#NOT that this is necessarily like... healthy behavior but it is common. also it's a classroom management nightmare iruka is so strong fr

[librauzumaki]

oftentimes, when people talk about naruto and sasuke (and not even within the context of shipping), their main criticism of their friendship is that they spend most of their time arguing with each other and being rude to each other, but i'll say this: those people have never spent any significant amount of time with children because WITHOUT FAIL the kids that argue most are the ones that are the most obsessed with each other. kishimoto may have been goofy stupid with a lot of shit, but he was spot on with the dynamics of seven year old boys

[antimisinfo]

So, there's this. This is a video made by Aspenfrosten or The Entourage System on tiktok, this video was made shortly after she removed plural kit from her discord server

First of all let's focus on that first part

""you took away my accomodations""

This is apparently something that some people in her server said after plural kit had been removed, she's mocking them for saying this. Now, are they right for saying this? Technically yes but also no

"Disability accommodation is an umbrella term for a range of accommodation or supported living services that are available to assist people who are living with a disability"

Technically by this definition you may be able to consider plural kit a form of accommodation as it does assist systems by allowing them to represent themselves as alters as well as allowing them to look back and know who sent a message. Though on the other hand you may not consider it accommodation because it isn't needed; systems can use sign offs without plural kit and often don't necessarily "need" it. So it really depends on how you look at it, but I will say that Aspen is wrong for mocking these people nonetheless; whatever their reasons are they clearly think of plural kit as an accommodation and are distressed at its removal. Should they demand it back? No, it's her server she can do what she wants, but do they have a right to be upset? Yes. When someone takes away something that may have been helping you in one way or another you are allowed to feel hurt or distressed, but this does not mean you should harass that person for it back.

"i feel like plural kit is too anti recovery"

I feel like a lot of people say anti recovery without actually understanding what it means.

Anti recovery's definition is "A movement consisting of those who oppose what they perceive as recovery from mental illness and/or neurodivergence." Which most people do know, but the more important part is what they consider to be recovery ;

"Recovery in this context does not mean a cure, it simply means coping/living with your illness/neurotype in a positive way."

Which would mean to be anti recovery you would be against anything that makes coping easier and anything positive, you would be convinced you have to suffer and refuse to make things easier.

By this definition plural kit is not anti recovery as it makes things easier for systems; being able to identify yourselves and being able to tell who said what can be important for multiple reasons and plural kit makes that easier, which is positive and not anti recovery.

Further more she claims it "promotes way too much separation between alters" which might be true but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you are in active healing and moving towards final fusion perhaps that would be an issue but for those striving for functional multiplicity this separation would not cause an issue

"Some individuals reach a point where all personalities have access to shared memories, set boundaries, and have common goals, making it easier to stabilize emotions and maintain healthy behavioral patterns. Individuals with functional multiplicity still experience the following:

At least two distinct personalities with accompanying unique behaviors

Personalities adapt to unite toward a common goal

All personalities prioritize recovery and treatment"

""the problem in MPD is not the intrusion of part selves as such, it is with the degree of amnesia, conflict, self-destruction, and dysfunction in the psyche. The problem is not the multiplicity, it is the degree of pathological dissociation. In MPD the part selves are personified to an abnormal degree. There is a big difference between someone with active classical MPD, and an individual with healthy multiplicity."" ((Though this did come from DR. Collin Ross, who is not a good person I still felt it might be important to add))

"Some systems choose to stop at what the ISST-D calls resolution, or what may also be called functional multiplicity. In this case, systems may retain any number of independently acting alters. The current rates of complete integration and functional multiplicity may be very similar. A 2017 study (Myrick et al.) followed up on 61 therapists about the well-being of specific patients of theirs after 6 years; 12.8% of therapists reported that their patients had terminated therapy due to achieving stable integration, and exactly the same percentage reported that their patients had terminated therapy due to resolution of symptoms without full integration."

Overall the separation between alters is not an issue, more so the amnesia and conflict, which can be solved in therapy, but even so; not everyone has to be actively working towards healing. For systems who are not in therapy / not actively healing there is no need for them to worry about whether they're "promoting too much separation between alters" because there's already separation and it's not getting better. for those who aren't healing it may just be easier or more comfortable to use plural kit and that's okay.

It is not anti recovery to not be healing, that's stupid, everyone heals on their own time; some systems may not have access to therapy and therefore are unable to safely work towards healing (which would involve going through trauma, which should be done with a therapist) and that is not anti recovery.

[ if any mistakes have been made please let us know and we will attempt to correct them ! Also if you wish for us to try do this with any other videos Aspen has made feel free to request it ! ]

[centralkvetchmonolith]

This page* from Unmasking Autism by Dr. Devon Price is a great example of why I can't stand Price's writing. Validating autistic existence (and complaining about how autistic behavior gets pathologized) is eminently possible without lying/swinging hard into the opposite absolutes.

Not only does he say "completely harmless" about behaviors that have readily identified harms, he labels common autistic behaviors (which should absolutely be understood, & contextualized as part of human experience) as "healthy", which at its most innocuous is saying that these behaviors are present in otherwise unremarkable autistic people but which I interpret to mean he believes these are *necessarily euadaptive* behaviors. The absolutism of "complete[ness]" and necessity has no place in serious writing about psychology.

Anyway that's the point I wanted to make, but here are some specifics about how these normal and understandable behaviors (many of which I exhibit) aren't harmless:

1) Not noticing surroundings can be super dangerous! Not noticing that people are trying to talk to you is mildly inconvenient (which is a harm)!

