#They're kind of complex in that they're morally good more often than not

[soulsxng]

🤍 WHITE HEART — what are three of your oc's neutral/questionable traits? Eleare

@arcxnumvitae | Details about ocs | Accepting!

They're the type of person that tends to be picky about the people they give their time and attention to. A lot of times, it's chalked up to their age, but in all honesty they've always been like this and likely always will be. They just don't like wasting their time with people they know/believe they won't get along with, or...honestly? That won't serve some sort of purpose for them, if the person isn't someone that Eleare gets along with. That's not to say that they're going to treat a stranger disrespectfully, just because they have better things to be doing than giving someone directions, but they're also not going to go out of their way to be especially nice, either.

Really, I suppose I should just say that they're a pretty particular person in general. Not to the point of compulsion, but they have specific ways they like things to be done. Certain schedules that they want to have followed. They have particular places that they like to go for shopping, for food, for socializing...as an example, if someone invites them out for Italian food, it can't just be any restaurant. It has to be one of the select few that they've decided are up to their standards. Asking them (or forcing them) to diverge from their "particularities" isn't necessarily the end of the world, but they'll be in a visibly worse mood, more often than not. And it'll also be fairly easy to tell that-- if the experience is something new-- that they're spending much of their time there trying to decide exactly where it falls in comparison to their preferred things.

They're not very straight-forward about more than surface-level feelings, for the most part. For example, there was a part in one of the drabbles I wrote with them recently, where they kind of chided Aro a bit when he freed them from where they were being held. They greeted and thanked everyone else that was there in a fairly polite manner, but sort of flippantly criticized Aro for "making them wait". Essentially, they were scared, and anxious, and even though they were actually very happy to see Aro, and thankful that he organized the rescue for them, actually saying that, and making themself seem even the tiniest bit vulnerable? To them, it would feel like swallowing glass. So instead, they'll make some indifferent comment, or somewhat dismissive remark...and then slide in some small little action afterwards that conveys how they actually feel. Again back to that same example with Aro, giving him a little nudge/rubbing against him slightly when they passed him, to let him know that they were thankful, and relieved.

[linkspooky]

Hi I really love ur metas your jjk ones really made me appreciate the story even more. I was curious about ur analysis on why Gojo is important to Geto.

It's obvious as to why Geto is important to Gojo and how Geto effected him but I don't think it's talked about enough of the reversal

That's a good observation anon, the story makes it less obvious what Geto needs Gojo for, while spending a long time lingering on the tragedy of Geto's loss and what the loss of his only real friend meant for Gojo.

I think part of this is because Geto is a character of deep self-reflection so a lot of his internal narration is about his feelings towards his self and thinking through his own ideals and what that means. Whereas Gojo doesn't really self reflect but he does observe other people. We don't know what Gojo's opinions on a lot of things are, but we know what Geto meant to him because he's much clearer on how he felt towards Geto. Geto's staring into himself trying to figure what he feels personally, Gojo is always staring at other people trying to figure out what they feel.

As for why Gojo means so much to Geto, it's important to remember that they are a duo. They're the same idiot in different fonts. Geto's a much more human character and we are inside his head more often so it's easy to forget that when they were young Geto had the same kind of god / superiority complex that Gojo did.

Geto is associated with religious imagery over and over again, the same way that Gojo is associated with budhist ideals of enlightenment and escaping karma. They are both people who were in their teenage years more powerful than everyone around them, and because of that looked down on everyone.

Even Geto's stated ideals of "protecting the weak" come from a place of superiority. He still divides people mentally into the weak and the strong. The special ones and the common rabble. He sees people the same way Gojo does, he just believes that the strong like him and Gojo have a moral obligation to use their powers responsibly in service of others.

Geto's not more humble than Gojo. Their moral disagreement comes from how they should use the power they've been given, but they both feel that the power they have puts them in a position above other people.

All of this to illustrate the fact that if Gojo felt isolated as a teenager because all the power he had made him feel lonely and unable to connect with others, then so Geto probably felt isolated in the same way too. They each found in each other someone they could finally call their equal. Because of it they gained someone they could be vulnerable around and someone they could trust to watch their back.

The things Geto does for Gojo (check on his feelings when no one else would, go out of his way to reassure him), Gojo does for Geto in return. It's not Geto always taking care of Goo it's a partnership between the two of them where they lean on each other.

When Kuroi is kindapped and Geto immediately falls into a funk and starts to blame himself for his mistake, it's Gojo who reassures him by hurrying him along and telling him they need to focus on planning what they should do next. Gojo knows Geto well enough to know his tendency to get trapped in his own thoughts and gives him the kick in the pants he needs.

In the same scene where Geto checks on Gojo's well-being to make sure he's not overusing his power, Gojo returns the sentiment by reassuring Geto not to worry about him because he won't push himself too hard and that he's not in this alone Geto's here too.

That's probably a big part of it for Geto. Yes, Geto tends to naturally slide into the caretaker role, watching out for Gojo and checking in on him but at the same time Geto probably likes that there is someone who needs him in that way. If Gojo's defined by his lack of connection with other people, Geto's defined by the way he goes out to make connections. It's nice to be needed as they say. The fact that someone as seemingly self-sufficient as Gojo not only relies on Geto a great deal, but lets Geto take care of him is probably a big part of their bond.

Which is probably why Gojo's awakening post Toji is a big part in why they started to grow apart from each other. If Geto likes to live in service to other people, and defines himself by his connection to others he probably interpreted Gojo no longer needing his support on missions and suddenly doing everything by himself as Gojo pulling away from him.

I think a big part in Geto's downfall was the hit he took when one he was defeated by Toji someone without Jujutsu and too, Gojo suddenly became out of his reach. Gojo himself never said that they were no longer the strongest duo, or that they were no longer the strongest together it's all Geto. As I said Geto has as much of a god complex as Gojo does.

He thought they were on the top together, and not only is he suddenly confronted with his own weakness at the exact same time Gojo's become so strong it appears on the surface that he no longer needs anyone's support, especially not Geto's.

Nanami says it out loud, but Geto probably echoes the sentiment. If Gojo is now strong enough to handle every mission on his own then what need does he have for other sorcerers - and Geto in particular? Geto goes from feeling needed in a lot of ways by Gojo who was just as important a friend to him as he was to Gojo to watch Gojo suddenly handle everything alone. In a lot of ways it probably felt like Geto lost Gojo far before the KFC breakup and his defection from Jujutsu High. From Geto's perspective their relationship was over, their partnership broken and Gojo just did not realize it until after the village massacre.

At first Geto had as big of an ego with Gojo, and connected in a special way with him because the two of them were on top together. However, he came to believe that the only reason their partnerhsip worked was because they were both the strongest. When Gojo became the strongest alone Geto believed incorrectly that what they once had was lost and Gojo no longer needed him when Gojo's emotional reaction to Geto's defection shows that's anything but true.

In Geto's mind it is though because he's kind of got the same messed up way of dividing people into strong and weak that Gojo does, he probably just realized that he was one of the weak ones and feared Gojo thinking the same way.

During Geto and Gojo's final confrontation he almost has an inferiority complex about it when he talks about how if he had the limitless he'd easily be able to accomplish what he set out to do.

Until that moment Geto always thought they were equals, but now Geto's suddenly talking like he covets Gojo's power. He suddenly wants to be Gojo, probably because he incorrectly believes that their partnership is base don being equals in power when it's really just a normal friendship.

Which is why the loss of Gojo's friendship affects Geto just as badly as the other way around. Everyone wants to be equals with their friends, especially to a friend as important as Gojo was to Geto.

There's almost a tragic irony in how when speaking of his friendship to Nanako and Mimiko, Geto acts like their friendship ended when Gojo left Jujutsu High. It's their in his death scene too, Geto is surprised by the fact that Gojo has any feelings left for him.

Geto's so insecure over his connection to Gojo he didn't understand that in Gojo's mind they were still friends right up until the very end, and perhaps if he were just a bit more secure they would have been able to reach one another instead of falling apart.

