#and dissecting it in terms of my own sexuality and whatever

[delicateconstitution]

like... As we know (as foretold in the legends of syd...) i really am on sort of a terrible little streak with characters rn (i keep calling it The Misogynist Plinko) but it Definitely ties into an already overarching pattern for me, which is an affinity for "turning the tables", so to speak. a common expression of this is where, when it comes to prideful little fuckers, it's a given that i want to essentially Take 'Em Down a Notch, y'know, reversing a sense of prior assumption (often to surprise/embarrassment) and having the character realize they actually enjoy (even if in a guilty pleasure sort of way) a flipped power dynamic by someone else taking the lead instead

and that actually very easily extends to characters i like recently who are, say, entitled/womanizers/handsy in that way (yet are often otherwise sort of pathetic and physically frail rather than intimidating...) only in a slightly different scenario

since it's my controlled fantasy and all, with these guys, scenarios can often start off with imagining something that could be scary or volatile if you thought about it — or at least something that would be unappealing IRL, even if just due to the sheer audacity — such as the aforementioned concept of Getting a Little Handsy Over There, but then ISN'T exactly, for a few reasons: 1. it's make believe land so i get to say what happens next, 2. since i am here thinking about the scenario, it isn't Actually unwanted and this is all part of my enjoyment, and 3. after that i can go, Haha, that's real cute you terrible little man! But if we're going to play that's Not what we're doing :) and then i Contemplating just ending this post with "and then i explode their penas" which made me laugh so Yeah sure then i explode their penas 👍

[leikeliscomet]

(Longgg post incoming) So I've grown tired of 'non fiction sex media' if it that's the official name and i mean that some media, usually a video or article on sex in society, usually sex positive or tries to be, that swears its gonna 'change the way we think about sex' and 'broaden the conversation' and 'address the taboo of sex' and in 9 times out of 10 the asexuality section isn't good. And that's assuming asexuality is even mentioned in the first place.

First of all some of these articles and videos don't even get the definition right. I know the ace community's argued what the real definition is since day but 'little to no sexual attraction' is the mainstream definition and it's literally 5 words so I'm confused at how something so basic keeps getting fumbled. It's not celibacy. It's not abstinence. Why do we have to keep saying this mannnnn

I've watched The Leftist Cooks' video, Sex and The Revolution after it was in my recs and I wasn't sure if I should because of reasons I just stated but I had free time and I saw someone say it mentions asexuality so i was like, 'why not?' and watched it in full. The asexuality section mentioned how ace people are erased from conversations about sex but their own video aids that erasure because the ace section barely has the theory of the group they're addressing and it comes across as so underdeveloped. They can pick apart and dissect and enjoy parts of TERF theory (not to say this makes them bad people or whatever bc u can agree with someone's opinion but not their philosophy and critique patriarchy and gender roles without being a TERF) but like, you could engage with fascist text before asexual text...? It brings up allonormativity and amatonormativity which is good but then conflates them. Love and sex get equated so it makes sense to bring up romance in a sex video and aces do experience amatonormativity and aros experience compulsory sexuality, but why are we focusing on aces' experience of relationships when the other sections are about sex? Why isn't the ace section specifically talking about ace people's navigation of sex? 'The label is new' This just isn't true. Define 'new' because if you mean within the past 10 years then no because the little to no sexual attraction definition can go back to 2000s AVEN but even further when you look at the Asexual Manfiesto and that was in the 1970s. If you mean not within 100 years then no again, because there's texts going back to 1800s (first coined by Emma Trosse to be exact) using the term asexual to mean someone who didn't have sex, had no libido, had no children, no partner or no sexual attraction and even though we know now these things aren't inherently ace it's most likely some of the people described with the old definition would be seen as ace today and that those sexless people would've included asexuals. And that's not even getting into the dozens of other terms used to refer to ace people in the past like autosexual, nonsexual, monosexual, group x etc. If you mean not within 100 years then you can easily say the same for the rest of the lgbt community so why draw the line at asexuality?

'Anything I say will be immediately dated' If any basic research was done they would've found decades worth of studies they could've included that are still relevant. The video came out in 2024 they could've added Ace by Angela Chen or Refusing Compulsory Sexuality by Sherronda J Brown! The TERF theory you just read out is outdated hello?? Again if they bothered to read it, yes the ace community has loads of disagreements and yes, the actual rights that aces do and don't need has been long debated, but the fundementals have been pretty much the same; sexual autonomy for aces centering the right to have and not to participate in sex and sexual activities, legal representation alongside other lgbtq+ identities in healthcare, education and the workplace, including asexuality in sex ed and lgbtq+ activism to make people more aware, increased asexual characters in fiction and to end compulsory sexuality. The asexuals section goes on to contradict the anti-born this way arguments right at the start of the video. I'll save my thoughts on 'born this way' for a different post but in the video itself, it's addressed that if sex wasn't used as a measurement of humanity and if patriarchal expectations of sex didn't exist we wouldn't need an asexual or allosexual label but 'that's not the world we live in'. Asexuality or at least, frigidity in humans, has been medicalised for centuries. Asexuals that see themselves as born ace aren't doing it to cling to some medical validation it's because asexuality has never been seen as medically valid in the first place which is why it was in the DSM. Which is why ace activists fought to stop medical stigma and still are. It's why we have 'we are not broken'. Whether you're a born ace or made ace, asexuality just isn't seen as real, which is why we have a label and community (or at least should) for the people that fall outside what society calls the 'right' amount of sexual attraction. If LC can understand this nuance for why some people need asexual as a label then where is this grace for other identities? In a society that stigmatises attraction to the same gender there's value in the term 'gay'. When this overlaps with patriarchy there's value in 'lesbian'. When you look at the stigma of attraction to multiple genders we have 'bisexual' and 'pansexual' When that society has rigid rules of gender and sex we have 'trans' and 'non-binary' and 'intersex' and so on.

It rightfully calls out the harms of treating sex as inherent but then does this for other intimacies. It reaffirms human sexuality is varied and that labels can be limiting but then asserts a bunch of other categories to broadly sum up the human experience... whilst telling us we shouldn't do that? Sarah reads up a passage from a feminist on the importance of touch which I have no issue with because the feminist was talking about herself but she says in the text that wanting to be touched makes us feel human. There are loads of contexts where a human might not want to be touched (sensory issues, trauma, not wanting 'romantic' touch, not wanting 'sexual' touch). Neil says humans are social creatures and again we could make arguments there's contexts of trauma and what is acceptable socialising in the context of introversion and neurodivergence. The video asserts that we should let go of all these labels but there seems to be contexts where the big labels actually do come in handy.

Ending the video saying you wanted to argue that good sex could be a form of praxis when by definition that is the compulsory sexuality and allonormativity you just name dropped 30 minutes before. By definition sex repulsed and averse leftists both ace and non ace can't carry this out regardless of 'goodness'. What is 'good sex'? Because if it's defined under compulsory sexuality and amatonormativity which many other 'sex positive' media does where it 'must' include an inherent romantic and sexual attraction then that leaves sex favourable aces and aroallos out of the running too. Conservatives, puritans and TERFs are having good heterosexual sex they're enjoying very much and still enacting violence on everyone else. Maybe I shouldn't have been expecting some in depth ace analysis when they joked about sexless trans lesbians sleeping in separate beds at the start of the video as the 'perfect' ideal of puritan queerness, as if the issue is the sexlessness and not the control of sexuality including sexless people's and when that image of queerness applies to a lot of asexual and sexless queer people participating in romance and when the perfect ideal of puritan queerness isn't an acceptance of sexless queer people in a house witha white picket fence but wanting queer people violently corrected or fucking dead.

It reminded me of Rowan Ellis' asexual discourse video which I already have a draft post about and essentially it has the same problems as LC's section and the handling of asexuality in sexual social commentary. The misrepresentation of the ace inclusionist movement is used to 'both sides' the argument. Plenty of ace inclus will say trauma, neurodivergent and celibacy can be grounds for being asexual. If the video actually unpacked the real harm within the ace community like the homophobia and racism not just in passing but depth maybe I'd rate it more but no she equates the harm of rape culture, ableism, misogyny and homophobia of ace exclusionists with *checks notes* asexual inclusionists having a less than perfect definition of asexuality? She says 'both sides' have poor argument techniques even tho whilst it can be true for them, ace inclusionists arguments, that asexuals face discrimination and asexuals have been a part of lgbtq+ spaces before 2014 was correct because we have various studies and primary sources proving this (The National LGBT Survey and the works of Lisa Orlando, Emma Trosse and Magnus Hirshfeld) whilst exclus claims of aces 'stealing resources' and 'making up labels to be oppressed' are just that... claims.... 'She keeps mentioning harm of the discourse but what 'harm'? What is the harm and to who? Because if we're talking asexuality in an asexuality video and the impacts on asexual community, you're not convincing me that aces imperfectly defending the community with anecdotal evidence holds the same weight as using rape culture, ableism, homophobia and misogyny to claim humans can never permanently say no to sex and never not have sexual attraction is an issue of 'both sides'. Wild cus this video had various theorists and activists like Yasmin Benoit, Marshall Blount and Canton Winer and *still* reached this conclusion.