2) *Needing* to know what to expect implies that being thrust into an unfamiliar situation w/o information causes distress irrespective of the actual contents of the situation. That's a harm (despite merely being an extreme version of a universal part of human experience)!

3) The more rigid a structure is, the more catastrophically and frequently it breaks. Rejecting deviations often means rejecting necessary activities like eating, or like leaving a dangerous situation.

4) Taking a long time to fully respond to a question is fine. Giving no sign that you're considering — or have even heard — the question is distressing to yr conversational partner. I highly recommend going "hmm" or cocking yr head to the side when you think about things, if this is true of you.

5) Taking information into consideration is a healthy behavior. It is physically impossible to know literally all information about a decision. Depending on your definition of "all", this behavior may lead to spinning your mental wheels while never making an actual decision, which mad sucks to experience and to cooperate with.

6) Alexithymia (i.e. not knowing how you feel) also sucks to experience! Just because you can't name or even identify the existence of a feeling doesn't mean you don't have it! Like the other behaviors I've mentioned, alexithymia has no inherent moral weight.

Anyway! I love being autistic, and wouldn't choose otherwise even if I could, but some parts of it are maladaptive even when the only other people you interact with are also autistic, and I wish Dr Price would acknowledge that.

ETA: apparently it's page 243 in the physical book! Thanks @heightjoke

[smosh-fessions]

Hot take but I 100% believe Chanse is on the spectrum and undiagnosed. It would explain a lot of his behaviors. Look at him in talking videos where he doesn't move/blink for minutes, recoils at physical touch he doesn't expect, wildly different vibes depending on the video(either he looks sleepy or he's tweaking) or how he seems to not relate to a lot of basic human experiences. I think he's one of the funnier members but it sometimes feels like he's an alien on set. Or maybe it's just drugs, either way I hope he gets the help he needs tbh

I'm wary of posting this, but I do want to address some things. You really sound like you have good intentions, but some of this is bothering me a little bit. I don't know if you're autistic yourself, but some of the way you've written this comes off at least a little ableist in my opinion.

Being on the spectrum doesn't necessarily mean you need "help" in the way someone struggling with something like magor depressive disorder would. We all need accommodations in life but saying someone needs help because they're autistic rehashes the unfortunately common idea that there's something inherently wrong with us or that we can be cured.

Comparing autistics to those using drugs is not... Great. To me, at least, it feels kind of dehumanizing because of both the stigma surrounding drug use/addiction and autism itself. Not every slightly odd behavior is drugs or neurodivergence. Some people are just a little strange.

Same goes for alien. It's one thing for an autistic person to call themselves that, but alien and robot have been used as a means of dehumanization for years.

Some people just space out and don't like to be touched. That doesn't mean they're neurodivergent, and caffeine is a factor in the vibe changes you're talking about. The Smoffice basically has a river of coffee in it at this point and we know they drink a lot of it.

On the topic of basic human experiences, we can't forget that Chanse is a little freaking nerd (and I mean that so lovingly) and us nerds often keep to ourselves and do our own thing. From what I've gathered, he seems to have been sheltered and if I remember correctly, he grew up in one of those strict churches where things like tithing were deeply important. A lot of kids who grow up in strict religious environments, even if it wasn't for their whole childhood, don't get to have a lot of experiences that other people do. There are likely things he missed out on due to growing up religious for whatever period of time that he was in that situation. (We know he at least grew up in some western religion based on the Church Fun word game where he, Angela, and Amanda were the only ones who had experience with it as opposed to Arasha who likely was raised Hindu if anything and was just along for the ride)

I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering if someone is neurodivergent, whether it's autism or something else, especially because it's always exciting to see someone acting in a manner you relate to. However, the way you've described all of this feels less like that and more like an observation on an experiment and it doesn't sit great with me.

Again, I don't think you have any sort of ill intentions with this, but I do ask that you be more conscious of the language you use to describe things like this.

If Chanse is autistic or some other flavor of ND, great! There's always room in the club. If he's not, also great!

I will agree he has seemed a little off recently and I do hope that whatever it is that may be bothering him gets resolved because I want him to feel happy and healthy.

[luffy-is-aroace]

Do you have the source in which Luffy was confirmed aroace? I’m making a project on the ace and aro communities that includes a list of aro, ace, and aroace rep in media and I can’t find where it was confirmed, but I hear everyone say he is. Thank you.

luffy is very very much aroace coded but neither he nor the author have ever directly said the words "luffy is asexual" - one piece's canonical queer rep is limited to transgender characters

that being said, here's the relevant passages, and some context if its needed:

in chapter 516/episode 411, luffy stumbles across boa hancock, the worlds most beautiful woman, in the bath. she has an ability to turn people to stone when they feel some amount of "love, lust, or adoration" to her; ie. when they are attracted to her. heres how it goes:

this is the first time hancock meets a man who isnt affected by her power. it basically suggests that, by not turning to stone, hes not attracted to her at all.

eventually, she develops a crush on him, and she wants to marry him, which he outright rejects (chapter 598)

in regard to the "mero mero" moment, a fan noticed a discrepancy, and asked the author about it in the SBS corner from volume 54. luffy had previously responded to the naked body of a woman the way all the other guys did. oda decided to blame it on luffy imitating his friend

"That's not the Luffy we know." "When Luffy is alone, his reaction is what it was with Hancock. He's interested, but he's not entranced by her." Luffy acting in a certain way because Usopp does - going along with the mood of the moment, or performing, or however you want to say it - feels awfully aspec to me. It's definitely a common aspec experience to try and force yourself into amatonormative - or, in this case, I guess allonormative? - behavior.

