects of trans ideology often point to the importance of social influence when we talk about people adopting transgender identities. But we forget that we can exert an influence on the behavior of people in our own peer groups too and that we therefore have a duty to model reasoned discourse if we don’t want the entire debate to descend into frenzied partisanship.

It can be reassuring to find a community of like-minded individuals online, especially if you have to self-censor in real life — as is the case with many who hold gender-critical views. It’s tempting to focus on winning allies among your new in-group, and one cheap and easy way to garner online popularity is to deride members of the outgroup. But it’s important to resist the influence of groupthink, or we can quickly end up in an echo chamber in which our opinions are never challenged.

These polarized environments inherently reward extreme views and penalize moderation. Online interactions make individuals more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors due to factors like anonymity, reduced accountability, and a mistaken feeling that what we do online doesn’t matter in the “real” world. In one particularly disturbing new example of this phenomenon, people in the gender-critical camp have been using the unfalsifiable claim that “being kind is what got us here” — a form of slippery slope fallacy — as a license to now be wantonly vindictive and cruel. And while it's true that the notion of kindness was too often misused by trans activists to shut down debate and critical thinking, disparaging people now won't win us any allies. For better or worse, a person’s sex cannot truly be changed, but insulting people who think otherwise will not change their minds.

This underscores the importance of setting boundaries — establishing limits on what is acceptable or tolerable behavior from others. Boundaries allow you to protect your values from being compromised by external influences. If someone oversteps a limit you've set, you have the right to voice your disagreement or distance yourself from that individual or organization. Remember, you can always opt out of group membership and still continue to fight for what you believe in.

Online tribalism is also heightened by algorithmic bias, which fills our timelines with outlier events presented as if they were the norm. In gender-critical discourse, our social media feeds often amplify the worst and most extreme examples the transgender community has to offer. Of course, nothing we see on these platforms is an accurate, representative sample of the millions of trans people globally.

Like all groups of people, those who identify as transgender or transsexual (as some prefer to be called) are not a monolith. There are many ways of being trans. Most trans people are not interested in erasing sex-based legal rights: they are simply trying to live their lives as an integrated part of society. And, as we know from the growing prevalence of detransitioners, trans-identity is not always permanent.

We should differentiate between the broader population of trans people and the social media activists who promote radical ideologies — many of whom are not themselves trans. Our criticism should target ideological beliefs about gender and the specific actions of individual activists — not trans people as a whole.

People on both the left and right tend to become emotionally invested in their beliefs and may find ingenious ways to rationalize them. Leftists are often highly skeptical of the right and of anything that challenges dominant left-wing narratives. This makes them more resistant to changing their minds on this issue. It can be a very disorienting experience — it was for me — to realize that the sources you’ve come to trust are wrong about trans issues and could therefore be wrong about other things, too.

It’s especially difficult to admit that you might have been wrong if you have already taken drastic and irreversible steps to medically transition yourself or to allow your child to medically transition or if you are a healthcare professional who has facilitated the medical transitions of your patients. That’s why it’s so important to approach this topic sensitively and refrain from catastrophizing. Detransitioners have frequently pointed this out, requesting not to be referred to as “mutilated” or “ruined” — descriptions that insinuate that they are damaged beyond repair.

Many people grappling with gender-related distress are in genuine pain. They are struggling to reconcile fundamental human needs of identity and belonging. They deserve our compassion and understanding, even as we critique the ideologies and practices that we believe are causing so much harm.

I am firmly convinced that those of us who are critical of trans ideology possess the best evidence and the most compelling arguments. We need to take the ethical high ground. Some socially conservative commentators seem primarily focused on gaining popularity by publicly dunking on their opponents. But genuine persuasion isn't about who can land the most devastating verbal blow. Civility and decorum are themselves conservative values, and we demean ourselves and our cause when we forsake them in favor of mudslinging.

Now, more than ever, we need open and constructive dialogue with people of different viewpoints, especially those from the left. If we want to convince people, we need to learn to communicate more effectively, and that means challenging beliefs without alienating people. We can do so only by making calm arguments supported by evidence from reputable sources. We're unlikely to see a dramatic shift in public opinion overnight, but each respectful interaction we foster brings us closer to achieving public awareness of these issues and ultimately, more informed and evidence-based policies.

Same principle as criticizing Islam.

#Christina Buttons #genderwang #gender ideology #queer theory #gender identity #gender cult #medical scandal #medical malpractice #criticism of ideas #sex trait modification #religion is a mental illness

34 notes · View notes

cosmicwhimsyexplorations · 9 months

Text

FREE WILL is the philosophical concept that individuals have the capacity to make choices and decisions independent of external constraints or determinism. It's a cornerstone of discussions in metaphysics, ethics, and theology.

Here's a detailed breakdown:

1. **Definition**: FREE WILL refers to the ability of conscious agents to make choices that are not predetermined or coerced by external factors. It implies autonomy and self-determination in decision-making.

2. **Metaphysical Considerations**:

- **Determinism vs. Indeterminism**: The debate often centers on whether the universe operates in a deterministic or indeterministic manner. Determinism suggests that every event is predetermined and inevitable, while indeterminism allows for randomness or unpredictability.

- **Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism**: Some argue that FREE WILL is compatible with determinism (compatibilism), asserting that meaningful choices can still exist within a determined framework. Others argue for incompatibilism, contending that true FREE WILL is incompatible with determinism.

3. **Neuroscience and Psychology**:

- Scientifically, the question of FREE WILL intersects with studies in neuroscience. Brain activity, neural pathways, and decision-making processes are explored to understand how much control individuals have over their choices.

- Psychologists delve into the subconscious and conscious factors influencing decisions, examining how external influences and internal motivations shape behavior.

4. **Ethical Implications**:

- In ethics, FREE WILL is crucial for concepts like moral responsibility. If individuals are considered free moral agents, they can be held accountable for their actions.

- The concept of moral responsibility hinges on the assumption that individuals have the capacity to choose between right and wrong based on their FREE WILL.

5. **Theological Perspectives**:

- In theology, FREE WILL is entwined with discussions on divine omniscience and human responsibility. Various religious traditions hold diverse views, ranging from predestination to the belief in a God-given FREE WILL.

6. **Existential and Philosophical Perspectives**:

- Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre emphasized radical FREE WILL, asserting that individuals are condemned to be free and responsible for creating their essence through choices.

- Other philosophical perspectives offer nuanced views on the nature and extent of FREE WILL, exploring how it coexists with societal influences and personal experiences.

In essence, the exploration of FREE WILL is a profound and multifaceted journey, touching upon fundamental aspects of human existence, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It remains a dynamic topic inspiring rich philosophical, scientific, and ethical dialogues.

0 notes

azeez-unv · 11 months

Text

Good leaders are often mistaken for dictators because they demand excellence and have a clear vision for the future. However, there is a big difference between the two. Leaders care about their teams and are looking for ways to motivate them.