I also think of Anthony Padilla's ace videos and their sensationalist thumbnail text like 'THEY HATE SEX' and 'IT'S LIKE KISSING A WALL' to generate clicks. I've watched Anthony's videos and they're actually alright but still, I can't help but think why does he need to use these phrases to engage people if it's really about highlighting the community? Ik he's an OG Youtuber so they usually do things like this but his rebrand was amount moving on from that. I also think about articles that do the same, using titles like 'GEN Z HATES SEX' 'WHY WON'T GEN Z HAVE SEX??' 'NO ONE FUCKS ANYMORE!11' (The Leftist Cooks put a screenshot doing this exact technique when discussing puritanism) just to actually mention that asexuality and aromanticism have got visibility but how meaningful is it address ace and aros whilst using the same compulsory sexuality that has left us so unaddressed in the first place?

Already made a post saying this but yeah we get this compulsory sexuality in what's supposed to be sex positive media when you have no asexual or aromantic politic. When non-ace allies try to speak without engaging in our theory and when aces centre their content in explaining asexuality to non-ace people in a palatable fashion instead of centering our own community and it's most marginalised. This isn't some post slagging of the Leftist Cooks, Rowan Ellis or Anthony Padilla specifically but to use their work as examples. And yeah, I'll admit my criticism is harsh but why shouldn't it be? When people both ace and non ace learn about asexuality, it's their media that people will go to over people that are actually asexual firstly, but asexuals that experience multiple marginalised experiences and the least palatable. I can't help but notice it's aces of colour and/or trans aces picking up the slack. Refusing Compulsory Sexuality isn't a perfect ace book (to be specific Black trans aces have critiques for the use of 'socialised as women' and lack of analysis of transmisogyny & transmisogynoir) at the same time it's managed to summarise the aims of asexual activism (asexual visibility, representation and freedom and abolishing compulsory sexuality), what's harming asexual people (compulsory sexuality, capitalism and allocisheterosexual patriarchy) and steps we can take to do it (asexuality in legal, medical and psychological definitions, asexual stories and fiction, supporting ace victims/survivors, asexual community and coalition with other lgbtq+ labels and more) in it's first 2 chapters, basically 10 minutes to read in what it's taking Breadtube hours and journalists months just say 'labels bad' 'humans sexualitites are different' and 'everyone's valid'...well... yes! What else?

There's SO much sexual analysis written by asexual and aromantic people engaging in ace and aro theory, giving me the depth i want from what mainstream sex positive media is severely lacking. And speaking for my Black acey asexual self, I'd spend my time on non fiction sexual media that will productively include my experiences and correctly engage me instead of alienating me.

I get enough of this from sex *negative* media already.

[armoricaroyalty]

dev diaries #4 - on the language of 'deserving'

This isn't what I said I'd write next but whatever.

The next few story posts are all about romantic and sexual relationships, and I've been thinking a lot about the tropes and language that are used to describe those things, within fiction and without.

Very often, I see discussions about whether or not a male character "deserves" a particular woman as a love interest, and it's always bothered me on a level I couldn't quite articulate. To me, "deserve" implies that there is some kind of point-based metric by which the worth of individuals can be measured out so we can figure out who is owed what, romantically. I've seen dissections and take downs of this notion that a hero deserves a love interest from the perspective of male entitlement, especially as it comes to the culture of the 1980's and 1990's, wherein the hero completes a journey and is awarded a passive, biddable love interest as a prize for his trials. People correctly describe that kind of messaging as sexist and objectifying, reducing the role of women in a story to mere trophies and prizes for the male protagonists.

I am in 100% agreement with those arguments, but I don't think I've seen much discussion about this language of "deserving" from the perspective of romances and other media where women are more often protagonists. I think it's really easy to pinpoint the ways in which "deserving" a love interest can be toxic in action films and comedies, but I think it's a lot harder to describe the ways in which that perspective is limiting in romances and dramas.

To my thinking, focusing on whether or not a man "deserves" the cool female protagonist of a romance still strips her of depth and agency, even if she's at the center of the narrative. It reinforces this idea that men are incompetent, fumbling, clumsy, and women are innately above it all. It establishes unequal footing and paints the woman into a corner -- if the dynamic of the relationship is about the man having to do something in order to deserve the woman, it limits the narrative's capacity for her to be flawed and dynamic, to have agency of her own. I find it infantilizing because it turns the woman into a perpetual mommy, someone who is constantly going to be monitoring the man's behavior to make sure that he maintains his state of grace and continues to deserve her affection.

I don't think it's bad, in fiction or in real life, to have a relationship where one person strives to be the best version of themselves for their partner. I don't think it's bad, in fiction or in real life, for people to think about how they deserve to be treated. But I think that it's bad to frame relationships or love interests as something that can be earned, owed, deserved--those kind of acquisitive models and ways of thinking are, to my mind, flattening and reductive.

I've been thinking about this a lot in terms of Freddy and his romantic relationships. He's a character who's flawed and those flaws have gotten in the way of his romantic relationships. He has hurt people by being selfish, immature, uncommunicative--these are things he needs to develop before he can be a good partner to anyone. But I still find myself so resistant to the framing that he is currently undeserving.

I think a large part of my :/ reaction is just a general distaste for the concept of what is deserved and by whom. A city near me is instituting a policy wherein some low-income families earning less than half the living wage are being $500 monthly subsidies, no strings attached. And the comments sections are full of people who think that these families don't deserve the money, full of people obsessed with the idea that some people are worthy of it and others aren't, full of people who think that we need to find ways to ensure that no one undeserving benefits by accident.

For me at least, I have a hard time uncoupling these different meanings of what it means to 'deserve' something from one another. You cannot bring objectivity to this because the idea of worth and merit are inherently subjective. Perhaps we are all deserving of grace, comfort, love, an extra $500 a month -- I think we'd all be a lot better off if we let go of the acquisitive little goblins in our brains who want to make sure that nobody else has anything we think we're owed.

This is a joke, but also not: I've been thinking about this tweet since I saw it, and that's a large part of what inspired this post.

[punksandcannonballers]

Your musings on attraction are so real! I've casually used the term demisexual in the past to express that it takes me a while to know whether I like someone romantically and sexually. But I was on a date recently where labels came up and the other person really wanted to dissect what ~being demisexual~ meant to me, and I struggled to express that a.) the label itself doesn't feel very important to me and b.) the more I talk/think about it, the less I feel like it belongs to me and the more I feel like I'm encroaching on queer spaces I don't belong in. Maybe it's imposter syndrome, because when I think objectively about the ace community as a whole, of course I believe they're part of the LGBTQ+ community, but for some reason, I don't feel like that rule applies to me personally ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Just wanted to (over)share because I don't have many folks in my circle who get what I mean when I talk about this stuff!

whoa thank you anon this really eloquently captures a lot of my own perspective! and it’s tough because it’s not like it’s about being “asexual enough” to be included or whatever, it’s more this subjective experience of finding utility in some term as a descriptor but it’s still something that’s not mine somehow. like I’m glad the label exists because it gives language to talk about similar concepts and experiences to mine but I don’t feel comfortable “claiming” it. and even if I did it wouldn’t mean a great deal to me, again my identity is much more rooted in being a cis man who also is straight, I don’t feel right saying like “yeah but it usually takes me awhile before I’m attracted to a woman and my feelings toward sex are complicated so I’m part of the LGBT+ community.” but like I said it’s a subjective experience and I’m not calling into question anyone else’s

[a-clockwork-justice]

Everything I Love About Loser Geek Whatever

So, not too long ago, it was the third birthday of Loser Geek Whatever. Yes, I know the single was released on November 30th 2018 and its considered the song’s official birthday, but the 26th July three years ago was the first showing of the 2018 Off-Broadway revival of Be More Chill and the first time Loser Geek Whatever was shown to the world in any capacity. Therefore, I consider that day to be the song’s unoffical birthday and I’ve been waiting to write down everything I love about it so here I am. (This was originally gonna be posted on the 26th July but I can’t make anything concise so it took longer than that).

