#Other awesome people thoughts

[thelostgirl21]

"Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual' to be inadequate or too limiting."

The Bisexual Manifesto, telling us all that it is okay to choose other labels to describe our sexuality, if we feel that "bisexuality" is not quite it!

Non-monosexuality can manifest itself in many, many different ways, and even "pansexuality", to me, feels like an umbrella term, rather than a label that reflects a single sexuality.

Ex:

Some pansexuals use the label to describe or establish the gender identities of the people that they can be sexually attracted to, rather than to describe a personal sexual preference (or lack off preference) in gender identities and expressions that orients their sense of attraction. i.e. They will say that they are attracted to people of all gender identities and expressions; rather than towards all gender identities and expressions themselves.*

Some pansexuals are attracted towards all genders - with perhaps some differences in the way they experience attraction in relation to gender - and they feel it important that the label they use specifically reflect that there's no gender out there that they can't be into.

Some pansexuals feel that they are attracted to a person regardless of gender - because they genuinely like all gender identities and expressions - and therefore feel like the gender of a person doesn't influence their sense of attraction.

Some pansexuals feel that they are attracted to a person regardless of gender - because they lack the ability to experience any sense of attraction towards gender identities and expressions - but they still have the ability to experience attraction towards a person based on personal preferences they have.

Some pansexuals will get a bit more philosophical, and talk about experiencing sexual attraction beyond gender, sexual orientation, and "physical sex".

[*Note: While it is a very valid way to describe one's sexuality, it is a format that I'm personally very uncomfortable with using when it comes to defining my own sexuality.

Because I believe that my sexual orientation - something that is part of my personal identity - should reflect what "orients" (i.e. motivates, causes...) my sexual desires for another person to occur, rather than be about the gender(s) of the person I can have sex with.

Yes, since I can have sex with people of all gender identities and expressions, I can behave bisexually! This is what can be observed by other people from the outside.

But, just like gender is not about what you look like, I believe sexual orientation should not be about who you can have sex with.

It should be about who I am, and how I experience my own sexuality inside, rather than about what I do, or "who I can technically do".

At least, that's the way I'm personally most comfortable using those labels.]

And, as someone that already feels a bit invisible, at times, in the pansexual community (given that gender apathetic pansexuals aren't necessarily those that will get the most visibility, or whose experience is the easiest to understand and relate to), being told to label myself "bisexual" instead makes me feel even more misunderstood, and dismissed from the LBGTQ+ community!

The only two clear sexual orientations (i.e. primary preferences that must usually consistently be present for any sexual attraction for a partner to occur) that I have are:

I'm only attracted to people that I perceive as being geeks (might be a form of sapiosexuality).

I need to experience an emotional connection with the person first (demisexual).

I don't feel like I'm attracted to men and/or perceived expressions of masculinity. But the geek I'm deeply attracted to (and have been with for nearly two decades) happens to be a man, and I'm simply cool with it!

I'm neither attracted to nor repulsed by his masculinity (that can be reflected through his physical looks, personality, behavior, intellect, etc.) and him being a man.

But I'm not sexually into it!

So, I'm usually asexual most of the time. i.e. I don't find anyone sexually attractive in society, until I witness them "geek out" about a special interest of theirs (sexual orientation #1), I develop an emotional connection with them (sexual orientation #2), and they also happen to meet a number of less important preferences (that aren't what I would consider sexual orientations, but simply preferences) that will trigger a sense of attraction/arousal in me.

The gender identity or expressions of that person is not part of my sexual orientation, nor is it even part of my personal preferences when it comes to sexual attraction.

It's a part of my partner's identity that doesn't affect the way I'm likely to express or experience my own sexuality with him.

His gender is just... there. And it's fine! It doesn't bother me, but I've no particular appreciation for it, either.

That's what my own pansexuality means for me, and why the emphasis on "being attracted to a person regardless of gender", feels so important to me.

Growing up as a gender apathetic pansexual kid - in a world where so much emphasis is put on gender-based sexual attraction - when you utterly instinctively fail to respond to other people's genders (even in the way you experience friendships) is extremely confusing!

That's why I feel that it's important to have a diversity of labels that allow us to fully explore those differences and nuances in how we experience non-monosexual attraction, without imposing the idea that "because bisexuality is so inclusive, you should feel fully represented by that label; regardless of whether it specifically reflects your own experience with sexuality, or not".

And, to me, bisexuality and pansexuality are two terms that greatly overlap, yet are not fully absorbed by each other.

They should be part of a non-monosexual spectrum rather than a multiple gender attraction spectrum.

Because, once again, we've created a false binary where you can either be:

Monosexual: i.e. attracted towards a single gender identity/expressions.

Or

Bisexual + or M-spec: i.e. attracted towards more that a single gender identity/expressions.

But my own experience of my sexuality falls completely outside of these two definitions!

I'm not monosexual, I'm not bisexual...

I'm a what-the-heck-does-other-people-gender(s)-even-have-anything-to-do-with-the way-I-experience-sexual-desire?sexual!

TECHNICALLY, if we were to stick with the idea that "sexual orientation" is exclusively about how we positively respond (feel attracted to) the gender of a sexual partner, I should be "asexual" (i.e. unable to sexually connect with and/or feel attracted towards the gender of another person).

But asexuality is about not being sexually attracted towards another person (which is not the same thing as the inability to enjoy sexual activity with a partner... Some asexuals are very sex favorable), not their gender(s).

It's like, if you feel completely sexually disconnected from another person's gender identity/expressions, you simply can't sexually desire them based on other personal characteristics they may have that do trigger your sexual desires.

There's this category missing between bisexuality+/M-spec and asexuality.

And, thus far, the only term that I've found that comes close enough to bridging that gap between the two is "pansexuality".

People don't seem to realise (or feel like it matters) that there's a subset of pansexuals that simply exists somewhere in an empty space between those that are "gendersexuals" (hetero, homo, bi+, M-spec) and "asexuals", when it comes to the role and importance given to gender in definitions of sexual orientations.

And acknowledging the existence of that subset of gender apathetic pansexuals does not take anything away from people that consider themselves bisexuals, omnisexuals, polysexuals, or even pansexuals (based on other uses of the definition).

And yes, I do 100% acknowledge that some people might experience their sexuality the exact same way I do, yet be fine with saying that they are bisexuals, because they are sexually attracted to people of all gender identities and expressions.

It's not about determining who is right or wrong, but understanding that, for some of us, using the bisexual label in such a way triggers feelings of dysphoria, as it puts the emphasis on the gender(s) of our partner(s), rather than how our own sexual instincts relate, or fail to relate to, other people's genders.

Some agender people need to clearly state that they have no gender identity, and want others to refer to them as "they".

Whereas I have absolutely no gender identity (I really am gender apathetic all the way through!), either, but am perfectly fine with being called "a woman" based on my having been born with the sexual dimorphism of a female of the human species, and it being much simpler that way!