In the SBS for volume 88, oda was asked about why luffy called a woman a "beauty" at one point. The response:

Luffy understanding physical attractiveness as a classification, understanding it but not caring about it - that suggests he probably doesn't experience aesthetic attraction (appreciating someones appearance, disconnected from sexual/romantic attraction). this definitely speaks to my experience as an aroace individual.

also, this isnt necessarily evidence for luffy specifically, but moreso a general answer - in the SBS for volume 34, oda was asked if there would be romance between the main characters, and he brushed it off:

my impression, personally, is that Oda is generally fairly uninterested in pursuing any romantic relationships between his main characters.

in conclusion, I personally feel like the evidence here suggests that luffy is aroace, or at least aspec, given some of Oda's wording (which is probably a little up to interpretation, given it's been translated from japanese). His answer in volume 54 has always felt like a retcon to me, like Oda only came to a conclusion of sorts on this when Luffy met Hancock, and had to go back and find some reasoning for why Luffy would have responded that way. Luffy, more than anything, wants to have an adventure, and romance and sex aren't part of that for him.

I'm not gonna try to police how people view Luffy. it's not healthy for me to do that - luffy and his aroaceness is something that's very very personal to me and itd be way too messy. In addition, in the past I've had people point out that this evidence would only necessarily suggest luffy isnt attracted to women, and he could be gay; I personally don't see him that way, and I seriously doubt Oda would make that choice in canon, but people can do what they want. I think, however, it's pretty telling that a lot of aroace and aspec people see themselves in him.

This morphed into something of a modern take on my thesis here instead of just answering your question; sorry about that. I'd be interested to see your project when you're done, if you're able and willing to share!

[banes-favourite]

How do you think Gortash coped with the HoH, healthy mechanisms or otherwise? And do you think anyone there was ever nice/decent to him (Korilla? Hope?)? Or was it just everyone being awful all the time?

Man I think he'd have such a hard time coping with what was happening to him. I mean, he went there as a child and was basically forced through so much trauma without having the slightest bit of emotional regulation. No one taught him how to cope so he had to figure it all out by himself.

For healthy mechanisms, I think his most visited one would be his talking to himself. Not much to do when you're locked in a cell, too scared to sleep in case you're woken up and beaten for no good reason, so I think he stayed up a lot. He learned to speak with himself, talk about his feelings, his day, like keeping a diary inside his head. It helped him regulate his emotions and work through them, also making sure he never forgets his ultimate plan of escape and fall victim to the given-up behavior all the other debtors and prisoners have. He'd also steal paper and supplies to begin working on his first sketches for machinery, which also helped in keeping him sane.

For unhealthy ones, he definitely learned to hit himself in order to distract from the pain and regain some sense of control (shameless promo about my fic regarding this very idea). It's a common theme I've found around regularly abused people, it helps release the pent-up frustration you have towards your abuser that you can't release in any other way, especially not against them. He'd punch his head and claw at his forearms the most, I think, but he'd also get creative if his feelings of rage were necessarily huge.

I do think there were people that were nice to him, I explained more on another ask. Hope was particularly a God-sent as their talks were the only thing keeping him grounded. She was really nice to him, even warning him about Raphael/Nubaldin's arrivals, so she saved his ass quite a lot.

Korilla,, I can't see her being nice to him idk. At best, she ignored him, at worst, she mocked him for his being there.

Also that skeleton guy you find next to the dinner table? Yeah I think he'd be nice to Gortash too, sharing stories of old about his time back on Faerun.

[hms-no-fun]

one thing i'm curious about is if you're currently reading / drawing inspiration from any other contemporary HS fanworks. i know KITTYQUEST just dropped its epilogue like less than a week ago, so it's definitely a big era for Homestuck Fanworks That Have Jade Harley Have Kids lmaoooo

i may talk a big game about how you can't hope to substantively discuss what homestuck *is* without also examining its fanworks, but unfortunately i am myself woefully under-read and out of date. i kinda stopped reading homestuck fanworks after 2020 because. well. at the risk of getting into the weeds of fandom drama. all the ones i really liked stopped updating when the fandom environment turned from passively toxic to aggressively poisonous, and there was at least a 50/50 chance that the creator of any given active fanwork was either with or supported the group of people who wielded that poison.

that feeling is far less prominent now but i am still skeptical any time a new homestuck fanwork gets popular. they have to pass a litmus test first: is this person shitty or weird about the epilogues/hs2? they don't have to have liked either work necessarily, they just have to acknowledge that those works exist, have influence, and are worth talking about, even if they personally don't want to do the talking. god this all sounds so petty, but people lost jobs over what happened. i don't think i can have a positive interaction with anyone who is simply unwilling to have an in-depth conversation about the contents of a text without feeling the need to pass objective moral judgments at every turn, nor do i think i will get much out of the fanworks such a person might produce. so i save us all the trouble and don't bother!

that said, i quite like Kittyquest. i'm way behind on it though, as i am on everything. that Kitty showed up not too long after Yiffy actually inspired me to create Edie, because i love the idea of "Jade's Daughter" being this extraordinarily flexible archetype. it feels like kind of a combo-breaker considering how rigid homestuck's archetypes typically are. i also very much admire Kittyquest's commitment to fleshing out the culture and history of Earth C, especially in the ways it seems to deliberately break from what we've seen of it in post-canon. the lack of worldbuilding the epilogues is one of its biggest weaknesses in my opinion, so i always like it when a story tries to pick up that slack. the artstyle being so divorced from homestuck's yet still somehow indebted to it really encouraged me to try different things with the types of images we started putting into godfeels. what i love about post-canon broadly is just how varied it is artistically, stylistically. i think it's good and compelling and healthy that so much art in this space is willing to play with these things in such constructive ways.