[3hks]

Types of Protagonists

Merry Christmas, everyone! For this special day, I decided to release a hopefully more interesting and helpful post! As always, I made up MOST of the names to get the general idea across. (The internet is only so helpful and only so specific.) But having said that, here are some different types of main characters!The Hero - We all grew up with this one, this character's whole goal is just to be able to make a positive impact on the world. They're often caring, sometimes unnecessarily so, kind, and determined!

>>> The Antihero - An antihero is a character whose actions are morally wrong, as they seem like they'd be villains in any other story. However, they do everything with a positive purpose and motive in mind! Lastly, this character is usually more ruthless and apathetic towards others than the common person.

>>> The Villain - Were you surprised? Yes, a villain can absolutely be the main character of the story! They're simply the antagonist, but with the story based on their point of view. Despite that, don't get this mixed up with an antihero! A stereotypical villain really doesn't have much good behind their motives.

>>> The Average One - This character is meant to connect with the readers. They aren't anything special and don't stick out in any particular way, as their emotions and responses are meant to be relatable to the majority of the audience. They may have a couple of exceptional traits, but those are typically supernatural and don't interfere with their personality!

>>> The Cold Calculator - This is one of the more specific types that I couldn't research explicitly about online. The Cold Calculator is a character type that is, well, cold and calculating! They have an impressively high amount of intelligence, which they use to achieve their objectives. Additionally, they are able to manipulate people, yet there's a lack of empathy for them. They are self-centered and focus only on their goals, disregarding those around them. Normally, this character isn't meant to stick out too much from the crowd, but naturally, there can be exceptions!

>>> The Hidden Genius - To be honest, I don't see much of this character type in American novels, but I think that they could really use some! The Hidden Genius is usually found in fantasy-oriented stories, where they have an extraordinary ability, but hide it for private reasons. This could be because it's dangerous, they lack control over it, it's peculiar, it requires specific settings, they're unaware of their ability, or that they simply don't want anyone realizing the power they have!

>>> The Changed One - This is a protagonist who's actively trying to change themselves from who they previously were! They're trying to escape their previous life and connections because they realize that what they were doing was, well, wrong. (Example: a thief abandoning his job to simply become a normal citizen, or a socially awkward student trying to overcome their anxiousness.) Still, their history does have an impact on them and affects them as a person! Honestly, it doesn't have to be a major change either, the point is that a character is just trying to alter themselves for the better!

>>> The Second Best - This character is incredibly impressive at something--very well above average--but there's another character who's simply better and tops them. The second character is normally some kind of rival for the protagonist to overcome. The two's relationship is typically rather complex, as it's often composed of learning, growth, competitiveness, and acceptance! This character is usually found in a school setting, revolving around academics or sports, but it's definitely not limited to that!

>>> The Almost Perfect Character - When introduced, this protagonist is seemingly perfect in all aspects of their life (at least in the eyes of others). However, as the story continues, little flaws are revealed and the readers are now aware of the underlying depth of this protagonist's life. Throughout the character's journey, they overcome their doubts, accept themselves for who they are, and learn to appreciate their imperfections!

>>> The Not-So-Gifted One - This character is pretty much summed up by the name: they're not very talented and lacking in several different, important skills. They are below average compared to other people their age, and struggle to meet expectations. Their story is typically about self-improvement, change, and acceptance!

Whew! That's ten different types of protagonists that can definitely be used in your works! I hope that these serve as inspiration and some kind of guide to those struggling to come up with an original main character! Thank you so much for those who bothered to read this unnecessarily long post, and happy holidays!

Happy writing~

3hks <3

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

idk if this is something you would answer but how do you unlearn shame of being horny 😵‍💫

hi anon,

this is a complex question. unlearning shame of any kind can take a long time to sort out, and will be driven more by internal work you do to challenge and shift your own thinking than by anything else.

a good place to start may be by doing some reflection as to what you find shameful about being horny in the first place and working back from there to recognize sexuality and desire as morally neutral things.

for instance, I get a fair number of people asking if it's okay to think about real people that they know when they're horny, or masturbate to fantasies about those people. they feel a lot of shame about this, as if they're causing harm to these people by imagining them in sexual scenarios. but making up funny little scenarios in your head to nut to is a harmless act that only you will ever know about. it's not like whipping out your dick (gender neutral) and masturbating at strangers on public transit; what you do to get off in your private time only impacts you.

a problem would only arise if you decided to start treating your real, actual acquaintance, not the imaginary sexy version of them, differently, for instance by making untoward comments about their body, treating them as if they are obligated to be interested in spending time together or having sex with you, or, god forbid, telling them in detail about your sexual fantasies. now you're doing sexual harassment, which is inappropriate because of the hurt and discomfort is causes the recipient. being horny isn't the problem here, it's how you're treating another person.

people also feel a lot of shame around many other types of fantasies, especially if they involve dynamics that are off-limits or illegal in real life. often, the worry seems to be that being aroused by these imagined scenarios is akin to expressing support for these things to happen in real life.

listen: sexual fantasies about rape are some of the most commonly reported among cis women, and that's not because tons and tons of cis women secretly think that rape is a cool thing that should happen more. the people playing Baldur's Gate 3 and fucking Halsin while he's wildshaped into a bear aren't all chomping at the bit to commit a sex crime against a real animal. noticing that "teenage" characters on TV played by actors in their 20s and 30s are hot does not make anyone a pedophile. fiction is a safe realm to explore and enjoy things that we would never in a million years want to see happen in real life. I love Batman, but I can assure you I would not be a happy camper if a real-life billionaire started running around doing vigilantism in a fursuit while endangering a gaggle of teenage sidekicks.

and if you want to explore some of the stuff you're into in real life, awesome! great! there are ways to go about negotiating a lot of different kinks safely and responsibly (although probably not the bear thing, sorry about that). the world is full of people who want the experience of being stalked, beat up, kidnapped, and sexually assaulted - all mediated through pre-negotiated arrangements with people that they have chosen to enact these fantasies with them. so what is there to be ashamed of in that situation? sure, the situation you're engaging in might sound scary without proper context, but so do a lot of things. a stranger cutting open my skin, very likely causing bleeding, and leaving me with a mark that I'll have for the rest of my life sounds scary, and it definitely would be if it wasn't a situation that I agreed to! but that's also what getting a tattoo is, and that's an experience that I love so much that I pay for the pleasure. nothing to feel bad about there as long as you're playing safely!

listen: there's nothing wrong with being horny. the human sex drive is a completely natural one born from biological need that makes getting off feel good. there's no more sense in feeling shame about being horny than there is in feeling shame about being hungry or needing rest, although people do of course manage to feel bad about those as well. regardless of what causes it, when you feel the shame well up you have to push back on it and ask yourself who actually directly benefits from you feeling badly about yourself in that moment, and who is actually tangibly hurt by the actions you're shaming. and if the answer is "no one," move it along!

[txttletale]

What are your thoughts (lorewise) on Warhammer fantasy so far and what's your favorite faction

i love skaven. ive been a skaven fan for like 20000 years ever since i briefly played actual tabletop. they're just funny little guys :)

when warhammer is good it's because it's embracing its original 80s gonzo spirit of 'just throw any old pop cultuire shit in there and figure it out later' -- i love how the skaven are, like, cartoon mad scientists with nuclear power and genetic engineering and also stupid rats who love scheming and betrayal anbd they waltz around with giant fucking flesh monsters and gatling guns and Combat Hamster Wheels. ther'es other stuff in this vein that's good too: orcs being english football hooligans is never going to stop delighting me, the tomb kings are a really cool concept, the vampire pirates (as far as i'm aware a CA invention?) are so fucking goofy and they rule so so hard.

overall though there's al ot of really really uncomfortable undertones to the world of warhammer fantasy. first of all there is the straight up racist shit, i love the lizardmen (i am currently deep into a mazdamundi campaign) and some of their lore is really interesting and in some ways avoids some of the common pitfalls of 'fantasy indigenous peoples'--it's made very clear they are an advanced society, technologically and socially complex, with a rich culture and history. but the lazy aping and blending of half-remembered maya/aztec aesthetics and the '''''funny''''' joke names they have and the fact that they are ancient and mystical and Not Of This Age just adds up to them being a really racist caricature of mesoamerican societies.