But I won't start arguing with other people that lack any sense of gender identity that they should just "roll with" the gender they were assigned at birth, not care about how other people treat or perceive them in society because of it, and just be themselves regardless of their own gender!

I don't feel it important that my gender identity reflects that I don't feel like I've got any gender, but they do. And I have to respect that.

Similarly, when it comes to my sexual orientation, I feel that it is important that my sexual identity clearly reflects my inability to sexually connect with the gender identities or expressions of other people.

So, while it is entirely possible that there are others like me, out there, that also fail to sexually connect with other people's genders as part of their own sexuality, yet may not care about clearly distancing themselves from the idea that gender must absolutely play a role in how we sexually desire other people (and is the only valid form of sexual orientation); I do.

And I'd ask people to respect that.

the complete bisexual manifesto text

for your accessible reading pleasure

(you can find screenshots and breakdowns of the manifesto in this tumblr post, this tumblr post, and this tweet)

the bisexual manifesto that is spread around and used to invalidate pansexuality is only part of what was published by the bay area bisexual network in the magazine “anything that moves” in the 1990s. the full text was the “about our name” page at the beginning of the magazine. it reads:

“ABOUT OUR NAME…

Our choice to use this title for the magazine has been nothing less than controversial. That we would choose to re-define the stereotype that ‘bisexuals will fuck anything that moves,’ to suit our own purposes has created myriad reactions. Those critical of the title feel we are purporting the stereotype and damaging our image. Those in favor of its use see it as a movement away from the stereotype, toward bisexual empowerment.

We deliberately chose the radical approach. We are creating dialogue through controversy. We are challenging people to face their own external and internal biphobia. We are demanding attention, and are re-defining ‘anything that moves’ on our terms.

READ OUR LIPS: WE WILL WRITE OR PRINT OR SAY ANYTHING THAT MOVES US BEYOND THE LIMITING STEREOTYPES THAT ARE DISPLACED ONTO US.

This magazine was created by bisexuals and their friends. All proceeds are invested into its production and the bisexual community. It is published by the Bay Area Bisexual Network and reflects the integrity and inclusive nature of the BABN Statement of Purpose. ATM was created out of pride; out of necessity; out of anger. We are tired of being analyzed, defined and represented by people other than ourselves—or worse yet, not considered at all. We are frustrated by the imposed isolation and invisibility that comes from being told or expected to choose either a homosexual or heterosexual identity. Monosexuality is a heterosexist dictate used to oppress homosexuals and to negate the validity of bisexuality.

Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have 'two’ sides or that we MUST be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders. Do not mistake our fluidity for confusion, irresponsibility, or an inability to commit. Do not equate promiscuity, infidelity, or unsafe sexual behavior with bisexuality. Those are human traits that cross ALL sexual orientations. Nothing should be assumed about anyone’s sexuality—including your own.

We are angered by those who refuse to accept our existence; our issues; our contributions; our alliances; our voices. It is time for the bisexual voice to be heard. Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual’ to be inadequate and too limiting. Do not assume that the opinions expressed are shared by all bisexuals, by those actively involved in the Bisexual Movement, by the ATM staff, or the BABN Board of Directors.

What you can expect is a magazine that, through its inclusive and diverse nature, creates movement away from external and internal limitations.

This magazine is about ANYTHING THAT MOVES: that moves us to think, that moves us to fuck (or not); that moves us to feel; that moves us to believe in ourselves—To Do It For Ourselves!

ABOUT BABN…

The Bay Area Bisexual Network is an alliance of bisexual and bi-supportive groups, individuals, and resources in the San Francisco Bay Area. BABN is coalescing the bisexual community and creating a movement for acceptance and support of human diversity by coordinating forums, social events, opportunities, and resources. We support relationships among people regardless of gender, which can include relating intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, sensually, and sexually. We support celibacy, monogamy, and non-monogamy as equally valid lifestyle choices. We support open expression of affection and touch among people without such expression necessarily having sexual implications. The BABN is by nature educational in that we are supporting the rights of all women and men to develop as whole being without oppression due to age, race, religion, color, class or different abilities, nor because of sexual preference, gender identity, gender preference and/or responsible consensual sexual behavior preferences. We also support acceptance in employment, housing, healthcare, and education. This includes access to complete sexual information, free expression of responsible consensual sexual activity, and other freedoms. Membership is open to all bi-positive people whether or not they consider themselves bisexual.”

the only part of this that people cite as a source for various things in arguments against pansexuality is, “Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have 'two’ sides or that we MUST be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.” and honestly, i have never understood why. nothing in those three sentences negates pansexuality or proves it biphobic.

“do not assume bisexuality is binary” does not mean “do not assume bisexuality doesn’t include non-binary people”. it means, as the sentences continues, “do not assume bi people have two sides”, or in other words, don’t assume bi people are half gay and half straight. bisexuality does include non-binary people, that’s just not what’s being addressed there.

“don’t assume there are only two genders” literally just means exactly that. there are more than two genders.

neither of those sentences are defining bisexuality as anything. the only thing the entire bisexual manifesto defines bi as is a “whole, fluid identity”.

but even if those sentences were saying “bi includes non-binary people” or “bi is all genders”, that still wouldn’t negate pansexuality or prove it biphobic.

because pansexuality has been defined as all/regardless before this was published, so nothing in it can prove “pan people stole bi’s definition.”

now that we’ve addressed that part of the manifesto, again, let’s get to the important part that everyone ignores.

“Do not expect each magazine to be representative of all bisexuals, for our diversity is too vast. Do not expect a clear-cut definition of bisexuality to jump out from the pages. We bisexuals tend to define bisexuality in ways that are unique to our own individuality. There are as many definitions of bisexuality as there are bisexuals. Many of us choose not to label ourselves anything at all, and find the word 'bisexual’ to be inadequate and too limiting.”

ya hear that? stop using the bi manifesto as some ultimate, holy, universal definition of bi. not only does that definition of bi not exist within it, but the manifesto itself does not support defining bi as one thing for every bi person.

most important, though? the blatant, explicit support for mspec people who don’t identify as bi.

i included the “about babn” because it really drives home how this manifesto that exclusionists clutch so hard onto is written by people who are supportive and inclusive of every flavor of queer.

so please stop pretending this manifesto is an ancient queer document. it’s literally just a page from a '90s magazine. it’s part of queer history, but it is not the be all end all of it. nor does its existence erase or negate what predates it.

and it does not support your panphobia, bi policing, and exclusionism.

[mamawasatesttube]

the whole "jason rules crime alley and none of the other bats are allowed there!!1!" thing is so funny like. tim LITERALLY lives in the theater where bruce's parents died,

[fictionadventurer]

I have to talk about Chester Arthur. His story makes me go crazy. A mediocre president from the 1880s who's completely forgotten today has one of the best redemption stories I've ever heard and I need to make people understand just how cool his story is.