Leadership is not about control but about service. It is not about power but empowerment. It is not about manipulation but inspiration. At the same time, dictators are only concerned with having absolute power. Many people in leadership positions are ambitious. Which by itself is not a bad thing. However, ambition for power is bad, ambition for excellence is good. Your job is to channel your ambition into being an excellent leader focused on putting others’ needs ahead of your own and raising the bar on effort and performance.

What is Leadership?

Dr Myles Munroe said “Leadership is the capacity to influence others through INSPIRATION generated by a PASSION motivated by a VISION birth by a conviction produced by a PURPOSE “

What is the difference between a leader and a Dictator?

One of the greatest Leaders Nelson Mandela, said the following quotes about leadership. “Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice all for the freedom of their people' A true leader is one who is responsible for his Self, for his people, for his community, and for his country.

No wonder America's first black President, Barack Obama, in a moving and eloquent tribute, remembered Nelson Mandela as "A man who took history in his hands, and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice." A leader . . . is like a shepherd. “When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.” Life is not measured by duration but by donation. We need great leaders in all areas of our Nation. We need great visionary leaders, great educational leaders, great organizational leaders, great medical leaders, and great family leaders. Perhaps one day we can say that most of our political leaders are also great.

What is the difference between a Dictator and a Leader? It is simple: Leader put the interests of those they serve ahead of their own. Dictators, on the other hand, put their own interests ahead of those they serve. But here is the thing: Dictators are not confined to the political arena. There are dictators in organizations, the Corporate World, Institutions, or religious circles who care more about accomplishing their personal agenda than their God-given mission.

If a Dictator does not feel for his people, if he does not feel for his community, if he does not feel for his country, then he is not a true leader at all. And we must also remember that his responsibility does not end in being a good leader. He must also create other better leaders. A leader who does not create better leaders is not a good leader. Leadership is a great ownership and responsibility. It is a responsibility for himself, his family, community, country, and finally responsibility for the entire world. All leadership is influence and action. It is initiation. It is pro-activeness. It is responsiveness. It is sensitiveness. It is taking a lead with full awareness and consciousness and taking complete accountability for that lead.

There are dictators in the marketplace who think only of the next business deal or quarterly earnings report—not the good of their team. On the other hand, a Leader works tirelessly for the good of those they serve. Unlike Dictators, leaders do not sacrifice the good of their followers on the altar of their own ambition. They put the next generation ahead of the next position or election, the good of their team ahead of their agenda, and the success of the cause ahead of their own success. A leader, or a Dictator, can be anyone who has taken up the responsibility of governing a religious entity, company, organization, community, city, state, region or even an entire nation.

So let us look at the following 18 qualities or characteristics of Dictators vs. Leaders

Dictator vs. Leaders

1. Dictator focus on position ---Leaders focus on disposition

2. Dictator lies on circumstances – Leaders tell the truth in all circumstances

3. Dictators focus on the program--- Leaders focus on principles

4. Dictators focus on promises - Leaders focus on values

5. Dictators focus on personal interest - Leaders focus on vision

6. Dictators focus on power -- Leaders focus on empowering

7. Dictators focus on safeguarding their seat ---Leaders focus on safeguarding the people

8. Dictators focus on protecting their rights - Leaders focus on protecting others’ rights

9. Dictators focus on the next Election - Leaders focus on the next generation

10. Dictators care about themselves and their organization-- Leaders care about the people they serve.

11. Dictators make decisions that help lobbying groups --- Leaders make decisions that help their entire constituency.

12. Dictators spend money on projects that help them - Leaders spend money on long-term projects for the public good.

13. Dictators have difficulty cutting luxury from the budget- Leaders have no problem cutting luxury from the budget.

14. Dictators build and hide in bureaucracy- Leaders fight bureaucracy

15. Dictators point fingers at others and never admit mistakes- Leaders will accept and admit to mistakes.

16. Dictators never learn from their failures- Leaders learn from their errors.

17. Dictators keep their objectives secret; - Leaders establish long-term objectives and communicate them to all.

18. Dictators set bad examples - Leaders set good examples.

Hopefully, you can now see why we have so many problems today, and why we need to fundamentally re-examine the qualities that we require in those people we consider for our leaders.

0 notes

grapecaseschoices · 1 year

Text

part 4

back @ it again at krispy kreme: part three here; ask

Agape – Selfless, Universal Love.

Does your OC wish to make the world a better place? How far do they see that as being their responsibility? What lengths would they go to in order to help achieve this?

Team Yes: Ori, BJ Team Sorta: Alana, Lala. Team Not actively: Hiyam.

Team Small Acts of Kindness: Ori, Alana. Team Direct Action [somewhat]: BJ and Lala Team Now Why Am In This?: Hiyam.

I think Ori and BJ [maybe because they're team believe in fate] feel a more active desire to do more for their greater community. Not to say Lala and Alana do not, but it's more that the boys see it more in that scope of responsibility. I think it was a mix of faith [ori's grandparents are/were Jewish - ethnically and religiously; BJ is Christian - culturally and religiously] and personality [Ori has a self-worth issue and it is kind of like he should give back for existing | BJ has duty-itis/big brother syndrome]. I have more thoughts on this but ima stop. [Just keep thinking of that one Rabbi quote about not giving up the fight and the weight/expectation but also joy of (Christian) charity]

For Alana and Lala, it is less obligation and more of a thing to do -- I think they both sorta vibe with the idea of a ripple effect; Alana especially. Less karma and more like the good I give spreads out, so I should give care/good. Alana is a I want Kindness/I should give Kindness + Politeness and Kindness is the Thing To Do. While Lala is like well, I live and make use of the world so I should give back to it/show appreciation.

Hiyam vs the world is kind of like -- if there is no world who would appreciate me? jk ... sorta. I don't think Hiyam has taken/has allowed herself the opportunity to think of the world at large because she is so fixated on a goal. And I think if the question was posed to her, she would be like, well I am not the one who fucked it up. But while she has no grandiose or altruistic feelings of world connection/responsibility -- there are things she cares about and things that catch her attention ........ and hiyam's love language is a mix of quality time/acts of service [leaning on the latter], so. But her belief is often that money speaks best so that is usually what she focuses on, when she allows herself to focus on anything other than future success.

Does your OC feel a spiritual connection to the world around them? Do they have a particular love for nature or living things?

Spirtual connection: Not unless they're on stage: Hiyam, BJ | Religiously: BJ [it is .... an obligation but not quite ...] | Through Nature: Lala, Ori [sometimes] | Through people: Ori, Lala [at times], Alana [usually]

Lala is the hiker, the adventurer -- there is something about high altitude and the trees and clouds that just hits them. They also love cats to a wild amount.

Ori doesn't quite get same buzz as Lala, he is more seeing the spark in people kind of person. Just that give and take, just that connectivity of people is almost enough to make him believe in something holy. But when he's skateboarding or surfing -- there's something, maybe peace.