I’ve gone on and on about what Loser Geek Whatever means to me personally, how a slew of random chance introduce me to it, got me deep into Be More Chill, introduced me to 90% of my current friends, and overall up-ended my whole life, but now it’s time to dissect the song itself and why it’s so great. As much as I adore Loser Geek Whatever, it could’ve easily been any other song that threw me down a rabbit hole and that I could’ve latched onto- no, wait, it couldn’t have been, because Loser Geek Whatever is unique in that way. I did about a year of music at A-Level so I’m gonna delve into some of the technical aspects here too. I’m chronicling this mostly for myself so I am going as deep as I see fit because this song is a treasure hiding yet more treasures. If you happen to love Loser Geek Whatever as much as I do, this’ll be your goldmine.

So, grab a snack my fellow fans, because here’s a comprehensive list of everything to love about Loser Geek Whatever in roughly chronological order. Long post incoming:

The song starts off strong from the first millisecond - I don’t know what instrument(s) they used but just listen to the single version again - that opening chord blares at you like a siren. It calls for your attention, screaming this is incredibly important, and indeed it is. That chord, an F chord, has no indication as to whether it’s major or minor - it’s just the tonic F with its dominant C and another tonic F above it. In other words, it’s unresolved, it hangs in the air. From a narrative standpoint, Jeremy is at a crossroads, torn between giving into the SQUIP or staying loyal to Michael, and the music paints this. It has the same effect on both the single and album versions - I always hold my breath as it holds, it’s the gap in this crucial transition for Jeremy between who he was and him becoming something he isn’t.

To continue the thread of musical painting, the melody line contains the accidental E-flat which doesn’t belong to the key of F major. This once again illustrates Jeremy’s uncertainty, but there’s more - the whole introduction is a slowed-down version of the Apocalypse of the Damned theme from Two Player Game, arguably the point in the show when Michael and Jeremy’s relationship was at its strongest. Jeremy’s recalling everything he had with Michael, but the slowing down of the melody shows hesitancy, along with highlighting the accidental E flat. These latter points of course aren’t unique to Loser Geek Whatever - they’re also in the section of Upgrade that twins with Loser Geek Whatever. I’m just laying out why they work so well. 

I’m glad I waited until after I saw the show in London to finish writing this - I’m something of a Loser Geek Whatever purist, as made clear by my ire at them cutting it in half and tacking the end of Upgrade back on for the London version. I still enjoyed the show in London though and I’m glad I knew about this change ahead of time, because they did change something about the song that I think really worked - they added two notes in the bass to each bar, like heartbeats, which once again signifies Jeremy’s uncertancy and the importance of this major turning point.

It’s been firmly established by this point that Jeremy is a loser and he knows it. He doesn’t want to be a hero, he just wants to survive, but there’s a difference between that and feeling “inconsequential.” Jeremy is basically admitting that, in his eyes, it doesn’t matter to the world or anyone except Michael if he even survives or not. He’s not just a loser, or a geek - he’s a whatever, with no one caring who he is. And he’s felt this way for years - since middle school began. He’s now in his Junior year of high school - that’s five years of being in this state of being unnoticed at best and picked on at worst. He’s “the one who’s left out”. With just one little line, hell, one word, we’re given more layers as to why he so badly wants to change that.

Moving from the first verse to the chorus, we start to see Jeremy’s attitude shift, from being sad to being angry - he’s frustrated, resentful that he’s spent so long in this state (A lot of people have made similar comparisons about Will Roland’s Jeremy as a whole in relation to Will Connolly’s Jeremy and I think this song exemplifies that). He doesn’t deserve to feel this horrible - not now and certainly not for the next two years until he and Michael can be “cool in college.” When you think about it, what options does he really have? He could either give into the SQUIP or reject it and go back to where he was, still miserable and lonely. Yes, he has Michael and Michael is an amazing, kind, loyal best friend, but as many have pointed out, he’s also dismissive of Jeremy’s feelings of inadequacy whether he means to be or not, which only made Jeremy feel more lonely. Should Jeremy just expect to feel better about himself at some point before college? He’s waited for years, why would that happen at any other point?

More layers baby! Second verse, Jeremy rants on about his father’s advice about following his own instincts and how it’s gotten him nowhere he wants to be. Come to think of it, Michael’s advice about staying the same and waiting for their environment to change can be seen as similar - it’s arguably easier for Michael as he has two loving mothers who undoutably give him plenty of positive reinforcement. Meanwhile, Jeremy’s mother has left them, which likely instilled further feelings of not being good enough, and his father has fallen apart to the point where he can’t even put pants on, let alone step up to take care of his son, meaning that Jeremy likely isn’t going to take his advice very seriously, especially after it’s failed him so thoroughly. But to Jeremy, the problem isn’t necessarily the advice itself - it’s that it’s being followed by him. So now he’s going to turn around and put his life and every choice in something else’s hands, even if - no, especially if it goes against his own instincts. It still doesn’t feel quite right, it “feels bizarre”, but it’s getting him somewhere, so it has to be right in the most meaningful capacity, and to Jeremy, the “most meaningful capacity” is any capacity that isn’t his own.

Now the best line - the one about being a “normal, handsome guy”. Let’s get this on the table - Jeremy is trans. Will Roland himself said that he often thinks of the show’s young trans fans when he sings that line. Naturally, societal transphobia plus gender dysphoria would have a pretty catestrophic effect on the self-esteem of any growing teenager, even more so one in Jeremy’s situation for the reasons I’ve just laid out. He’s probably missed out on a lot of things that “normal” guys take for granted, with most girls barely looking in his direction, let alone in any positive manner. Jeremy’s own sexuality aside, it’s mostly society, and the SQUIP by extension, that considers scoring with girls to be a “manly” or masculine activity, and through Brooke treating him as dateable material, Jeremy feels better about fitting into society’s rules of how a man should be and act. This isn’t the only reason he feels good about Brooke finding him attractive, of course, but it’s just another layer that Jeremy sees more value in conforming to how society says he should be rather than in how he actually is.

I know I just said that the last point was about the best line, but honestly, there’s more than one best line in this song. The bridge is where we start to see Jeremy’s language becoming more technologically inclined - “prompt”, “command” and “bandwidth” are all terms used in computing and used to show how Jeremy is likening himself, or his intentions, to a computer, effectivly merging himself and his SQUIP into one entity and Jeremy willingly giving over his own individuality.

And HERE, we get to the kicker. I’ve talked a lot about layers throughout this whole essay, about themes and motifs building on each other. Jeremy is essentially peeling back the layers of his own situation and only finding reason after deeper reason after deeper reason as to why he should follow the SQUIP and not be a loser anymore. Now, he hits the core, the seed, the crux of it all - “The problem has ALWAYS BEEN ME!!” Everything he is, everything that makes Jeremy Heere himself, is and has always been wrong. This line is a gut punch and EVERYONE knows it - the performer always takes a few seconds to let it sink in before continuing.

As an aside, I wanna mention the differences between the single and the album versions of the bridge. The album version starts of quieter after the vocalising of the last chorus, and builds up to the climactic final line, while the single version is loud all the way through but gets even louder and punchier at the end. Both are good, but I personally prefer the single version - the album sounds like Jeremy is broken and desperate and on the verge of tears as he reaches his inevitable but ugly realisation. The single is also desperate, but it’s pleading and all-consuming and a THOUSAND times more powerful, I get chills every time I hear it. (Side note, the London version starts of loud like the single and ends quieter like the album, almost as if Jeremy is reluctant to admit what he truly believes about himself, and it’s easy to see why, it’s a damn harsh condemnation).

“Take a breath and get prepared” - Jeremy sings to both himself and the audience. The first half has been heavy and we need a breather. Yet just before he goes over the brink, he has second thoughts. His conscience, his own voice in his head, breaks through, warning him that his choice will have consequences for other people than himself. People will get hurt - Michael most of all. Not just by Jeremy ditching him; here’s something else - when Jeremy is the “cool dude”, he might end up being a bully to those who are losers just like him, cutting them down just as Rich’s SQUIP made Rich do to him. Who would be the perfect target for Jeremy’s potential future bullying? His former best friend and fellow loser, Michael Mell. It’s pretty damn likely that if the SQUIP hadn’t optic nerve blocked Michael, it would’ve told Jeremy to pick on him, and even though Michael has ostensibly been pretty good at brushing these things off before, the takedowns would hurt a LOT more coming from his former best friend - and we know this because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, granted without the SQUIP influencing Jeremy directly (also let’s just clear up that just because the SQUIP wasn’t on doesn’t mean its influence on Jeremy hadn’t disappeared - that’s not how emotional abuse works).

Twelve years of loyal friendship, of borderline unhealthy codependency … can he throw all that away for Christine, a girl he’s thus admired from afar and is only just starting to get to know as a person? Moreover, even if Jeremy gets Christine, what about himself, who he wants to be? He just wants to be something other than himself because he thinks that anything is better but … what? The cool dude, the hero or … whatever. He’ll take anything because he’s that desperate, but what about when he gets it? Will he finally be satisfied? Will it be worth failing his one real friend, an act so scummy that the only way he could possibly stomach it would be to somehow pretend he hadn’t done it?

