#always a complicated topic

[newttxt]

Are you okay with your art being reposted with credit?

someday ill type this up in an faq i swear.

short answer: no. please dont.

long answer: i really don’t like reposts on tumblr and twitter because i have accounts there, so id rather ppl just interact with my art rather than a repost (bluesky too, though ill admit i fell behind on posting there oops).

on instagram, i guess its okay since i don’t have an account there, as long as its with credit leading to my stuff on other platforms.

all of this comes with the huge disclaimer that many artists do not like their stuff reposted, even with credit. so thank you for asking, and pls never repost other ppls work without permission

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.

[violetsandshrikes]

how do you help so many different kinds of people? i have noticed you know about lots of different things and meet lots of different people. i want to do that but i cant figure out how? /gen

A little bit of background is probably needed:

I have had people ask me this before, and honestly I had a little bit of a cheat code. While my life has been filled with a lot of trauma and bad shit, I was raised by a mother from an incredibly leftie family who walked the talk when it came to values and doing the work.

She had a lot of ideas imparted on us from a young age: social and community responsibility, ideas of collectivism, eduction. Even as a poor, trapped young mother, she was believed that many people behaved badly based on ignorance outside their very limited bubble, and that when life became difficult economically or socially, people would immediately point fingers at groups they knew little about or saw as distinctively different in order to have a blameable target.

From about 4-5, outside typical schoolwork, my mother also taught us about the world. This included different conflicts and genocides (which may sound horrific to some people, but basic information and explanation was given, and then it got more in depth with age), different countries and cultures (often she would randomly select a country from a world map, and we would spend a set amount of time learning everything we could about the place, culture, people, etc), different religions (I attended many different types of religious institutes at least once, and my mother often found people willing to talk about their belief system with us), volunteering, etc.

I have definitely had a head start and a lot more guidance than many people, which I am incredibly grateful for. It can also make it difficult to advise though.

Realistically:

Honestly, the two best things you can do if you don’t know where to start are: listen and learn. Find any local group, start participating and volunteering. Listen to the stories of people there. Ask questions. Expose yourself to all sorts of different ideas and opinions.

In the last year, I’ve started doing a little throwback to my childhood. I have a schoolbook, and I choose random topics, and spend a few hours every week learning basic things about it. Choose a country, choose a place, a time in history, a religion, a culture, a people. You don’t have to be a scholar. You just have to expand your horizons.

As you get involved with more things, you will begin to narrow down your core values. This is good: you can’t do everything at once. I would say roughly 2-3 core issues or topics you care about is good (this doesn’t mean that you don’t care about things happening outside it - it just means you don’t spread yourself thin). There’s different things people make their focus: LGBTQ+ issues, BIPOC issues, environmental issues, homelessness, disability, refugee issues, etc. Your core focus will be the ones you feel most passionate about, which is good, because it means you will put in genuine work and care, and you will lower the risk of burning out fast and being of help to no one, including yourself.

You also have to get comfortable with the fact you will never be perfect. You will never be up to date with every idea and practice. There is always something you will need to learn or unlearn. Becoming rigid about being correct all the time will make you more of a menace than a help to any reputable movement or group. You might feel uncomfortable when you realise the gap or misunderstanding you had - that’s normal. Be open to learning and expanding your understanding of things vs burying your head in the stand stubbornly. I say things and then months later I realise that actually, I don’t agree with that anymore, or my understanding has deepened, or changed, or pivoted. This tends to make people feel very bad or uncomfortable, but you have to get to the stage where again, you acknowledge that that’s normal.

[langfield]

Hiya. I notice a lot of fans seem to dislike Vinh's relationship with Max because he moves on to her too quickly after Safi died. They argue that if Vinh really respected Safi's memory then he would hold off on initiating anything with her best friend. The same thing with Max, after she found out about them, people say her character would avoid him even if she already had feelings for him out of consideration for her best friend. I know she writes about her reservations in her journal but it's another reason why fans are saying she's not acting authentically in DE. Wondered what you thought? Thank you very much.

