#OH I JUST REMEMBERED the original context was people talking about their fetishes. so he was like 'my fetish? dumb a box of crayons in

[furby-organist]

// I like both Ed and Amir's voice acting for different reasons. I headcanon Alexa as closer to Ed's voice but honestly go with whatever gives you the most psychic damage to read in his voice.

[princesscolumbia]

Smokin' Hot

Was having an absolutely miserable night last night, so even though I was not planning on posting this one until Monday, I felt like I needed a win so I finished it up early and shot it off into the universe. I'll be posting the next chapter of Double Isekai tomorrow, so stay tuned.

Oh, and if you haven't read the two previous stories in this series (don't worry, they're one-shots), here's the links:

The Joketsuzokunichuaan Saga

Description:

What if there was a "Spring of Drowned Warrior Woman?" And what if the Amazon tribeswomen were obligate impression procreators instead of just having a silly law about marrying outsider men who managed to defeat them?

Notes:

And, most importantly, what if you could write such a series without it being squicky 'bad end' fetish porn?

Like a Cat in Heat

Dragon's Lair

Summary:

Kasumi doesn't want to remember

Notes:

This one is...different from the other two entries in this series. If you know me at all, except for certain themes (Celestia is always Sunset's mom somehow, Ranma is always at least NB, if not transfemme, context is king, etc.) I don't like repeating things. Considering I already "repeated" Ranma's curse with Herb for "Dragon's Lair," I didn't want to give someone in the Phoenix tribe a Joketsuzokuniichuan curse and call it a day. A good part of this fic's story and structure can be laid at the feet of Tamsyn Muir and the way she told an absolutely batshit insane, totally off the wall, MAGNIFICENTLY managed Harrow the Ninth. If you haven't read The Locked Tomb yet, you won't have any idea what I'm talking about. If you have, you'll see exactly what I mean fairly quickly.

Preview below the cut:

"This," said Ku Lon to the gathered Saotome-Tendo families, "Is Plum. Yes, like the fruit. Her family have been serving as guides for Jusenkyo for as long as records of the springs have been kept. She took over from her father a couple of years ago and has been doing a far sight better a job than he did...and she's also exceptionally brave."

"Plum not know who to trust. Just know Ku Lon and Xian Pu good to Plum when mother die. So Plum come here when Jusenkyo start to dry up."

Kasumi fidgeted as surreptitiously as she could under the restaurant table. She knew she didn't really have a place at these discussions. She wasn't a martial artist, she wasn't bonded to or wed to one of the Joketsuzoku, and she didn't have any dragon blood in her family line. She was here because she was the 'matriarch,' for whatever that title was worth, of the Tendo family and so honor demanded she attend. She at least had the reassuring company of Hiroshi and Daisuke seated with her at the same table, today wearing some rather silly maid costumes in their female forms. The three of them had bonded over the fact that they had the least ability to do anything for anyone in this rarified atmosphere of condensed power and martial skill.

"Wait, the springs're drying up?" Ranma gaped, "Aint they been around for, like, thousands of years?"

Plum nodded, "Springs guarded by Joketsuzoku, kept clean by Musk, and fed by spring in Mount Phoenix. Three tribes, three legs of stool, is balancing act."

Ku Lon spoke up when confused looks spread through the non-natives to the Juusendo region, "While we don't have records of the origin of Jusenkyo, the legends of our peoples tell of the Amazons, the Musk, and the Phoenix working together in a sort of...mutually assured destruction peace treaty. The Musk would master the springs themselves, the Phoenix keeping the source of the springs safe, and the Joketsuzoku keeping the outside world from discovering the secrets of the springs. And in the middle of it all," she pointed with her cane to Plum, "The guides, only there to observe and to keep wandering visitors safe and direct them to the Joketsuzoku."

"Four months ago we got word of some serious troop movements among the Musk," Nabiki almost unconsciously put her hand on Jian's knee with a gentle squeeze, "They were positioning units in concerning ways, but once it was clear that the Joketsuzoku weren't the target, Ku Lon and I decided to take a 'wait and see' approach. We expected that if this was unprovoked Musk aggression, then the Phoenix Tribe would send someone to the Joketsuzoku to ask for help, part of the balance of power in the region. But instead...?"

"We got silence," interjected Ku Lon. "We, that is, the village sent emissaries, but they were turned away before they even got to the foot of the mountain. We then sent peace envoys to the Musk to see if they were acting on some sort of aggression from the Phoenix people, but our warriors were attacked without provocation. Fortunately, no loss of life, or else this would be a drastically different kind of meeting."

The Elder Emeritus sighed and sipped at her tea, "At least we have an idea why the Musk reacted now, if the Phoenix are interfering with the flow of the water from Juusendo, then the Musk, who use the springs regularly for their...barbaric purposes, would have noticed first. Why they didn't come to us..."

"Because my father is a fool," snapped Jianren. "He believes that men, and specifically the Beast Warriors of the Musk, are all that anyone needs for true power. He will see this as a personal attack against him, specifically, and everyone else is complicit in the crimes he imagines are being committed against him."