also WHF leans really really really hard into the biological determinism stuff. i love the skaven but the fact that they're a rapidly breeding menace that secretly infiltrates your cities and kidnaps people and gorge themselves on resources and have an Evil Religion and are As A Race predisposed to treachery and viciousness and are depicted as literal vermin brings to mind yknow the place all these tropes hold in the racist and antisemitic cultural imaginary and it definitely makes me kind of uncomfortable. i think the same can be said of the (also straight-up racist) depiction of beastmen as Tribes and Hordes that are very literally More Animal Than Human. like, there's so much of That Shit, of X Race are Biologically Fundamentally Like This, and the Like This often happens to coincide with a constellation of tropes used to demonize and justify the extermination of real people, and i really hate That Shit.

i also find the (also quite typical of fantasy) Order (Good) and Chaos (Evil) moral distinction to be pretty ideologically repugnant

so overall, yknow. mixed feelings innit. that said i'm having an absolute blast with TWWH2 this shit rules im driving my big dinosaur around and eating mother fuckers

[wilchur]

It always makes me feel so ehh when people use chosen!Durge when they strictly mean this bloodthirsty cruel person because be honest, what choice did they really have? Unless you play Durge as being incredibly suicidal and unhealthily self-sacrificing, telling Bhaal they will do his bidding is for the most part a survival choice. Durge as a character doesn't know Withers will just swoop in and bend the fabric of the universe to his will to save them, they have no idea that their refusal won't be the last thing they do. So it makes perfect sense for someone who is not necessarily an Evil person to go along simply because they're scared of dying (and being tortured in the Bhaal's domain forever), but both the game and a large portion of players refuse to acknowledge it.

Chosen Durge is always the baddie, a lost cause, and while that can well enough be true for some characters to me it's just.. boring? Unless you play/write them evil from start to finish, it really falls flat. Where are the blurry lines? Where's the moral complexity? Not everything is binary, but it feels like in Durge's case everyone from the characters in-universe to a lot of people engaging with the story only believe they can be one or the other. Completely different, changed person who would rather die than to endure Bhaal's hold on them or a monster so soaked through to the bone with Bhaal's taint, even amnesia wasn't enough to save them. That's what the "redeemed" and "chosen" shorthands look like to me. Even using [alignment]!Durge is better. Someone saying they made a redeemed!Durge tells me nothing. Yeah they let Bhaal kill them, great. What are they like, though.

Ezra could very well fall under the Chosen category, but he is SO far removed from what that means in the fandom, using it for him would be doing him a disservice. I refuse to simplify him that way, he has too many layers and is too complex as a character to put him in a box like that. Even alignment does a shoddy job at summarising him to me. People don't work like that. They're often self contradictory and don't think before they act. Okay his baseline is chaotic neutral, but sometimes he borders on evil and other times he's so incredibly selfless you could call him chaotic good even. Circumstance and emotions can affect people greatly!

It really just boils down to.. PLEASE try to get out of the black hole of Larian's rushed "Oh shit we need to put a bhaalspawn origin in this" black and white narrative and see just how many galaxies there are to explore. Don't constrain yourself to the story forks they established, you're just hurting your character writing in the long run and putting a big ass sign on them that pretty much makes them get lost in the sea of all the other "redeemed" and "chosen" Durges. They might make good descriptors if you're just crafting characters to play as, but I wish we dropped them entirely. It's not OC language, it's AU language for canon characters who already had all the work done on them by writers and that people at large know well enough to tell there's more to them than that. In here it doesn't work.

And I also consider it kind of TikTok lazy and uncreative to use, but that's just me.

[happyflux]

Saw a really long post today where someone was talking about D&D vampire lore, compiling what different sources say about it (including the Baldur's Gate games) and, y'know, for the most part it was a good post, it's a useful and good quick reference on what the different sources have said about vampires.

(readmore because this turned out long oops)

But then at the end, and in an addition to the post replying to a tag someone had put, the post began talking about applying all this lore to BG3 specifically, and it made me think. Because the takeaway that post had seemed to be that the things about vampire lore which are consistent to the rest of D&D do apply to BG3 as well, and that Astarion is simply an exception due to his extremely strong willpower and sense of self. And that just doesn't seem right to me at all. It feels like missing the point.

BG3 did some very specific, very interesting things with the lore of D&D. In terms of vampires, yes, but also more generally, BG3 pretty consistently gives the message that the things that are said in the rulebooks are not necessarily true, but are oversimplifications and generalizations that are believed to be true in universe.

BG3 got rid of racial ability scores, giving every race the same "choose a +2 and a +1" that variant humans can have in D&D. BG3 not only got rid of racial alignments, but got rid of alignments entirely - there is no detect evil and good, protection against evil and good has been replaced with a spell that mechanically protects against outsiders of various kinds, there is no alignment selection for player characters, no alignment showing up on inspection despite pretty much entire stat blocks being visible, and the companion characters all have complex morality that doesn't fit neatly into any alignment box. BG3 establishes and many times repeats that Volo, the in-universe author of a lot of the texts we have access to about Faerûn, is an incredibly unreliable source. BG3 has Halsin, a large-built and hairy elf (something which the rulebooks claim is impossible as elves are slender and graceful and have no body hair), say that "sometimes I think conventional wisdom is too narrow about what someone can or cannot be".

On the topic of vampirism specifically, BG3 has Jaheira (who is established to be wise and knowledgeable due to being an experienced and well travelled adventurer) say "They say that the only thing a vampire can feel is hunger. Nothing else touches them - not grief, or mercy. Or any sense of what is just. Who knows. There is often more ignorance than insight in what 'they' say", in response to Astarion remaining a spawn. And, on an Astarion origin run, it is established that at least half of his siblings can be convinced to want to oppose Cazador (it's just that non-origin Astarion chooses to antagonize them instead), and they can be persuaded not to feed off of people, and even without Astarion suggesting it Dalyria will take the initiative to help and take care of the other spawn. And, and this I think is crucial, every vampire we see in BG3 aside from possibly Vellioth is established to have been through circumstances which could easily twist someone and turn them horrible, no magical twisting of emotions or inherent existential evil required.

To play Baldur's Gate 3 and take away from it that the things which D&D lore has previously said about vampires apply to this game, and that Astarion is just somehow Special because of his Extremely Strong Willpower and Sense of Self feels like completely missing the point. Vampires in BG3 are evil because they're stuck in a cycle of violence and suffering and aren't able to escape, and when they are given an escape from that cycle they are able to heal and recover and be more than what they were made. Astarion does not have exceptional willpower, Astarion got lucky. He got out, he made some connections, he got a chance to heal and unlearn the things he'd been taught before being thrust back into Cazador's presence, and that's why he's able to break the cycle. Or, alternately, if the people he finds when he gets out don't push him to unlearn the things Cazador taught him and instead reinforce those beliefs, he becomes just like him. Again, no magical twisting of emotions required.

[raayllum]

Been thinking recently about the idea in fandom that boils down to, usually, "the Character that Changes the most being deemed 'the most complex'" and that character development (i.e. character change) being held up as The Golden Standard of a Good Character and...

I fundamentally disagree, but first, a little bit more explanation about what I mean

Very often shows and movies, when being recommended on tumblr, are sold on the basis of having enjoyable/in-depth characters. Often times this also means conflating enjoyable with likeable, but that's a discussion post for another day. And even more often, it means there are characters who are seen as Deep because of how radically they change over the course of a story.

Lots of times, this falls into two camps:

Characters change radically, but early on in the story, and remain largely the same past that point of change (think anytime in a first season) until the end of the story

People recommending shows based on characters having traditional redemption arcs (enemy or bully to friend / good guy / love interest)

Now, I'm not saying that 1) character change can't be deep or 2) that character growth is bad. Neither of those things are true, even subjectively. What I am saying is that 1) character change / a character changing is not the same as automatically being a good, interesting, or well written character and 2) character growth is not the be-all-end-all of character writing. Yes, there can be problems with characters be overly stagnant, but typically that's only an issue if 1) a work is serialized and concerned with character development and they don't change at all, 2) a character never adjusts (rightly or wrongly) according to their mistakes, or 3) all of the above but they're a main character.