Hiyam is to dogs [but -- not as intense] what Lala is to cats --- okay maybe thats saying rapids is to river the way hurricane/monsoon is to rain but ... Hiyam DOES think if there is a God they peaked at dogs. While Lala would give ancient Egyptians a run for their money re: cats, so. Both a tad obsessive but not the same level. But hey it is a love!

To what extent does your OC believe in the value (or even existence) of true altruism? Do they see an unselfish concern for the welfare of others as being naïve or foolish? Or as a moral quality to which people should aspire?

Surprisingly, I think they all believe in true altruism to a degree -- Hiyam is skeptical, however. And Lala I think believes in the sense that others believe in it; they don't necessarily find selfish altruism to be a bad thing but they don't negate that seeing why people strive for unselfish concern -- they just dont think one should twist themselves into notsover it.

BJ believes in true altruism and tries to act toward an unselfish concern, but also doesnt think it is realistic attainment for him.

Ori definitely 100% puts stock in it. And Alana is somewhere between Ori and Lala, but she is more likely to chastise herself for falling short.

Does your OC have a religious faith which emphasises the importance of a love for all people? If so then do they try to follow these teachings authentically? Or do they just pay lip-service to them? If not then do they follow a more martial or mercantile faith? Or none at all?

I think BJ is t he only one who has an active part with his faith -- and it is complicated.I am too tired to explore so - tba Ori stopped going to synagogue when his grandmother died.

Does your OC find it easy to empathise with their enemies? Or do they see it as important to dehumanise them in order to combat them with sufficient determination?

BJ: Enemies is such an intense term, but they do try with people they dislike.

Lala: Enemies is expecting a lot, but if they did I think so -- but probably not EASILY but not as hard as they would think. They're generally team removing empathy for a person/people you disllke mean youu never had genuine empathy in the first place, so.

Hiyam: The closest thing Hiyam has to an enemy is Seven, so no.

Ori and Alana: No [ish for Alana] But less in the sense of a group of people, and more people who hurt them. Alana tends to be bite at people who appear similar to those who hurt her -- but once she deals with that I feel she can come around.

#insight: infamous #grapes chars #meet my ocs #character insight #insight: josnel coleman #insight: alana carita #insight: lala sandoval #insight: hiyam vinke #insight: ori zhou

1 note · View note

spiritualnaturalist · 1 year

Text

Taoism and the Fight for Social Ecology

Hey Guys- Hope all is well and that you're ready to get into today’s blog ! Today we are looking at Murray Bookchin and James O’Connor! Murray Bookchin was an American philosopher from NYC. He is credited with formulating and developing the idea of Social Ecology and Urban Planning. He has authored books such as Social Ecology and Communalism as well as The Ecology of Freedom, today we will be discussing his piece What is Social Ecology ? James O’Connor was an author of novels such as Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism and Ecosocialism, today we will be discussing his piece Socialism and Ecology. Murray Bookchin discusses the development of hierarchy and class in the scheme of transitioning from biological to human. Author James O’Conner goes into the political sphere and discusses red vs green politics. This week brings up an interesting dichotomy in the realm of religion and politics.

Now I know you guys have been here for a while so you already know what's coming next, but can you guess the topic ? I think you totally can because I'm sure you read the title ; ). When looking at the beliefs of the Taoists, based on the teachings of Lao Tzu, we see this concept of Tao and how we as humans live in balance with the Tao. A large concept of the Tao is the idea of spiritual immortality. The soul has lived in the world throughout multiple bodies and when we die, our souls finally reconnect with the Tao. When we look at Taoism and this idea of social ecology we see the development of the concept of yin and yang. The idea of the yin and yang is that these two opposing forces exist in tandem and that when they are able to reach equilibrium, the energy of life is created. The doctrines of Taoism state that a Toaist who understands this equilibrium would never exploit or abuse their standing in nature.

Taoism , as a less popular religion in the west, is mostly practiced in China and Taiwan. Based on current census data there are around 8.7 million practicing taoists in the world. The religion is at an interesting location due to the fact that China is considered one of the least environmentally friendly countries, and the taoist peoples have made their opinions on that known by stating that the practices are disrupting the yin and yang in the country. Chinese Taoists monks are hoping to change the public's minds about the country's current practices.

Taoists have turned to taking matters into their own hands and using their religious freedoms to try and turn the tides. A popular example of this is Mao mountain in China. On this mountain Toaist monks have built an entirely eco-friendly temple, far away from the industrialized city. It is powered by solar panels and is covered in nitrogen fixing plant life. The abbot of Mao Mountain has stated they have grown frustrated by indifference to a crippling pollution crisis that has left the land barren and the sky riddled with smog. The leaders of the temple state “China doesn’t lack money — it lacks a reverence for the environment,” and when speaking about the people they state “Our morals are in decline and our beliefs have been lost” ( new york times ).

I think this is a very good example of operating under a social ecology as well as advocating for green environmental policy. And more so I think the Taoists have gone about it in an incredibly interesting way where the activism they chose to do is directly related to their religious beliefs, it is not just protests or avocating, which is also important, but they build temples and spread their beliefs through action. Taoism highlights the statements and beliefs of Bookchin and Murray quite well and I also think that as a mostly eastern religion they provide a unique non westernized viewpoint, unlike many of the other major religions that have been previously discussed.

Tune in next week for a discussion about Ecofeminism , I hope you’re as excited as I am !

1 note · View note

akaraboonline · 2 years

Text

What's the difference between celibacy and abstinence?

Sex is wonderful, but so is deciding not to have any for any cause. Accepting the various ways people express their agency over their bodies, including the choice to be celibate or abstinent, is one of the key components of sexual freedom. Despite the fact that those terms are frequently used equally, they do not always have the same meaning. What's the distinction between celibate and abstinence? Exists one? What's the difference between celibacy and abstinence?

What Is Celibacy?

A voluntary choice to stay single or abstain from all sexual activity for an extended period of time is celibacy. Almost all cultures around the globe have practiced celibacy at some point in their history. To refrain from sexual activity and other non-penetrative forms of sex is a decision. It can last a lifetime or however long you desire. Celibacy is chosen by people for a variety of reasons, such as moral principles, living preferences, and religious convictions. For instance, celibacy is encouraged by many religious traditions as a way to devote oneself completely to spiritual endeavors and serve a higher power. Celibacy pledges are common among priests, monks, and nuns as a sign of their dedication to their respective religions. It might also boil down to a person's desire to postpone having intercourse until they're engaged or even married.

What Is Abstinence?

Abstinence is a prohibition against engaging in sex-related actions. Typically, it is short-lived and restricted to a particular period of time, such as until marriage or when you are in a serious committed relationship. It is typically done on your own terms, so you determine what you want to indulge in and what you want to refrain from, as well as when and how you want to resume doing so. Similar to marriage, abstinence is a decision that individuals make for a variety of reasons. Some people might decide to abstain from sexual activity in order to prevent unintended pregnancies or STDs. Others might decide to abstain as a matter of principle or in accordance with their faith convictions. A lifetime commitment to abstinence may be made by some people, while it may only be chosen briefly by others. It's critical to remember that choosing to abstain is a personal choice. Everyone is free to decide how they want to engage in sexual behavior. Additionally, it's critical that individuals have access to truthful knowledge about sexual health in order to make educated decisions about their sexual behavior. Celibacy Vs Abstinence: What’s The Difference?