"Idiotic old lizard," grumbled Ku Lon, "What is more distressing is the news that the Kaisufuu has been found." At the expected blank looks, she explained, "There are two artifacts that were created to work in tandem with the Springs of Jusenkyo. The Chiisuiton, or Locking Ladle, and the Kaisufuu, or Pot of Liberation. When a silly young prince," Ku Lon nudged Jianren gently with the head of her staff, "So foolishly thought the best way to acclimate himself to the sight of a naked woman was to use his people's traditions to make a mistress of a monkey," Jian had turned beet red and was clasping her free hand over her eyes, her other hand held by an impishly smiling Nabiki, "He, now she, fell victim to the Locking Ladle, which was then lost when Ha Bu fled rather than deal with the ongoing shame of being a princess in a land where women were considered to be barely above animals."

"Legend said that the two artifacts will point the way to each other," Jian interjected, "I thought to take the ladle and pail with me to find the kettle, but then I was ambushed by some highwaymen in the deep backwoods of China. I overpowered them, but the pail and ladle were lost in the battle. That...that was the moment I swore off my birth name and became Jianren."

Kasumi watched as Nabiki leaned into her wife and the two cuddled for a bit. To her left, Hiroshi and Daisuke looked on as well, satisfied smiles like book-ends on their faces.

"Given the kettle was lost centuries ago," continued Ku Lon when it became clear that Jian wasn't going to say anything further, "It is only reasonable to conclude that the pail and ladle were recovered somehow and then used to track down the Kaisufuu. If only one artifact was the possession of either the Phoenix or the Musk, it would be bad. But given the Musk have been behaving defensively and the Phoenix have halted the flow of the springs, we have to assume that the Phoenix tribe has both artifacts and are preparing to use them for some reason we cannot know without more information."

The more experienced warriors, politicians, and martial artists began speculating, though it was clear they were going to be talking in circles. Kasumi looked over to the other two girls at the table and reached out, clasping Hiroshi's hand, "You don't have to do it, you know."

They both turned to her with confusion etched on their faces. In a bit of the puckish karmic humor Jusenkyo was known for among those who studied the magics of the springs, where Daisuke had the more common dark black hair of most Japanese men and Hiroshi had lighter, shaggier brown, almost blond hair as a man, as women their hair colors were nearly exactly reversed, though Daisuke's girl-form hair was closer to dirty blond than light brown. They had similar builds to each other, which had led to some interesting clothing swaps on occasion. Of course, they both had a masculine sense of feminine modesty, which is to say nearly non-existent, a fact for which Nabiki and Jianren had taken shameless advantage of over the years.

"What're you talking about, Kas-chan?" asked Daisuke innocently.

Kasumi just swept Hiroshi's hand into a two-handed grip and bore into the part-time woman's eyes with her own, "You know Jian is capable of taking care of herself, even against her father. Please, you know how much it will hurt Jianren, and Daisuke and Nabiki will be heartbroken."

The two boys-turned-girls looked at each other with sad, defeated expressions. "C'mon, Kas-chan," drolled Hiroshi as she turned to the older woman, "You know that's not how this conversation went."

(Read the whole thing on AO3)

[hiddengiggles]

How did you and your boyfriend find each other given that you share a tickle fetish? I have a huge fetish for tickling and would like advice on how to find a suitable tickle partner. Thanks! 😊

Wait have we never talked about The Origin Story™️ @helixtickl? We have been REMISS!

But before I talk about that, I have to make very very very clear that this was luck, serendipity, fantastic stroke of unexpected joy. I wanted to meet this man and have a drink, not start planning the rest of my life with him (but boy am I enjoying that). That being said, I was not actively searching for a long-term partner with a mutual kink, so this isn’t so much instructional as it is story time.

So without further ado…

As is the case with many women, I’m much more comfortable with meeting people my own friends have vouched for already. Strangers are sources of danger, it’s just the way it goes.

At the time, just over 2.5 years ago (holy shit so long!!!), I lived a few hours from my friend Katie and we had planned a girls trip! While we were hanging out, she mentioned Helix was a good friend of hers in the city we went to and she thought we would get along.

I, being an agent of chaos, immediately found him here on tumblr and asked if he wanted to come to the bar we planned on that night to scare the shit of out her. Lovingly. He, being equally devious and chaotic, said BET.

(Just scrolled back SO far in the messages of my old blog to find this LMAO)

So what do you know, he shows up and this man. Y’all this MAN 😍 Handsome man shows up casually, and immediately buys the first round, charming fella he is. He’s funny, he’s interesting, he’s vouched for by my friend (in multiple contexts), so we take the party back to our AirBnB.

And it was FUN. We both spent a while tickling and teasing Katie, brat that she is, who had been tormenting me relentlessly for the last day anyways. I thought “Aha! Revenge! Thank goodness he’s stronger than me and can actually hold her down!”

And then it turned into “Oh FUCK he’s stronger than me” when they turned on me!

(Admittedly, it had me absolutely drenched by an hour in, I thought I was going to leave a puddle and never live it down.)

Anyways, after the trip, we all kept in touch for a while… and then Helix and I started our own texting instead of in a group… and then we started making visits to each other’s places… and after 3 months, we decided to try a long-term committed long-distance relationship!

I imagine he has his own perspective he might like to offer, so you may want to ask him, but that’s how I remember the budding adventure we started.

Now I’m sure this didn’t really help in the advice column, so I’ll just say this:

There is nothing better for any vanilla or kink relationship than a good friendship. It’s got to be the foundation, the true source of trust and joy between you and your partner. Start there, and not for the sake of self-benefit, but because it’s wonderful, and let it grow.