However, assuming that Character A has to be radically different at the beginning of a story in terms of their personality/values/etc. as they are at the end of the story is just... not how it works, necessarily. This is, I think, one of the reasons why antagonists who get redemption arcs tend to be more popular than heroes who had good values the whole time, because there's more opportunity to point and go "look, they've changed! they act on and have basic compassion now!" Which, fair enough, but again: other types of characters are fine too.

Particularly for characters fandom tends to have the hardest time with: paragons.

Paragons are characters who are usually the central hero, pretty morally if not entirely moral upstanding, and because they already start out in a place of "always doing the right thing," they rarely radically change by the end of the story. Instead, paragons are used to progress theme/messaging and inspire other characters around them to change (a good example might be Buddy from the Christmas movie Elf and to a lesser extent - as he's more transformative as a character - Aang from Avatar: The Last Airbender, who's there to return childhood to his friends as an ideal and carry on Air Nomad values).

And for TDP, that's Ezran.

He's the youngest in the main cast and by far the most measured. While Callum and Rayla are off fighting, he keeps a level head. He assumes responsiblity largely without guilt, holds other people accountable most often without being cruel, he's kind and deeply compassionate, he shows regular empathy for his enemies even when he has to treat them like enemies, he loves his father but does not idealize him, he is king without craving power, he's trusting and honest and while he has his flaws (overly optimistic, his passivity, sometimes struggles to consider other people's emotions, naivety, etc), they - as of yet - are not overly connected to his sense of morality (which is a distinct difference compared to the rest of the main cast).

Now, TDP is less concerned with the theme of Childhood compared to something like ATLA, but Ezran being a child (again, in a way the rest of the cast is not) is also very important. Ezran, and Callum to a lesser extent, is the embodiment of the concept that children aren't born with hatred in their hearts; it's learned, or earned, through experience, society, and suffering. And as Ezran spells out for us in 4x03, he has suffered and been hurt - and he believes in breaking the cycle and believing in hope for a better future anyway.

Ezran's steadfast reflection of the series' core theme of "true strength - to break the cycle - is found in vulnerability, in forgiveness, in love" in both word and action does make him the closest thing to a paragon in the series. He's the one who finds the egg; he's the one who forgives Rayla and Soren; he's the one who still tries to help Claudia; he's the peacemaker, the literal bridge between peoples and species in spite of witnessing so many of their worst crimes/actions.

In both arcs, there tended to be a trio of characters who rapidly change, and a trio of characters who are more, comparatively, stagnated. Early S1 Rayla, Callum, and Soren are radically different in a ton of ways than they are even at the beginning of S3, but especially by the end. On the other hand, Viren - post 1x03 at least - Claudia and Ezran are far more consistent in arc 1; their circumstances change, but their viewpoints and realities and choices are largely the same from season to season - they just keep doubling down. This doesn't mean they don't change at all, but they don't radically transform - they just become more of what they already are.

I'd say that in arc 2, things have switched up, with Callum, Rayla, and Viren being the three who are radically transformed (thus far) with Soren, Claudia, and Ezran still being in the more stagnated corner. (For more notes on Claudia and Ezran's shared passivity, check out this pre-S4 meta.)

Ezran starts out the series as a good hearted, slightly mischevious little boy who loves his family and believes that people can be good. The point of the series is not to change these parts of him. It's to demonstrate the difficulties - losing both his parents, taking on the kingship, struggling to make the right choices, keeping his friends together, caring about peace and sentiment in a world that increasingly does not - of maintaining those positive traits, again, in a world that is determined to test those ideals and attributes.

Ezran is not here to be transformed by the storm, the same way his friends and some of his companions are. He is here to demonstrate the strength and necessity in weathering the storm so that the world cannot make you cold, or uncaring, or violent, even when those paths and emotions would be much easier to go down.

Good character development isn't about changing your character; it's about changing your audience's understanding and perspective of your character. Sometimes that means the character is also changing simultaneously, but that's far from a requirement for a character to be interesting. Like most things in writing, what it really boils down to is execution.

And I could go on about why I think people gravitate towards characters who start off evil (often part of imperialist empires or older, institutionally backed systems) and learn that the evil was wrong actually (and sometimes not even that) but that's a meta for another day, and this one is long enough.

TLDR; Ezran, like a few other characters in the show - antagonists and protagonists alike - is not meant to be a radically transformative, even though he very much has grown and changed. Instead, he's meant to exemplify the importance of not losing your sense of self in an increasingly cruel or difficult world, and what parts we should arguably try our best to hold onto as well.

[druidshollow]

infodumping about rain world ancient ocs- about that ask i just answered

just in case the incredible @inkycorvid wanted me to talk about my ancient ocs instead of my ancient headcanons im making a post talking about my idiot guys in a very annoying structure. gotta cover all my bases

MANY SMALL "FLOWERS", ONE QUICK GLANCE

he/him, bisexual, sometimes has beard barbells sometimes doesn't. middle aged (in genetically modified to live for a longass time terms), very much divorced. admin to eleven rivers, not very nice to eleven rivers.

HOW TO IDENTIFY A FLOWERS IN THE WILD:

-like never smiles, always looks either pissed off or miserable

-his mask is very wedge-shaped. big karma 10 symbols on sides

-practically every time red is used in the context of my rain world ocs it relates to him. either symbolically or literally. see red highlights???? probably flowers' fucking fault!!

-two strands of hair always fall in face

-wears wrappings often. once my bf said he probably wouldnt get divorced so hard if he wasnt dressed like a weird mummy

-no left ear

COOL FLOWERS FACTS

-comes from a considerably privileged background. family had incredibly high expectations

-traumatized by everlasting fire's attack and afraid of iterators. will not enter a puppet chamber unless entirely necessary

-creates strong emotional attachments and reacts to rejection with self-isolation and bitterness

-late game, before he begins his plan to demolish eleven rivers and ascend himself but after the twins are awake he begins drinking an unhealthy amount and projecting his anger all over the place, especially towards rivers

-likes vultures. thinks they're crazy neat

-does not and can not have any comprehension of the ramifications his douchebaggery will bring about in the future (huge rammies. absolutely massive rammies)

-becomes an echo when he tries to ascend. his echo sits right snug over eleven rivers' chamber!

FLIGHT TO THE SUN, HOMEWARD "DESCENT"

she/her, bisexual, sometimes wears fancy shinies on her hair. middle aged in modified to live a very long time terms. flowers' ex wife. doing WAY better than him. admin to a fleck of flame, very nice to a fleck of flame.

HOW TO IDENTIFY A DESCENT IN THE WILD:

-blue, cream stripes, frills on upper back

-short face, short hair, short body. short

-walks with cane after everlasting fire's attack

-implant in right ear later game, ear still there

-does in fact smile! makes lots of smug faces. she is in general very emotionally intense and expressive, and is also very morally headstrong. quick to jump to anger when she thinks lines have been crossed.

COOL DESCENT FACTS

-she was named "flight to the sun, thirteen sparks" at birth, and changed it when she was enrolled in the school of solutions

-punk by ancient society terms. not big on ascension, very much a "don't we have it pretty fuckin good? why are we in such a rush to leave" kind of person

-stayed in the iterator project after fire's failure because in losing him she realized how human the iterators were. spent her life working to make their rights more solid and complexities more widely understood

-very close friends with fleck. looks at fleck as her son, looked at fire as her son as well

-met flowers at the start of their schooling. they quickly bonded as they got to work together and were endorsed for esteemed position together

-left flowers in part because of the trauma surrounding the situation with fire, but more because she didn't like what she was beginning to see in flowers. he invented the first model of the demolishers after fire's attack, which descent hated. they would have split up eventually even if fire had lived and they'd continued work on him together. i think their political views and morals are too different, and their personalities too headstrong for it to've been avoided forever

"WANDER"ING AIMLESSLY WITH EVERLASTING JOY

she/he/they, genderfluid and swaps pronouns often. pansexual. like in their late 20s early 30s equivalently. admin to glass incident. flowers' younger sibling, probably a nepotism hire

HOW TO IDENTIFY A WANDER IN THE WILD:

-shithead or confident expression

-lots of ear piercings, bridge piercing. no permanent ear implant

-three "bangs" fall on face. tends to let hair down when feeling more feminine and tie it up when feeling masculine

-frills on arms

-dresses a bit... revealing sometimes to be fully honest. wears a mask the least out of their group, doesn't like it for sensory reasons

-quite similar to flowers in shapes and colours, just with green stripes instead of red

COOL WANDER FACTS

-actually quite intelligent and insightful, but their primal need to cause chaos and keep everything lighthearted often overpowers this

-since flowers did so well in school and had his first project be a massive failure, lots of higher eyes were on wander throughout school

-joined the iterator project to stay near flowers

-was VERY happy to be selected to work with corners

-puts maybe too much energy into caring for flowers and trying to help him, when he pushes back so hard

THE LESS IMPORTANTS :D

bark, cloud, smoke, west and journey are less important background characters! ive never even drawn bark or journey until right now, lmao

bark is a very old man who just wants to do his work in peace. cloud is an introvert who is very calm and professional. smoke is pretentious and self-involved. they're a teacher at the school of solutions and endorsed flowers and descent for the esteemed position. west is a hot guy flowers knew in school that he had a short-lived fling with after his divorce. journey was rivers' admin before flowers, but then she went to the void so she had to be replaced.

hope this suffices and everyone is properly tired of seeing these guys!