firstly, i do find it very odd that fans want vinh to act as a widow of some sort in regards to his relationship with safi. while it’s undeniable he loved her dearly, the game makes a point to have vinh question if he was genuinely in love with her like he thought he was, or if his wires had been crossed somewhere ( aka devotion must equal romantic love? ). on top of that, i don’t think vinh owes safi anything where it concerns his love life because safi herself doesn’t care about it or him at all. he’s already spent four plus years being unable to move on from her and desperately hoping they’d make up eventually, idly clinging to her via their sexual relationship -- a relationship that safi, again, didn’t care about or viewed in the same sentimental manner vinh did. she is nothing but irritable in the photo of them in the afterglow and has never shown any interest in his other relationships before. she talks about him like they were never friends to begin with, is seemingly unfazed by the idea of vinh not being over it yet in episode four, doesn’t understand his love for the cheap hedgehog figurine she got him, and so on so forth. i don’t understand why vinh is obligated to continue his one-sided devotion towards a person who couldn’t care less about him … honestly, i think he should’ve moved on long before she died : at least then it would’ve been an active choice he made rather than an outcome he had no control over. vinh, for all intents and purposes, clung onto safi and his feelings towards her until the bitter end. so what more could he do? how else is he supposed to prove how much he loved her outside of what he already did? dead world vinh spirals so hard after safi’s death that he basically gives up, as evident by his more authentic behavior and the fact he was planning on leaving caledon to pursue acting ( a career he doesn’t even believe in for himself ) all so he could leave lakeport behind because safi wasn’t there anymore, meaning he no longer had a purpose. living world vinh commits a literal crime to try and save yasmin’s and safi’s relationship because he loves her that much, even if he thinks she’ll hate him forever if she knew, even if his plan was stupid and impulsive at best. loving safi isn’t good for vinh, and that’s more important to me than ‘oh no, what about the girl code?’ any day of the week, especially when said girl supposedly doesn’t care if vinh lives or dies. safi’s and vinh’s relationship is much more complicated than that, of course, but to see my insight of them, i’d go and read this post instead.

as for max, fans really underestimate her selfishness! a shocking thing to downplay given how most people sacrifice arcadia bay over chloe. she is considerate, certainly, but she hasn’t ever let how other people feel dictate her own feelings or her actions. in lis1, despite knowing that chloe is still grieving rachel ( a girl whom max is jealous of and knows chloe was in love with ) she still kisses chloe on a dare and relishes in it, without any thought to how things could change if rachel was alive and returned to them. she also agrees to ‘go ape’ with warren and, when stumbling upon the drive-in poster found in brooke’s locker, seems amused at how badly brooke wanted to go with warren instead … she can also kiss warren despite her priority always being chloe because, well, she wanted to. in that moment, max wanted to show warren how she felt and she did, and there’s no regret about it and no thought given as to what this might mean if she gets her happy ending with chloe and her hometown. i’ve said before that max is extremely impulsive with her romance, in the sense that she never thinks about long term scenarios and sort of ignores standard romance etiquette to act upon her feelings in a moment : a thing i’ve discussed more in-depth here. people seem to think that she is very conventional about love despite all the evidence to the contrary? while max does care deeply for safi, this wouldn’t exactly sway her to not kiss vinh if the moment presented herself … max also adores reggie and harbors a real soft spot for him, but similarly forgets about him the second she is within vinh’s orbit, and doesn’t seem to realize she fucked up until reggie straight up tells her he saw them kiss in a tone that’s all wounded shock. it’s only then that max feels guilty, yet she never apologies for kissing vinh -- she makes weak excuses ( ‘i was drunk’ ) or acknowledges that she should’ve been more considerate, but not once does she wish she could take it back nor does she actually apologize for the act itself. she is sorry for the hurt it caused. she isn’t sorry about what she did. with safi, it’s the same scenario except max is more aware that she’s fucked up, although if she tells safi the truth, it’s just excuse after excuse : you were dead, we were drunk, etc. excuses that safi cares little for and dismisses because it ‘still counts.’