[migleefulmoments]

"No one will ever convince me he made that statement, and if you listen to his ACTUAL words about that, he didn’t say he wouldn’t take any more LGBTQ roles." Darren literally said that the gay community would have his head if he took another gay role but somehow to tinhats like Cassie, that means the next role he takes will be a gay character. I guess Darren meant that he knows the gay community will try to murder him, but he has faith in his ability to avoid their attempts. They're such freaks.

When they make grandiose and sweeping statements like this, I feel the full weight of the disinformation campaign they all embrace. Cassie claims “When you listen to his actual words…he didn’t say he wouldn’t take any more LGBTQ roles” so we have to see if she’s telling the truth or she’s manipulating reality in order to soothe their anxiety and allow them to easily fetishize the gay version of Darren. 

What did Darren say? (You can read the entire Bustle piece (X))

“There are certain [queer] roles that I’ll see that are just wonderful,“ Criss explains when we speak at a recent event for Clorox’s What Comes Next in New York, a few days after he returned from an overseas tour with his Glee co-star Lea Michele. ”But I want to make sure I won’t be another straight boy taking a gay man’s role.“Although Criss says it’s “been a real joy” playing queer characters like Blaine, Cunanan, and Hedwig in the Broadway musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch, he now doesn’t feel comfortable taking those roles, which is “unfortunate,” he says. “The reason I say that is because getting to play those characters is inherently a wonderful dramatic experience,” he adds. “It has made for very, very compelling and interesting people.”

One of the reasons they claim they don’t think Darren said the words is because they claim that print interviews are fake: 

12/18/18  ajw720 answered: 

I would like to see a video as well, nonnie, as I don’t actually think he said any of this shit. Print articles are never, ever to be trusted. They are generally fabricated.  

If you recall nonnie, D himself called out an article earlier this year (it may even be the one referred to in this piece of crap) for taking a quote of his out of context about his Filipino Heritage, likely as he was sick of being called white repeatedly.  Fact is, while he is able to correct the “white” narrative, he, at this time, is not able to correct the straight narrative so he can’t even defend himself when this utter nonsense is published in his name.

First of all print articles aren’t generally fabricated and most CAN be trusted if you vet them properly. Claiming  “ALL print articles are fabricated”- and therefore not to be trusted is a perfect cctrope because it gives them the out they need to label everything they don’t like-every single quote, every single story, and every single description as fake news. It’s the perfect strategy for ignoring everything Darren talks about that proves he isn’t Blarren- all the puns and sexual innuendos, all the crude comments, all the sweet things he says about Mia or his sexuality. All they have to do is remind their followers that it was in a print article and Woosh- it’s invalid. Trump is doing the same thing with his base-he’s grooming them to believe that the media is dangerous and that everyone fabricates stories about him. He calls them “the enemy of the people” so when the. NYT proves he laundered money for years through the Russian mafia or that he actively cheated during the 2016 election and is trying to cheat in 2020, his base will scream “fake news” and threaten to go all 2nd amendment on the rest of us.  

Once again Abby uses something to prove her point but misses the fact that it actually proves she’s full of shit- Darren did push back on the interview where he was misquoted regarding his Filipino heritage but he hasn’t pushed back on any other interview he’s ever given. We can see he’s capable of pushing back, he’s interested in making sure he is quoted accurately and yet we’ve seen no other example- the reasonable conclusion is that is because the other interviews weren’t misquoted.    

e Bustle piece and understand that he said he will no longer play LGBTQ characters. It’s clear that Darren has a far deeper understanding of the issue than Cassie and Abby.  Splitting hairs and claiming he didn’t specifically say he would never play a bisexual or trans character is stupid. What Cassie and Abby are missing in the article is this paragraph:

This conversation about straight actors being cast in gay roles is about more than just LGBTQ actors losing out on Oscars, of course. It’s about Hollywood missing an opportunity to embrace new talent who would better serve these stories. And over the years, actors like Criss have become more sensitive to these types of concerns. The Versase star understands that there is an added honesty to actor getting to play characters who share their identities. “The commitment to that drama is told in such a way that it can really effectively reach people’s lives,” Criss says. “I think that really is important.”

Abby gets her wish- there is an audio recording of him making this statement-albeit it was 4 months prior to the Bustle interview and he seems to have evolved his understanding of the importance of representation in those 4 months. In the Hollywood Reporter interview he said:  

“….But I do think about that now, you know, if roles come by that are LGBT leaning - I really think it would be insensitive to the gay community if I were to take another role. I think they’d have my head. You know, I would totally understand that. So I’m certainly cognizant of it. And while it is very tricky, I think the discussion and the questioning is really really important. And I think it’s good that we’re uncertain and I hope that we can find some kind of balance.” -Darren Criss, 8/26/18 

I am an idiot and can’t remember how I got the audio portion of the interview on to my blog so I have to refer you to my old post if you want to hear Darren say the words (X). 

I think you are correct- Darren is well aware the gay community will kill him but he doesn’t care because he has superpowers. 

EDIT** I found this charming comment from Chrisdare who is a “journalist” yet she knows nothing about journalism. I got in an argument with her once and she schooled me that journalists aren’t educated.and will say anything a publicist tells them too.  Whatever, Valentina,  Google should be your friend.     

Anonymous asked: It wouldn’t matter if you saw a video because you wouldn’t believe it anyway. You would say he was being forced to say it. Fact is CCers haven’t believed a thing

ajw720 answered:I believe many things nonnie. I also have a deep and fundamental understanding about hollywood works nonnie and that is something you clearly lack.