the other contemporary fanwork that really has influence on godfeels is Vast Error. which i am also behind on. but Snowbound Blood is a personal favorite whose tone (at its best) matches the vibes i'm going for in 3.2. the biggest i guess Thing for me wrt Vast Error is how different its universe engine session is from what we saw in homestuck. its logic, its mechanics, its purpose-- the whole thing is so alien, and yet it has Prospit and Derse, it has Spades Slick and other such guys, it has Skaia, so there's clear continuity. if we imagine the universe engine as a procedurally generated video game, these commonalities suggest that there are stable constants in the formula. it was that alongside all the other wildly different fansessions on MSPFA that started the gears turning which would eventually lead to the EWL. the idea of an organization of castoffs from the infinite fanontinuum of alternate sessions, who study the constants and variables across countless UE instances and build squads of sailors who specialize in particular behavioral clusters. oh this session has an overpowered Jack making it unviable? send in the Jills, they'll show him what's what.

i guess if there's a thread here it's that i'm most inspired by what metatextual trends suggest about the hypothetical Ultimate Self of any given homestuck narrative convention. i'm not saying that's a good thing but i guess it has worked out okay so far.

i could shout out other fanworks that i haven't read but i think i would rather hear from y'all. what's out there right now? what's good? i should probably catch up

[darklinaforever]

A little reflection on the age difference in fiction and in reality.

I agree that this may seem problematic.

But it also depends on the situation of the characters (in fiction), or people (in reality) involved.

I mean, just because there's a big age difference or the person is a minor doesn't mean it's necessarily a horrible relationship with the guy or the girl who is a horrible predator.

This kind of age difference also exists in real life without the relationship being as unhealthy (and I know this because I was confronted with two types of example, namely healthy and unhealthy, through people close to me, whether family or friends).

What I'm trying to say is that it all depends on the personality of the individuals involved and their way of being.

Like it or not, there are relationships with large age differences, sometimes even between minors and adults, which are sincere and healthy, whether in reality or in fiction.

So I would really like people to stop crying foul over this kind of thing, both in real life (because yes, I have already had reflections and judgments regarding age differences among people around me and my family, and this in a more than disrespectful way, using big serious words such as grooming at all costs), and even more so in in relation to fiction where we are squarely on fantasy.

Yes, there are cases of predatory behavior and grooming (and these type of people deserve to be punished). But a relationship with age differences, with a minor or not, does not necessarily imply these terms either. These are increasingly common shortcuts in our time and it worries me more and more.

You have to calm the puritanical mind after a while.

I hope my disordered thinking has been understandable to some.

[gaykey]

I don't even go here (the bl actors world) but cancelling someone over a few people they follow out of way over 1k+ follows seems excessive..? You can follow different people for various reasons, not necessarily because you agree with them. I would even say that's it's healthy not to stay in your own information bubble - I personally like to read think pieces from people with opposing politics from time to time. It'd be another thing if he was spreading these right-wing ideas, but just following is not a crime. I would look at who else he's following, especially the local politicians/figures, not just random famous western people

that's fair, and if it were 1 or 2 of those people he followed, maybe i could give him the benefit of the doubt - but it's multiple. he seems to be quite deep in the alt-right community.

he also has a joe rogan quote as his pinned tweet, so, clearly he's someone he holds in high esteem.

and, some of his problematic behavior from the past has cropped up (which i could again forgive on its own, if the recent stuff hadn't cropped up).

and, i'm sorry, but as a public figure, the people you follow can say a lot about who you are, and what you believe in. that's something you intentionally let people see. something you have a choice in.

also, it's not that far-fetched that a young man, would be sucked in by that kind of propaganda as it's unfortunately, something that is more & more common these days.

reading think pieces, or objectively looking at opinions from people like that, is a lot different to actually following them, and having that rhetoric constantly on your feed.

if he wanted to seek them out to get a wider world view, google articles, or just look at their blogs and videos without adding to their numbers. especially given the industry he works in!

and they're not just random famous people he's followed? it's not sabrina carpenter. it's figures with very well-known, very specifical and targeted ideals???

if he comes out with an explanation as to why, that i think makes sense, or is sincere (though i don't see how he'll manage it) i'll let it slide.

[mariacallous]

In 2025, AI is poised to change every aspect of democratic politics—but it won’t necessarily be for the worse.

India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, has used AI to translate his speeches for his multilingual electorate in real time, demonstrating how AI can help diverse democracies to be more inclusive. AI avatars were used by presidential candidates in South Korea in electioneering, enabling them to provide answers to thousands of voters’ questions simultaneously. We are also starting to see AI tools aid fundraising and get-out-the-vote efforts. AI techniques are starting to augment more traditional polling methods, helping campaigns get cheaper and faster data. And congressional candidates have started using AI robocallers to engage voters on issues.

In 2025, these trends will continue. AI doesn’t need to be superior to human experts to augment the labor of an overworked canvasser, or to write ad copy similar to that of a junior campaign staffer or volunteer. Politics is competitive, and any technology that can bestow an advantage, or even just garner attention, will be used.

Most politics is local, and AI tools promise to make democracy more equitable. The typical candidate has few resources, so the choice may be between getting help from AI tools or getting no help at all. In 2024, a US presidential candidate with virtually zero name recognition, Jason Palmer, beat Joe Biden in a very small electorate, the American Samoan primary, by using AI-generated messaging and an online AI avatar.