i love max, and she’s perhaps my favorite character in the whole franchise, however she is undeniably more flawed than people are willing to admit. her views on certain things aren’t standard or normal, something that’s a given since max herself isn’t supposed to be just your run of the mill girl. she will do things that don’t make sense! she will cross lines and not really understand she is crossing them … and vinh, in particular, is really easy to get caught up with i think. it is almost natural to be ensnared by him or to be too immersed in his presence and the moment itself to rationally think things through. he is similarly impulsive like max and is bordering on desperation and loneliness the same as she is during spin, with them clicking in a way they just don’t with other people ; both able to bond over safi’s whirlwind effect, over this disconnect from themselves now and who they were before … the pain of their day ebbs as they talk and soon vinh is distracting them with a game that’s so juvenile and stupid it makes them both temporarily forget their issues while putting them in a certain headspace. all the world sort of melts away during the smash or pass scene and even important characters that max cares for ( like amanda and reggie ) blend into the background as they chat and flirt. it’s already stated that vinh’s able to forget about safi when him and max have these moments, and max operates similarly as well! i believe it was very easy for max to kiss vinh when her mind was unclouded by grief and when she was warm, happy, and stupidly attracted to him physically. the setting doesn’t escape me either! max approaches vinh like they’re two strangers at a bar and, while they most definitely are not, i do think the vibes mesh well … in this moment there are no consequences, there isn’t anybody to worry about, it’s just her and a really handsome guy chatting it up as they drink, and their actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. max’s ‘whatever, i’m drunk’ excuse isn’t her saying she isn’t into vinh, it’s just a crutch, a safety net, it’s part of the appeal and a way to rob max of any so called accountability, hence why she can bring it up to both safi and reggie as what it truly is … a flimsy, false excuse. it was less the booze and more of vinh’s company and max’s subsequent attraction to him, and max knows this but can’t exactly admit it yet because it would be more shitty than just. oh, i kissed him, but we were wasted and sad! she doesn’t even say it doesn’t meaning anything, she just tries softening the blow. it’s also worth noting that this drunk angle is definitely confirmed to be an excuse because max tries using it in her journal ( ie : i didn’t plan for it to happen so safi can’t be mad ) but then immediately admits that she has thought about it, with an implication of it being more than once. while she didn’t consciously set out to be woo’d by vinh, there was a subconscious part of her that was likely wanting that sort of attention, or at least a part of her was amendable to things taking that turn, if they did.

to further prove my above points, i think it’s extremely telling that if you choose the ‘i was drunk’ option with reggie, the conversation looks like this :

max : we were sad, and drinking, and he’s …

reggie : like an avalanche.

max : yes.

reggie : tell me about it.

it’s about how she can’t help but trail off and bring up vinh himself as a reason. how she doesn’t know how to word those feelings, or describe the way vinh is, and she just relents to reggie’s description with a twinge of relief -- you know, reggie? the man who’s so in love with vinh he can hardly go two seconds without thinking about him? despite the fact his best friend hates his guts? yeah! she is kind of helpless about her attraction to vinh and this little bonding moment between her and reggie really cements that for me. max is notoriously bad at turning away from those she feels so strongly towards, so i find it perfectly in character that she kissed vinh in spite of the whole safi thing.

tldr? yes, max knows it’s shitty and does fight with her shame and guilt over it! although that wouldn’t exactly stop her, especially not after safi makes it crystal clear that there’s nothing in her that cares for vinh in that way ( or any other way, really ). to her, that alleviates any guilt and makes him fair game. and maybe most people wouldn’t agree with that, but i think it makes perfect sense for max caulfield as a character … safi then leaves anyway, with max either supporting her or denying her, so there’s really nothing standing in the way of max and vinh anymore. vinh, similarly, shouldn’t have to let go of a girl who genuinely makes him feel happy and not shitty just because safi just so happened to be close with her. nor should he be expected to not move on at all or treat safi’s death like one would treat a girlfriend’s, because they weren’t dating and he doesn’t owe that to safi whatsoever. while i can understand the gripe itself, people seem to seriously simplify the whole max/vinh/safi dynamic and ignore the nuances and layers to it. on principle, max should always respect the girl code and vinh shouldn’t ever try to get with a girl he loved’s best friend. but it’s much more complicated than a typical love triangle ( it’s hardly that at all, unless you believe in safield ) and it shouldn’t be treated as such, in my opinion.

[frameconfessions]

I hope the protoframes remain relevant even after this story arc for the Drifter concludes, but I also recognize how complicated things would get with how many characters they could keep trying to make stay relevant, leading to a Konoha 13 Naruto type situation where we have too many relevant characters from Umbra & Ordis all the way to Kaya Velasco.

.