What's the difference between celibacy and abstinence? Celibacy is often rooted in religious beliefs. Celibacy, when used strictly, refers to refraining in accordance with one's religious obligations. For instance, adherents of some other faiths, Buddhist monks, Catholic priests, and nuns have all been known to take a sacred pledge of celibacy. They can stay pure and chaste in the eyes of their God by giving up sex and can focus all of their energy on their religious calling. There are no set boundaries when it comes to abstinence. To various people, sex can imply different things. For some people, abstaining from it means having other forms of sex, such as oral sex, masturbation, dry humping or outercourse, sex with devices, or even anal sex, while still refraining from penetrative sex. It's up to you to choose what suits your needs or best fits the results you're aiming for. Abstinence arises out of personal will and issues. My buddy doesn't engage in sex because she is asexual and finds little to no enjoyment in it. One stayed clean up until she got married. Another woman held off until she met a guy she truly loved and believed was worthy of her sharing herself in such a way. There are countless justifications for choosing celibacy. It might be a way to deal with sex addiction, resolve the issues surrounding the act, avoid unintended pregnancies and STDs, or it might just be a way to eliminate sexual distractions so that you can concentrate on improving yourself and your relationships. Everything depends on you and what you want. Celibacy and abstinence do not take away sexual desire. Your capacity to be aroused is still present even if you decide to refrain from having sex for a brief or extended length of time. Sexual tension and desire are still present. If you don't want to indulge that energy, you just need to find another healthy exercise to channel it toward. My libido was all over the map when I first started taking antidepressants. I therefore ceased having sex completely. Regularly visiting the gym and working out helped me release all the bottled-up and irritated desire I was experiencing. You can choose to be celibate or abstinent even after you’ve had sex. Celibacy and abstinence do not necessitate virginity. You have the option to decide one day to never engage in sexual activity again. You can choose to take a year off to recover. Consider what you actually want from your close relationships during that period. Act in a way that feels right to you. It won't be simple, and you'll face numerous temptations. That's particularly true in the beginning, but don't waver. Celibacy usually doesn’t include outercourse. Celibacy typically entails giving up all forms of sexual pleasure, in contrast to abstinence, where you can choose to participate in activities other than penetration. Particularly when the choice to be celibate is motivated by religious obligations, but an abstainer can choose to participate in outercourse and it wouldn't be considered breaking the rules.

In Conclusion

Recap for a moment and contrast celibacy with abstention. Celibacy is the decision to live a single, non-sexual life for spiritual or other purposes. It is frequently linked to religious organizations, such as priests or monks, who take celibacy vows as a symbol of their fidelity to their religion. Being celibate is a lifelong decision. Additionally, celibate individuals typically decide to forego sexual activity for the remainder of their lives. (However, it should be emphasized that this is not a rigid rule.) Contrarily, abstinence is all about refraining from sexual action, though it might only be temporary. This decision is made by people for a variety of factors. Personal principles, a wish to prevent pregnancy or STDs, etc., could all fall under this category. Abstinence can be chosen consciously and consciously. But it might also be a short-term choice made in reaction to particular circumstances. In conclusion, celibacy is a long-term sexually inactive state, usually for religious or personal causes. Abstinence is a decision to temporarily forego sexual activity for a variety of causes. Get it? Got it? Good. Read the full article

1 note · View note

someoneimsure · 2 years

Note

Anon with the stalker here.. thank you for your advice <3 yea unfortunately they did already reblog it.. sigh.. I imagine they’re revisited the ask game many times to find the urls of my mutuals to harass. The whole situation is just so creepy. Most of the time they use the makeshift accounts/blogs and not anonymous (probably so I wouldn’t be able to block their IP address and to make sure they didn’t accidentally send a death threat without clicking anonymous, which would lead me to their main blog) and I’ve blocked every single makeshift account of theirs and I’m just here thinking like. Did they really, almost 6 times now, go through the whole shebang of signing up to tumblr and creating a new account with a different email just to send me death threats? That feels like a lot of effort 😭 Also, thanks for your confirmation- I felt crazy at first thinking that it was them, but once I blocked them and moved on w my life, I received the first death threat veryyyy soon afterwards. Like I blocked them when I had 35 followers and got my first death threat of this site at 50 followers so it’s not like I was a big enough blog to attract that sort of attention from anyone else. Plus at that time, they were the only person I had bad blood with. Man this sucks. Thanks for the advice tho I really appreciate it 🙏 Again I don’t take any side in this fandom shipping war of proship vs anti but like. I feel safer with proshippers? 😭 Plus the more I revisit those memories it is very. Creepy how they used their diet of morally pure media and their ‘activism’ of calling out problematic fiction to display themselves as A Good Person who is morally pure and righteous and always in the right, when in fact looking back their behavior and actions were very creepy and manipulative and almost predatory. Unfortunately I fell for it at the time. Never again. The type of media someone consumes says NOTHING about their character, their actions do. And somehow my stalker ex mutual took the idea that as long as the media they consume and the way they consume it is good, they MUST be a good person. Even when they stalk someone and send them death threats. The cognitive dissonance is so weird

You're very welcome! I hope they are no longer stalking you!! <3

If I understand what you're saying right, it is very alarming to me that they felt no need to go on anon and instead circumvented their IP being blocked to continue harassing you. That shit is illegal in the US, btw. By default, I think tumblr should consider any email address used for that many accounts in that short of time to be suspicious activity.

"Creepy how they used their diet of morally pure media and their ‘activism’ of calling out problematic fiction to display themselves as A Good Person who is morally pure and righteous and always in the right, when in fact looking back their behavior and actions were very creepy and manipulative and almost predatory."

This kind of behavior is everywhere, not just in antis. I've seen politicians and the mainstream media do it, too. Every single pedophile does this as well.

Just because someone champions a good cause does not automatically give them the right to keep doing something seriously wrong. But, in the mind of these people, it's precisely because they are doing something right so religiously that they belief they deserve the reward of doing something that pleasures them but is morally abhorrent. "It's fine as long as I virtue signal. People can't say I'm all bad when I support good causes. They'll focus on that instead of my other activities." People are constantly fooled by it, too.

We need to become more aware of this pattern of behavior, identify it, and put a stop to it.