Further, if D was straight, i believe he would never allow them to portray him as an asshole.  D is an incredibly intelligent human being, he knows exactly how negatively the straight push reflects on him. and frankly, it would not be necessary if he exclusively slept with female persons with vaginas.

Have a nice life living in delusionville.    

chrisdarebashfulsmiles JCS shut the f** up. 

When we talk about articles and how they are made we talk about facts. I hate when you come here busting balls on professional stuff when you don’t know anything. You can’t even imagine all the shit we do as journalist

It’s not a matter of cc but the fact they are ruining D’s life and career. And if you are a fan you need to start opening your eyes and stop being an enabler. I swear you should feel guilty when he will come out because you helped keeping him in the closet.

Talk about dellusionville! 

**********Edit Edit *******(X)

chrisdarebashfulsmiles  Because there’s a power of attorney that allows RR and Ab to do so. To say something D has to prove that the article is harmful and he has to do it through a legal action. And this means breach of contract with all it entails like the two years of stop from signing an anything.

That IS NOT how “power of attorney” works.  But nice try- 10 points for originality and imagination! 

***Edit Edit Edit *********

Anonymous asked: An article you should read to help you understand how journalism works .tinyurl/com/y9s49tms. German Reporter At Der Spiegel Fired for Fabricating Stories “On A Grand Scale”. “I’m so angry, horrified, shocked, stunned,” Der Spiegel deputy foreign editor Mathieu von Rohr tweeted Wednesday. “Claas Relotius faked, he cheated on us all.” Journalists can’t just make up stories or publish falsities no matter how much you want to believe that is happening in Hollywood.

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered: It’s amazing how is crystal clear that you never worked in a magazine or in a PR firm. I work since 2004 and I don’t need an article… I know how it works. We aren’t talking about WSJ and serious stuff. We are talking about gossip and showbusiness so don’t try to be smug because you are failing.

Have nice day/ night wherever you are. :) it’s evening here and I’m enjoying my free time.

bjpb8 Oh, my gosh who is this person. People thrive on gossip and “Rags”. IT SELLS. First begain with papers like En/quire, The Globe, etc. Then spread to SM with blinds. You think other magazines and papers do not want to make money. Everyone prints what sells depending on audiences. Embellishment is part of the trade. They want to catch your interest, which feeds right into what PR wants to sell! Tts a sybiotic relationship at best! It is just some are more talented at making what sounds like truth out of lies. Its called entertainment. You might want ro “read” about it.

The author of the Bustle interview has a master’s degree in journalism from CUNY New York so it is more like the wall street journal than it is the “website” you work for Valentina. Journalists have a degree in journalism.  Anyone can be a blogger - you’ve proved that. 

****Edit Edit Edit Edit *******

D/arren did not write that post! (X) 

12/19/18

ajw720 I have enough faith in Dar/ren Cri/ss personality and his respect and love for his fans to know that the comments attributed to him were not his.  I’ve seem this happen before…I’m sure many of you have, also.  Darr/en is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.  When he finally writes a memoir about this time, he will let us know about his anquish, anger and remorse.  If one is a TRUE CC and Dar/ren fan, after years of roller-coaster rides via PR, et al…I will continue to take the advice of the person that runse THIS SITE.  “Trust the process…”

***********************************************************************

@geminess We have to trust the process and believe that C and D are working hard towards an ending to this absolute tragedy that is legally clean and does not jeopardize either of their careers.  

I believe in them, I cannot accept that D would ever willingly choose to represent himself in this manner and to continue this nightmare of a charade surrounded by utterly and completely vile, disgusting human beings.

Please, please, please may we be right.  I cannot repeat enough there is no alternative ending that is acceptable but D breaking free by ending this sham of an encage, severing ties with his inhumane team, and eventually coming out.  

And yesterday proved once again just how frightening the alternative is.  I would fear for his career and his life.  And it baffles and amazes me that anyone watching, even if you believe he is the straightest man alive, cannot see how harmful that article was.  It was like he used the LGBT+ community to win his awards and is now ready to dismiss them.

(X) 12/19/18

Anonymous asked: On the bright side, this means we’re coming to the end right?

ajw720 answered: Anon, we honestly don’t know, but we can only hope. If D extends his time with these assholes, it will be very ugly for him personally and professionally.

But logic seems to say that this article, the literally offends every fan but the blind and naive, is wholly unnecessary if in fact they are going to continue a professional relationships. And it did not just the fans, think about how many award voters they offended yesterday with that utter piece of crap.

Absolutely and utterly unreal. Hard to believe they are able to get away with working against their client at every turn.

Logic? One thing the cc fandom has proven in the last 10 years is that they do not understand or care about logic. 

12/24/18 (X)

ajw720 It’s interesting how there are such varying opinions on the “straight boy” article. And I think it comes down to 2 questions:

1. Do you believe D is a willing participant in his closeting?

2. Do you believe he actually said what the article alleges?

My answer to both is a resounding no (though he will be forced to validate the comments) and I have good reason to think this. But I certainly see why ones perspective is different if you answer one or both as yes.

This being said, no matter your answers to the above, I don’t see how it can be justified that he would dismiss b/laine in such a manner. And the timing, because I still think it makes him look like an ass and /or a coward as awards are voted for playing queer. And to repeat, I don’t think he should play queer again until his team is dismissed, so I’m not disagreeing with the premise, just the manner it was done, which again, I believe was without his consent.

Not posting to start a fight. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I clearly am not afraid to state mine, which is very reasoned and based on a lot of information I’ve collected.