[sa1808fi]

also in addition to the song i sent, the main character from the book (gregory samsa) was also isolated by the people he cared for - his family. so yeah have that ig.

Fun.

I just briefly skimmed though the storyline of that book, and fucking hell that plot is depressing.

I can see some of the parts where you could relate it back to Emmet and Rex, but I think the biggest difference is that Rex wasn't intentionally abandoned and hidden away.

A point I try to make with his isolation in Undar and the role Lucy and the others play in it is that they did look for him. They did care about what happened to their friend. The issue is that they gave up a lot quicker than they should've.

From what I've seen in the book, the mc's family tosses him aside to die when they've gotten tired of dealing with him. Lucy and all of Emmet's other friends might've done some shitty things, but I don't think any of them would purposefully toss him aside like that.

It's all perspective really when it comes to how Rex was abandoned.

Rex sees it as his 'friends' losing interest in him

Lucy sees it as a horrible failure on her part

And it's rough for everyone

[salemssimblr]

❌ "Would you do something that someone told you not to do? Why? Is there someone you'd actually listen to more than everyone else?"

For whoever you think would be most appropriate for that question. 😈

"That's a silly question, isn't it? Of course I would. Hells, I've been doing it all my life.

Well, except when h-... No, nevermind, let's not go there.

Yes, I would and have done several things I've been told not to. Just ask Milena...

Next question."

*Milena is her mother *Ariss' rebellion began when she was a young girl. First it was innocent, but it worsened when her parents adopted a son *She frequently disobeyed her mother's orders, ignoring social conventions and proper etiquette *She doesn't and has never spoken like a lady (she says 'fuck' a lot) *There is one person she'll listen to more than everyone else, but she's not coughing up the details

Thank you so much for the ask!! I included a few more lil facts just cause why not (: & because this bitch is cagey with details lmaooo

[atomicpatrolcreation]

My thoughts on Green Lantern: Beware my Power

This idea came to me while my best friend forced me to watch the animated movie Green Lantern: Beware My Power. If you're wondering whether it was a horror for me to sit through that movie, the answer is yes. However, my best friend, Gabby, insisted we watch it together because, according to her, we’d both be happy since it featured John Stewart (her favorite Green Lantern) and Hal (my favorite).

Well, I ended up disliking it a lot, for many reasons. The only things I actually enjoyed were the art, the animation, and the appearances of Hawkgirl, Martian Manhunter, and Green Arrow.

As for the things I didn’t like—there are too many to list here, so I’ll save that for another post. But the main and most important thing is: What the hell were they thinking when they butchered the respect, admiration, and brotherhood between John and Hal?!

One of the best things about the Green Lantern comics is that all the Lanterns are friends/co-workers who act like one big family (most of the time).

Heck, even Guy, in his worst moments (and trust me, he’s had plenty), has always managed to be amicable with other Green Lanterns.

John Stewart has always admired and respected Hal Jordan, and that will never change.

In the comics, if someone badmouths Hal around John, you can bet they’ll end up getting a smack to keep Hal’s name out of their mouth.

My guy doesn’t tolerate anyone—not even freaking Batman—talking down or attacking Hal. And you think he himself would badmouth someone he’s outright called the GREATEST GREEN LANTERN OF ALL TIME?

Sorry, but if you think that would happen, let me tell you: you’re so, so wrong.

John may be a lot of things (and yes, the guy has had his fair share of messy retcons—though not as bad as Guy’s), but one thing he has always been is loyal to his loved ones, and Hal is one of them (just in case anyone wasn’t clear on that).

Honestly, I just want DC to stop making stupid decisions like this movie or the frustrating (albeit well-written) Bruce Timm animated universe. Green Lantern fans don’t need our favorites constantly being compared or put in competitions to determine who’s the best (And frankly, that’s a dumb argument because any fan who’s read a comic in their life knows or should know that Kyle is the best Lantern across the entire emotional spectrum).

Speaking of Kyle, can someone tell me why the hell they gave John almost all of Kyle’s backstory in this movie?

It was completely unnecessary to give KYLE’S STORY to John, especially when John’s story could have delved into the challenges of being an American man who served years in the military (specifically infantry), gets discharged, and decides to focus on architecture.