But none of those questions matter to Jeremy now - he’s fully gaslit into believing that every thought and inclination that comes from himself is wrong and shouldn’t be followed. He needs to sync up with the SQUIP and the rest of the world and mute his own defective inner voice. When you think about it, the relationship between Jeremy and the SQUIP is one of the most intense abusive relationships ever put to fiction - we’ve seen emotional abuse and brainwashing before, but here, Jeremy is literally preventing from THINKING the wrong way because the SQUIP can detect his every thought. See what I mean when I say that doesn’t go away when the SQUIP turns off for a few minutes?!

Throughout all of this is the undercurrent of Jeremy wanting to get better. He’s been trying so hard for so long to have a better life, but nothing has worked. Not listening to his dad, not trying to get closer to Christine through theatre, and certainly not listening to Michael’s advice to wait until college. Why should he resign himself to even more time being miserable with no end in sight? After all, being cool in college isn’t a guarantee. After all he’s been through, it’s his turn to finally be cool, after an eternity of being someone he doesn’t want to be.

Another best line in this song - “I’m Player One.” As mentioned a few times in the show before, like in the Broadway upgrade, Jeremy feels lower even in his friendship with Michael - he’s Player 2 as the more experienced Michael is Player 1. As previously established, Jeremy admits that he’s “not the one who the story’s about.” Now he’s ready to finally take control of his life, be the main character and have good things happen to him, and that means cutting out Michael, the old Player 1. The irony here is that Jeremy is less like Player 1 and more like a video game avatar. In reality, the SQUIP is Player 1, making Jeremy do whatever it demands of him.

More best lines! The slew of insults towards the end serves not just as yet more gut punches for the audience but as a major catharsis for Jeremy - It’s telling that the insults get harsher as his rant goes on, from the “weirdo” to the “weakling freak” to the “failure” to the climactic “please don’t speak”. He’s unloading everything that he’s been carrying over the years, ripping out the bullets that have been embedded in his skin and re-opening all the wounds in the process, but he’s done with the pain and he’ll never ever let himself be hurt like that again, if he follows the SQUIP.

I’ve made a whole post about the significance of the best line “Please Don’t Speak” before so I’ll mostly be repeating a lot of what I said there because it’s been a while since that post and because I want to. Who would’ve said that to Jeremy? Probably not Rich or Chloe, it’s not like them. It had to have come from an adult in a position of authority that could’ve commanded Jeremy not to speak like that - one that apparently did so enough times for him to internalise those words like he did the others. (Even worse if it was more than one adult ...). Out of all of the insults, it’s easy to see how that can easily be the most scarring out of all of them - how would an adult let a child know they’re inadequate? By silencing them. Making it clear that their expression of self not only means nothing, but should be forcibly avoided. Put like that, it makes it much easier to see how and why Jeremy fell under the SQUIP’s influence so easily - telling it was hardly different from authority figures he’s experienced before. In even more sad irony, as Jeremy claims that he’s breaking free and letting go of his past as the “please don’t speak”, he’s just walking right into another, similar trap that he can’t easily escape from. The SQUIP literally vocal cord blocks him during The Play - if that doesn’t say “Please don’t speak,” what does?!

The climax is growing! The music shifts into the relative minor as Jeremy fully gives in to the SQUIP’s evil influence. This is the point of no return, the point where he’s literally being surrounded and overtaken - if you’ve seen this on stage or even just a bootleg, you’ll know what I mean, when the lighting shifts and the circuitry start closing in around him, it’s wonderful. The bass ascends, Jeremy declares once and for all that HE IS NOT THE LOSER, THE GEEK, OR WHATEVER, and he never will be again! As some have pointed out, the sequence of notes on the final “again” is the same as at the end of Be More Chill Part 2, except the last note is different. In BMC part 2, it goes further down by a minor third, but in Loser Geek Whatever, it rises up to the same note it started with. This foreshadows Jeremy’s fate - that he will eventually overcome the SQUIP and that he still has it in him to do so. Man, let me just point out how amazing that last belt is - it lasts for a full 15 seconds in a really high range and takes a LOT of control to bring it back up to the high B without breaking. This song really was written for Will Roland - his voice can pull it off seamlessly, but other actors and understudies have had to find workarounds. No disrespect to them, it’s a damn hard song and it kicks ass all the way through. Scott Folan apparently had trouble with it too, but on the day I happened to see him, he pulled it off without breaking, so props to him!

Overall, Loser Geek Whatever is my favourite song in Be More Chill and not just for its sentimental value to myself. It’s a genuinely deep, complex piece that earned every second of its six minutes. Loser Geek Whatever is definitely the missing piece the show needed - not only is it Jeremy’s solo song, it’s also his “I Want” song and, in a way, his 11 o’clock number all in one, as he’s having a major epiphany after going on a journey, albeit only half of one. It’s easy to see why Joe Iconis dubbed this his anti-Defying Gravity, but it’s also easy to draw parallels to No Good Deed - how both Jeremy and Elphaba vow to become something that society is forcing upon them rather than what they are, even if that society’s will is objectively worse for them. Loser Geek Whatever deserves a thousand times the recognition it has and I still wonder to this day what the fandom reaction would’ve been if it had been in the original soundtrack.

So, that was it. I’m not sorry it was this long.

TL;DR: Loser Geek Whatever is wonderful and anyone who doesn’t think so is wrong.

[brother-hermes]

Are you willing to share your thoughts on sex outside of marriage? I am curious of your perspective as you’ve written before about celibacy. Would sexual immorality be considered any sex before marriage? Is it still considered adultery between two consenting adults if neither one of them is married? Or is it possible to have a divine union without a man made marriage certificate?

Wow. Straight up dangerous territory.

The King James Version took a harsh line on the term porneia- like they decided it was fornication without understanding Koine Greek. That variation of Greek is what the New Testament is written in. We now understand that porneia means harlotry- like adultery and incest- so we go with sexual immorality as a blanket term. This is a problem for traditional churches because it’s too open ended. As in, sexual immorality could be meaningless sex to multiple partners to one person and masturbating to pornography while in a committed relationship to another. It puts the passages regarding our sexuality in the field of the subjective opening it up to interpretation. Sprinkle in the NIV going with marital unfaithfulness or infidelity and it’s no wonder we have confusion.

The broader context of Pauls writing seems to define sexual immorality as anything outside of marriage. Women were bought at a dowry back then and were practically property too though. Some of the other writings suggest that one shouldn’t get involved with people outside of their Faith- a house divided and what not. It’s a very sticky subject.

I, being an abstract thinker, view the Bible as an allegory meant to be interpreted by the reader as a means of drawing us closer to the source of all being- to God. That being said, I view the Song Of Solomon and all of the Apostle Pauls writing on the union between men and women as spiritual instructions on unifying feminine and masculine energy within us. I’d probably confuse you attempting to explain that so it’ll be a later thing.

Sex is natural. We are all here because two people decided to share themselves with each other. The moral question comes into play when we ask ourselves why. Some people seek to release their frustrations into another or use them as objects. Some people use sex as a means to get things that they want. When we look at it in that perspective sexual immorality makes sense. We are taking something sacred- the ability to create life, the ability to join with another and share our very essence- and turning it into something meaningless. But… if it’s between two consenting adults planning a life together, then what immorality are we even talking about?

What does sexual immorality look like to you? That’s what I would ask myself. I would pray on why I want to explore my sexuality and discuss it with my partner. Then, I’d find someone who’s completely against it and hear why they have taken such a hard line on it. Read the passages yourself. Follow the notes that lead to other scriptures and dissect them. Whatever you do, just stay prayed up and don’t look at yourself with disgust for feeling a natural desire. Sex is completely normal and I loathe how some of us have been made to feel by our Christian upbringing.

Personally, I’m celibate because I haven’t overcome my own personal problems yet. I’ve been horribly codependent in the past and am overcoming a mountain of traumas. Until I’ve completely surrendered to God- and I mean 100% surrendered- I have no business projecting my insecurities onto anyone else. I don’t masturbate and watch pornography because it changes the way I view others. It’s hard, for me- I can’t speak on everyone, to look past the flesh of a person and see them for who they are if I’m constantly watching streams of perfectly shaped people airbrushed to perfection. It also clouds my spiritual practice and messes with my ability to concentrate- problems I’ve never had in relationships. So, I made a personal decision to serve God with mind, body and soul and await further instruction- getting therapy and working through traumas and meeting my spiritual director in the meantime. It’s a process, not a rigorous dogma I’d expect anyone to live up to.