[auberge13]

These two moments are taken from the conversations Jon has with each of his parents before joining the Legion of Superheroes. There is one particularly interesting difference between how Lois and Clark each view the decision.

(Lois Lane 2019 issue #4 and Superman 2018 issue #16)

"doesn't leave you much of a choice, does it?" vs. "I am jealous of... the choices in front of you"

Now, if you're like me, this is the kind of thing that makes you very excited about characterization and storytelling so let's get into it.

Clark is a character who never really felt like being good was a choice that needed to be made. He was raised to be good by Ma and Pa and he is so inherently good that he can't imagine being anything else, let alone choosing to be anything else. Meanwhile, Lois intimately understands that being good is a choice that you have to make over and over again, even when it's hard. Doing good the way she does is constantly challenged, particularly by her father. Her choice to do good costs her that relationship with him, and she isn't able to fully reconcile with him before his death, which is explored intimately in this book (read Lois Lane).

As my friend @fae-morrigan put it while we were discussing this, "I feel you could easily read it in a way where Clark is jealous that Jon's been shown he could be Other Than Good and make an informed choice about Being Good. Where Lois knows that choosing to be good often comes at the expense of other good things (in her case, her relationship with her father)"

There's a key moment in the issue after the above screenshot that really showcases this.

(Lois Lane 2019 issue #5)

It's important to acknowledge that there is no part of Clark that would choose not to be Superman. They're the same guy. Clark would do good anyway in whatever capacity he could, he just happens to have a really large capacity. When he says he is jealous of the choices in front of Jon, it is less about doing or not doing good, but rather about how he's going to do it.

(Superman 2024 issue #1)

My friend @ultfreakme explained this really well. "comparing LOSH to college works like that because Jon's going to college (learning to be a hero), but he gets to pick from a million different majors and fuck around for a bit with a support system to fall back on if he fails. Clark went from high school (regular dude) and straight into a job (being a hero) with no ability to like....try something different."

So that's what we can learn about Lois and Clark from this, but what about Jon? The comics do a really cool thing where they break up Jon's complex thoughts about this choice into multiple conversations with different people. With Lois, Jon expresses the sense of obligation he feels. With Damian, he's able to share his hesitance, even telling him that he doesn't think he wants to accept the invitation at first. Finally, with Clark and Imra, he's able to feel his excitement about this new step in his life. It is all very college! I felt all of these things before I left too! But beyond that, this is also a great example of the way Jon will compartmentalize his issues and limit his vulnerability depending on who he's talking to. He has a tendency to minimize his own feelings in order to make other people more comfortable, which you can really see in the different things he's willing to express with each person.

Anyway, I think there's more to be said here and I'd love to hear what other people think about these moments, but I'll call it here. Moral of the story, read Lois Lane 2019 and then create something for the Jon Kent Week Mama's boy prompt- the Jon and Lois in that book are top tier. Also, if you've gotten this far you clearly like this kind of analysis so here's my post about why they aged up Jon. When I posted it Tumblr had put me in jail and turned me into a robot (wow Absolute Power is so immersive!) so it didn't show up in the tag. Sorry for the plug but I'm a little bitter about it lol.

[transmutationisms]

I feel like this is likely a bat to a hornet's nest topic but I deeply respect your takes and thoughts overall a lot so here goes: I really appreciate that the show frankly goes out of its way to not pathologize its characters and lets the audience sit with them in the context of their own lives. So I'm kind of baffled that so much focus is given to "diagnosing" them in fan discussions, the vast brunt of which Kendall gets. I don't understand how you can watch this show and understand him as someone who's been heavily abused and had his reactions to being abused weaponized against him and come away being like "wow it's so cringe he acts like that, he must have a brain disease and is just too stupid to understand that. every action he takes is because he is manic/depressed/letting the disease manifest. if only he took the good moral Legal drugs that I do instead of the ontologically bad ones that are Illegal and for dirty addicts. hopefully one day he will Get Help and Receive Treatment so he will be more palatable (no whatever he's done up to this point doesn't count because it didn't work which must inherently be due to his own moral failings)." How did a show like this attract so many Reganites??

bat at a hornets' nest yes. yeah i've said before that i dislike diagnosing fictional characters as a general rule. it's tautological ("they do [x] because they have [y], and they have [y] because they do [x]") and abrogates further analysis of their motives or the meanings of their actions. and it's doubly irksome to me with succession, because unlike a lot of tv, i genuinely don't think that it's written within the weltanschauung of dsm neurobio determinism. ie, it's not a show where the answer to "why did he do that?" is ever supposed to be "his brain is just like that"—these actions are supposed to mean something about what the character wants and needs, and the effect of the capitalist milieu on those things. it's psychological, not psychiatric (& of course, psychoanalytic approaches are common in formal literary studies, whereas blunt psychiatric diagnosis is decidedly less so).

with kendall's drug use there are some particularly irritating ways this all plays out. i've been fiddling with my own reading emphasising the context of logan's demands on kendall and the construction of bourgeois masculinity, and have tried to place kendall's drug use as a response to neoliberal control mechanisms à la deleuze or foucault. i could certainly be challenged on elements of this reading, but what i see on this website is generally just an endless slog of very biomedicalised reads that seem to have no awareness of the particular historical and social baggage present in that model. i do agree there's an element of reactionary DARE-esque moralising going on here (stg if i have to read one more post written by someone who, like, has never so much as met a coke user and thinks all drugs instantaneously give you irreversible morally weighted heart damage, lmao), but it's honestly not just that.

i think most of the time when people do this they're not trying to be reactionary or regressive, and often they not only don't believe themselves to be moralising affective distress, but actually think the dsm diagnosis is the way to avoid that type of moralisation. this is essentially the "it's a discrete disease entity, so they have no control over it and can't help it, so it's not their fault" argument. in practice this fails on many levels. for one thing, it often implicitly assumes that 'ending the stigma' requires any kind of mental disability or affective distress to be treated analogously to physical disability or illness, as though those latter are not also consistently stigmatised and moralised—because ableism is actually more complex than that and has to do with the fact that capitalism values people on the basis of the 'use' it can make of them and their bodies, etc etc. it is also, again, a wildly decontextualised understanding of affective distress, the reasons why people use drugs—including in a manner that feels compulsive and out of control—and so forth.

i'll add also that wrt succession, i actually do see a LOT of pathologisation thrown at roman as well, and more than an incidental amount directed at connor, tom, shiv, and logan. which is to say, i don't think this is solely about people's discomfort with addicts. there's a broad tendency among fans, echoing the even broader social tendency, to see medical diagnosis as personally liberatory, and medicine and psychiatry as passing 'objective' judgments that are necessary in order for a person to 'get better.' this is essentially positivism and is very much a status that the medical profession has fought to obtain (in france you can trace certain 18th-century discourses on national decline, aristocratic luxury, and the corrupting influence of the city -> the birth of clinical medicine after the first revolution -> social hygiene and the pathologisation of the parisian urban poor -> the third republic's 'physician-legislators' and the general class status and professionalisation of medicine; i know less about the gory details of the american and british cases simply by dint of what i do professionally).

we tend to forget these histories when talking about science; it presents itself as a set of timeless, incontrovertible truths that are simply waiting to be uncovered, and we have entire industries of science communication and journalism that propagate this view. which is to say, circling back to succession, i don't believe that most people diagnosing and pathologising these characters are trying to be reactionary or are aware that there are reactionary and moralising elements inherently built into these discourses. i think they're largely people who have not been given the tools to see alternatives, like the perspectives dominant in the history and sociology of science, which are very much kept paywalled and inaccessible on purpose because this is profitable for the academe.

this type of popular literary analysis is simply not going to go anywhere as long as this is still the status and the moral resonance of medicine (and psychiatry by extension because it gained its professional independence without sacrificing the appeal to medico-scientific epistemological authority). i don't think succession viewers are any more or less prone to this type of thinking than the general population they exist amongst. i firmly disagree with this attitude, obviously, and like i said, i don't actually think succession is written 'psychiatrically,' which cannot be said for all tv lol. but i more or less expect to encounter this type of deference to medico-psychiatric judgments in 95% of social interactions and contexts, again because of a combination of institutional control of information, other forms of inaccessibility, and physicians' and psychiatrists' advocacy for their own class and professional interests, both historically and ongoing today.