So, like, he starts out as this idealist, okay? He's the son of an abolitionist minister and becomes famous as a New York lawyer who defends the North's version of Rosa Parks whose story desegregates New York City's trolley system.

Then he starts getting pulled into politics and becomes one of the grimiest pieces of the political machine. He wants money, power, prestige, and he gets it. He becomes the right-hand man of Roscoe Conkling, the most feared political boss in the nation, a guy who will throw his weight around and do the most ruthless things imaginable to keep his friends in power and destroy his enemies.

Because Arthur's this guy's top lackey, he gets to be Controller of the Port of New York--the best-paying political appointment in the country, because that port brings in, like, 70% of the federal government's funds in tariffs. He gets a huge salary plus a percentage of all the fines they levy on lawbreakers, and because he's not afraid to make up infractions to fine people over, he is absolutely raking in the dough. Making the rough equivalent of $1.3 million a year--absolutely insane amounts of money for a government position. He's spending ridiculous sums on clothes, buying huge amounts of alcohol and cigars to share with people as part of his job recruiting supporters to the party, going out nearly every night to wine and dine people as part of his work in the political machine. He's living the high life. Even when President Hayes pulls him from his position on suspicions of fraud, he's still living a great life of wealth, power, and prestige.

Then in 1880, his beloved wife dies. While he's out of town working for a political campaign. And he can't get back in time to say goodbye before she dies. Because he's a guy who has big emotions, it absolutely tears him up inside, especially because Nell resented how much his political work kept him away from home. He has huge regrets, but he just moves in with Roscoe Conkling and keeps working for the political machine.

And then he gets a chance to be vice president. The Republican Party has nominated James Garfield, a dark horse candidate who wants to reform the spoils system that has given Conking his power and gave Arthur his position as Port Controller. Conkling is pissed, and he controls New York, and since the party's not going to win the election without New York, they think that appointing Conkling's top lackey as vice-president will pacify him.

They're wrong--Conkling orders Arthur to refuse--but Arthur thinks this sounds like a great opportunity. The only political position he's ever held is Port Controller--a job he wasn't elected to and that he was pulled from in disgrace. Vice President is way more than he could ever have hoped for. It's a position with a lot of political pull and zero actual responsibilities. He'll get to spend four years living in up in Washington high society. It's the perfect job! Of course he accepts, and Conkling comes around when he figures out that he can use this to his advantage.

When Garfield becomes president, Arthur does everything he can to undermine him. He uses every dirty political trick he can think of to block everything that Garfield wants to do. He refuses to let the Senate elect a president pro tempore so he can stay there and influence every bill that comes through. He all but openly boasts of buying votes in the election. He's so much Conkling's lackey that he may as well be the henchman of a cartoon supervillain. On Conkling's orders, he drags one of Garfield's Cabinet members out of bed in the middle of the night--while the guy is ill--to drag him to Conkling's house so he can be forced to resign. He's just absolutely a thorn in the president's side, a henchman doing everything he can to maintain the corrupt spoils system.

Then in July 1881, when Arthur's in New York helping Conkling's campaign, the president gets shot. By a guy who shouts, "Now Arthur will be president!" just after he fires the gun. Arthur has just spent the past four months fighting the president tooth and nail. Everyone thinks he's behind the assassination. There are lynch mobs looking to take out him and Conkling. The papers are tearing him apart.

Arthur is absolutely distraught. He rushes to Washington to speak with the president and assure him of his innocence, but the doctors won't let him in the room. He gets choked up when talking to the First Lady. Reporters find him weeping in his house in Washington. Once again, death has torn his world apart and he's not getting a chance to make amends.

Arthur goes to New York while the president is getting medical treatment, and he refuses to come to Washington and take charge because he doesn't dare to give the impression that he's looking to take over. No one wants Arthur to be president and he doesn't want to be president, and the possibility that this corrupt political lackey is about to ascend to the highest office in the land is absolutely terrifying to everyone.

Then in August, when it's becoming clear that the president is unlikely to recover, he gets a letter. From a 31-year-old invalid from New York named Julia Sand. A woman from a very politically-minded family who has been following Arthur's career for years. And she writes him this astounding letter that takes him to task for his corrupt, conniving ways, and the obsession with worldly power and prestige that has brought him wealth and fame at the cost of his own soul--and she tells him that he can do better. In the midst of a nationwide press that's tearing him apart, this one woman writes to tell him that she believes he has the capacity to be a good president and a good man if he changes his ways.

And then he does. After Garfield dies, people come to Arthur's house and find servants who tell them that Arthur is in his room weeping like a child (I told you he had big emotions), but he takes the oath of office and ascends to the presidency. And he becomes a completely different man. His first speech as president mentions that one of his top priorities is reforming the spoils system so that people will be appointed based on merit rather than getting appointed as political favors with each change in the administration. Even though this system made him president. When Conkling comes to Arthur's office telling him to appoint his people to important government positions, Arthur calls his demands outrageous, throws him out, and keeps Garfield's appointees in the positions. "He's not Chet Arthur anymore," one of his former political friends laments. "He's the president."

He loses all his former political friends. He's never trusted by the other side. Yet he sticks to his guns and continues to support spoils system reform. He prosecutes a postal service corruption case that everyone thought he would drop. He's the one who signs into law the first civil service reform bill, even though presidents have been trying to do this for more than ten years, and he's the person who's gained all his power through the spoils system. He immediately takes action to enforce this bill when he could have just dropped it. He becomes a champion of this issue even though it's the last thing anyone would have expected of him.

He oversees naval reform. He oversees a renovation of the White House. He still prefers the social duties of the presidency, but he's respectable in a way that no one expected. Possibly because Julia Sand keeps sending him letters of encouragement and advice over the next two years. But also because he's dying.

Not long after ascending to the presidency, he learns he's suffering from a terminal kidney disease. And he tells no one. He keeps going about his daily life, fulfilling his duties as president, and keeps his health problems hidden. Once again, death is upending his life, and this time it's his own death. He's lived a life he's ashamed of, and he doesn't have much time left to change. He enters the presidency as an example of the absolute worst of the political system, and leaves it as a respectable man.

He makes a token effort to seek re-election, but because of his health problems, he doesn't mind at all when someone else gets the nomination. He dies a couple of years after leaving office. The day before his death, he orders most of his papers burned, because he's ashamed of his old life--but among the things that are saved are the letters from Julia Sand, the woman who encouraged him to change his ways.

This is an astounding story full of so many twists and turns and dramatic moments. A man who falls from idealism into the worst kind of corruption and then claws his way back up to decency because of a series of devastating personal losses and unexpected opportunities to do more than he could have ever hoped to do. I just go crazy thinking about it and I need you all to understand just how amazing this story is.

[warpedpuppeteer]

Y'all ever cry when you think about how everyone in Eddie's life assumed he'll make a terrible parent without even offering him the help he needed to prove himself except for Buck?? He hears about Eddie's struggles with parenting and doesn't think 'you're a bad dad' he just thinks 'you need a bit of help' and then proceeds to make that happen for Eddie.