And let’s not even get started on how they could’ve focused on John being a rookie who trains under Kilowog and Guy, eventually meeting Hal in person, spending time together, and forming a friendship where Hal (sometimes) gives advice and trains with him. This could’ve led to parallels between John/Hal and Hal/Sinestro.

Or, better yet, they could’ve explored the dynamics between John, Guy, and Hal (because those three are so incredibly different in so many ways, it’s wild that they even get along) and how the Guardians (and the rest of the GL Corps) treat them so differently.

Hal was the first human Lantern, the one who had to prove his worth because everyone thought humans (and Earth) were inferior and unfit to serve as Lanterns. The intense bias, alien xenophobia, and pressure he endured are issues that never get addressed in comics, movies, or animated series, and it’s insane.

How did Hal feel when Guy showed up?

Did he realize Guy was a bit of a jerk but still treated better than he was when he first joined?

Did Hal care, or did he just ignore it?

Was he relieved that Guy was a complete idiot, knowing it meant he wouldn’t be overshadowed?

For a moment, did Hal think about his family and how he was projecting those feelings onto the Corps?

And when John joined?

Did Hal notice the difference between them?

Sometimes I wonder about these things, and Beware My Power opened a can of worms I thought had been sealed shut after reading Geoff Johns’ run back in 2011.

And don’t think I enjoy seeing fans compare or fight over these characters. I actually hate it (as I mentioned earlier), and I love how they support, care for, and respect each other.

But sometimes, I really just want them to explore those years before Kyle showed up, before they had the beautiful bond they have now.

Because honestly, Hal has abandonment issues that could easily be explored and expanded upon. These issues explain certain behaviors of his that you can also see reflected in his relationship with the Green Lantern Corps.

P.S. To me, Hal, John, and Guy are like brothers, which is why I picture Hal having “firstborn syndrome” when he stopped being the only human Lantern, projecting his feelings onto them for a brief period.

[uncanny-tranny]

Comparing oppression can sometimes give you insight as to what other groups of people go through. It teaches you what you have in common with people seemingly different than you are, and teaches you how you are different and how you can ally yourself better with other peoples.

However, if your goal is to prove you suffer the most between you and another person, you'll likely find that there is no conversation, just an endless barrage of back-and-forth to prove which of you deserves to be listened to.

The reality is that you don't have to be in the most pain in order to be listened to. So often, we are inundated with this idea that the person suffering the most is the only one who ought to be listened to, and it sends the message of "holy shit, I guess I don't matter. I guess I deserve to suffer if others are going through worse," and that's just unreasonable and unfair. Who has it worse is entirely contextual and changing, and sometimes it is subjective - as in, something that is earth-breaking for you is an average tuesday evening for the guy next to you.

Kill the cop in your head that says your voice will only matter if you prove yourself. Listen to other marginalized people and know it isn't a competition to see who can prove themselves most worthy of tine and energy. Our resources can (and should) be multifaceted and able to help a variety of peoples.

[galacticnova3]

You need to learn to let people enjoy things /nm

Oh I don’t have a problem with people enjoying things nor do I want to get in the way of it. It’s just a situation of Unfortunately The Things Collectively In General Are A Big Squick Topic For Me

[justthewayuare]

The treatment of sluts

I’m not the first person to write about this topic and I don’t want to dive in here deep into societal problems with slutshaming. But I think about it a lot - there is an interesting approach within the show to this.

I talk about how both characters in the show and the audience treat so-called sluts of the show. Yes, it’s about Boston and Top. But also about Sand and Ray. Because it’s quite clear that all four of them have - or had before by the point we’re now - an active sex life. With Boston, Top and Sand it was spoken out loud, with Ray wasn’t but come on. Like he is horny as fuck.

And the way he just casually raised the car roof here without stopping a make out session - I don’t believe for a second he never did it before.

But Ray also spends a huge amount of his life being blackout drunk so maybe his sex life is not that intense at this point. The other three? 100%

But the approach towards Sand (and Ray) is very different than towards Boston and Top. And it’s partially because of car scene, of course, but not only about that. Top and Boston both constantly judged for their sex life in the show and out of it. And I think characters view on those who actively engaged in casual hookups speaks volumes. It happens in all of the main dynamics but differently.