Take away- what is sexual immorality? How would you define it? How will expressing yourself sexually add to your life? What would you be giving up? Pray on it and study the scriptures a bit. Just remember: SEX ISN’T SOME AWFUL THING.

[mysmorgasbordoffantabulosa]

I have been reading this other blog which seems to insist that Taekook had been distant between 2017 and 2019 , and reconnected only at the end of 2019. This apparently was largely because of JK choosing to stay with BTS though Tae wanted out. And also because of JK choosing to play along with the official Jikook ship. They also say the same had caused some trust deficit between Tae & JK though they are still together. It also talks about how Jimin was a big influence on JK choosing to stay in the group whereas Tae wanted out which to me does not justify how upset Tae was when they talked of disbandment later that year in the awards event.

The blog kind of threw me off the logical reasoning that I had been subscribing to. I am fairly new to BTS and the first thing that got me thinking about the two was the ITS discussion. Even without knowing their background it set alarm bells in my mind for how staged it looked. Since then over the past few months, I have been consuming a lot of content about TK and their relationship being special was an observation I arrived on my own. I think they went through the ups & downs of any long term relationship to be in a secure place now wherein their relationship is not for public consumption anymore. And it would not have been an easy journey. Just to come to terms with your sexuality in a conservative homophobic society is a big ask. Add to that the fact that you are under a constant microscope wherein even the smallest of your actions are dissected and put up for judgement. But their relationship survived all of that, would it have survived without trust ?

What do you think?

Hi There,

There are number of people who believe variantions on that that theme. Some say they split between 2017 & 2019, some just claim it was 2018, whilst others think it was 2019. But you know what, they are making judgements based on what they've seen and come to that conclusions. Others think Taekook have been the perfect couple and have never ever split at any point.

Me?

I personally think 2017 was the only point when JK and Tae had trouble and separation. The biggest contributing factor, was likely workload. The Wings Tour was happening between February 2017 and December 2017. Just before that, they also had a comeback with Spring Day and the album You Never Walk Alone. And in between all that they did Run BTS and Bon Voyage 2, as well as producing a new mini-album (a possible the next one to at the same time) Love Yourself: Her with a comeback for DNA in September/October. No wonder they were exhausted and on the verge of disbandment. I think I would be also.

I also think the industry itself, whilst cruel in certain companies, with the right ones can afford a certain level of protection. I think the management, the members and the company, despite what people say, are supportive and try to protect them as much as possible, and whilst that may mean not living together/spending time apart and having to have fake relationships to help with that.

I think the Tae and JK are in a good place for them and will show us whatever they feel comfortable showing us.

[you-cant-spell-subtext-without]

I’m back on my bullshit and we have GOT TO TALK about 13x08 The Scorpion and the Frog; which serves as a good example of why you should not ONLY watch spn episodes with Cas (partially because of that scene I shamefully blogged about earlier - no I will not link that cursed post here).  The episode title comes from a fable in which the villain is the scorpion.  Interpretations of this fable note its uniqueness lies in the concept that “the scorpion is irrationally self destructive and fully aware of it.”

To quote the scorpion, buddies -  “it’s in my nature.”

Anyway, this episode is subtextually predicated on exploring Dean Winchester’s nature and specifically - his bisexuality, and I’m not only saying that because it opens with Dean in his Bi Colors Plaid (that also he wore on his burger date with Cas).

Let’s get started, after the cut!

Season 13 on its face gives me absolute whiplash because it starts widow arc-reunion-TOMBSTONE and then Jack yeets himself off to Chuck knows where so Cas can go out Looking For Him Because Otherwise He Will Definitely Kiss Dean there is no other option for the writers at this point.  Sigh.  Here, have another shot of Dean anxiously cleaning his gun as he always does when Cas has Gone Off For Reasons -

Anyway, this feels like a filler episode at first, but as always they bury the ENTIRE damn world in it and I am here with my dossier to Unearth It.

Lets start with Bart (demon of terrible nicknames and microagressions) meeting the brothers at Smile Diner to talk about some spell or whatever. 

(I am not thinking about the Cherry Pie meta I AM NOT)

THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY to start with these lines immediately introducing the theme of duality, a thread throughout this episode.

BARTHAMUS

Everything. I've been following your careers a long time. You're a real pain in the pitchfork. And the halo. Natural disrupters. We have that in common, you and I. DEAN

Mm. Yeah, we're twinsies.

***MORE DUALITY!  But as we know, Dean does not like Bart because He Is A Freakin’ Demon

DEAN

Well, see, here's the thing. When a demon tells us to jump, we don't ask how high. We just ice their ass.

UMMM excuse me Barting Bacting Boices?  What is that sexual gaze?  

Then we find out that Bart has 1/2 of the spell.  They need the other 1/2.  Oh, a spell with two parts, you say? [ I am going to scream :) ]

***Also, Dean eats the pie Bart ordered.  I cannot begin to explain to you the state of unwellness that I am in regarding how important this is. DEAN NEVER GETS TO EAT THE PIE, remember?  But in This Filler Episode, Dean eats the pie. While Sam looks at him with a very quizzical expression.  Pie -> what Dean wants but never actually gets -> Dean actively eating this pie.  Dean is coming to terms that maybe he can have what he wants.

***I am reminding you again that this is post widower-arc, post-reunion, and especially post-Tombstone.  Anyway-

Now we get to Smash and Grab.  Not literally even though I want to Commit Such Conduct at this point.  We are introduced to two one off characters named 

Smash (human/female presenting) -  can crack any safe built by man 

and Grab (demon/male presenting)-  expert in bypassing supernatural security.

Reaching or no, you can’t disagree that when spn introduces one off characters - it is almost always a Narrative Parallel or Mirror.

So we have a human and a demon (and Dean Winchester, a human who has been a demon)

who are experts in cracking open/bypassing something that has been secured and guarded (breaking down walls, if you will).  

They also use fake names identifying them as Tools to be Used ( Dean Winchester, the Michael Sword/daddys blunt little instrument)

BONUS:

Dean himself is literally used as a tool in this episode.

So yeah.  Smash and Grab are physical representations of Dean’s duality.  Human/Demon.  Femininity/Masculinity.  Dare we say something else, too?

Anyway, Dean is paired with Smash and Grab; Sam is off to idk negotiate weird artifact purchases lawboy style with Luther Shrike, a man who cannot die so long as he never leaves his house (I cannot even begin to unpack this shit; please just sit there and think about it.  I’m not even going there here.  I CANNOT DISCUSS Luther Shrike RN).

Speaking of things I cannot discuss without halgdhsag;lsa - Smash has very Specific boots (a look overall, really).

DEAN

Hey, Winona. The '90s called. They'd like their shoes back. SMASH

Shh.

***That’s right girl - do not take his shit; he actually LOVES them and is therefore Overcompensating for it with this little jab.

***Dean��s pop culture references and particular attention to the details here Should Not Be Overlooked.  90s! Winona! Ryder!

ANYWAY, then Dean and Smash bond over a caffeinated beverage -

[While Dean is doing a spell, Smash opens a can of drink, takes a mouthful and burps loudly. ] SMASH

Ahh. DEAN

You're weird.

***This scene makes me literally insane. (even aside from Dean living on something named NERVE DAMAGE as a KID.  They could have called it anything. You’re saying this wasn’t a Choice)  

She chugs a swallow of the drink and burps.  Something stereotypically associated with masculinity.  Not feminine.  Dean’s reaction is that she is “weird” - because she is not acting in a way stereotypically, J*hn Winchester brain-rot patriarchy bullshit-tily associated with Being Female.  But also, says the stupid show, they like the same soda.  They are The Same.  She shares the soda with Dean.  HIS FACE WHEN SHE DOES -

Other similarities are addressed throughout the episode (they are working for demons because they have no choice; they don’t discuss feelings/emotions, they both sold their soul, they both This Thing - 

DEAN

You know, we could help you. SMASH

No, you can't. I gotta take care of me.

etc. etc.) Smash is absolutely dean-coded.

****Also it’s textually established that Smash thinks Dean is attractive -

GRAB

[looking at Smash] Oh. You said he was just a pretty face. SMASH 

Shh.

***But Grab flirts with him too.

DEAN

I will kill you. GRAB

I bet you say that to all the girls.

***sorry, Grab - you won’t get far with Dean, but only because as he mentioned in the beginning of this episode - 

Drowley rights.

Now Dean has to put his hand in the mouth of this stone lion thing and all of a sudden he is acting....very-not-like-Dean.

[Dean looks again and takes a deep breath.] DEAN

I… how about this? What if I cut myself, put it on, like, a little piece of paper? We'll just wad it up and throw it in the mouth, okay? Okay. 