Calling Bobby to get permission to have Chris with them because Eddie doesn't get the time to, introducing Carla to go through the shitty red tapes he's been struggling to figure out, driving him to pick-up Chris after the earthquake, throwing a surprise Christmas party so that Eddie can be with Chris, and being the person Chris can turn to when he doesn't feel like talking to Eddie.

I don't think Buck realizes how much Eddie probably values all the things Buck has done for him to allow him to be the parent that he's always been capable of being. Buck downplays the things he does and probably thinks it's not much but for Eddie it's everything. It's everything Eddie didn't get from his partner or his parents. Buck just... does it for him, as easy as breathing.

This is why it was so, so easy for Eddie to choose Buck as the legal guardian for his Will but it was a shock for Buck. Buck doesn't know how integral he's been to Eddie being a good dad. For Eddie, it's easy because be knows Buck is already capable of stepping up. For Buck, it's surprising because doesn't think all the things he does matters.

[thelostgirl21]

Calling a small sandpiper or plover a "lark" is apparently a very British...

... and French Canadian thing to do! 😆

I'm French Canadian (from Montreal's GMA, in Quebec).

In French, as you've mentioned, a "sandpiper" is a "bécasseau"...

And a "lark" is an "alouette"...

And French Canadians willl also call the "bécasseau" (lark) an "alouette de mer" (sea lark).

So, if you ever hear a French Canadian tell you about the "sea lark", assume it's a sandpiper, not an "alouette"! 😆

Actually Quebecers and Acadians may literally call the sandpiper a "lark" without saying "sea" before it.

Kind of like the way we call our "merle d'Amérique" a "rouge-gorge", I suppose, when the "rouge-gorge" is a very different bird.

Why do we do this? I don't know!

We were colonized by British people after they won the war, so we're a weird French/British hybrid people that stubbornly decided to keep the language, but picked up on some of the quirks and habits of our British colonizers! 😆

And larks (alouettes, not bécasseaux) are vicious!!! Seriously, here in Quebec, if you have the bad luck of getting too close to one of their nests, and not get the fuck out of there as soon as they start singing, they will aggressively fight you!

They'll fly high, and dive right on you to drive you away!

They may not be called "knights" ("chevaliers") , but they will definitely fight you!

I'm currently trying to read about sandpipers (whose behavior I'm less familiar with), trying to see if they really are as aggressive and protective as larks are...

And apparently, female sandpipers are a bit bigger, stronger, and much more aggressive than their male counterparts.

Females will tend to start multiple nests with multiple partners (up to five) during one breeding season, and will be the ones to defend their nests with ground and aerial threat displays...

...while the males are the ones that will incubate the eggs and care for the youngs.

Occasionally, the female might choose one of those males as a primary "nesting" partner, and will be willing to help him out with the chicks at some point in the breeding season, though.

So, like the female sandpiper, Jaskier is a very "giving" individual that enjoys "nesting" a bit everywhere with many, many different people (but that may choose one of those partners as a primary nesting partner, and be willing to share more responsibilities with them than he usually would)...

But yeah, one female sandpiper typically "fights" and protects her nests (plural), while up to five sandpiper males will "stay home" to take care of the babies.

Oh! And they nest close to a body of water (thinking about Jaskier instinctively wanting to head to the coast, and get away with Geralt for a while... 😆).

Larks, however, appear to form bonded pairs for life, where the chicks are taken care of by both parents. And, when their nest is being threatened, they will fly silently several feet up into the sky, then fly in circles up there for several minutes while singing, until finally launching into aerial dives attacks! 😆

And, like the male sandpiper, he's this very caring and nurturing individual that's more of a lover than a fighter, and will make sure those he chooses to take responsibility for are well emotionally fed and cared for, give them baths, sing them lullabys, educate them on how to get by in the world and find what pleases them...

They also nest right on open ground, because they're hardcore birds like that! I mean, singing you their best rendition of "The Immigrant Song", before fucking you up if you don't get out of there, should be protection enough, right?

Very effective defense strategy.

I've also discovered that the Australian "magpie-lark" is neither a magpie, nor a lark...

And now, I can't help but wonder if they are called a "lark" because of their swooping habits.

Because, that's what larks do here in North America, they swoop down right at you!

They'll sing first as a warning, then they'll swoop!

I think "The Lark" works really well for Éile because of that.

First, you'll hear her song... then, she'll whoop your arse! 😆

Jaskier's just... nesting everywhere, and being everyone's "sandpiper dad friend" that will take the time to listen to them, offer advice, put them on the right path for them to get what they need most, and just nurture the best he sees in people.

And I was saying that he "emotionally feeds" people he cares for earlier, because I don't expect him to actually feed people when he can barely feed himself.

Actually, that's not 100% true, as he got people to start paying Geralt a fair wage for his services, among others.

And he'll try to help oppressed people move to a place where they'll be safer and not risk dying, and starving, and/or having their other most basic needs ignored and denied.

So, he can technically help those he cares about literally feed themselves, in a way.

But I wouldn't expect him to actually cook people food, given he struggles with identifying common table salt when he tastes it! 😆

Geralt seems to be into cooking and seemingly good at it, and Radovid has people cooking for him, so he's going to be fine and get fed no matter who he's staying with!

3x06 // the last wish // "extraordinary things"

[sssnakeparty]

okay i developed 'give everyone fursonas disease' which is mingling with my epic disease. have penelope shes a raven :)

[thelostgirl21]

Okay, I felt like this post (by @panur & @underthebluerain) deserved some visuals, so people could really understand and truly appreciate just how dramatic the difference in body sizes and shapes between these two gorgeous, absolutely lovely men, is!

And just how skilled the costume design team is, on the show, when it comes to giving the illusion that a character is much smaller (in Jaskier's case) or much larger (in Radovid's case), than their actors actually are.

There was an incredible post, a while back, that really explained how those wizards work their magic!

And it's utterly fascinating!!! Seriously, if you haven't read all of that yet, I highly suggest you go and take a look!

But yeah, when you look at the way their clothes have been designed this season, there's definitely been some attempt to make Jaskier look generally smaller than Joey Batey really is, while making Radovid look generally bigger than Hugh Skinner really is, too.

A few examples (with my extremely humble interpretation / things that have grabbed my eye when I look at their costumes. Please bear in mind that I am but an humble fan with no experience in costume design, so there's probably tons of stuff I've missed, and/or I might have misinterpreted some of those designers' intent):

Then, of course, there's Radovid's cloak that just... triples his size or something!

So, when you look at them side by side with their clothes on (even without the cloak), there really doesn't seem to be such a huge difference in body size and shape between the two.

Why are they so pretty though?

Like yeah, you do get the sense that Radovid might be a bit leaner, and that he has a longer torso, perhaps, but it's not THAT dramatic of a difference...