Friend group. So the whole Boston-Mew drama about feeling superior to the other cause of having/not having sex is amazing. Those two are very dramatic about it. Boston going crazy about Mew’s virginity while Mew being arrogant ass towards Boston’s sex life is just everything. I love it.

Like really, Mew, honey, there is nothing wrong with sleeping around. It’s not something that needs correction. He’s fine.

Cheum said nobody would be happy in a relationship with Boston. And why?

That’s her reason. While so many real reasons exist for her it’s just Boston being a slut. And it’s just interesting to me for two reasons:

1. Boston didn’t say anything about relationship. Not everyone wants a relationship.

2. Monogamy is not the only option, you know? Some couples are great without being inclusive and it’s fine.

We never see anyone talks on Ray about it and, well, Ray is a depressive addict and that’s what should worry people around him more, rightfully so. Ray is also the only one in that friend group who never speaks about others sex life.

Top and Mew. Mew is really getting paranoid by the episode 5. Every time he sees a man looking at Top he gets nervous.

And yes, Top slept with Boston, but Mew seems (at least for me) unaware of that. He’s fine when Top and Boston are near each other, but any random guy passing by Top? Even when Top doesn’t interact with them or even looks back at them.

And Mew really tries his best to be cool about Top’s past.

But he just can’t. It’s always present in their relationship. He can’t get over it to the point he decides to have sex with Top.

And maybe it’s not all about that and he also in love with him and blablabla but the reasoning is “I’m afraid he’ll get bored” and this is all about Top and sex and the role sex played in his life.

And while Mew doesn’t want to judge Top he usually judges people like Top, and of course he can’t separate it. He is not okay with the past Top has. He doesn’t trust him because of that past. So the audience doesn’t too (and also because we know Top fucked Boston obviously).

Boston and Nick. Nick is in a way the same as Mew. While he doesn’t seem to judge people for having sex life, he does it with Boston. He is obsessed with him being with someone else (read as: Top).

Just a reminder, he bugged Boston’s car just because he saw photos with Top. Just in case. While they agreed on being fwb and Boston never lied about having other partners.

And when Boston told him about someone else blackmailing him over sex tape, how Nick responded?

Yep. And while it was meant as a tease, it wasn’t. Nothing is ever a reason to record someone without consent (as that guy did. And Nick did. And Boston did). But Nick says it as this is justified because he really doesn’t like that Boston is a slut. And, well, the audience doesn’t like it too (besides all the other reasons of course).

Sand and Ray. I give it to them, in that particular case they are doing great. Not in a one point of the story not Sand or Ray had issues with other’s past sex life. They don’t even seem to care about it.

The one time Ray asked if Sand is fine with casual hookups he did it for a reason to, well, know if Sand will be into having sex with him. So when Sand said yes Ray was actually pleased with this answer.

And while their situationship progresses into something and Sand sees Ray with a girl, he’s not nervous or jealous. He teases Ray a little and a bit possessive but he is totally chill about it.

I had so much hope we’ll get a threesome with those two at some point of the story, but yeah. Second time they let a gorgeous girl walk away without even noticing. They are simping for each other so badly it’s pathetic. And adorable. I love them. No threesome for them I guess.

And when the fight at the end of episode happens Boston brings up twice that he thinks Ray and Mew had sex. As that has to make Sand feel even worse. But the thing is, Sand is heartbroken not because Ray potentially had sex with someone, even his close friend. I really don’t think Sand would care about it. Sand is heartbroken because Ray loves someone else.

So those two are only ones who don’t judge anyone, including each other, for having an active sex life (being sluts). And this is quite healthy approach (look at me, using word healthy to describe that one thing about OF, I don’t believe myself) to life and relationships. Any sort of relationship, including friendships, romance or people you don’t know but so ready to judge. And while them not judging each other, why the audience would?

I don’t know if the show does it on purpose or not. I do think it does with Boston and Top. But with Sand and Ray? I doubt it. It more looks like those to have enough other shit to worry about both within their relationship and outside of it. I know it’ll develop but by episode 5 characters biggest problems looks something like this:

1. Mew’s biggest problem is his relationship with Top and sex. And Boston.

2. Top’s biggest problem is maybe insomnia but also his relationship with Mew and sex. And Boston.

3. Boston’s biggest problem is Top and Mew and their relationship.

4. Nick’s biggest problem is his relationship with Boston and sex and Boston.

5. Ray’s biggest problem is depression and addiction and inability to love or being loved.

6. Sand’s biggest problem is his financial situation, debts collectors and working his ass off 24/7.

So maybe yes, those two just don’t have enough screen time to worry about sex too. And while I do think we will learn more about other characters, by that point we’ve seen almost half of the show. And the initial idea of who they are already formed. It can develop, but it won’t change.