***Dean Winchester, who has been to Literal HELL, who has been torn apart by hellhounds, who has battled the devil and angels and God’s sister - all at the expense of his own life is now - afraid of spiders.  Well, technically he has always been afraid of spiders, but why isn’t ‘he being performative about it At This Time??

***Come to think of it, this sends me right back to how Jackles was playing Dean in 12x11 Regarding Dean THE episode dissecting Dean’s performative masculinity [one day I will clean up and post that analysis sitting in my drafts like a sad hamster]. That makes sense actually, because -> -> ->

that episode and this one are both written by Meredith Glynn.  Girl get in I want to torture you affectionately with a barrage of questions.

So here we have Dean and he’s not performing for Reasons, and he’s scared he’s genuinely scared of putting his hand in this stone lion-gargoyle-pig-creature’s mouth and then -

Smash gives him a push.

She gives him a push.  I cannot stop thinking about how she gives him a push.  A push to go do this thing that he is scared of; his fear being something he was hiding under his performative masculinity. Smash - dean coded dean mirror who does not perform femininity and is ‘weird’ -  she   gives   him   a     p u s h.

***linking here for the jackting joices that follow.

Now, let’s circle back to Smash’s story; why she is working for Bart in the first place -

SMASH

You think I wanna be here? Like I have a choice? SAM

You made a deal. SMASH

Wow! You think? SAM

You sold your soul. SMASH

And if I could take it back, I would. 

there is no reason for this picture here other than I needed you to see the jackting again

***How does the story end for Smash?

DEAN

Take care of you. [Dean glances down at the box, and then at Smash. She sees that Dean has put a lighter on top of the bones.]  BARTHAMUS

Alice, chop chop! 

[Bart indicates she should get his bones]. SMASH

Yeah. [She grabs the lighter and sets Bart's bones alight. Bart screams as he bursts into flames. ] 

***She accepts help and breaks free from the narrative, literally burning it down. The female presenting but not female-performing “weird” ooc representing a side of Dean breaks FREE because she makes a choice.  The lighter Dean drops? It’s a push.  And she goes with it.

Alice reclaims her story.

(Also, Grab gets ganked.  The male presenting ooc; the performative masculinity side; the demon; the darkness; the not-humanity - gets ganked).

Guess what Dean says to Alice when they say goodbye?

DEAN

Hey, Alice. Stay weird.

[I know the peace sign is probably just a Charlie throwback but I’d still like to say duality.  Two. ]

Dean’s not just talking to Alice.  He’s talking to himself; because the walls have been breached and for once Dean isn’t as scared of being different.  Maybe, just maybe, he’s going along with the push.  That’s exactly how the episode ends - with Dean feeling a little more hopeful, a little more at peace; a little more Considering he is capable of not only loving Cas but also not hating himself for it. 

[until the knowledge that Mary is still alive and the guilt of allowing himself ANY happy thoughts instead of looking for her miserably rears its ugly head in 13x09 and round and round we go but for NOW at least -> ]

DEAN

I'll drink to that.

(oh look Dean is just wearing his henley.  It’s almost as if a layer has been peeled back).

tagging @im-shaking-like-milk​ and @deanwasalwaysbi​ for letting me ramble on to them while writing this; and @lilac-void​ because you are always so kind about my stuff :)

[ignitesthestxrs]

i apoligze for this in advance but idk who else to ask. so i’m attracted to women like 92% of the time but i’ve been dating a guy for a few months now. it’s not super serious yet but i still find myself feeling sad about never having had a gf/worrying i never will and just feeling like a bad queer. i KNOW that it’s terribly biphobic of me to think that if i a femme enby date a cis dude i’m not queer enough. but i also cant get past it no matter how many times i look at these ugly brain thoughts

first of all: you never have to apologise for sending me stuff like this. it is a known facet of my tumblr, and while i know i am hardly around at all, i do periodically check my inbox and am never angry or annoyed or any other negative emotion to see people reaching out for help/advice. i don’t always have the mental bandwidth to respond, but i am only ever glad that people still consider this a safe place to reach out to.

there are a couple of things i want to address here! in no particular order:

you are not a future teller or a psychic, no matter how much your worries and anxieties insist that they know what is coming. the fact that you are in a relationship with a man in this moment has no bearing on what relationships you may find yourself in, in the future. the fact that the person you are dating currently identifies as a man is no guarantee that they will always identify that way, even! you could be with them for the next couple of weeks or for the rest of your life and there are a million permutations in between and around those two options.

what i’m saying is - obsessing over things you might not do in the future because of things you are doing now is a game that nobody wins. you have no guarantees of what the future is going to hold - you can make decisions now based on what you want and/or expect the future to hold, but stressing about the path not taken means that you’re going to spend all your time straining to see that path and like, walk into a big boulder in the path you’re actually on or something. currently, you’re not even stressing about the fork in the road that you came across. you’re on a single path, and you’re worrying about a path you haven’t come across yet, which may or may not diverge from the path that you’re on, or might be in a different forest entirely and and and- at some point you gotta love the path you’re on and take in the scenery, my darling.

which, incidentally - this path? not incompatible with queerness. and i know you know this, but feeling it can be! so hard! so i am here to remind and reassure you that - queerness is not an action. the nature of identity is not things that you do, it is the person that you are. you do not cease to be non-binary because your outfit changes - your fashion choices are simply a way of expressing your non-binary-ness, and they are not the only way, and if you are not using fashion to express your enbyness then that doesn’t make you not enby. you don’t stop being enby when there is no one there to look at you and make external judgements about your gender, and you do not stop being queer because you are a femme-adjacent person dating a cis dude.

queerness is a thing that you are. you can take actions that express that queerness more clearly to outside observation, but outside observation does not change the fact of your queerness. i will not deny that it can make it easier to participate in community, because community is in part made up of particular signs that individuals recognise in each other and gravitate towards - but who you date is only one such sign. i’m a lesbian who hasn’t dated anyone for over half a decade - am i less queer because i have not hooked up with a chick in that time? i am not. if i fuck a dude am i less of a lesbian? idk man that depends on how i feel about fucking a dude. am i romantically and sexually attracted to the dude, or was his dick just inside me? what if he just uses his fingers? i feel like i could feasibly have sex with a cis man out of sheer curiosity and still be a lesbian, sure, but what if there’s a single man that just perfectly meets me where i am despite my overwhelming preference and interest in women? what if that man is trans? what does that mEAN? at which point do we stop dissecting identity and carving lines into each other?

queerness is a useful umbrella term to cover those people who exist out of heternormativity - cismen attracted to ciswomen, ciswomen attracted to cismen, exclusively. the second the spokes of that umbrella start poking you instead of protecting you from the rain, it has ceased to do its job. identity is useful in that it helps us understand ourselves and it helps us find community in other people, but there are no perfect words that encapsulate the whole of our individual experience, and there are no individual experiences that perfectly match up with another person’s individual experience, even if we use the same word/s to describe ourselves.

you can’t be biphobic at your own experiences. it’s not biphobic to look at the way you have identified previously/up to a certain point, to recognise a difference in your current behaviour, and feel weird or discomforted by this difference. it’s not biphobic to need some time to figure shit out - who you want to be, how you want to identify, what outfit fits you best. i think identity works best as a conversation with yourself - i think we should all be checking in on ourselves to make sure that the way are living is expressing the way we are being. this urge to build walls of definable identity is a protective instinct meant to save us and gather us together from the very real threats of a heteronormative society, but it can also mean we get trapped in a place that no longer suit us.

some practical advice - if the idea of never dating a girl stresses you out that much, i’d take a break from dating this dude, because it sounds like you have some work to do in terms of figuring out what experiences you want to have in life. but only you can decide where that stress line fractures, you know? but if you read this post and you sit with it for a bit and you find that the experience of dating this man is still making you miserable, it’s okay to take some time away from it. you don’t deserve misery.

that being said - like, you’ve only been dating him a few weeks? it’s cool to just envision this relationship in terms of weeks. you truly don’t have to stretch the current experience you are having out to cover the rest of your life in one daunting ‘what if’. so long as everyone involved in a relationship is clear with the terms of engagement, go forth and short term yourself some fuckin joy.

i stress, i beg, do not deny yourself the pleasure of a joyful experience with another human soul now because you are worried about what this means about other people’s perception of some amorphous identity. you are queer. you are a femme-enby person largely attracted to woman, but dating a man. you are queer, you are enough, you don’t need to question that anymore. i think that the last year, last four years, last lifetime has more than proven that life is, frankly, too fucking short. seize your joy and run with it. whether that means dating this man or take a pause to breathe and reflect, or whatever else! you’ll still be queer.

be kind to yourself my love i wish you well <3

[karliesbuzzcut]

hi! I was just wondering, do you think/believe that gaylor is real? cuz i totally agree with you re: ttb and kaylors insisting everything and anything that they don’t like is fake (come on, guys), but i do personally believe tay is fruity. just wondering what your stance is there

I’m aware these two questions are different or imply different things. But my answers to both would overlap so I’m just going to make one post.