Just interesting that some very intelligent people, all of whom believe he’s closeted, can vary so much in what they believe.

[finnyisanactualrayofsunshine]

But he DID burn them. Why did he had to kill them that painfully? He has a demon, couldn't he tell him to kill these Children without any pain? I still don't get why he burned them. Because he was traumatised at that moment? Well... that isn't a excuse for killing a bunch of children. And I'm not here to troll or anything, I'm totally serious.

I'm sorry I took so long to answer this. I intended to answer it earlier, but then I got caught up in seeing a lot of things that frankly disgusted me, blocking 30+ people, and having a complete breakdown due to stress and lack of sleep as well as a series of bad days due to personal issues with my own mental health. I'm not saying this for attention or sympathy (although to be fair I do try and get those things a lot). I'm just explaining that at that time I wasn't able to deal with answering this or getting more involved. The topic still really stresses me out so this will be the only ask I answer on the subject, but I am answering it. I'd also like to remind that this is entirely my interpretation and although I feel personally that it is the correct one, I'm not Yana and I can't say I have the final word on the subject. It's only my humble opinion and what I got out of it when I first read kuro and what I still get out of it now. My opinion hasn't changed, and it probably never will.So. As I said in the original salty post, there are multiple factors here, and I'm not saying that there is a wrong or right side to this. It's shades of grey. So I'll list what I got out of the scene, both good and bad, when I originally watched it having never interacted with the fandom or their opinions.So there's the basic matter of the PTSD attack. A lot of people bring this up as an excuse for his actions, which fine, is valid. He is a 13 year old, put in a horrifying situation, with an undeveloped brain that's probably barely functioning, having to make split second decisions. I don't think that really would cover it if he was still just going and killing some kids for shits and giggles though. It's still a bad thing to do right? So although I think he'd deserve some sympathy and understanding for that, that's not enough.LEADING to the second point which literally everyone forgets?? And was like a huge obvious plot point?? Which was discussed several times?? You fucks?? HE WASNT JUST BURNING THEM FOR KICKS OH MY GOD HOW THICK DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO INTERPRET IT THAT WAY JESUS CHRIST YOU DICKNUTS look. He looked at these kids and he saw that they would NEVER be able to have a life. He has terrible trauma himself and not to be melodramatic but it kind of ruined his life. THESE KIDS HAD IT WORSE AND HE KNOWS IT. Like, they were going to live a life of pain and suffering in the BEST case scenario. In the scenario that they have healthy rich supportive families. So what happens if their families don't support them the way they are now and drop them off at psychiatric hospitals which would DEFINITELY be abusive at that time?? What happens if they remain unresponsive to everyone and everything and their families die and they end up starving on the streets? All this included with what they're dealing with and carrying emotionally?? Ciel looked at them, saw that situation, and UNDERSTOOD that that is WORSE than death, and he only had a short amount of time to make that decision. He was a thirteen year old having a panic attack faced with the choice of whether to kill them without having any sort of consent from them (which would make it more of an assisted suicide, however they were not in a mental position to be making that choice for themselves) or leave them to what awaited them which in any situation was probably going to be worse than death. Was it the right decision? I don't know. I'm not saying it is. But saying he burned kids as if he did it for fun or to be a dick is the most basic one dimensional view of the story, and misses the entire point of the scene. It was an attempt at mercy. To add to that, there's literally the scene on the train where Ciel explains what I just said?? And then he goes to help the orphans that actually could still be saved?? He had literally no reason to do that, you absolute fucks. But y'all are determined to demonize him because you aren't thirsty for him, don't feel any sympathy for a trauma survivor, don't bother reading between the lines of the story, or want to fetishize his immorality (I don't mean that's everyone but a lot of people talk about him being evil in a weirdly sexual way, like calling him dirty, and it's VERY uncomfortable given the character and context.)However, I am in no way saying Ciel was in the right either. What he did was HELLA problematic. Of course it was. It wasn't evil, but it was problematic. You brought up the fire, couldn't he get Sebastian to kill them painlessly. That's absolutely right. Going with the above logic, fire is not the best way he could have gone about it. I think that has a lot to do with the first point, about the PTSD attack. Reminder, 13 year old kid, undeveloped brain, horrifying and traumatic circumstance. Unfortunately, he's not going to be thinking clearly. He's not able to. So yeah, it's bad that he went with the fire method, I absolutely agree. However, I can also understand. He wasn't able to coherently think the situation through, at best he could do was see the flame and come to that conclusion, as opposed to working through it and calmly asking Sebastian to quietly and painlessly kill them all. Once again though, I'm not saying that was in any way okay. I'm just explaining the reasoning, and that even the fire part was not with bad intent. Never the less, the action and choice was bad. There's also the matter of him playing god. Which is honestly one of the more problematic things about Ciel's character. I don't think Ciel is evil but he's definitely problematic with darker sides, and he has too much power through Sebastian and tends to play god. I think there's valid reasons why he chose to kill the kids. On the other hand, it wasn't his choice to make. Whatever way you look at it, he made a huge Fucking choice for a bunch of people with NO say in the situation, and yeah. That's...not good. I remember in like grade 10 we had a debate in civics about the death sentence and my arguement was "you can argue both sides, whether people deserve it or can be rehabilitated, whether it's more humane to kill someone or keep them in a concrete box their whole life...but what it comes down to is no human person should have the power to decide if someone lives or dies." And that's what this is too. Was he right or wrong? I don't know. I've thought about it a lot and honestly, I can't give you an answer for that. But it wasn't his choice to make. He should not have been deciding whether they were better off alive or dead, because it just. Wasn't. His. Choice. To. Make.So in conclusion. I'm in no way saying what he did was okay or good. But looking at it with the viewpoint of "uh he burned a kid, evil, blocked and reported." doesn't make any sense. It was a complicated situation with several sides you fucks. As my fave said when I brought this up, "are we even reading the same manga as them?"Also disclaimer, I've already been salty about this for too long on my blog, so this is the LAST thing I am saying on the subject. I would strongly prefer that people don't reblog or add comments, partly because this is just my opinion and official statement on a subject that bothers me and several of my close friends, and partly because for personal reasons to myself that frankly aren't the business of strangers on the Internet, I am TERRIFIED of people arguing with me or getting angry with me and I have been in a really bad place this week because of the previous drama so hey, show some sympathy to your neighbourhood Lau ho and let me live my life in peace, drama free. And on that note, if I ever do post things that are salty and likely to start drama, I want you all to understand the magnitude of how much that thing upsets me, that I'm risking people beefing me over it. Anyways thank you, and goodnight.