As soon as you get them out of their costumes, however...

On that last gif, you can really see that Joey's roughly the same height as Henry Cavill, and get the sense that he'd probably fit really well in a Witcher's armor, too!

Technically, their heights are listed as: - Henry Cavill: 1,85cm (6 ft 7/8 in) - Hugh Skinner: 1,83cm (6 ft) - Joey Batey 1,82cm (5 ft 11 5/8 in)

So, Joey's like 1 1/8" smaller than Henry and 3/8" smaller than Hugh.

Since I'm ½" taller than my own partner and virtually never realize it, I doubt they'd notice that 3/8" difference between them.

But yeah, one of the really funny "side effects" of costume designers being so good at their job is when you somehow manage to forget about it while watching the show and then this happens:

and your brain needs a moment to re-calibrate its settings because you're like "Right! Buff bard! Right... 6 feet tall really strong looking damsel in distress that keeps complaining Geralt could break him like a twig, when it would be something closer to splitting a log!"

Makes you wonder if people in Jaskier's family are just... naturally muscular or something (lots of fast-twitch muscle fibers?!)?

Because, while Joey is apparently into climbing, kick boxing, swimming, fencing, medieval sword fighting, etc.

Jaskier complained about needing to walk down the path of a mountain on his own, because his fancy boots kept sliding.

He does a lot of traveling and walking, sure... But that doesn't really help you develop your upper body / pectorals / arms, etc. in such a way!

Unless he just... likes the way those muscles aesthetically look on him?

You know, I really wouldn't put it past him, now that I think about it...

Over the years, Jaskier has just developed his very own calisthenics workout routine to build and maintain his looks, but feels the need to hide it.

Because "body fitness" is not exactly a popular discipline on the Continent at that time.

People tend to train to learn how to fight, or develop muscle mass while working the land or their craft, not because "they like the way those muscles look on them when taking their clothes off!"

So, Jaskier wears clothes that hide his actual body shape, since he's afraid that, if people saw and noticed how built he really is, then they'd just assume he knows how to fight and defend himself, when he doesn't.

People might stop shoving him out of harm's way, pulling him behind them to stand between him and the danger, coming to his rescue, etc.

And, since Jaskier's whole ongoing survival sort of depends on people spontaneously stepping in to save his sorry arse, well...

In the bedroom, however, the added bit of upper body strength and endurance does wonder when you want to be able to fuck someone against a wall while keeping their feet off the ground (for example).

Being able to lift and carry more than your own weight definitely has its advantages...

As Radovid has no doubt found out...

And, if the prince turned out to be a bit lighter and easier to carry around than Jaskier was initially expecting him to be, you definitely won't hear him complaining, either!

Although, I must admit that part of me also likes the idea that they might have been able to accurately "size each other up", so to speak.

Radovid's just there looking at all the lines and proportions on Jaskier's pants and shirt, while figuring out where his shoulders and arms actually stop underneath; being both fascinated by the actual size of Jaskier's body, and the choice of clothing design that's making him look much smaller than he appears to be (if his calculations are, indeed, correct)...

While Jaskier's just looking at all those layers covering Radovid, while attempting to get a rough estimate of the total naked weight underneath, and for how long he could keep him lifted... Hypothetically... For science...

But even there, there's a huge difference between knowing those clothes are playing with your perceptions and briefly getting a mental glimpse of what you think might be closer to the truth... And actually gazing upon or getting your hands all over said truth!

Because sincerely, no amount of me trying to look at this while attempting to make abstraction of the whole illusion created by the clothing design:

is successfully going to be able to make me see this:

Hence why I tend to forget about it, and need a moment to re-calibrate almost every single time Jaskier winds up getting shirtless!

Seriously, just look at the bottom gif of him shirtless, then at the top where he's got his clothes on a few times, one after the other, and try to tell me that you're able to visualize where all of that body at the bottom is managing to fit in there at the top!

It's like part of it literally went missing!

So, even if Radovid had managed to guess that Jaskier was a lot buffer than his choice of clothing was letting on, and vice versa, I'm thinking they'd still have been in for quite a bit of a surprise when they actually got each other's clothes removed!

Therefore, that headcanon would still work, regardless of Jaskier and Radovid having guessed that each of them used their clothes to make themselves appear less threatening, or more imposing than they really are.

[a-chaotically-small-lunta]

Okay we all know the story of Thumbalina. We’ve seen the movies, read the books, soooo we all know that she came from a flower grown by a woman who was given the seed. Imagine that though. Imagine you are just chilling, maybe you have a garden or you are walking in the woods and you spot a small stem starting to grow out of the ground. (Maybe a witch decided to throw a seed into your garden or something) Out of curiosity you go to it and watch as it rapidly grows in front of your eyes, only for it to bloom and have a tiny little person in it. Who then immediately trusts you cause well clearly you took care of the plant they were born from so obviously you’re like a parent or even a friend to them.

I feel like while it would be amazing to meet a tiny person this way, it would also be terrifying cause “OH SWEET, I was just walking in the woods and now I have a teenage child. Oh okay…I’m old enough to be their sibling…not a fucking parent cooooool” *Completely stressed out* That and if it follows the original fairytale your new friend/child gets kidnapped and that’s a whole new level of stress cause how the fuck are you going to find someone that small.

Anyway….if you were wanting a tiny child or even a tiny friend to magically appear, well, you got it. There they are. Congrats! You get to take care of them, hang out, it’s literally a dream come true! Yeah you gotta teach them some stuff but that’s fine. But what if it was just a person, not like a newborn? Like it’s someone from the g/t community who just woke up in the flower? What if it was one of your OCs that just woke up and is super confused about where they are and why you’re so big?

Now hold that thought, right. Flip it. Imagine you go to sleep one day daydreaming about being tiny, maybe with an OC or Favorite Character as the giant, as you drift off. Then you wake up, in a flower, with someone staring at you in amazement. Maybe it’s the OC, or Favorite Character you were daydreaming about or perhaps it’s someone you don’t know! Heck maybe it’s a fellow g/t lover who was just taking a walk in the woods! They scoop you up and promise to take care of you. How would you feel? Just woke up in what is basically a dream come true and now you’re just with a giant, cause you woke up…in a flower.

So I ask you all this. Giants, how would you feel/react to finding a blooming flower with a tiny person in it? Tinies, how would you feel/react to if you woke up in a blooming flower with a giant staring at you? Sizeshifters, you can answer both of you want.

[cyanide-sippy-cup]

Video by shesasolarbeing on Insta cause apparently unlike TikTok they don't like putting watermarks for their creators. Go check them out!