In a way, I’m glad people are still asking me this. When I started this blog I used to use the words Gaylor and Kaylor interchangeably and just talk in very general terms. Nowadays I’m a bit more aware of the many different shades there are within the people who label themselves with either name. So I’m trying to be more specific and say “TTB&co” for example. I’m glad it’s coming off that way, because this blog is about discussing a very specific type of mentality and nothing else.

God this is why my posts end up being so long, I need two disclaimers for a fucking question.

Okay- do I think Karlie and Taylor had a romantic relationship at some point? I’m going to go with no. I obviously don’t know, I don’t know them. But in my opinion there’s no concrete evidence for it. We have footage of them holding hands, looking at each other lovingly or hugging each other - and none of that is something that I myself haven’t done with my own platonic friends. Or that either Karlie or Taylor haven’t done with other friends. Especially if you take into account that Karlie was already in a relationship with the man she would then marry (and start a family with).

Then, do I think something else could’ve happened? A kiss? Someone developed feelings? That’s even harder to answer, I’m still not Karlie nor Taylor. All I know is that they’re both stupidly gorgeous and they both seem like very fun people to be around of. So I’d find it hard for anyone not to develop feelings for either. But this is coming from me, someone who’s attracted to both men and women and who enjoys having innocent crushes that tend to go away as fast as they came. I, however, am very much aware this isn’t the same for everyone. So I’m not going to go around telling every person who’s friends with someone attractive “I bet you caught the feels✨!!”

Zooming out a bit more. Do I think Taylor falls into any of the LGBTQ+ letters? 🤷‍♀️ I already have a hard time labelling myself, don’t ask me to label others. However, if the question is “do you think her relationships with Joe/Tom/Calvin/etc are or were real?” then yes. Mainly because I have no real reason to doubt it. People can analyse her songs and interviews all they want, but at the end you’re only running on very subjective suppositions. And to the people who do that I have to ask: where does it stop? Do you also dissect your friends relationship in such a way? Sure, they look very happy together when you’re in the room but maybe that’s just what they want you to think.

And yes, I am very much aware there is a culture of bearding, especially in Hollywood. But I, personally, don’t think I help the movement by theorising who’s fake and who’s real. I’d have to delve into a practice I’m very uncomfortable with, which is: analysing other people’s displays of affection; categorising which forms of love are acceptable and which ones aren’t. So I’d rather stand back, believe it when some says they’re in a relationship and if they later say that they were just “faking it”, believe that too.

Finally, do I think it’s possible that Taylor, even if she’s with Joe, is also attracted to women? Sure. I don’t know. It’s definitely possible. But again, this is coming from a woman who has been in a relationship with a man for 9 years and still finds the ladies absolutely ✨glorious ✨(seriously, great job all of you ❤️).

I’m not sure if this next statement comes from my own struggles defining myself or maybe it’s my privilege talking, as someone who’s het-passing. Or maybe a bit of both. But I try to not concern myself too much with defining other people’s sexuality. If they come out to me in any way, then I respect their label. If they don’t, I don’t know, I go with whatever sex they’ve expressed interest in. And I try my damn hardest not to question it.

... I wish I could be one of those people who are able to keep it short and cute.

[silvokrent]

I just thought of something and wanted to share, but Tyrian seems to enjoy pain now, but he didn't seem to enjoy getting his tail chopped off. Do you think he was always like that and we just never saw it, or was it more along the lines that no pain can be as bad as losing his tail, so now all other pain is enjoyable in comparison? IDK, just wanted to see what other people think.

I was actually talking with my sister about this pretty recently. The conclusion we came to was that Tyrian is a situational masochist—he enjoys pain, as long as it’s on his terms. There’s not a ton of direct evidence for this in canon without heavily relying on subtext, but I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that Tyrian was always a little into it (whether or not he gets some sort of sexual thrill from pain is a conversation for another day, but I digress).

I’ll highlight a few notable moments:

During the events covered by V4E6 “Tipping Point” and V4E7 “Punished,” he actively relishes the prospect of fighting Team RNJR. The majority of that desire is likely sadistic, because the people he’s hunting down are easy prey. They’re not licensed Huntsmen. They didn’t even complete a year of formal training at an Academy. They are outclassed in literally every conceivable way. You’d assume that he’s excited to be fighting opponents that he can easily overpower, which is absolutely true, but when Jaune announces their intention to fight (“We’re not going to let you do that”), Tyrian is pleased (“Good”). On some level, he knows that engaging them means the risk of sustaining injuries, however minimal that risk might be. And yet he’s fucking thrilled by it. So either he enjoys the act of his victims resisting, in an “Aww, it’s cute that they think they can fight me and win” sort of way. Or he enjoys an inevitable victory that involves taking a bit of a beating to achieve. Later, when Qrow makes his entrance, Tyrian is practically gleeful. Instead of being concerned about getting wounded by a veteran fighter who is arguable equal in skill level, Tyrian reacts positively. Finally, someone who can take and dish out whatever Tyrian throws at him. You see glimpses of this during the fight: When Ruby pelts him with bullets from the rooftop, Tyrian chooses to deflect them with his tail. Even if the shots don’t inflict damage, they’d still be contributing to gradual Aura depletion (and if I recall correctly, Aura doesn’t make you immune to pain, just injury). I think it’s a deliberate choice that he chose to tank the shots rather than dodge, all the while smiling. Even after his Aura is broken, he continues to fight with a fucking grin on his face. He’s outnumbered and susceptible to killing blows, but he doesn’t hesitate to press his advantage. It’s only when he loses his tail does he concede defeat, and flee for safety.

V6E4, better known as That Scene. There’s no denying that he cut himself on Thief’s Respite with the intention of intimidating Emerald, but if his motivation was exclusively to make her feel uncomfortable, he could’ve achieved that any number of ways. He didn’t have to injure himself to do it, but he did, and not only that, but he savored that pain in front of her. This was meant to communicate a very specific message: “Not only can you not hurt me, but I would enjoy it if you tried.” I think @kaen-ace-of-ravenclaw said it best here.

In V7E11 “Gravity,” toward the end of his fight against Qrow/Clover/Robyn, when Tyrian’s Aura is depleted by Robyn’s exploding crossbow bolt he has this look on his face. I know pain can make people loopy, but when someone’s experiencing pain-induced delirium, they usually don’t look happy about it. Tyrian’s still conscious enough to fucking giggle as he’s lying there, incapacitated. I don’t necessarily think he was planning on losing this fight, and he clearly didn’t intend to have his Aura run out, but you can’t deny that he’s having a good time. At minimum, the pain doesn’t faze him; or, more likely, it felt good on some level.

I’m not going to bother dissecting the entire Tyrian/Qrow/Clover fight, but that moment in V7E12 “With Friends Like These” where he dislocates his thumb…yeah. You see him licking his lips as he’s trying to exert enough pressure on his hands, a gesture that we’ve seen paired exclusively with him enjoying pain—whether it’s someone else’s (the waitress in V4E5, the party attendees in V7E6), or his own. The obvious argument is that he injured himself solely to escape his bonds, to which I say: really? He’s sitting in the middle of a crashed plane with a broken windshield, and you’re gonna tell me that he couldn’t get up and use the edges of the glass to cut himself free? He didn’t need to hurt himself to get free—he chose to. And he liked it.

If I had to hazard a guess about his reaction to losing a portion of his tail, I’d wager that it was a combination of shock and rage. He’s not angry about the pain so much as he is that he lost one of the tools in his arsenal. He’s angry because being wounded meant having to retreat due to unfavorable odds (failing his Goddess is not acceptable). The tail functions as a fifth limb that assists in his signature acrobatic capoeira-based attacks. He’s had 30+ years to adapt to a fighting style that relies on freeing up his hands (unlike his opponents, he doesn’t grasp his weapons in his hands), so he could pivot while retaining combat mobility. And now, all of a sudden, it’s gone. Tyrian’s adaptable, but he’s not stupid: three of his opponents still have active Auras, and the fourth exploited an opening to seriously maim him. To me, his initial reaction read as “ow this fucking hurts and I was in no way prepared to deal with the pain of AMPUTATION.”

So yes, I think Tyrian was always Like That™, but due to the pacing of the plot, there wasn’t any time to include scenes that overtly showed him being masochistic. He doesn’t mind pain inflicted by his opponents (unless the pain is incapacitating), and he seems to enjoy pain that he anticipates/self-inflicts.

At the very least, this makes for fun speculation, and you can’t deny that this is great headcanon material.