[bonew3s]

a short ink sans character essay—

a short ink sans character essay (? can i even call it that i barely scratched the surface)

( Ink is made by @comyet, here is the faq i will be referencing often; https://comyet.tumblr.com/post/132998265968/i-n-k-t-a-l-e — and here is this whole thing crossposted on ao3: https://archiveofourown.org/works/49854430 )

His soulessness—

hes soulless yes and he uses his vials to feel, comyet had mentioned he pretended to have a soul— not to have feelings. He feels things even if he needs his vials to do so they're still his emotions. Ink vomits when he feels too much, that doesnt sound very emotionless does it? Ink technically isn't emotionless. He cant understand emotions, yes, but he feels them. He cant go off his vials without kind of, dying/ going comatose. Comyet said he became a lifeless husk without them— not emotionless.

Ink is a bit of a jerk, that will obviously happen if someone doesnt have a good grasp on feelings or social ques— yes im bringing up social ques now.

Social ques, are usually hand in hand with emotions, they're connected. Okay, expanding on this— lets say, someone is sad the thing someone would do is comfort them, judge the situation yes? but its so much more complicated than that, you have to read ques wether they want to talk about it, you cant ask " do you want to talk about it?" because they might not want you to point it out— or maybe they want you to point it out and end up getting mad when you dont, youre trapped all because you cant read what that person wants with their body langauge becaus people are so unpredictable.

I got a little carried away there but you get the point yeah?

I mean, ink's gonna be a jerk, purposefully or not either way cause he doesnt have a good grasp on emotions thats how his character is, him being soulless or insensitive doesnt make him an evil character, hes complex thats how people in real life are.

I just hate when people automatically think soulless= evil, cause thats not true, maybe in canon undertale it is— but undertale aus arent canon thats why that doesnt apply, also ink is different from flowey because of his vials, flowey is alive because of determination that landed on his dust and the flowers near it, there wasnt any dt in inks case (that we know of) — and flowey pretends to have feelings, ink doesnt.

In inks faq, comyet mentions ink being emotional more than once, when mentioning his rainbow freckles he has when hes positivly emotional, and vomiting ink when hes emotionly shaken.

point being—Ink isnt emotionless he feels too much, hes not evil hes not exactly well behaved but he isnt downright evil. Everyone is morally grey, real life and fiction thats what makes it realistic and intresting, everyone has different perspectivs, opinons etc and that makes people morally grey.

"He is an insecure, self-centered character with abandonment issues who has a hard time trusting his emotions." again the word emotions pop up, and not just emotions his emotions. Those are inks flaws, and that gives perspective on his worldview, it makes sense, that he views other aus as just characters, he sees so many of them its better to disconnect himself right? The thing with abandonment issues is that it causes a feeling that everyone will leave you so its better you leave them— or disconnect youself from them, before they leave you.

Okay, lets talk about his past now, he was stuck in an abandoned au, he hated it so much and it was so blank that he didnt see any other way out than killing himself. He ripped his soul apart. He felt such great despair and hopelessness that he took his very being in tore into it, dusting instantly— and smiled as he dusted. It was worded as he "broke free", in a sense he did, but Ink didnt know he would be granted another chance, i dont think thats what it meant by broke free, because right after that it says he was given another chance. Ink didn't know what would happen after he died, in his mind death was better than being alone, being forgotten. I have a feeling that Ink not remembering his past, isnt just his regular spotty memory, i have a feeling it was a repressed memory— because some of it still carries over to him, like his fear of blank spaces, and being forgotten. Its somewhat similar to anniversary reactions, where someone doesnt even have to remember it, their subconcoius and body remember enough for feelings to peak through. Its not exactly aniversary reactions for Ink because there was no time in his au— point is his feeling still carry over even if he doesnt remember his actions. Ink is traumatized. Its so clear in his personality, quirks — everything. I hate when people completly brush over his past even if he doesnt remember it because in real life people block out traumatic events too!!! it still happend!!

his abandonment issues, insecurities, fears and overall flaws reflect that.

Ink isnt evil, comyet literally said he was a chaotic neutral.

basically im sick of people overlooking Ink— esp when people overlook is faq and past.

(i might add more to this later/someday idk cuz it is a little on the short side [alot on the short side] and i only coverd a quarter of what i wanted.)

update (9/13/23); okay, when i wrote this my thoughts were kinda everywhere despite how much i tried to organize this, its messy and i did not cover alot.

here i am coming to drop more info onto this, ok.

basically on ao3, someone had mentioned that the better wording for inks memory regarding the negatives of his past can be described better with dissociative amnesia, which supports my claim about ink being traumatized. (I assume that it would be nearly impossible for an emotionless person to have trauma, once again proving he does have emotions) But of course, if someone wants to write/portray ink as an evil character i am not the boss of you, i just hate when people think ink being an emotionless evil guy is canon when its not, he is traumatized. Trauma and abandonment issues can make people seem rude, act rude and we see that in inks character, and personally i think thats what makes him awesome. Ink is relatable and realistic, trauma does not carve a perfect angel of a person, trauma is ugly and rough, though i am not saying that every person with trauma is going to be rude of course, but no one is perfect.

[darklinaforever]

When I see people making entire posts and articles to defend the nice romantic interest in the love triangle where the heroine finds herself, with a villain / anti-hero, who also loves her, to explain that in fact morally the guy nice is more fair and normal and that the mean guy who is creepy and we shouldn't prefer him to the nice guy...

I always wonder what is in these people's heads.

Like... they think we're stupid ? That we are not able to see that the guy coding as a villain / anti heroes is problematic and sometimes downright creepy ? They really think they're teaching us the truth about the world with this kind of moralistic explanation / defense about a character who in the real world would actually be considered romantically good ? These people really have a problem with the difference in interpretation between reality and fiction ?

There's a very simple reason why in fiction, we sometimes prefers men with problematic traits. Because they are simply interesting. Especially compared to the normal guy the heroine will end up with.

Fact : Being a boring character in fiction is worse than being a character capable of murder.

And don't make me say what I didn't say. There are some very nice and very interesting characters in fiction too. Like Stiles from Teen Wolf or Peeta from The Hunger Games. They are simply written as real characters. And not just nice guys supposed to be a fairer path for the heroine to follow. They are interesting and convincing. Which sometimes “nice men” in love triangles just aren’t.

And sometimes there are villains who are not interesting because they have no characteristics other than wickedness or other negative aspects that can disgust us. A villain will often be appreciated for his intelligence and or certain human qualities that make him more complex than simply being evil.

So obviously, we're going to prefer this type of character for a ship, instead of the normal type who narratively barely contributes anything, and is barely a character at all.

And we're not even going to talk about the cases where the character supposed to be the bland nice man actually turns out to be a bigger asshole, objectively speaking and in reality, than the villain / anti-hero of the love triangle. Right, Malyen Oretsev ?

Anyway this is a post made out of the blue where I simply wrote down my thoughts as they came to me. I hope this is understandable. Anyway, these were my personal spontaneous thoughts. Don't hesitate to share your opinion on it.