Friend sent me this and my first thought was @kianamaiart 's magical girl series. Or rather, AIKA REAL??!?1?!1

[kelocitta]

Tangentially related to some of the discussion i posted earlier but quiet literally the first RW Art Month i participated I did it completely on whim like, one day before it started. And I mostly did it because I hadn't drawn a ton of rain world and wanted to draw more. Fandom presence was a lot smaller than and I was one of a handful of artists who did the entire thing. Fast forward and I still do Art Month and I've gotten to work with VC directly. But it was quite literally something I decided to do completely on whim that set the ball rolling, and for something a lil more niche and certainly with a lot more dev/fandom art involvement than most. It's really random how and why you might get noticed more than usual, especially with the "toss it into the search and hope it pays out' mechanism of Socmed

[mossflower]

i love talking to my friends and remembering that oh these are people that i love and i’m not alone in the world

[kingwaino]

i have done...an absolute deep dive into blues and folk music tonight. it was 100% one of those blink and three hours have passed type of deals. worth it though.

[askthechronoverse]

heheheh

Oternine has blessed us with fanart.

I love this. RJ looks bewildered and Richard looks like "I love this man".

[thelostgirl21]

Alright, so this is a reply to @my-jokes-are-my-armour brilliant additions to my post, because the original one was getting insanely long, and apparently I had lots of feels about this, but asfoljasdfklsf;asldkfas;flkjasdlkjffslksjdf;s...

That "maybe"...

There are so many possible "layers" to that "maybe"!

And that's definitely one the places where Jaskier and Radovid's respective situations massively differ in that scene, too, IMHO.

Like you've said, Jaskier has a found family that he's spent about 20+ years investing in.

So, obviously, it would make absolutely no sense for him to sacrifice the ties he's already built with Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri, for a relationship that does have great potential, but is still in its infancy; whereas Radovid has made no such personal commitments in his life.

I don't know if you're familiar with the YouTube channel "Cinema Therapy" (basically, a psychologist and filmmaker analysing various movie relationships, characters psychology, etc. I highly recommend it!), but they've occasionally spoken about the notion of "shelving your agenda".

Essentially, "shelving your agenda" relates to a person's ability to "temporarily delay one's own needs to meet those of another".

And, in this particular situation, the only one of them that can afford to shelve his own agenda for the other is Radovid.

Because, at that moment, Jaskier is facing the possibility of devastating potential losses within his family system that greatly threaten his emotional and psychological well-being.

Radovid can (or at least could, while Vizimir was the one still wearing that crown) afford to be the one providing him with emotional, physical and financial support to give Jaskier his best chance at being reunited with those he loves.

But Jaskier can't really promise or offer Radovid anything in return for the time being.

And sadly, he doesn't know how bad things are for Radovid at court, either.

He doesn't know that Philippa and Dijkstra orchestrated Queen Hedwig's murder, right under King Vizimir's nose, with such confidence in their ability to get away with it that they openly told the Crown Prince of Redania about it!

He doesn't know about Radovid's relationship dynamic with his brother, and the fact that being the King's little brother is no longer enough to keep Radovid safe in that castle.

And I don't think Jaskier fully grasps just how much being in his presence is already offering Radovid something that's rather essential for his own emotional and psychological well-being, too, that he has never been able to find anywhere else.

Jaskier: "You don't understand. [This is not me trying to walk away from a relationship with you.] The war brewing outside is nothing compared to what Geralt will unleash on this Continent to find his daughter. [I'm pretty much planning to go throw myself headfirst into some desperate suicide mission with a stubborn, insanely protective Witcher dad!] I don't know what happens next. [I've no idea what will happen to me. Out there, none of us will be safe!]"

Radovid: [Oh boy! Where do I even start?] "Just let me be there with you." [Trust me, as terrible as you are trying to make it sound, joining you on a suicide mission following an angry overprotective Witcher around is actually my safest, least bad option.] "Prove that I'm more than a mask." [I belong with you and your family out there, not stuck at court playing games!]

Basically, I've a feeling that Jaskier might be operating under the belief that the safest place for the Crown Prince of Redania to be, in times of war with Nilfgaard, is behind the well guarded walls of a castle; not running around the Continent helping him and Geralt go rescue a Princess!

If he returns to Tretogor and stay there, Radovid will have an entire army standing between him and Nilfgaard!

Which, you know, is pretty much the reason that had convinced him that Ciri might be better off in Redania rather than anywhere else...

If he comes with him, well, Radovid is probably one of the last people you'd want anyone loyal to Nilfgaard to get their hands on.

The King's brother - and sole current living heir to the throne (at the time) - is very much someone that Redania's enemies would want to capture so they can use as leverage against the King.

And Jaskier's pretty much planning on being Geralt's ride or die companion on his quest to find Ciri.

So, I'm not sure how comfortable Jaskier is with the possibility of Radovid getting himself captured by enemies or killed trying to help them out there; or, even worse, winding up sacrificing his life to save Jaskier's.

Because Radovid has already proven that he values Jaskier's safety and freedom above his own, when he ditched his whole (now very dead) royal security detail to go see him and Ciri at the cabin.

Radovid is willing to make Jaskier his #1 priority, in a situation where Jaskier needs to make Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri his own #1 priority.

Jaskier is planning to "shelve his agenda" for his family, to the point of being willing to risk sacrificing his life for them…

…while Radovid is talking about "shelving his agenda" for Jaskier, while being willing to risk sacrificing his life for him, and - by extension - Jaskier's family, too.

It's likely a lot for Jaskier to take in.

And, perhaps, knowing that Radovid - at least - would be safe back in his castle, would give Jaskier some peace of mind, and even something for him to fight to come back to, should he somehow succeed in helping Geralt get Ciri back without managing to get himself killed in the process!

So, Jaskier's "maybe" is likely the most sincere answer Jaskier can give him at the moment, since Jaskier genuinely doesn't know what happens next, and he probably doesn't want Radovid to make the decision to take such a huge risk for himself and his family based on the promise of things that he might never be given the chance to offer him.

Had Jaskier known that the greatest threat Radovid was facing could be found within his castle's well guarded walls, his response to Radovid's desire to be there with him might have been different.

Perhaps he might have said something along the lines of "Forget about the money, and if you really want to come with me, come with me now! We'll think of a way to let your brother know you're relatively safe, and haven't been killed or kidnapped while we're on the road!", or something.

And then, hope his own family would understand why he chose to take Radovid with him, and for them hopefully to not be upset that he's just managed to make their whole situation even more complicated than it already was.

[Poor Geralt though…

Geralt: Let me get this straight… Of all the people on the Continent you could have romantically fallen for, you somehow managed to pick the Crown Prince of Redania? And now, the prince - who comes from a bad home that has been mistreating him - has been following you outside his castle, and you're asking if we can adopt and keep him?

Jaskier: *Smiles sheepishly and attempts to look adorable.* Yes?

Geralt: *Mumbling to himself.* Why does Destiny fucking hate me so much? How many princes and princesses am I supposed to be looking after? I'm a Witcher, for fuck's sake! I'm supposed to be killing monsters! Not opening a royal rescue shelter…

Radovid: *Concerned.* Ah, is your Witcher okay?

Jaskier: Just give him a moment to have a mental breakdown, and he'll be fine!]