[agameforgoodchristians]

Jonathan's David-love. (2 Samuel 1:26)

Disclaimer: This Card Talk delves into the relationship between Jonathan, son of Saul, and his friend, brother-in-law, and possible lover, David. This is a long one, and this time we might actually piss off everyone. That’s not our intent, but we’ll see what happens. As always, comments are open below and here is our contact info.

What Brings Us Here

This card has an interesting history. It was one of the first cards made when the game was being put together. In the original release of the deck (which some of you may have) it read “David and Jonathan coming out as being only good friends.” We changed this in later revisions of the main deck for two reasons: 1) we had no Bible passage to support that assertion, and 2) it seemed purposely anti-LGBTQA+, which we aren’t.

So we created this card instead— “Jonathan's David-love.” (2 Samuel 1:26)— the text of which, with a little context, reads as follows:

Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;

greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful

passing the love of women.

~ 2 Samuel 1:25c-26

These words are contained in the song David supposedly wrote and sung mourning Jonathan’s death in battle. David speaks of his great love for Jonathan, while also noting Jonathan’s love for him. So let’s unpack the history of these two men to understand the nature and depth of their love.

David and Jonathan: A History

D & J first meet in chapter 18 of the book of 1 Samuel after David’s famed defeat of Goliath.

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him [David] that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.

~ 1 Samuel 18:1-4

These are Jonathan’s feelings and action after meeting David for the first time: in love, he bound his soul to David’s, made a covenant with him, and stripped himself of his royal/military vestments, making them a present to David.

Oh we can hear the fighting being already…

Conservative Response: Jonathan’s actions were divinely inspired, not romantic! God placed Platonic, friendship, loyalty-type love in Jonathan’s heart; his actions were demonstrating a future political reality. God had already rejected Saul as King (1 Sam 15) and had the prophet Samuel anointed David as the future king (1 Sam 16). Even if Jonathan did not know it at the time, he was acknowledging David as the divinely appointed king. He was conferring his allegiance and symbols of power due to God’s chosen one. This was all God’s plan, not some smutty homo-erotic scene not even fit for Songs of Solomon, which is definitely about Jesus, but that’s another conversation.

Liberal Response: What are you talking about?! Jonathan’s actions were divinely inspired, and romantic! We thought you Conservatives believe in the unlimited power of God. Why can’t it be both? God used the romantic love in Jonathan’s heart to bring about the future reign of His chosen king. Yes, Jonathan’s gift were political, demonstrating his allegiance to David, binding his soul and loyalty to him. But that is because he was in love with him! Look at the language. Look at the immediacy. This is “love at first sight” for Jonathan. His gifts are gifts of affection. He never had a chance after seeing David in battle. And God is using what is inside of Jonathan to further His divine ends.

D & J’s relationship gets more complicated after this. Pretty soon, Saul wants David dead. Lucky for David, Saul confines in Jonathan, and Jonathan has David’s ruddy back.

Saul spoke with his son Jonathan and with all his servants about killing David. But Saul’s son Jonathan took great delight in David.

Jonathan told David, “My father Saul is trying to kill you; therefore be on guard tomorrow morning; stay in a secret place and hide yourself. I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are, and I will speak to my father about you; if I learn anything I will tell you.”

Jonathan spoke well of David to his father Saul, saying to him, “The king should not sin against his servant David, because he has not sinned against you, and because his deeds have been of good service to you; for he took his life in his hand when he attacked the Philistine, and the Lord brought about a great victory for all Israel. You saw it, and rejoiced; why then will you sin against an innocent person by killing David without cause?” Saul heeded the voice of Jonathan; Saul swore, “As the Lord lives, he shall not be put to death.”

So Jonathan called David and related all these things to him. Jonathan then brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as before. (1 Samuel 19:1-7)

However, this reprieve only lasts for a while; Saul tries to kill David anyway. Only this time it’s David’s wife Michel— Saul’s daughter, Jonathan’s sister— who helps him escape the king’s wrath (1 Samuel 19: 8-17).

It’s chapter 20 of 1 Samuel that really shows the depth and breadth of their relationship.