At the national level, AI tools are more likely to make the already powerful even more powerful. Human + AI generally beats AI only: The more human talent you have, the more you can effectively make use of AI assistance. The richest campaigns will not put AIs in charge, but they will race to exploit AI where it can give them an advantage.

But while the promise of AI assistance will drive adoption, the risks are considerable. When computers get involved in any process, that process changes. Scalable automation, for example, can transform political advertising from one-size-fits-all into personalized demagoguing—candidates can tell each of us what they think we want to hear. Introducing new dependencies can also lead to brittleness: Exploiting gains from automation can mean dropping human oversight, and chaos results when critical computer systems go down.

Politics is adversarial. Any time AI is used by one candidate or party, it invites hacking by those associated with their opponents, perhaps to modify their behavior, eavesdrop on their output, or to simply shut them down. The kinds of disinformation weaponized by entities like Russia on social media will be increasingly targeted toward machines, too.

AI is different from traditional computer systems in that it tries to encode common sense and judgment that goes beyond simple rules; yet humans have no single ethical system, or even a single definition of fairness. We will see AI systems optimized for different parties and ideologies; for one faction not to trust the AIs of a rival faction; for everyone to have a healthy suspicion of corporate for-profit AI systems with hidden biases.

This is just the beginning of a trend that will spread through democracies around the world, and probably accelerate, for years to come. Everyone, especially AI skeptics and those concerned about its potential to exacerbate bias and discrimination, should recognize that AI is coming for every aspect of democracy. The transformations won’t come from the top down; they will come from the bottom up. Politicians and campaigns will start using AI tools when they are useful. So will lawyers, and political advocacy groups. Judges will use AI to help draft their decisions because it will save time. News organizations will use AI because it will justify budget cuts. Bureaucracies and regulators will add AI to their already algorithmic systems for determining all sorts of benefits and penalties.

Whether this results in a better democracy, or a more just world, remains to be seen. Keep watching how those in power uses these tools, and also how they empower the currently powerless. Those of us who are constituents of democracies should advocate tirelessly to ensure that we use AI systems to better democratize democracy, and not to further its worst tendencies.

[sodasa-was-taken]

The problem plaguing cishet romance and the biggest advantage queer romance has over it: A sociology of literature analysis on the history and prevalence of the romance genre

I've gotten some feedback where people have expressed that they thought they didn't like romances but later found out they liked queer romances. I thought it would be fun to go over some inherent differences between cishet and queer relationships in fiction and how they came to be. I've chosen to use cishet instead of straight because I want to make it clear that these things don't necessarily apply if someone in a straight romance is confirmed not to be straight, and they definitely don't apply if one or both are trans.

As usual, I hope you enjoy this.

So, what is the biggest problem with cishet romances? Its ubiquity. The type of relationships depicted in those stories wouldn't be half as problematic if they weren't so prevalent. It'd be one thing if a few stories had some questionable, to say the least, relationships portrayed positively. After all, countless stories have some questionable things in them that go unnoticed by the narrative, but that doesn't mean that people who like those stories can't tell that those things aren't commonplace. Nor does it have to mean that there’s any harm in those people believing those things were accurately portrayed. The times this becomes a problem is when the portrayal of something questionable becomes so widespread that people start to think that it's odd for them not to have this thing in their lives or when a popular work inaccurately portrays something that's already poorly understood and highly stigmatized. This, inversely, is also the main argument against setting requirements for one specific story since one story isn't going to change the world, no matter how popular. Storytelling is one of the most collective forms of expression there is, so what really matters is how much effect it has on other storytellers. Not to mention the role fandoms have in normalizing queer identities as someone who has previously been sheltered learns about different people’s experiences through a common interest.

So, how did cishet become so prevalent? Well, for starters, there used to be a time when a man and a woman getting together was seen as a societal obligation, and whether or not the people involved even liked each other wasn't a concern to anyone. There was also some method to their madness, as this sort of arrangement worked quite well for the societal structure at the time. It made sense to create stories where the justification for someone getting together is that they're a boy and a girl because that was the main requirement in the eyes of society. If anything, the stories often portrayed people choosing to marry someone for their personality, which many historians would say wasn't something people did. At least not typically. Though, who's to say? It's a lot easier to find out what people in the past did than why. The bottom line is that cishet relationships were so prevalent in stories because they were stupidly prevalent within society.

Then there’s the way a lot of cishet relationships are depicted in fiction. It tends to imply what a desired relationship should be like, which at best creates unreasonable expectations and sometimes straight up encourages girls and young women to seek out traits in men that ain’t healthy. Some of the most prominent of these are anger issues, controlling behaviors, and possessiveness. This, too, used to serve a function. How good of function that was is debatable, but the point still stands. Portraying these traits as manageable, at the very least, was a way to prepare girls to be married away to someone who might not treat them the best. Stories managed to do this by reassuring them they could tame their new husbands. The whole “I can fix him” mentality evolved from this. Telling someone repeatedly that they can fix someone by making them fall in love with them tends to make them believe it. This somewhat common delusion results from centuries upon centuries of multi-generational gaslighting. Long ago, believing this could be seen as a form of copium since girls at the time usually didn’t have much of a say in who they got promised away to and were stuck with that person until one of them kicked the bucket. Nowadays, in all the places where girls and women, or those perceived as such, ain’t forced into relationships, this mentality causes nothing but trouble. It should go without saying that if someone doesn’t treat others well, they are not relationship material.  

However, it’s worth noting that this has become less of an issue in recent years as there has been a decline in romance in pop culture, particularly in movies. There’s also been a rise in queer romances in more wide-reaching stories, and male/female relationships have gotten healthier depictions. Although a lot of those consist of people who are not straight, so they’re technically queer relationships too. The only place those outdated ideas consistently persist is in stories targeted toward people who are already used to those kinds of depictions.