Stay safe!! <3

#anon #asks #once more i am preventing reblogs #please take screenshots #i am also not adding certain tags because i know the people who lurk in them #thank you and stay safe! <3

1 note · View note

devilsskettle · 3 years

Note

oh man i have a Lot of thoughts about the autopsy of jane doe, both positive and critical For Sure, i'd be SO excited to see your analysis of it! definitely keeping an eye out for that 👀

thanks! i'm working on something article-like to talk about the film and i don't know what i want to do with it yet lol but if i don't post it on here i'll definitely link it. it's mainly a discussion of gender in possession/occult films in the same way that carol clover describes in men, women, and chainsaws - that there are dual plot lines in occult films, usually gendered masculine and feminine respectively, where the "main" feminine plot (the actual possession) is actually a way to explore the "real" masculine plot (the emotional conflict of the "man in crisis" protagonist). typically the man in crisis is too masculine, or "closed" emotionally, where the woman is too "open," which is why she acts as the vehicle for the supernatural occurrence as well as the core emotions of the film. the man has to learn how to become more open (though if he becomes too open, like father karras in the exorcist, he has to die by the end - he has to find a happy medium, where he doesn't actually transgress gender expectations too much. clover calls this state the "new masculine," and we might apply the term "toxic masculinity" to the "closed" emotional state). part of the "opening up" feature of the story is that it allows men to be highly emotionally expressive in situations where they otherwise might not be allowed to, which is cathartic for the assumed primary audience of these films (young men). another feature of the genre is white science vs black magic (once you exhaust the scientific "rational" explanations, you have to accept that something magic is happening). the autopsy of jane doe does this even more than the films she discusses when she published the book in 1992 (the exorcist, poltergeist, christine, etc) because the supernaturally influenced young woman who becomes this kind of vehicle is more of an object than a character. she doesn't have a single line of dialogue or even blink for the entire runtime of the movie. the camerawork often pans to her as if to show her reactions to the events of the movie, which seems kind of pointless because it's the same reaction the whole time (none) but it allows the viewer to project anything they want onto her - from personal suffering to cunning and spite.

compare again to the exorcist: is the story actually about regan mcneil? no. but do we care about her? sure (clover says no, but i think we at least feel for her situation lol). and do we get an idea of what she's like as a person? yes. even though her pain and her body are used narratively as a framework for karras' emotional/religious crisis, we at least see her as a person. both she and her mother are expendable to the "real" plot but they're very active in their roles in the "main" plot - our "jane doe" isn't afforded even that level of agency or identity. so. is that inherently sexist? well, no - if there were other women in the film who were part of the "real" plot, i would say that the presence of women with agency and identity demonstrate enough regard for the personhood of women to make the gender of the subject of the autopsy irrelevant. but there are none. of the three important women in the film, we have 1) an almost corpse, 2) an absent (dead) mother, and 3) a one dimensional girlfriend who is killed off for a man's character development/cathartic expression of emotions. all three are just platforms for the men in crisis of this narrative.

and, to my surprise, much of the reception to the film is to embrace it as a feminist story because the witch is misconstrued as a badass, powerful, Strong Female Character girl boss type for getting revenge on the men who wronged her, with absolutely no consideration given to what the movie actually ends up saying about women. and the director has said that he embraces this interpretation, but never intended it. so like. of course you're going to embrace the interpretation that gives you critical acclaim and the moral high ground. but it's so fucking clear that it was never his intention to say anything about feminism, or women in general, or gender at all. so i find it very frustrating that people read the film that way because it's just. objectively wrong.

there's also things i want to say about this idea that clover talks about in a different chapter of the book when she discusses the country/city divide in a lot of horror (especially rape-revenge films) in which the writer intends the audience to identify with the city characters and be against the country characters (think of, like, house of 1000 corpses - there's pretty explicit socioeconomic regional tension between the evil country residents and the travelers from the city) but first, they have to address the real harm that the City (as a whole) has inflicted upon the Country (usually in the forms of environmental and economic destruction) so in order to justify the antagonization the country people are characterized by, their "retaliation" for these wrongs has to be so extreme and misdirected that we identify with the city people by default (if country men feel victimized by the City and react by attacking a city woman who isn't complicit in the crimes of the City in any of the violent, heinous ways horror movies employ, of course we won't sympathize with them). why am i bringing this up? well, clover says this idea is actually borrowed from the western genre, where native americans are the Villains even as white settlers commit genocide - so they characterize them as extremely savage and violent in order to justify violence against them (in fiction and in real life). the idea is to address the suffering of the Other and delegitimize it through extreme negative characterization (often, with both the people from the country and native americans, through negative stereotyping as well as their actions). so i think that shows how this idea is transferred between different genres and whatever group of people the writers want the viewers to be against, and in this movie it’s happening on the axis of gender instead of race, region, or class. obviously the victims of the salem witch trials suffered extreme injustice and physical violence (especially in the film as victim of the ritual the body clearly underwent) BUT by retaliating for the wrongs done to her, apparently (according to the main characters) at random, she's characterized as monstrous and dangerous and spiteful. her revenge is unjustified because it’s not targeted at the people who actually committed violence against her. they say that the ritual created the very thing it was trying to destroy - i.e. an evil witch. she becomes the thing we're supposed to be afraid of, not someone we’re supposed to sympathize with. she’s othered by this framework, not supported by it, so even if she’s afforded some power through her posthumous magical abilities, we the viewer are not supposed to root for her. if the viewer does sympathize with her, it’s in spite of the writing, not because of it. the main characters who we are intended to identify with feel only shallow sympathy for her, if any - even when they realize they’ve been cutting open a living person, they express shock and revulsion, but not regret. in fact, they go back and scalp her and take out her brain. after realizing that she’s alive! we’re intended to see this as an acceptable retaliation against the witch, not an act of extreme cruelty or at the very least a stupid idea lol.

(also - i hate how much of a buzzword salem is in movies like this lol, nothing about her injuries or the story they “read” on her is even remotely similar to what happened in salem, except for the time period. i know they don’t explicitly say oh yeah, she was definitely from salem, but her injuries really aren’t characteristic of american executions of witches at all so i wish they hadn’t muddied the water by trying to point to an actual historical event. especially since i think the connotation of “witch” and the victims of witch trials has taken on a modern projection of feminism that doesn’t really make sense under any scrutiny. anyway)

not to mention the ending: what was the writer intending the audience to get from the ending? that the cycle of violence continues, and the witch’s revenge will move on and repeat the same violence in the next place, wherever she ends up. we’re supposed to feel bad for whoever her next victims will be. but what about her? i think the movie figures her maybe as triumphant, but she’s going to keep being passed around from morgue to morgue, and she’s going to be vivisected again and again, with no way to communicate her pain or her story. the framework of the story doesn’t allow for this ending to be tragic for her, though - clearly the tragedy lies with the father and son, finally having opened up to one another, unfortunately too late, and dying early, unjust deaths at the hands of this unknowable malignant entity. it doesn’t do justice to her (or the girlfriend, who seems to be nothing but collateral damage in all of this - in the ending sequence, when the police finds the carnage, it only shows them finding the bodies of the men. the girlfriend is as irrelevant to the conclusion as she is to the rest of the plot).