[agro-carnist]

Now that I'm slightly less in the spotlight, I'd like to talk about what has been going on and give my side. I'm sure you've all seen what has been said about me, but in case you haven't, this will include a discussion about zoophilia, zoosadism, pedophilia, and taboo kink/fetish.

I've taken several days to write this because I needed to clear my head so I could write something concise. I did not want to immediately write something too quickly that I couldn't think through.

I don't expect anyone to completely understand me or totally agree with my opinions, but I am writing this with full sincerity. I'd just like a little bit of faith when you read this. My positions are based on the science that I read, and I try to be someone that sticks to the side of evidence, not one of pure feelings or assumptions or what we think is common sense, even when it is difficult to understand or seems counterintuitive. I've always preached this principle on here, so I hope you all feel the same way. I ask that you read this with that in mind. Even if you don't reach the same conclusion as me, consider what I say and what I give with good faith.

All linked sources with restricted access can be read by copy/pasting the url or title into sci-hub

First, that twitter account is mine. The art contained on the twitter account is mine. Yes it is graphic. No I am not a zoophile, zoosadist, or pedophile. I understand this kind of art is disgusting and/or disturbing to many people. That is why I kept it on an account specifically for this kind of extreme art. It is why I don't advertise it. I am not secretive about my kinks/fetishes - I enjoy things like gore, noncon, and animal characters - but I know when and where these kinds of things are appropriate. Some of my art is not meant for a general audience. I won't advertise it to anyone and everyone to see because it can be upsetting to most people. That's also why I give plenty of content warnings and include the twitter censor that blurs the image and you have to click 'show' on to see. And that's why I believe posting screenshots of this material with my username, showing everyone exactly where to go to find this content, is irresponsible. I know the people that posted it think they're doing a service, but this is how children find content they shouldn't see. Callouts are how people find things they otherwise would never see. I, personally, don't think calling people out this way helps kids. I think it does more harm than good. My twitter was public but is now private because I don't want curious minors to look me up and look at what is on the account.

I understand that it can be hard to know why someone would enjoy erotic art of violence between animal characters without being a zoophile/zoosadist. But there are many reasons people enjoy taboo erotica without desiring it in the real world. About half of people experience paraphilic sexual fantasies, and the fantasies alone are not indicative of pathology. Deviant sexual fantasies are, in fact, "within the normal realm of human experience." There is little evidence that fantasy alone means someone wants to or will commit a sexual offense. Forced sex fantasies are extremely common. Violent sexual fantasies are not abnormal. Sex therapists and educators acknowledge that fantasies are not necessarily repressed desires. Sexual fantasy is not sexual desire. It's ok for our sexual interests to not reflect our moral code. Often taboo sexual fantasies are a way to explore how we feel about things, like repulsion. Humans are curious animals. We have morbid curiosities. Fantasies can be a way to experience something that would be immoral to act upon.

Why I am into taboo kink is hard to explain, and a lot of it I don't understand myself - human minds are very complex - but I can try to explain some of it. I enjoy exploring the darker parts of humanity. We're still animals and that means we still hold onto aspects that don't align with our morals. We have morbid curiosities. When we pass by a car crash, we want to see it, or when someone tells us something disturbing is spreading on the internet, we take interest in what it could be. Art is a way to fulfill that curiosity without any victims. Another thing is that it can be fun or therapeutic to imagine yourself in situations of bodily harm. That's probably confusing, but I like to explore what my body looks like on the inside, or what it would feel like to experience certain physical traumas, without the threat of dying. Fear and arousal are closely intertwined. The animal characters I draw are also very far removed from real world animals. They are sapient and behave very human. To me the only difference between them and an anthro furry character is the number of legs they walk on and the lack of clothes.

Because I draw this kind of content, many people are claiming that I am faking having ZOCD and my intrusive thoughts, or that my intrusive thoughts have turned into wanted thoughts. They say that if I really was distressed by these thoughts, I wouldn't engage with them through art. But my intrusive thoughts are about real people and animals. I do not have intrusive thoughts about characters. I watch movies and read books with murder, kidnapping, torture, disease, and freak accidents and enjoy these pieces of media. This does not negate the fact that I have intrusive thoughts about these things or the distress I feel regarding them. Someone getting hurt in a movie does not distress me. My intrusive thoughts include ideas of me or a loved one getting hurt, or me suddenly hurting someone. Intrusive thoughts target your fears and your morals. They make you question who you are as a person. That's why thoughts of real world violence are so distressing and depictions of violence in media are (usually) not. I fear losing someone I love, I fear losing a part of my mind or body, I fear losing control of my humanity and hurting someone, I fear loss of inhibition that makes me do things I wouldn't otherwise do. I don't fear hurting a character or a character doing a bad thing to another character. When I'm obsessing and becoming paranoid it's not over things that happen in fictional worlds. My therapist doesn't have to reassure me that I'll be ok if something bad happens in that fictional world. She does have to reassure me that the world isn't out to get me and that I don't have to act on a thought. Others with OCD might find media that resembles the content of their intrusive thoughts triggering, and that's normal, but not everyone will react the same. Not everyone copes with their mental illnesses the same way or has the same triggers. Most violent depictions just don't garner that same reaction from me because I don't have any moral qualms with fake people or animals getting hurt since they aren't real victims. It doesn't attack my moral beliefs that way. It may be upsetting to see, but doesn't make me fear for my or others' safety.

I love horror movies and haunted houses. I love the adrenaline and fear I experience during them. But I still metaphorically shit my pants at the thought of an actual serial killer stalking me and jumping out of a hiding spot. The difference is that the former exists in a safe space that I can leave and where I know it's a script. How I feel about a scenario in fiction does not dictate how I feel about it happening in the real world. To tell me that I don't actually have the disorder that I've been diagnosed with is extremely upsetting. So is to tell me I'm hiding secret bloodthirsty desires behind a mental illness or that I'm making OCD look bad by not having a moral conundrum about fake people or animals being hurt. I especially don't appreciate people that don't have OCD preaching about what "real" intrusive thoughts are or what I should or should not be doing while having OCD. The things that have been said to or about me have been undeniably ableist. And the distress that has caused me has just been brushed aside because I don't adhere to what people think I as a person with OCD "should" act like. I feel like I'm not being granted agency over my own experiences.

I am even being compared to some of the worst people like Kero the wolf or HypnotistSappho. I hope you believe me when I say that is truly disgusting and offensive. These were the kinds of people that belonged to groups for sharing material of real animals being tortured for sexual pleasure, or tried to start an organization to promote bestiality, or openly promoted zoophilia and pedophilia as normal sexual orientations, or actively abused children and animals. I have not done anything like that. My artistic expression is nothing like their real world, extensive and widespread levels of abuse. I am so offended that I'd spend years spreading animal welfare advocacy, including explicitly anti-bestiality rhetoric, only to be lumped in with monsters, like my art erases all the work I've done. How someone could believe I actually desire to torture animals baffles me. How someone could think all this work was just master manipulation to con everyone so I could secretly abuse leaves my head spinning.

I also haven't ever claimed that my nsfw art is a coping mechanism for my OCD/intrusive thoughts. This is an assumption people have made. Occasionally elements of my intrusive thoughts will make their way into my art as a way to confront them head on on my own terms, but almost always are not a factor in my nsfw art. Art based on my intrusive thoughts as catharsis I don't share publicly.

Yes, I enjoy hurting fictional characters. They exist in a world with no consequences. Nobody actually gets hurt. Anything can happen to them and nothing about the world changes. I have no desire to hurt an animal, because that impacts the real world. I have never looked at an animal and felt excitement at the idea of hurting it. I have never felt attraction to an animal. I have never felt the urge to make sexual contact with an animal. I have never experienced attraction to a child, either.

I am also being accused of being a pedophile. This is because I made a tweet saying I enjoy explicitly abusive relationships between adult and minor characters, but don't enjoy minor/adult ships depicted as cute or wholesome. People interpret this as me having a malicious desire to abuse a child. But here's the thing: you don't know why someone enjoys a certain dynamic. Many people that like to see abusive relationships depicted in stories or erotica are survivors of abuse themselves. Many people use kink as a coping mechanism, and the stigma of their kink play often hinders them from trauma recovery. Like I said before, kink and fantasy are not morality guidebooks. This also assumes every character drawn in ship art or erotica is an object of attraction to those that create or consume it. But even porn can serve a purpose other than arousal. Personally I just like these dynamics because they offer a compelling story and/or character interactions that can explore trauma and its effects and can feel therapeutic to work through.