Speaking of queer relationships, when it comes to fiction, they tend to avoid these issues. So, why is that? Well, for starters, despite what some bigots might say, it’s a lot harder to avoid being exposed to straight attraction than gay attraction. Many commercials are, in particular, needlessly straight. Also, there isn’t a precedent for two people of the same gender or anyone who isn’t perceived as a man and a woman to be obligated to get together. This leads to authors being less likely to either write or be asked to write a queer romance for the sake of it, which means that the romances in stories that feature queer relationships tend to be more deliberate. Then there’s the casual sexism that’s often brushed off in cishet romance that will more than likely come off as odd if it appeared in a romance between two people of the same gender. For example, it’s not too uncommon for one of the main characters in cishet romances to have had some unfortunate encounters with someone of a different gender, and the character does that thing where they think everyone within a group is the same. Try having a female character think that all women cheat without guaranteeing that it’s going to give someone pause. Unfortunately, internalized misogyny is very much a thing, but the point is that it’s not something people are just going to shrug off.

When it comes to how healthy queer relationships are depicted, it varies greatly from story to story, but when these relationships are extremely toxic, it’s rarely done by accident. There might be some cases where people who have internalized that guys show affection by easily getting angry and being controlling and possessive could see a man being abusive to another man and not see a problem with it. The stories themselves rarely seem to depict a toxic relationship as anything other than a toxic one.

Lastly, the main characters in queer romances rarely seem to be reluctant to spend time together. That’s not to say they always like these others from the get-go, but that one of them is more likely to contemplate murder than think about how they’ll have to be in the other’s vicinity for an extended period of time. If one or more of them has something against the other, it also tends to last only as long as it takes for them to get to know each other. These characters quickly grow fond of each other compared to their cishet counterparts. Forget about spending half a novel for one of them to find out they were wrong about the other; it usually takes a couple of conversations at maximum before they start to enjoy each other’s company. It’s not clear why this is, but it is hilarious to think about.

[faramirsonofgondor]

This might be a bit of a controversial take but I genuinely think that James Tartt Sr. continued to sexually abuse Jamie after Amsterdam. Jamie’s experience in Amsterdam was so traumatic he literally represssed most of it (besides the fact that he knows she enjoyed it). He was probably a bit overly paranoid or cautious around older women in general after that. Undergoing such a traumatic experience at that age probably made it hard for him to want to be in any sort of romantic relationship during his teen years (on top of him probably being 100% committed to football). If you look at from the popular opinion that Amsterdam was meant as punishment/conversion because Jamie is queer, then I can definitely see his dad doing something like this over and over and over again until he starts dating a girl on his own. Jamie’s reluctance to be in a relationship would’ve been seen as further proof that Jamie is queer or “soft”. Even if you don’t believe in that headcanon, it still fits in James Tartt Sr.’s behavior to repeatedly have Jamie raped by proxy. Jamie himself said that being forced to lose his virginity was meant to “be a present” so his father could’ve also likely done similar shit whenever he wanted to reward Jamie. Either way, it seems likely that it at least happened more than once. Especially given the casual nature in which Jamie talked about Amsterdam, like it was a normal or common experience for him (even though on some level he knows it was fucked up). Even if James didn’t necessarily arrange for something like that to happen again, he probably pressured Jamie to have sex a lot throughout his teen years so that he wasn’t “soft” and so he could “dominate” and be a “real man”. It probably took Jamie a long time to figure out what a healthy and consensual sexual experience was like and I’m still not even completely sure he does. His relationship with Keeley was mostly centered around sex, which could probably be attributed to a lot things (his age, his career, him not wanting to be vulnerable, etc.) but I think Jamie felt like he had to center most of his relationships around sex and football because that’s what his father made think was important.

Anyways fuck James Tartt Sr. I sincerely hope he rots in hell after being beaten to death with rope soaked in red pain.

[colderdrafts]

Hi! I love your works and I’m absolutely in love with your Underground Visitor series!!

If you don’t mind me asking, I was wondering who Dren and Morgan would react if the human that came to their world was wholly capable of protecting themselves? Like they came from a different world than the current protagonist, making them a cyborg or something. Basically a reversal of the dynamic, where the human turns out to be even bigger and scarier than the drider haha

This ask mainly comes from the want to protect Dren and his eggies!! Morgan, too, even though they’re such a red flag, I just can’t help but feel like I want to dote on them and protect them XD

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoy! <3

Well, that's certainly one way to turn things around! Reader who can and will give an efficient knuckle sandwich >:)

I think if they were a cyborg or something both of them would be hesitant to approach, unsure if they could still fulfill their role, or if their abilities would even affect them. Depends on how far cyborg..y? they are, I guess. Dren would approach them much the same as normal, casually talking to figure if they're a match or not. Putting out some feelers, so to speak. Morgan would wanna watch from a distance a bit longer to figure out if it's worth the risk.

If they get along and start a relation, Dren would probably be a lot calmer, I think? Knowing that they would be 100% capable of breaking someone's arm from looking at his eggs funny would bring him a lot of peace of mind, lmao. He'd appreciate the advantage that you can shift who's looking after them if necessary - that he doesn't necessarily always have to pick up the fight if they can hold their own just as easily. He'd be hesitant to leave them to it, though. He's still got that overly protective instinct, even if it's not needed. He'd probably be a little worried he's not holding his end of the bargain - that's he's supposed to be defending them- and will want to check in now and then so that's he's not gaining more than he's giving. Other than that, he's pretty much the same, and will want to build a strong and healthy relation with them. Also, please do a sparring session with him. He'd love it as a way of bonding, you'll both benefit from the exercise and it's been a loooooong time since he's had a fun fight.