but does this mean the autopsy of jane doe is a “bad” movie? i guess it depends on your perspective. ultimately, it’s one of those questions that i find myself asking when faced with certain kinds of stories that inevitably crop up often in our media: how much can we excuse a story for upholding regressive social norms (even unintentionally) before we have to discount the whole work? i don’t think the autopsy of jane doe warrants complete rejection for being “problematic” but i think the critical acclaim based on the idea that it’s a feminist film should be rejected. i still consider it a very interesting concept with strong acting and a lot of visual appeal, and it’s a very good piece of atmospheric horror. it’s does get a bit boring at certain points, but the core of the film is solid. it’s also not trying to be sexist, arguably it’s not overtly sexist at all, it’s just very very androcentric at the expense of its female characters, and i’m genuinely shocked that anyone would call it feminist. so sure, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, but let’s also be critical about how it’s using women as the stage for men’s emotional conflict

also re: my description of this little project as “a film isn’t feminist just because there’s a woman’s name in the title” - i actually don’t want to skim over the fact that “jane doe” isn’t a real name. of the three women in the film, only one has a real name; the other two are referred to by names given to them by men. i’ll conclude on this note because i want to emphasize the lack of even very basic ways of recognizing individual identity afforded to women in this film. so yeah! the end! thanks for your consideration if you read this far!

#the autopsy of jane doe #men women and chainsaws #horror #also to be clear i'm not saying that the exorcist is somehow more feminist because. it's not. i'm just using it as a frame of reference #you'd think a film from 2016 would escape the ways gender is constructed in one from 1973 but that's not really the case #i actually rewatched the end of the movie to make sure that what i said about the girlfriend's body not being found at the end was accurate #and yeah! it is! the intended audience-identified character shifts to the sheriff who - that's right! - is also a man #the camerawork is: shot of the dead son / shot of the sheriff looking sad / shot of the dead father / shot of the sheriff looking sad /#shot of jane doe / shot of the sheriff looking upset angry and suspicious #which is how we're supposed to feel about the conclusion for each character #the girlfriend is notably absent in this sequence #anyway! this is less about me condemning this movie as sexist and more about looking at how women in occult horror #continue to be relegated to secondary plot lines at best or to set dressing for the primary plot line at worst #and what that says about identification of viewers with certain characters and why writers have written the story that way #i think the reception of the film as Feminist might actually point to a shift in identification - but to still be able to enjoy the movie #while identifying with a female character you need to change the narrative that's actually presented to you #hence the rampant impulse to misinterpret the intention of the filmmakers #we do want it to be feminist! the audience doesn't identify with the 'default' anymore automatically #i think that's actually a pretty positive development at least in viewership - if only filmmakers would catch up lol #oh and i only very briefly touched on this here but the white science vs black magic theme is pretty clearly reflected in this film also

84 notes · View notes

seadem-on · 3 years

Text

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied”.

- the Gospel of Luke, 6:20-21

Your probably too long to read, incomplete and obscure introduction to the themes of loneliness and forgiveness in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (including religious references).

Image there just for cuteness. Let’s go!

1) Loneliness

Tuco is a tragically lonely character. The layers on which this loneliness is played out are multiple. Not only he is cast away from his family - having deserted it - and morally from religion - as his priest brother points out he has done nothing “outside evil” - and from the law-ruled society - being Tuco a literal outlaw, with a long rap sheet to testify for it - but also he is spiritually outside of God’s grace - “while I wait for the Lord to remember me” he says to his brother Pablo.

He does seek out company - he tries to reintroduce himself in his family at the monastery, when he meets his brother again after 9 years. The scene with his brother draws a parallel between Tuco and the “Prodigal son” of Jesus’ parable, who left his family for a life of sin. His angered brother Pablo cannot understand the reason why he came to visit and underlines the evil he has done. The scene does not only show the derangedness of traditional familial relations; it also expresses a strong anticlerical statement showing how far the Church is from putting into practice the original spirit of brotherly love and solidarity.

He has no one on his side. No God - when Tuco says that God is on his side something happens that contradicts his statement. No brother - being rejected by Pablo. No friend - being betrayed by Blondie at the beginning of their partnership.

The symbol of loneliness and lack of human connection is the desert. The torture of Blondie at the hands of Tuco takes place in the desert. The film itself begins with a long shot of a desert landscape which is immediately filled by a gigantic close-up on the face of a killer. In this desert we are immediately welcomed by a threatening figure: it is really the only kind of humanity that can be found there - ruthless and keen to murder.

Tuco is deeply violent too. He is a murderer, a torturer, a thief, a criminal. He is the lowest a man can get. And he is fully aware of his own nature. The image of the dog wandering at the beginning of the film in the ghost town embodies the way Tuco moves in the world - belonging to none, hungry, constantly threatened, constantly looking for company and food. He is in fact chased by the afore mentioned killer but manages to escape.

Though it is never stated outright, Tuco’s real quest is to find a friend. But in the kind of world painted by Leone “friend” is someone who can potentially turn on you. A danger. Society (food sharing, family) is embued with violence and threats. One has to put up a facade to hide their weakness and survive.

But this desire is persistent in Tuco. Through his lies he states it to Blondie: he needs to know that “even for a tramp like him there is always a bowl of soup”. He needs to know that there is someone out there that can fulfill this hunger for company. Someone who does not point out his sins like his brother does. Someone who loves him for who he is - a tramp, a criminal, a bastard, a sinner.

2) Presence

“Were you gonna die alone?”

Is there anything more absurd than loving your enemy? After all that Tuco has done to him, Blondie - the archetypal rebel - makes a disruptive gesture. He kindly offers Tuco the cigar passing it from his mouth thus symbolically offering himself.

The cigar is a part of Blondie, as we cannot imagine his character without it. Furthermore he is literally taking it from his mouth, as if sharing with Tuco a part of himself.

The parallel with the wafer of the eucharist is evident as the gesture - and its orality - symbolically represents union and community. From this moment on Blondie and Tuco form a partnership which is hard to break - that draws them back together when they are apart - a kind of connection that does not entail money. Furthermore, the wafer in the eucharist is the body of Christ - offered “to wash away humanity’s sins”. This meaning is carried out to the end of the film. “He who eats the body of Christ does not die”.

Blondie reaffirms his offering himself multiple times. When he reunites with Tuco, Blondie tells him to kill Angel Eyes and his henchmen, and then joins him in the fight, asking him mockingly “were you gonna die alone?”. He makes it clear he is on Tuco’s side, and actively supports him.

Finally during the last showdown Blondie offers him protection - right when Tuco is at his weakest. Blondie’s gaze and nod in his direction calm and steady Tuco.

This goes to close Tuco’s quest to find a friend; a competitor, a rival, and enemy who also is on his side when needed.

Blondie’s actions are aimed at mending the relationship with Tuco with forgiveness and love - making Blondie the bearer of a “love thy enemy” message. And this is clearer if we look at the parallels between Blondie and Christ: he is tortured, (almost) dies and comes back to life, loves the one who hurt him, and protects him (see citation at the beginning of the post).