After his escape, David and Jonathan meet up to talk. Jonathan just can’t believe that his father tried to kill David, especially without talking to him first. David, always the politically shrewd operator, says “Your father knows well that you like me; and he thinks, ‘Do not let Jonathan know this, or he will be grieved.’ But truly, as the Lord lives and as you yourself live, there is but a step between me and death” (vs. 3). So the boys make a solemn covenant between themselves, their families and decedents:

If I am still alive, show me the faithful love of the Lord; but if I die, never cut off your faithful love from my house, even if the Lord were to cut off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.” Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.” Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. (1 Samuel 20:14-17)

This covenant results in Jonathan betraying his father to further effect the escape of David (vs 24-42). At their last meeting in life

[David] prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.’” (41-42)

 And here we go again… 

Conservative Response: Once again, this is political loyalty, not romance. They both understand that a civil war is about to break out, and Jonathan’s allegiances are going to be torn between his father— whose throne is he supposed to inherit, for whom he is a general in his army—, and his best friend, who is also married to his sister. Both men repeatedly discuss and vow to protect each other’s lineage, no matter who wins the inevitable war between Saul and David’s forces. This loyalty is, again, built off of their friendship, but also the holy bond God put between the two of them; hence, the convent language they employ which, as clear from its use elsewhere in the Bible, is legal in nature, not romantic.

Liberal Response: Right, and why would Jonathan choose David over his father, choose a stranger from another tribe, over his own people? Love. He is rebelling against his family, his nation, to protect his one true love. The impact of what you conservatives say may be true, but that is an afterthought for Jonathan. He is focused on the man, not the mission. His primary motivation is to do all he can to safeguard the love he had bound his soul to. And they are crying and kissing! What more proof do you need? Where is the “politics” in those actions?

Conservative: That is so much hogwash and balliwho! It is not that kind of love! And the text doesn’t say they were kissing on the lips. It could have a holy, regal kiss on the cheek, forehead, or hands, you moral degenerate!

Liberal: Oh it “could have been”? That’s a lot of supposition from the “be silent where the Bible is silent” camp, you homophobic asshole!

US: Okay people: let’s play nice. Does either matter? Yes. Of course it does. But are you actually thinking about why it matters? Because in truth, this debate tests the bounds of how you view and tolerate the differences between being homosocial and homosexual. And how comfortable you are with each.

Homosocial vs Homosexual: Love, Love, Love

In layman’s terms, homosociality defines the social bonds between members of the same sex, though usually people only use it to describe men (because it’s not culturally “weird” for women to form strong social bonds. People are stupid.). Homosexuality is about romantic bonds between members of the same sex, and once again, people often find relationships between men something worthy of more discussion and less fetishized than same-sex romantic relationships between women. They are the “this far and no farther” boundaries that we place on same-sex relationships.

Our card’s verse notes that David claimed Jonathan’s love was  “wonderful,” the Hebrew of which translates to mean “beyond comprehension.” Furthermore, David said that Jonathan’s love was greater than the love of women.

This is noteworthy because, depending on how one navigates the pronoun swamp of 1 Samuel 20:17, this is the only time in the Bible where it says David loved Jonathan back. Something artists over the centuries have noted, almost always making Jonathan’s affection for David more prominent. Hence the diction of our card.

This gets even more awkward when we remember that David was married to Jonathan’s little sister, and the later drama in their marriage [the Card Talk about this is forthcoming]. Is Michal the woman David had in mind while thinking of Jonathan’s love? The comparison is made more interesting when we note that Bible records the love between David and Jonathan as a two way street, while with Michel it only records Michel’s love for David (c.f. 1 Samuel 18:17-28).

Seriously you two…?

Conservative Response: Exactly! Jonathan’s love of David was better than Michal’s, which proves his love was non-sexual, non-romantic! The writer is contrasting the two against each other. The writer of 1 Samuel is not contemporaneous with the events. Therefore, he knows the rest of David’s story and his romantic, sexual relationships with women. No woman’s love was ever as profitable to David as Jonathan’s. Not Michal or even Abigial. Not Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, or Eglah. Certainly not Bathsheba, to say nothing of his other wives and concubines.

Liberal Response: First off, what’s that crack about Bathsheba, as if she did anything other than be power-raped by the king, and then have her husband, one of David’s “mighty men,” murdered? Victim-blame much? And second, once again, you’re proving my point. Jonathan and Michal are on the same wavelength: they both betray the same family, the same father, for David. And both do it because they are in love with him: sexually, romantically. That’s the point of comparison. They both loved him, but Jonathan’’s love was better which, as you say, is borne out by the writers/redactors knowing how David and Michal’s relationship will fall apart in a few chapters (c.f. 2 Samuel 6:20-23). At the very least we can say David was so damn hot, none of Saul’s kids could resist him.

An interesting academic sidestepping of this debate is well articulated by Baruch Halpern.

Halpern argues that the “special relationship” between David and Jonathan— however one would present it— “is probably invented or inferred, not recalled” by the biblical writer(s), for the express purpose of insulating David from blame against charges “that David conducted a vendetta with the house of Saul” (283). In other words, the whole relationship is political-romantic fiction to paint David as less vindictive and bloodthirsty in regards to Saul’s lineage.

Don’t dismiss this idea out of hand. David is pretty ruthless throughout his narrative. He is introduced by way of talking about the wild animals he kills before he chops off Goliath’s head with Goliath’s own sword (yeah, that’s how he died, not the slingshot. Your flannel graph lied). And he exits the Bible giving Solomon a list of people to have killed once he’s gone, including his own cousin Joab, who was only ever loyal to David, esp. when it came to killing people for him.