If they figure they can still affect them, Morgan wouldn't know what to do at first. Being feared and seeming more powerful is one of their main strategies in life to get to their goals. In the beginning they'd up the ante, they're not gonna back down just because the sentry seems to know their way around a fight too. Depending in their behavior, they might actually get in a fight with them. Hell, they might even come to enjoy it. They'll use their abilities to make sure the sentry can't purposely kill them while it's going on, getting close enough to make that effect permanent. If they're stubborn, Morgan might leave them alone for a bit, remaining close but out of sight. They'll patiently wait until the pain of loneliness sets in. They'll probably try and spin the story so that they won't like other common-folk, and vice versa. It's Morgan or no one. Or, if they have those rose tinted glasses and wanna defend Morgan of their own accord, well. They'll be happy to be your partner in crime. Conjoined bloodshed can be a great bonding activity <3

[spookyrobbins]

I think the only way for Callie to actually want to fix anything in s10 is if she somehow started thinking about Arizona's behavior and cheating as a result of trauma. She actually recognized Arizona needed therapy even on the show, so that is not a stretch. Obviously that wouldn't be a magic solution to fix everything, but it would be a start so that Callie would even start considering not divorcing Arizona right away.

low key i’m a quiet fan of “calzona get divorced and it’s the best thing that ever happened to them”. like s10 they need a clean slate and a fresh start but they’re very much stuck in this holding pattern where they’re together out of a strange sort of obligation/both are too afraid to do something that’s sort of permanent. but if they get a divorce and by extension way more space and they can’t pretend to be fine and doing insane things like buying houses and trying for more babies. instead they get divorced and they’re miserable, yes, naturally, calzona are terrible at not being together. but also they’re not living together, they have a custody arrangement, it’s all actually pretty healthy. and they can get some perspective on their relationship. and realize they actually like each other and they’re really the only one that can understand the other.

like kinda the vibe that’s common with nyc calzona where they’re just so much more functional even though they’re not together. and then they can work their way back together.

haven’t figured out all the bits in between but i’m sort of into the idea of it ending with arizona calling divorce lawyer. (also bc i think realistically arizonas more likely to make that leap - although not necessarily for the healthiest reasons. i think early s10 callie doesn’t want to be with arizona, naturally, but she also takes no steps towards divorce or really even an actual separation which is interesting)

[beetlebrownleaf]

big vent. things I’m in a better place to talk about now that I’ve seen a therapist for a little while. mentions of BPD and emotional manipulation under cut.

I decided to say “fuck it” and come back to Twitter because I want to talk to my fucking friends there before it possibly implodes, and I’m scared because I feel like I’m constantly under a microscope everywhere ever since an ex friend pressured me to stay off of social media cold turkey (not possible for me anyways. nothing cold turkey works for me) because they considered me “mentally unsound” and basically tried to armchair diagnose me because I was being interpersonally shitty to them. 

And then they kicked me out of their space when I didn’t comply to said socmed break that they imposed upon me “for my own good”. Yes I was being an asshole, genuinely, but it felt so controlling and weird. As I look back I think they’re just a controlling person. Was I an asshole? Yes. Were they still weirdly controlling in a gross, patronizing way? Also yes. Both can be true.

My first red flag should have been when they asked me how I get my kids to eat more vegetables. I assumed they were babysitting. No. They just invasively thought their roommate wasn’t eating healthy enough I told them that was ultimately not their problem nor their business. 

I was an asshole for getting up their ass about a comment they made that I simply disagreed with, I should have just left it alone because it wasn’t worth it. Yes. I was an asshole for that.

But if you hear rumors I’m a secret closeted bigot and I supposedly think those seeking education and employment is “mindless drone behavior”, hi that was me in my private vent twitter, aka my “this is where my bad brain thoughts that do not necessarily represent my beliefs and feelings”, saying, in a moment of deep mental upset, that I felt like being queer, becoming socially aware, choosing my own lifestyle, and making other queer friends, brought me pain and sometimes I wish I’d have married that lawyer I didn’t love and gone to a school I didn’t want to go to and gotten that job I didn’t want to have to please my parents because it would have “easier”. 

Having times where you wish you were not queer and blissfully socially unaware is an incredibly common Bad Brain Thought for queer people. I am not a fucking bigot for that*. I don’t fucking think education and employment are “mindless drone behavior”. I was wishing, in a moment of mental upset, that I was a mindless drone, aka, someone who just did what their parents told them to do with their lives. When I explained this I was met with a resounding “I don’t believe you, it’s clear you’re still a deeply bigoted religious person and not the liberated woman you claimed to be” as if it’s my fault I failed to live up to expectations I absolutely never gave any impression of. I did escape a more “worldly” form of Evangelicalism. I did not stop being religious. Being queer and being religious are not mutually exclusive.

Anyone who has known me since my fucking beginning here on FFXIV, on Tumblr, even on Twitter, knows that’s bullshit, and from here on out I’m deciding that anyone who believes that is willfully choosing to believe that to make me more of an asshole than I actually am and I want nothing to do with them. 

Basically when I was mad at a comment I perceived as rude (which was, by the way, a comment telling me me and my family’s hypothetical desire for land to farm and garden on -  possibly elsewhere in the South, where I inescapably live unless I move several states away, which is financially unfeasible and separates us from family) - was selfish, unnecessary, and placing my children in direct social and physical harm, so, actually I still think it was fucking rude), I was mentally unsound for being mad at that. And maybe so, I really was an asshole for getting all twisted about it and coming after people for it and I should not have done that, and I know the anger and discomfort I had about it did make me too mentally unsound to speak with them at the time. Fine. I’ll take that L.