Art does not exist in a vacuum. I don't argue it does. Art is influenced by its creator. But you can't look at the content of someone's kink or fantasy to judge the quality of someone's character. This is the position of professionals that study and counsel people. Whether or not someone commits a sexual offense is more influenced by that person's personality traits, moral positions, pre-existing positive beliefs about offending, environment, and negative emotional states. And, look, fiction does indeed effect reality, but there is little evidence that porn encourages someone to offend or results in more violent offenses. Availability of porn may even be associated with lower levels of sexual aggression. This professional report goes into great detail on sexual offending and concludes that there is no reason "scientific or otherwise" for criminalization of any type of virtual porn because it does not lead to offending, and may even provide a substitute for people that may otherwise offend. Even if you find that content reprehensible. Offensive art has its place and deserves to exist. That is the position I have come to based on the scientific evidence.

And I want to make another thing clear: I am not a proshipper. Disliking the position of one group does not make me a member of a different group. I have no desire to put myself in a category, I just have my own opinions. I also have plenty of issues with the proship community. I just now look at fiction and kink with more nuance than I used to. I don't participate in fearmongering based on knee-jerk reactions to media anymore.

Going forward I'm going to do my best to be more responsible with my nsfw accounts. Any interactions I've made with minors are honest mistakes. I genuinely don't want to expose minors to my nsfw or interact with them. I don't go out seeking minors to talk to. But I know interacting with minors through an nsfw account is serious, so I'm going to do better to police myself and always check that no one I'm interacting with is underage.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Sadly I expect many people won't read this, they'll just continue to repeat "zoophile" and "pedophile." But I really appreciate you if you took the time to read. I know many people really do want to be good and believe they are protecting people by engaging in callouts against people for their fictional interests. I think most people have their hearts in the right place but are misguided by the current culture. And I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I always want people to take their positions with the most information. I want there to be honest discussions about these topics, not naming and shaming people.

I might make updates to this post if I think of things I forgot to address. Like I said, it's been many days of my head buzzing and this post is also very long. I welcome any good faith questions or concerns. People that come just to attack in bad faith will just be blocked. I won't humor that. Please meet me with the same honesty I came with. I want to continue to do good.

-Agro

[punkeropercyjackson]

On a related but positive note,here's the reasons why Percy Jackson is autistic

The og troubled but good kid,an inherently autistic archetype-Speaking as a former irl one

Sucks at school but is super smart in pretty much every other area

Smelly Gabe delibaretly targeted his insecurities over his intellegence,as did his bullies and the latters also drilled it into his head that he's a 'weirdo who'll never fit in'

This has happened to him long and often enough for him to have it worse than almost any other demigod when it comes to self-eestem,not helped by Poseidon's abandonment that he's never actually made up for

Mama's boy.Not a definitive but autistic boys tend to be closer to their mom's than to their dad's,both irl and in fiction

His teachers refused to believe his good intentions despite how little he was

Sally dosen't quite understand how he works completely but never puts him down for being different and in fact considers him being different to be a blessing to both of them

Always insists on eating the same type of food(blue)

Dosen't even try to understand social norms because he thinks they're stupid as fuck

His sense of humor is the definition of autism

A brand of kindness that gets allistics big mad and calling it 'unrealistic/childish/etc'-Both certain other characters AND the gross people in the fandom

Jumbled up opinions on morality that obviously cause him distress because he wants things to be black and white(he has enough struggles to begin with)

Canon Resting Bitch Face

No manners but not on purpose,that's just how he talks

Hates tight and revealing clothes so he wears baggy ones

Dated Rachel,who's also autistic,and said he liked her because she made him feel normal and was direct and honest so he didn't have to walk on eggshells around her

Just lets people call him stupid and undermine his countless accomplishments despite how mentally strong he is because he thinks they're right

Was Tyson's defender(Tyson is coded as having at least one intellectual disability,iirc i believe i saw someone say it's Down Syndrome specifically)

Complex relathionship with gender due to canonically being intended as a cis male but most coming off as some type of transfem who's also super femme than anything else

Dislikes 'truly mature' media and behaviors so he has kiddy interests and acts goofy and is very chaotic instead

An actual punk instead of just EdgyTM

Can never tell when someone has a crush on him but when he likes someone back,he's unintentional rizz city

More of a playoff from everything else but he gets along so well with younger people to the point where not only is he Nico and Hazel's best friend but also their eldest sibling figure and pseudo-dad.Adding on that last part because he's been a better parent to them than Hades/Pluto's ever been

[disneymbti]

Ayo! Can you do an MBTI and Big three on Darkwing Duck and Launchpad McQuack?

Hi there, sweetie! I really hope you like this a lot!

Darkwing Duck's MBTI Type, Big Three, Enneagram Type and Moral Alignment

MBTI Type: ENFJ [The Protagonist]

ENFJs are high-energy people who dislike spending too much time alone. They take initiative and tend to talk more than they listen.

They usually trust their intuition and focus on the future. They are good at analyzing complex ideas. 

Protagonists are motivated by feelings and values. They work to avoid conflict and are very diplomatic.

They like to make lists and schedules, preferring to follow a plan. They are hard-working and responsible.

Big Three: Cancer Sun, Taurus Moon and Pisces Rising

Cancer Sun: Ruled by the Moon, Cancers are emotionally mature, intuitive, sensitive, and artistic. They are guided by their tender, loving, and protective hearts.

Taurus Moon: The Moon loves to be in the zodiac sign Taurus. Those with Moon in Taurus delight in the earthly pleasures and seek out emotional security.

Pisces Rising: The Pisces ascendant commits fully to their beliefs, and has an active imagination.

Enneagram Type: 2w3 [The Host]

Basic Fear: Enneagram type two wing threes fear being unwanted or worthless. They usually avoid this by building personal connections with others and working hard to meet the needs of the community.

Basic Desire: Their most basic desire is to be loved and accepted. They may express this by being extremely attentive and attached to other people.

Hosts tend to suppress their own negative emotions, which, when done frequently, can lead to high levels of stress or unexpected outbursts.

Moral Alignment: Lawful Neutral [The Judge]

These characters are all about order and organization. They strictly follow laws, regardless of whatever it leads to good or evil outcomes.

Launchpad McQuack's MBTI Type, Big Three, Enneagram Type and Moral Alignment

MBTI Type: ENFP [The Campaigner]

ENFP types are generally very outgoing and lively, preferring to go out rather than stay in. They love conversing with other people and generally process their thoughts externally.

They are great problem solvers and enjoy figuring out how everything is connected. They tend to focus more on the future than the present.

Campaigners like to keep the peace and avoid conflict. They care more about subjective principles than logic and fact. 

They are flexible and spontaneous, preferring to keep their options open. They dislike routines, schedules, and strict rules.

Big Three: Sagittarius Sun, Pisces Moon and Leo Rising

Sagittarius Sun: Sagittarius is governed by the expansive planet Jupiter, and is known for a free-spirited, globe-trotting, philosophical mindset — and wild streak.

Pisces Moon:  Pisces Moons are hyper-attuned to the needs and emotions of others. They're likely to predict what's on your mind before you even say it.

Leo Rising: Leo ascendants bask in the glow of sunlight, radiating positivity and charm. Performers through and through, those with this friendly, radiant, and outgoing placement exude confidence and strength.

Enneagram Type: 7w6 [The Pathfinder]

Basic Fear: Sevens with a six wing have a deeply-rooted fear of missing out. They want to be trustworthy and honor commitments, but they also want to leave room to allow for last-minute opportunities.

Basic Desire: Their basic desire is to feel fulfilled and happy. They express this by searching for joy in every small thing that comes their way.

Pathfinders defend themselves by rationalizing away negative feelings. They unconsciously convince themselves that they are happy, even when they are not.

Moral Alignment: Chaotic Good [The Rebel]

These characters value freedom and kindness, often challenging laws and order to achieve just outcomes.