Blondie is even seen occupying the same position as a statue of Christ - see image below.

By this I do not mean he is painted as a superior being - actually it is the opposite. I mean more simply that as a character he carries a worldview embued with forgiveness, kindness, and love. He still is a criminal - but he is capable to feel tenderness despite his violent actions. Both he and Tuco show this “duplicity”, or ambiguousness. Moreover, in the film he and Tuco switch roles at different times - sometimes Blondie embodies Christ, as the “innocent” victim, whereas at the end Tuco takes on the position of Christ (and of course to they respectively embody Judas too, betraying each other for gold). That goes to show how thin the line is between victim and perpetrator, how there is both good and bad in our our nature.

Looking at the symbolicism again, Angel Eyes (whose name is originally Sentenza) embodies judgement, which opposes forgiveness. Tuco can finally escape judgement and death thanks to the presence and forgiveness of Blondie.

Also ultimately it is not Blondie who acts alone and saves Tuco. He lets Tuco take his decision. He lets Tuco make the choice to shoot first - choice which is possible since Tuco trusts that Blondie has his back. Tuco is freeing himself from the violence ridden world choosing partnership, trusting another person.

The most absurd thing of it all is that Blondie - the unbound rebel, the embodiment of individualistic self interest, and most of all the victim of Tuco’s torture - actively chooses to be by his side. This choice is disruptive in many ways. First, it is an act of tenderness in a world ruled by violence. Secondly, their partnership allows Tuco to find a haven out of the systems of religion, law and society that have excluded him. And ultimately it saves Tuco from death as a form of punishment for his crimes (forgiveness vs. Judgement).

#the good the bad and the ugly #gbu meta #clint eastwood #eli wallach #sergio leone #spaghetti western #the dollars trilogy #tuco ramirez #il buono il brutto il cattivo

77 notes · View notes

metanoiamorii · 3 years

Text

Wip Re-Introduction: War of Wrath

❛The war you cannot win is the only one worth fighting.❜

♧ Title: War of Wrath [WoW]

♧ Status: First Drafting

♧ Point of View: Third Person, flexible between a few

♧ Genre: Fantasy, Action, Drama, Epic, LGBTQ+

♧ Warnings: This story revolves around injustice and genocide. In this story, there is going to be a long-lasting war and the consequences of ancestral actions. This isn't about the genocide and injustice in itself, but a story of the oppressed fighting back and reclaiming what they're due. There will be toxic and abusive relationships, particularly family; finding an escape from them, and healing from the trauma. There will be homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, and colonization. There will be a glorification of genocide, colonization, torture, racism, abuse, and maintaining a cycle of oppression; there will be demonization of fighting back and speaking against the oppression. This is a story of ethics vs morals. It is not for their faint of heart. It is going to be dark, but there will be a happy ending.

♧ Featuring: The majority of the characters will be LGBTQ+, from pansexual, homosexual, to asexual; genderfluid, agender/nonbinary, and transgender. Each character is complex and morally grey. Yes, they will do things that are blatantly terrible, or actively good. Overall, they will be morally grey and questionable at best; every character will suffer from having to decide what is more important: ethics or morals. There will be complex world-building, from both the universe it takes place in, and the religious pantheons brought up. The religions brought up will be polytheistic and animism-themed. The romance between the major characters will be slow-burn enemies to friends to lovers, and them learning to love themselves through one another; they will be forming a found family. There will be an exploration on generational healing, and unlearning toxic, and bias believes. There are going to be dragons, humans, and a few other fantasy-inspired races.

♧ Setting: there will be encompassing of territories and areas explored. Few inspirations are Mongolia, The Incan Empire, Viking Scandinavia, Ancient Greece.

♧ Synopsis:

In Gri'lian, the gods have vanished and the mortals overstep their boundaries.

Long have been the years of war between humans and dragekind. Humans kill the dragons for territory and control; the drage kill the humans in self-defense. As time goes on, history proves the humans will not stop. They revel in the war they have instigated, they thrive on the power and authority they have taken by force.

It has been proven the gods have abandoned their creation, they are nowhere to be found. If they will not stop the humans… who will? Who will place the world back into natural balance?

What happens when a single dragon decides enough is enough? He makes the call, if the gods will not intervene, new gods need to be born. He alone begins a collection of misfits, the most qualified to end the terror of humans and reinstate the drages; those he can trust to bring a new era.

They make their peace and take on their new role. They carve into their skin their sacred oath and adorn themself in the paint of their ancestors. Together, they go to war against the human. They go to war and fight like no one has before. They turn the tides of war and make a name for themself.

They have won every battle, but the war isn’t won.

The only way to win the war, they come to realize in time, is not through violence, but through peace. By living in harmony with the human, not in war. They have to learn to live with the humans, to share the world and their lives with one another.

♧ Tease

Faith through fire, peace through power; our souls bear written this vernacular. Our intentions we laid bare, yet all still cower in fear. To absent gods you make your prayers…. when we answer, you acclaim we give scare? If the help you wish to shun, why should we give chance upon chance to you anymore?

We fight for family, for it is our duty and sacred honor; with blood and fire, we will show you the price of war.

A battle you wished for, know a war you shall now pay for. The natural order we shall restore. Know, although bound to be ignored, our actions are only sincere. This war, by your hand, was it made so severe… For pride, a glut of greed, you were made a whore. Nay, your life we will not spare.

Why?

Why of your lives will we not spare?

Perhaps a reminder is required.

The waters have turned red, from the blood we have bled. Of you, we pled, yet our mothers and fathers and our brothers and our sisters you behead. Of daughters and sons, you have killed.

Your acts you dare to justify, lacking a shred of dignity?!

You have denied us as your friend, with caution you should have tread… for now? You are dead.

A warning:

They say, the red sun marks death, signal bloodshed beneath the light of its brothers and sisters in the passing darkness… know, for you it is coming.

♧ Excerpt:

“… Father.” With only respect, Svihar greeted.

Violkoa shifted his hold onto his fan, blowing a light gust with it. “Svihar.” He greets back, in a tone that was less than kind. “You are a rare one to come, what is it?”

It was no lie. He paid more respect to Kallai, sharing in her beliefs. But still… Here he was, kneeling before his father. “I seek your blessings, Father.”

That scowl so neatly woven upon Violkoa’s features nearly lightened. Bemused. He cocked an eyebrow and closed his fan. “What do you seek blessings for?”

“An honour battle.” Svihar drew his head forward, daring his eyes from the floor to meet Violkoa’s.

Now that scowl faltered, the rare smirk pulled onto that stoic and weathered face. “An honour battle?” Violkoa’s repeated. “With whom?”

“Whomever I desire.” It is a bite, with fangs drawn. Realizing his mistake, Svihar lowers his head and draws in a breath through his nose. “All that have broken their oaths to you, those that cannot adhere to order, the ones who know no law…”

Violkoa unfurled his fan. He shifts the arm he holds around himself and stands, fanning himself.

Silence.