But when I make a tweet on my bad brain account that yeah, isn’t worded excellently because it’s where I go to privately vent when I’m upset, aka Mentally Unsound, it’s suddenly an indication of my deep-seated true Closeted Bigot Feelings? Yeah. Okay. Just say I’m an asshole and go tell me to fuck myself like a decent person.

My therapist is pretty sure it is possible that I have BPD after I mentioned it to them. I am financially unable to see her now (my husband’s job changed insurance and we’re not covered anymore, and I can’t afford $100 a week or even every two weeks, so yay), so I don’t know what the future holds, but I’m glad to know I at least have a path moving forward. 

She thinks this is why I kept folding to this friend and going “okay okay I’ll do what you say, you’re right, I was so wrong and thank you so much for your input, otherwise I wouldn’t have seen that I was making a bad decision”. And I am sickened that I did fold because they said “well I’m glad I was able to save your children, at least, I would go through this again and again to save your precious children” fuck off. I can’t believe I let them say that to me.

I can’t do that anymore. I can’t just fold to people because I’m afraid of rejection. I can’t allow myself to be manipulated like that anymore or anyone could harm and take advantage of me, and that really could impact my children’s lives negatively.

I am not going to bend to manipulation anymore, and I am going to allow “I was a shitty person to someone” (because I was! even my therapist said it was a harmful and unhealthy thing to do on my part) and “but this someone was also shitty to me and I am allowed to be hurt by it, and they are wrong about who I am” to coexist.

I’m still scared to exist online because I feel like I’m under a microscope and anything will be used against me, and rightfully so. But I’m not going to disappear to appease anyone. I am not going to adhere to some forced promise that I’ll stay off socmed and stop having fun with my friends.

*addendum: I am not a bigot but I am white and squarely middle class and I understand that may mean I still have things to unlearn as far as racism and classism, and many other forms of bigotry, I would imagine. I am not perfect. But I am not a bigot.

[w-ht-w]

MBTI & fantasies of ruling the world

In approximate order of importance... the factors that make you more likely to fantasize about world domination are:

1) Intuitive (high Ni or Ne). Driven by vision or possibilities.

2) Rational (high Ti or Te). Driven by logic or efficiency.

If you're high Si or Se (Sentinels + Explorers), your bias for upholding the status quo or enjoying the present moment make you less likely to fantasize about world domination.

Strategies = style of engaging, differs by social style (introvert/extrovert) & resistance to stress (turbulent/assertive)

Ranges from 40-50%. I.e. Strategies doesn't seem to be a significant predictor for whether a person has fantasies of omniscience / omnipotence.

Confident Individualism: Introvert, Assertive (x)

83% say they’re comfortable breaking rules they disagree with.

Only 29% say they usually mirror the behavior of other people around them.

63% describe themselves as very independent.

56% say that control over their mindset is the most important factor in determining their happiness.

Constant Improvement: Introvert, Turbulent (x)

79% of Constant Improvers say they often dwell on their regrets.

96% of Constant Improvers say they often feel misunderstood.

Constant Improvers’ longing for “something more” extends to their professional lives. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Constant Improvers are in the wrong careers for them – although they might wonder if they are. This restlessness doesn’t have to be a bad thing. In fact, restlessness can be an incredible motivator to do great things. The trouble comes when Constant Improvers feel trapped: wanting to make a change, but suspecting they’re unable or helpless to do so. This feeling can have a number of roots, such as self-doubt or a general worry that other people don’t “get” them.

These personalities are often curious about and sensitive to others’ feelings. This can make them excellent listeners, friends, confidants, and partners.

These personality types often exemplify how sensitivity and vulnerability can be hidden strengths. Their attunement to their own struggles and insecurities can help them to bond deeply with others. It can also motivate them to act with kindness and compassion.

People Mastery: Extroverted, Assertive (x)

75% say they’re good at executing their ideas – more than any other Strategy.

Only 35% of People Masters say they often feel regret.

26% of People Masters say they’re good at attracting new partners – far more than any other Strategy.

91% of People Masters are comfortable challenging their boss’s direction if necessary.

79% of People Masters say they see problems as opportunities. These personality types trust themselves to tackle hard problems – and to gain insight and experience from the process. Ideally, this conviction becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with People Masters taking on ever harder challenges and learning important lessons along the way.

Social Engagement: Extroverted, Turbulent. (x)

95% agree: helping others boosts self-esteem.

75% prefer love over respect

56% admire their bosses.

45% view fear as something they must overcome. This puts them on par with their Assertive counterparts.

Assertive don't feel they have something to prove (by daydreaming about world domination). Introverts probably feel they would stretch themselves thin.

I'm in my Constant Improvement era right now, striving for People Mastery (Extroverted, Assertive): a state of resting in motion, borne of conviction in my own values and place in the world.

I would say my brother is Social Engagement and Constant Improvement. He waffles between introvert and extrovert, but Turbulence is the common theme, unfortunately.

Assertive vs Turbulent (x)

Assertive personalities dwell less on regrets, feel more confident facing day-to-day difficulties, believe they have a healthy ego, less likely to feel negative emotions when comparing themselves to others. Though, they can also be overconfident/over-optimistic.

Turbulent personalities are more sensitive/focused on negatives (both past, present, and future). Focus on doing things to stave off self-doubt, fear of stagnation. Progress/change may depend on these restless/discontent individuals.