Halpern (among others) points out that the Bible spends a lot of time establishing that David didn’t lead a coup against Saul or exact revenge against his descendants once David took power. David didn’t kill Saul when he had the chance, twice (1 Sam 24 & 26). Saul and his sons all end up dead by Philistine hands, when David was in a whole other region (compare the end of 1 Sam 30 to chapter 31). When the a grip of Saul’s descendants are massacred by the Gibeonites, the text makes it clear that, though David handed them over to be killed, it’s because God ordered the hit. None of his forces, nor any Jews, took part in the slaughter, and he made sure Jonathan’s physically disabled son Mephibosheth made it out alive (2 Sam 21:1-14). The point: maybe the text is being suggestive for the specific purpose of showing how close they were so later generations wouldn’t think poorly of the Davidic Monarchy. A plan, if true, that has historically had mixed results among scholars and lay people alike.

As interesting as this idea is, we assume neither foaming-at-the-mouth disputant above will spend a lot of time considering Halpern until what is the primary concern in their minds on this issue: what was David doing or not doing in the privacy of this bedroom?

Two Open Letters

So what do we think? Do we side with the “Conservatives” or the “Liberals”? Honestly, we don’t really care. We’re more interested in the ideologies behind the debate. Because we often notice two ideas lingering in the back of some minds coming from both positions.

Conservatives seem to say, “Men in the Bible can’t be loving and intimate,” while Liberals seem to say, “Men in the Bible can be loving and intimate only if they are gay. “ So we want to address both sides, ask each two essential questions.

Dear Conservatives,

why are you so bothered by the idea that the Bible would show a happy homosexual couple?

(We think we know why, but do you? Do you really?)

Before you start quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or other passages horribly out of context), ask yourself something: Could David be a “man after God’s own heart” and not “straight”?

As we (and any clergy, lay leader, or biblical reader with basic reading comprehension) has noted, the Bible records that David was

a repeated liar (c.f. 1 Sam 21 & 27)

an adulterer (2 Sam 11)

one of the worst fathers recorded in the Bible (2 Sam 13-18)

a nationalistic idolater cursed by God (2 Sam 24),

sexually unchaste (too many examples to name), and

a murder and betrayer of his own friends and family (c.f. 2 Sam 11; & 1 Kings 2).

But you want to focus all your attention on his possible sexuality, especially when, according to your own logic, that might have been a high point in his narrative?

Ask yourself: what if Jonathan was in love with David romantically, sexually? Maybe David loved him back in that same way. Maybe David was bi-sexual or pansexual. We don’t know. You don’t know. But were God’s ends thwarted? Were the elements of David’s life which led to the coming Messiah disrupted? Did the world come crashing down? Didn’t all the things you argued for above still take place in God’s timing? Couldn’t God have worked through their “sin,” whether He “hated” it or not?

So why are you so hung up whether there is something evil and/or disgusting about the idea that they were sexually attracted to each other, whether they found a way to physically consummate their love or not?

No. Stop.

Read the above again. Slowly. Honestly. Non-defensively. If you believe being “gay” is a sin, and we are all “sinners,” including David and Jonathan, why couldn’t “gayness” be one of their sins, and God still used them, just like you argue that God uses rest of us flawed, sinful people? Just like God still uses you.

If you don’t have a good answer for that question, you need to do some soul-searching, and stop wondering why you’re accused of “homophobia” by Liberal friends, family, and acquaintances more often than you’d like.

Dear Liberals

why are you so bothered by the idea that the Bible would show intimate, non-sexual love between men?

(Again, we have our suspicions, but have you worked that out?)

Defending the “least of these” is supposed to be your bread and butter. Social justice warrior-ing is not only biblical, it has become second nature for you. This is not a bad thing, usually it is to be commended. Any the fight against homophobia, transphobia, and the myriad discrimination experienced by the LGBTQA+ community, especially at the hands of the church, is a noble one. It is what Jesus would do.

So finding a positive depiction of a same-sex couple in the Bible would be a wonderful, affirming counterpoint in the midst of a book with passages like the one above from Leviticus. And let’s be blunt: LGBTQA+ folk can see themselves in an all too-familiar narrative: two young people living double lives— their love denied by an overbearing father and unforgiving social system— are forced to meet in secret to discuss their love.

But doesn’t it feed a culture of toxic-masculinity by saying the only way this passage makes sense is by saying David and Jonathan we’re sexually intimate? Isn’t something important lost if we purport that the text can only be interpreted as a romantic relationship, propping up the notion that men cannot be emotionally vulnerable and physically affectionate in public without that being socially taboo?

No. Stop.

Read the above again. Slowly. Honestly. Non-defensively. Is it possible that you’re screaming, “look at the text, they HAVE to be gay!” sadly and ironically based on bro-culture, misogynistic, and/or homophobic ideas of what it means to be “a man” (i.e. “real men” don’t act like this, unless they’re gay.)?

If you don’t have a good answer for that question, you need to do some soul-searching, and start wondering if you’re not as “woke” as you think; if you’re more self-loathing than you were aware.

Perhaps you should re-read everything we said above before you send us hate mail.

Perhaps we should all do a better job of prioritizing what we focus on and why.

Or better still, perhaps we can work on loving each other, as Jonathan loved David, as Christ loved the Church, and be willing to give our everything for others wonderfully made in the image of God, no matter who they choose (or don’t choose) to share their consensual love with in a romantic way.

 But what do we know: we made this game and you probably think we’re going to Hell.