And the approach to Boston and Top being sluts won’t change either. Whatever they do the “slut” part will be seen as their flaw, something they have to overcome (it is not). While Sand and Ray get a free pass on that.

The thing is, both Top and Boston do have flaws and things to overcome. But their sex life is not a part of it. Them having a lot of sex partners doesn’t mean they can’t be in relationship, or even monogamous, if that what they (or at least Top) want to. And if they doesn’t - nothing is wrong with it. It’s like trying to change something that’s not even broken on the first place, you know?

[queernobi]

I haven't talked about her in years, but I've seen a few snippets of her work lately, and I was reminded just how much Natalie Wynn doesn't really know what she's talking about when it comes to a lot of stuff she chooses to discuss.

I mean, she's good at SOUNDING like she does, especially if you know very little about the topic at hand, but when you DO actually know a considerable amount about the topic, you realize that she either completely misunderstood her sources or really didn't bother to read anything that spoke about it in a substantial way.

(A big example of this was when she tried to say she was trying to come up with a materialist working of trans/nb identity, but used Judith Butler's work as an inspiration. Judith Butler. The person who famously disavows the very IDEA of coming up with a materialist understanding of queer identity. I also think of how she apparently never read about comphet among lesbian women for years, despite her repeated claims before then to have read a substantial amount about queer identity as a whole. Comphet is like...101 level shit.)

[starpros-sunshine]

I think the reason I'm so uncomfortable in conversation with cis men is because in my life the image I've grown up with is that from the American movies and while there's so much to be said about how women in those are basically objects or exclusively love interests or just Really Really forgettable I feel like there's also something to be mentioned about how most of these men are all the same pseudo-tough-guy character that's cool and suave and sexy and the only emotion he's capable of is nonchalant banter (it feels worth mentioning that the American movies I'm referring to are all from the last century I have no idea if that's changed in these last years but a gut feeling tells me no) and I also barely talk to the guys from my grade so the result of kind of growing up with that is that I just genuinely can not imagine real cis men with a complex inner emotional landscape. Maybe this is also an empathy thing but I genuinely can not imagine most cishet guys doing normal people things in their free time that aren't gaming or going to the gym or...idk. making music too I suppose. It's quite comical really but I just can not imagine cishet men with interests or doing stuff like having crushes and it's so strange because I know for a fact I am generally speaking not a sexist person but this little tidbit of apparently just not being able to view cishet men as normal people? Can't get that to go away even if I logically know it's silly. There's a point in this post about how toxic masculinity is a huge issue and affects even those not affected by it and runs really really deep or whatever but I'm too tired to coherently put it together. On the positive side now I get really happy when I see men online talk about how much they love their wives and all that because it's like "wow! Crazy you really are just a normal dude and not some James Bond knock-off like I thought every cishet man was supposed to be! Thank god!"

[anthromimicry]

okay, but i think it is about time to talk about one of misao's fears is, because i believe that they can tell you a lot about a character and their psyche — and i came to tell y'all that the one i'm going to be talking about today is that misao fears becoming a mother / motherhood. the first reason in which why i believe this is because misao just genuinely thinks that she is not the nurturing type and that she would likely be a terrible parent to her child ( which i know is a very depressing thing to think about. but it is something that she has feared for a long time, unfortunately. ) this likely stems from a mix of misao's inability to deal with her own emotions, though, as she feels like it's better to just bottle them up and deal with them all on her own rather than the alternative. and this would be to try to confide in someone and/or get help from them should she need it. so, misao feels as if her child were to come to her needing emotional support from her, she would absolutely fail at it and the last thing she wants is to emotionally neglect someone the way she had been as a child ( p.s. of course, this was mostly just borne out of unfortunate circumstances, as i've stated before because of kaiyah's illness. though this hasn't stopped misao from feeling the brunt of the impact that it had on her. )

plus... i feel as if misao also doesn't have a lot of confidence in herself whenever it comes to the concept of always being able to put a child first, as she has a pretty negative self-image of herself deep down if i'm being honest. she sees herself as an extremely selfish person who can't even become friends with one person because she is so afraid that someone will hurt her, and in her opinion, that makes her pathetic or weak. so she doesn't feel like she'd be able to take care of a child with the amount of responsibility that is required to in order to raise them properly and protect them at the same time.