But Jaskier doesn't know how bad things are for Radovid back at Tretogor.

Actually, even Radovid himself doesn't fully know!

As far as Radovid is concerned, Dijkstra briefly perceived him as a threat - or at least a nuisance - with regards to the complete and absolute influence he has on King Vizimir, and threatened to have him killed if he gets in their way.

So, by leaving, he'd technically be doing him a favor! No more "baby prince brother" royalsitting for Dijkstra and Philippa! They can go back to the way they've always preferred doing things, without having Radovid to deal with!

But Radovid doesn't know his brother has decided to let Philippa take the fall for Thanedd, and that the best solution the sorceress came up with, to deal with the issue, is "Yup! Imma get rid of Vizimir and put that spare on the throne!"

On a scale of 0 to "the spymasters are so confident they can get away with regicide that they feel totally comfortable making the guy they gleefully confessed Queen Hedwig's murder to King", just how fucking screwed are you?

I don't think Radovid had fully realised he'd reached that very last stage yet.

But yeah, Jaskier answering "maybe" made much more sense, to me, than him going "yes please, come with me, where I'll almost certainly manage to get you and/or myself killed in a desperate attempt to keep my family safe!"

And I love how long he hesitates before giving that answer, and the way his thoughts really appear to be racing, even after he says "maybe", because it is an incredibly complex and multi-factorial situation for him to deal with.

Whereas Radovid has essentially two choices:

Return to a loveless, toxic, dangerous place where he's totally disconnected from himself, and isolated from healthy human interactions.

Be out there in the world, risking his life for something - someone - that's worth taking those risks for, thus acting in accordance with who he is, and what matters to him the most.

So, Radovid basically saying "I'm all in! Let's go!", while Jaskier is saying "maybe", to me, might have more to do with how well they are both ready to handle and accept the potential consequences of Radovid choosing to go with Jaskier at that moment; than it has to do with how much they both desire to have the chance to potentially be together, or even Jaskier struggling with forgiving him.

Of course, there's also Jaskier's own personal fears (of abandonment, of falling back into unhealthy codependent patterns, etc.) that may play a role in him hesitating to treat his feelings for Radovid as a full-fledged partnership right away, and being comfortable with the idea of trusting Radovid enough to rely on him for support, too (trust and forgiveness are not quite the same thing).

That "maybe" is filled with so much potential delicious meanings, I'm telling you!

And, given that being told "maybe" didn't deter Radovid from wanting to go to Jaskier, I've a feeling that Radovid knew that Jaskier's "maybe" was also filled with a lot of hope and yearning, and as close to a "yes" as Jaskier could afford to offer him.

After all, he'd already told Radovid that his plans [of breaking things off between them] had changed.

When Radovid said "I don't get it", Jaskier could have answered him with: "it's the right thing to do", or "I may no longer want to see you, that doesn't mean I wish you to get hurt, Radovid", or "I owe you for having ditched - and now lost - your guards when you came to see me. This is me doing what I can do to pay back the favor."

But Jaskier said "plans change", with some of the most cautiously hopeful and vulnerable puppy dog eyes I've ever seen him throw at anyone.

To me, there was a sense of forgiveness and a bit of an apology, even, in Jaskier's expression at that moment…

Because the fact remains that Jaskier didn't offer Radovid his help, the night before, when he told him he was scared; resulting in Jaskier having allowed Radovid to back himself into that corner where people might say and do stupid things.

It would be a bit unfair for Jaskier to be upset with Radovid for not having trusted him with everything he knew when he came to see him and Ciri, when Jaskier himself was so scared to trust Radovid that he didn't call him out for having avoided to directly answer his question, and instead chose to test what he'd do with the information that the forcefield only lasted 'til dawn.

He's accusing Radovid of not fully trusting him and having kept his full intentions from him, when Jaskier himself literally set up a trap for him, because he was too scared to trust him…

And Radovid had the honesty of saying "I'm scared, Jaskier", at the very least. Whereas Jaskier kept his own fears to himself, and chose to play games and test him.

Granted, Radovid could have pretended to be scared to get Jaskier to lower his defenses, and manipulate him. I'm not saying that Jaskier didn't have very valid reasons for choosing to test him, rather than opting for a direct confrontation.

Trust eventually does become essential in a relationship, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to "magically be there" until both sides have experienced how the other responds in a variety of situations - including their ability to make each other still feel safe while they handle conflicts and mistakes.

So, I'm not pointing out Jaskier's own contribution to this whole mess while trying to determine who is to blame, who was wrong, or who hurt the other the most.

Just hoping that, maybe, Jaskier is allowing himself to recognize that they are both very flawed, complex and human individuals that never meant to hurt each other at that moment.

That part of the reasons why he sits down and looks at Radovid with such a sad, defeated expression, is that he's realizing that they were simply dealing and coping with their own respective fears and doubts as best they could back at the cabin, and got both a good, strong bite in the arse as a result!

When Radovid ran away from the cabin earlier, Jaskier made a little move as if instinctively wanting to run after him.

I think that, maybe, in all of the ways Jaskier might have expected their confrontation to go when "catching Radovid in the act" that morning, he might have imagined facing more outrage from Radovid, more fight…

He might have expected for him to start blaming him in return, etc.

Because, had Radovid indeed been a "knife" and wearing a mask with Jaskier, he might have played "meek" and attempted to "reason with" Jaskier in the beginning in a desperate last ditch attempt to hold onto his mask, sure!

But, when he'd realised it didn't work - and Jaskier would not be so easily fooled - the mask would eventually have had to come off!

Radovid could easily have pretended that he had only wanted to test if Jaskier was being sincere with him.

He could have claimed that he'd realised, the night before, that Jaskier had only let him know about when the forcefield would come down, because he'd never truly cared about him, nor trusted him!

And low and behold! He was right!

Radovid could have accused Jaskier of having been dishonest and manipulative with him, of only having ever pretended to care for him, so he could use him because of his wealth and position at court.

He could have mocked Jaskier for having claimed that "he had no desire" to be playing games with him through his song, only to then go on scheming against him, and setting up traps for him at the first opportunity he got!

A skilled "knife", caught in a lie, will not admit to any wrongdoing, and will make it sound like you're the villain, they're the victim, and the problem lies with you, not them.

But Radovid's response was being truthful in his answers, internalize Jaskier's blame, look like he'd just been kicked, utter a pitiful "I'm so sorry," and run away!

Unless you are someone that enjoy dominating other people and bringing them down (something I do not believe Jaskier does), there's no sense of triumph, or even validation to be derived from Radovid's response!

There's no sense of relief from "having escaped being fooled by such a manipulative and dangerous individual" to be found!

Radovid just took all the blame on himself, brokenly apologized for having managed to hurt and disappoint Jaskier, and ran away thinking he'd forever lost him.