Svihar keeps his head low, awaiting a response. He knows better than to raise his head and tempt a response. He waits. He waits.

He waits until the fan snaps shut in harshness, a gust of wind sent through the chambers. The fan disappears into Violkoa’s sleeve as his arm raises, he plucks the center spine from the bun he wears and strides forward. He does not drop to his knees, but he lowers himself so he may spin his son’s hair into a similar bun and tuck the spine into it.

To his feet, Violkoa rises. He turns upon his heels, his quilled tail dragging behind him as he disappears back into the temple. He gives a simple command, as Svihar rises to his feet, only when Violkoa no longer is in sight: “Go to war, My Son.”

♧ Characters:

— The Lovers

Kaithrine Eve Flora; The First Dragonlord

Female • She/Her • Human • Pansexual • Demiromantic

The young woman that rules Virta'Niliq. Ruler from a young age, Kaithrine has matured faster than she should have. She understands the way of the world more than the adults around her do. As she ages, she meets her future husband, and she becomes the heroine of a story as old as time when she joins forces with the league of dragons that plague the humans. She leads by example and creates history as its known.

Eoin'fynil Sirenheart; The Blood Taint

Amab • Agender • He/They • Water Dragon • Pansexual • Demiromantic

A man with a legacy to uphold: his grandmother is the refined ruler of a sea with a ruthless reputation, his father is an enigma with a merciless reputation…. Eoin'fynil is a nomad, trying to put a distance with his family to raise his son. He puts distance with his family, but he can’t outrun a young girl with high ambitions, and his role in history.

— The Order

Intersex • Genderqueer • He/They • Rainbow Dragon • Asexual • Aromantic

Svihar Hopebringer; The Father of the Order

The drage who has brought on a revolution. Although he carries a ruthless reputation to his name- demonized by the humans- he’s a very compassionate man. He cares immensely and expresses deeply. He’s faithful till the end to his kindred and protective of the family he has created.

Ryltar Flametongue; The Cinder King

Transmasc • Agender • He/They • Fire Dragon • Grey-Asexual • Demi-Homoromantic

The one Svihar trusts the must, and the drage all know stand as his favorite child. He’s a drage without compassion that will raze everything before his eyes to ashes, if it means winning the war. He is one the humans fear, as they know he has no mercy to give to them for their crimes.

Dyiare Seawraith; The Wraith of the Sea

Transfem • She/Her • Water Drage • Grey-Asexual • Demi-Homoromantic

The grandmother of Eoin'fynil, known as one of the Sages of the Sea. She’s a woman that doesn’t smile, her mind fixed only on her responsibilities. She’s serious and stern, she has no room to relax and laugh.

Syvtnr Venomtongue; The Enchantress of Reckoning

Afab • Nonbinary • She/They • Nature Dragon • Polyamorous Pansexual • Aromatic

A drage known to masquerade as a human. Famed for her beauty, she is a seductress who uses that weapon to bring humans to their knees. Apathetic, she does not regret using her tacts of manipulation to secure victory for her kindred. And yet, it’s her price to bear few see beyond her beauty, she’s not seen as a individual, but often only as a tool.

Ayros Golden-Father; The Heart of the Order

Amab • Agender • He/They • Light Dragon • Polyamorous Pansexual • Polyamorous Demiromantic

The trusted advisor, the one Svihar will most frequently turn to when he needs the truth, or advice. A quiet man, Ayros will keep to himself and not offer his unsolicited advice. He will most frequently stand back and observe; he will make himself known, his authority acknowledged, when necessary.

My'fel Frigidbane; The White Shadow

Amab • Demiboy • He/They • Snow Dragon • Bisexual • Aromantic

Simple-minded compared to the rest, My'fel is a drage with a one-track mind. He cares for his basic needs: food, sleep, reproduction, and the art of hunting. He’s ill-tempered and reclusive, he doesn’t care for companionship, and nothing seems to be able to make him change his ways.

Nyhmar Bronze-Heart; The Righteousheart

Afab • Nonbinary • They/Them • Earth Dragon • Demisexual • Demiromantic

Viewed as Benevolent, Nyhmar is anything as. Perhaps the most bloodthirsty of their family, they have earned a reputation for being amicable and approachable. History forgets how they reigned as a warlord before they joined Svihar, and they demand the blood of all humans, deeming no one innocent of their ancestors’ crimes.

Rauor Savage-Heart; The Heartless Beast

Amab • Agender • They/He • Fang Dragon • Pansexual • Aromantic

The youngest of the family and it shows. He follows closely in the footsteps of his more heartless siblings, particularly My'fel. Known for his sadistic streak and apathetic nature, Rauor is an individual that never quite learned that you don’t play with your food.

Za-Ylviar Nightstalker; The Eternal Nightmare

Afab • Agender • They/Them • Energy Dragon • Asexual • Aromantic

The most revered of their family by the humans. They favor the terror Rauor instills, the flavor of death Ryltar enjoys, and the dread Zivaryz embodies. They are brutal, erratic, dangerous. No one believes they are capable of compassion and thread with caution when their name is evoked.

Clyte Starforger; He Who Lights The Way

Male • He/Him • Star Dragon • Asexual • Aromantic

Compared to his siblings, Clyte is harmless. He’s not violent, nor does he care for blood. He enjoys mischief, causing problems and reveling in watching others trip over their own feet. He’s a trickster, to put it plain.

Zivaryz Endbringer; He Who Will Destroy The World

Intersex • Agender • They/He • Bone Dragon • Asexual • Aromantic

Viewed as an object, a weapon, Zivaryz is not viewed as a living and breathing individual. Although a dragon, both human and dragekind will vy to possess the weapon that is Zivaryz. Known to destory everything they touch, they will wither and drain the life of all things they can. A valuable weapon to have in a war.

L'ymra Spiritwalker; They Who Know All

Afab • Genderfluid • They/She/He • Spirit Dragon • Asexual • Aromantic

Perhaps the most soft of their family, L'myra is not a fighter, they do not care for blood and war. They desire peace, harmony. They wish to see the land heal, and the mistakes and crimes of the past be acknowledged. There is a long way to recovery, but they are adamant it will happen one day.

Blym Serenescales; The Guardian Beneath the Skies

Intersex • Genderqueer • They/Them • Air Dragon • Demisexual • Demiromantic

The most akin to their father, Blym puts family and responsibilities before all else. They hold the goals Svihar has set out for them. They aspire to be honorable and never be swayed, no matter the trouble they face for keeping a positive outlook on life.

Taglist:

WOW: @lend-your-lungs-to-me, @wannabeauthorzofija, @northernrosewritings, @shadeshadow234, @necros-writings, @rhikasa, @nyctophobiaandroses

BOTH: @cecilsstorycorner, @little-boats-on-a-lake, @hazard-writes, @egg-shark

GENERAL: @endlesshourglass, @writerray, @poore-choice-of-words, @primusesgiantmetalballbearings, @alexwritesfiction

45 notes · View notes