though this isn't necessarily true as misao has put up those barriers that would normally let people into her heart mostly due to trauma, and having experienced trauma doesn't make anyone weak. i just feel as if she desperately needs to remedy her self-image because it is very damaging to think of yourself like that and it would be really good for her emotional health if she were to try to ways to better cope with everything that she's experienced throughout her life. there are other reasons as well behind why misao fears motherhood while i'm talking about it, however, and these are arguably one of the more bigger ones: the act of giving birth itself and suddenly being thrust into having to not just take care of yourself, but the baby inside of you as well. which sort of makes sense whenever you connect the dots as to how many horror stories misao has heard about delivering a baby and also how much a person's experience while being pregnant can vary from others. i mean, it has been shown that some people may have more morning sickness than others and that they just don't have a very good experience with being pregnant in general, for example. but other's may be 'glowing' as they say and may find it easier to deal with.

so, you never really know what kind of pregnancy you're going to have until you actually become 'with child' as misao would call it. and the unknown aspect surrounding it scares misao more than anything. plus, as it stands now, she isn't sure whether she'd want to go through the process of giving birth as there can be a lot of complications regarding it. but there can also be so many good things about inviting a new member of the family into your home and misao feels as if it is kind of expected of her to have children so she can continue the kanade line.

but misao is just so afraid of it for these reasons that she can not see herself as a mother, even in her head. however... there is the matter of adoption that she has yet to take into account, but with how focused the jorōgumo are about having biological children, i feel as if misao hasn't even considered it to be an option for those who are afraid of giving birth and also to give a baby / child a loving home as everyone deserves one of those. but yeah. i hope that this gave y'all a little more insight into her character, as misao is scared of re-enacting her past in a way, though i feel as if you become a mother yourself... you have to separate what will be your own experience of parenthood from your parents. so, in order to overcome this fear she has, misao would have to treat it as an entirely different thing from kaiyah's experience as a mother and her own child self's experience of her as a mother.

and this is definitely possible. it would just take some work, as overcoming any kind of fear would. plus, i feel as if misao were to accept other people's help it would also benefit her, since discussing motherhood / plunging into the topic of the sometimes seemingly scary thing that is parenthood is definitely not something that you have to try to go through alone.

[oncominggstorm]

Y’all ever wish you could just take a vacation from thinking for a while?

[alltimefail-sims]

I found your blog from 1 of your look books and ended up reading every ask for your story tag ... I was so impressed by each character but I got to know more about Maggie! Pls don't take it the wrong way when I say I some how hate her & also am obsessed with her (I know people get mad when you dislike a character but I think it's a compliment bc it means the writer made them complex)

First and foremost: thank you, friend!! That means a lot to me that you took the time to binge through my content and that you ended up enjoying it so much that you would stop by to tell me!!!

Second, I truly don't take it the wrong way lol. I get it, not every character is going to be liked or perceived well. You have a right to feel about them however you feel.**

**Little footnote here: I think it goes without saying but so long as your reason for disliking them isn't rooted in some kind of irrational hate like racism, transphobia/homophobia, etc., you're fine in my book!

Honestly I'm just interested in knowing what it is you dislike about her! It's a little funny because this isn't actually the first message I've received of this nature and I feel like I've shared so little about her. I know as time goes on and people learn more about her that she is more than likely going to be a controversial and polarizing figure (and far from the only one in this story). I personally have a lot of love and empathy for her as the writer and do see her more as a victim to things out of her control, but I can also admit that she went out of her way to make it hard for others to love her at times.

I will totally take it as a compliment, as you intended! I'm happy to create characters that challenge people; my only hope is that despite personal preferences, readers will still be able to understand that at the end of the day we all are imperfect and nuanced creates. Even if you don't like her, I hope you will see her (and the other controversial characters) in more than one light and extend grace (or at the very least, understanding) when it's all said and done!