Had Jaskier's priority not been to ensure Ciri's safety, I think he might have followed his impulse and gone after Radovid to attempt to get to the bottom of what was actually happening.

And, even should he have suspected that Radovid's behavior was yet another manipulation attempt - that Radovid would be patient enough to hold onto his mask a while longer while faking taking responsibility for his mistakes and hurting Jaskier…

There's absolutely no way Radovid could have predicted that Jaskier was going to come investigate the room he'd huddled himself into a dark corner to cry.

So, I like to think that Jaskier did regret his harsh words, the way he'd jumped to conclusions back at the cabin, and how he'd cut short Radovid's attempt to explain, as soon as he'd mentioned that he'd be out from under Dijkstra's thumb.

I like to think that Jaskier was sorry for the way he'd hurt Radovid, too, and that he realised that he'd let his own fears and issues get the best of him.

Now, it's up to them to decide if they'll allow their respective fears and issues to win; or instead let that deep, beautiful and delicate connection that they've been experiencing together come out on top.

So, since "the plan" was for Radovid to have seen the last of Jaskier…

I tend to interpret Jaskier saying "plans change" as a way of telling Radovid "I don't want this to be the last you see of me. If you'll still have me, when this is over, I'd like to come back to you."

With Radovid's immediate response being "Come with me, then."

Because Radovid does very much still want Jaskier.

Except Jaskier has a family he needs to go help first, before he can be free to go back to Radovid and continue to explore and deepen that relationship.

And OMFG, yes! Found families are a theme that I absolutely adore in virtually any form of media (perhaps because I had to leave my own family of origin behind to go find "my own tribe")…

By the way, do you have that season 3 review link nearby? I'm not sure if I had the chance to read it yet, or if it somehow managed to pass me by… But I'd be interested to have a first or second read at it!

Otherwise, I pretty much found myself just nodding along while reading your comments.

I definitely think that, the first time Radovid meets Jaskier, he's deeply intrigued by him and how he personally connects with his songs, but still a bit in a "playing games" mindframe, because that's just the way his world is, and has always been, and how people communicate.

And now, I'm amazed, because you've just made me realise that, when Jaskier came to see Radovid wanting to share intel with him, it could very much have made it look like he only cared about Radovid's position, wealth, and resources; rather than about Radovid himself!

In many ways, Jaskier is 100% aware that the Crown Prince of Redania "fancies him", and I think that, under normal circumstances, he wouldn't be above taking advantage of that attraction to help protect his family.

To be clear, I don't think Jaskier would ever look to manipulate the emotions of anyone that would be having sincere, non-entitled, and reciprocal feelings for him.

But a royal that would be looking to own, use, or control him? I think he'd be feeling perfectly justified using his own charms to get what he wants from them.

He tells Vespula "you can't play a player", therefore very much perceiving himself as "a player", in a sense.

And, given that nobles often have an inflated ego and sense of self-importance, "playing them" is typically not that hard to do.

But Radovid does not.

He is far from immune to Jaskier's charms, but he does not perceive him as a some type of potential "trophy lover" or conquest. He's genuinely curious about him, and wishes to better get to know and understand him.

In such a context, trust should normally go both ways.

Jaskier tells Philippa and Radovid that, if they get rid of Rience, they will have earned Ciri's, Geralt's, and his own trust (and he talks about winning his own trust while pointedly looking at Radovid)…

But what is Jaskier willing to do to earn Radovid's trust in return?

You've just made me realise that, while I often tend to remind myself that there is lot that the audience knows about Radovid that Jaskier himself doesn't…

Well, there is also a lot that the audience knows about Jaskier that Radovid himself simply doesn't, too.

Sure, Jaskier's initial response towards learning that Radovid was the Crown Prince of Redania was rather flattering and amusing, especially since it brought a certain balance to the way Radovid himself was slightly starstruck by Jaskier.

Rockstar meets royalty, basically… and forgets to let his hand go, much to royalty's delight!

But, once that initial moment has passed, does Jaskier still only sees Radovid as a prince - with all the privileges tied to his position that he could use for his own gain - or a person that's worth knowing, too?

We all assume that Jaskier's motives are honorable, because we know him, but Radovid only knows about Jaskier's songs and what little he's been able to pick up from him during two rather short encounters.

In that context, Jaskier showing up all "So, I hear you've got money! Maybe you could use it to get the two detectives to talk, and help Geralt and I find out who Rience is working for?" could actually be… borderline insulting?

Technically, it wouldn't, if Radovid was into such things as power and influence, wanted to find Ciri for himself rather than to please his brother, and Jaskier's suggestion was helping him get closer to something he really wished to get closer to besides the man standing right before him.

Again, Jaskier doesn't know that; so, there's a bit of an ongoing comedy of errors happening between these two this season.

And he doesn't know that Radovid doesn't actually have that much money "ready to be handed out" like that, either.

That Radovid would have to first sell some of his own belongings to pay for that intel.

Jaskier's basically prancing right into the palace while making a bunch of (albeit flirtatious) assumptions about Radovid - most of them kinda wrong / only half right - and it's really no wonder Radovid himself would be unwilling to "collaborate" with him so easily, admit to what he knows, and instead choose to initially continue to play dumb/drunk!

To be fair, most nobles would likely love to be reminded of their wealth, status and power, and go "Oh yeah, I've got money and I'm so important, uwu!"

They would likely welcome any opportunity to put it on display and use it to further seduce Jaskier! Normally, a prince should have favorably responded to Jaskier's innuendos...

Whereas Radovid's pretty much "Yes, yes, very interesting… Now, enough about me, let's talk about you! Here's your lute, may I humbly ask you to sing about what you prefer singing the most? Please?Maybe your white-haired Witcher? I really want to get to know you…"

And look, the fact that Jaskier got his crush to agree to help him because he was moved by his singing, cares about him, and has made it his personal mission in life to learn to better understand what makes him so special, must be so much more satisfying to Jaskier’s than it being because Radovid likes to display his wealth and feel influential and important!

I mean, look at that face...

He's just so pleased with the unexpected way things turned out...

[torchvic]

a lot of people (at least from what ive seen) made it so their mc took the blow from terapago's beam thing instead of koraidon/miraidon and i think thats the coolest thing ever because i did that too

[imgonnagetyoubacktv]

pata hai last kuch din i was very busy with my project kyunki final dena tha and binding karni thi etc to wo karwayi then i went to the bookfair bekaar tha then parso submit karne jaa rahi to subah accident hogaya (bhai ki bike skid hogayi and we fell down) and now i have a big ass blue bruise on my upper thigh and my parents don't even know lmao and kal ek science conference thi to i had to sit in an auditorium for 6 hours listening to accomplished people speak. that's what you missed now your turn

omg i knew everything in this except for the accident cause i stalk your blog vigorously everyday are you okay!!!!!!!!!! did you get tetanus shots!!!!!!!!!! also on your upper thigh oh no that's where future jiju is supposed to write MINE na as per our beloved song guilty as sin?