[homespork-review]

Spork Introduction

CHEL: Hi! I go by Chel, they or she pronouns, and I’m the one spearheading this project. I still like at least a fair percentage of Homestuck, but after the ending disappointed me a great deal, I got bitter, and when Hussie pissed me off further by Godwinning himself, I decided to do something about it. I’m no longer angry about it, but I felt I’d benefit from picking out what I hate from what I love so I can focus on the latter without annoyance getting in the way, and also to benefit my own writing efforts.

BRIGHT: Howdy! I’m Bright, and I got into Homestuck fairly recently. After ploughing through the archive and digesting for a while, I realised that I was thoroughly annoyed by how something enjoyable had fallen apart so comprehensively. I am looking forward to the time-honoured practice of ripping the story apart to identify its weak points and shout at them.

FAILURE ARTIST: Hello, I’m Failure Artist (call me FA for short), she/her/herself pronouns, and I’m so old-school they burned the school down. I was introduced to Homestuck via Something Awful’s Webcomic thread. I checked the old mspadventures.com site and the latest update was [S] John: Bite Apple. After watching that bizarre piece of animation, I had to know what the hell happened before then. I found I enjoyed the wit of the comic though I didn’t really care much about the plot. It was only when Act 5 came around that I became a serious fan. I currently have 122 Homestuck works on Archive of Our Own. I have a lot of free time, you see. I am very disappointed in how Homestuck ended. Possibly there was no completely satisfactory way it could end but it still could have been better. I feel like Hussie was a juggler who threw a lot of balls into the air and ignored them as they fell to the ground and some fans think not catching them was a master move since you’d expect he’d try to catch at least one. Sadly, lots of the problems with the ending are embedded deep within the canon.

TIER: Hi hi. I am Tier, a very late newcomer to the wonderful world of Homestuck (2018 reader!) and average fan overall. I love this webcomic to bits, but the low points are deep and I enjoy seeking out what the heck went wrong. Not particularly analytical myself, hope that's cool!

CHEL: Cool by us! We’ve already done plenty of analysing before we started, as you may realise from my Tumblr’s “homestuck ending hate” tag (at @chelonianmobile).

FAILURE ARTIST: But let’s put that aside for a moment and talk about the good stuff. 

Homestuck is incredibly innovative. It is the first true webcomic. It’s not just a print comic posted online. It uses not just still images and words but also animation, music, and interactive games.

Homestuck is the latest adventure in the series MS Paint Adventures. MS Paint Adventures started as a forum adventure. In forum adventures, the OP acts as a sort of Dungeon Master and other forum members give them prompts. Andrew Hussie’s previous works under MS Paint Adventures were Jailbreak (which is little more than Hussie dicking with the prompters in scatological ways), Bard’s Quest (Choose-your-own-adventure), and the actually-completed Problem Sleuth. Problem Sleuth lacks the music and animation and despite the weird physics shenanigans is a simpler story than Homestuck. The characters aren’t even two dimensional.

Homestuck (and the previous MS Paint Adventures minus Bard’s Quest) are set up like adventure games. Adventure games are where the player is a protagonist in a story and are usually focused on puzzle-solving though sometimes there’s combat. In the beginning, these games were purely text. The player would type what they wanted to do and the game would spout back text describing it - assuming the computer parser understood you.

CHEL: Oh god, I HATED that. I wasn’t around for the heyday but I’ve played a couple and

Pale Luna

was barely an exaggeration (horror warning).

FAILURE ARTIST: As graphics improved, adventure games started using them, but the commands were still in text. Only later was the point-and-click interface created and players didn’t have to guess what exact sentence the computer wanted them to type. Homestuck and the other MS Paint Adventures play with that frustration while paying tribute to the genre. The game within the comic uses RPG elements but the comic itself is set up like those good ol’ adventure games. In the beginning, Homestuck was guided by commands from forum members. Even after he closed the suggestion box, he used memes and fanon created by readers.

CHEL: How good an idea this was varies, as we’ll be showing.

We probably don’t need to describe Homestuck much more. Everyone here who hasn’t read it will doubtless have heard of it. Almost everyone with a Tumblr will have seen fanart, almost anyone at a convention will have seen cosplay. Shoutouts have been made to it in professional works such as the cartoon Steven Universe, and the Avengers fandom latched onto “caw caw motherfuckers” as a catchphrase for Hawkeye to the point that it’s now often forgotten it didn’t originate from there.

FAILURE ARTIST: The Homestuck fandom term “sadstuck” for depressing stories/headcanons somehow leaked into other fandoms. Using second-person is actually cool now and not just for awkward reader fics. Astrology will never be the same again.

CHEL: Now, in the interests of fairness, we will say that when Homestuck is good, it’s amazing, and it’s good often. The characters at least start out appealing and are all immediately distinguishable; even with the typing quirks stripped, it’s easy to tell who said what. The magic system is one of the coolest I’ve ever seen, who doesn’t love classpecting themselves and their faves? Hussie also shows a lot of talent for the complex meta and time travel weirdness, and it is fascinating to watch a timeline thread unfurl. And whatever else one says, it’s a fascinating story that’s captivated millions. I think it is deserving of its title as a modern classic.

However, as the years have passed, we have ended up noticing problems, big and small, and they nagged at us until we decided it had to be dissected. Our intention here isn’t to tear apart something we loathe entirely. It’s to take a complex work and pick out what works from what doesn’t. As I said, when Homestuck is good, it’s very very good. But when it’s bad, we get problems of every scale from various offensive comments to dragging pace to characters ignoring problems and solutions right under their noses to an absolute collapse of every theme and statement the comic stood for before.

The comic is ludicrously long; eight thousand pages, or thereabouts, to be specific. Officially one of the longest works of fiction in the English language, in fact. Naturally, we can’t riff that word by word in any timeframe short of decades, and we can’t include every picture, even if that was permitted under copyright law. Instead, as comics have been done here before, we’ll recap most of the time, and include sections of dialogue and pictures when particularly relevant to a point.

Here are the counts we’ll be using, possibly to be added to later if we find we forgot anything. Most of these counts will only start to climb post-Act 5, but we’ll be keeping track of them from the beginning. Most of them could have been fixed with a decent editor, which is sadly a hazard of webcomics, but still frustrating to read.

TIER: Note: we started this endeavor months before the thought of a "technically not but still we'll count it" set of canon epilogues were a twinkle in the eyes of the fandom. That is, by the way, a whole 'nother can of worms that will be dealt with at a later date if that ever comes around. We're judging Homestuck the Webcomic as a whole, so no after the credits stuff is to be noted for whatever reason.

ALL THE LUCK - Vriska Serket constantly gets a pass or gets favored over every other character. This count is added to every time she pulls some shenanigans with which others wouldn’t get away. ARE YOU TRYING TO BE FUNNY? - Sometimes it’s not entirely clear whether a thing is supposed to be taken seriously or not. We don’t require hand-holding through every joke, but when, for example, we’re supposed to take one instance of violence seriously while a similar case is supposed to be funny, this count goes up. CALL CPA PLEASE - Instances of creepy sexual behaviour (and perhaps particularly gratuitous acts of violence) from the thirteen-year-old cast. Now, mileage may vary on this one. We won’t pretend that thirteen-year-olds are perfect pure angels, especially thirteen-year-olds growing up in what is openly supposed to be a nightmarish dystopia. However, when full pages focus on said behaviour, there comes a point of it being very uncomfortable to read. Clarification: does not refer to cases where the adults do something heinous, this is strictly when the kids do. CLOCKWORK PROBLEMATYKKS - When an offensive joke or comment is made, particularly when not justified by the personality of the character involved, or presented in the narration as being okay. GET ON WITH IT! - When the pace drags. ‘Nuff said. Hazard of the format, but it makes archive bingeing very annoying. GORE GALORE - For unnecessary and/or excessive torture porn which is treated less seriously because it features troll characters, and therefore less “realistic” blood colours. HOW NOT TO WRITE A WEBCOMIC - When the comic does something mentioned in How Not To Write A Novel, and it isn’t justified by the webcomic format. HURRY UP AND DO NOTHING - Characters repeatedly neglect to do something about or even react to terrible happenings, either because they don’t care even if they should or they forget they have the capacity. Not necessarily anything to do with their magical powers, either - characters ignore personal problems that are right under their noses, too. IN HATE WITH MY CREATION - For reasons that are unclear, Hussie chose to create characters he apparently hated writing, or at least ignored in favour of others. Every time he’s clearly disrespecting one of his own characters, this goes up, whether it’s by nerfing their powers or changing their personalities. RELATIONSHIP GOALS? - Romantic relationships in particular get fumbled quite often. Ship Teasing is used with skill, but that skill tends to be lost when the characters actually hook up. Fumbled friendships and family relations can also come under this heading. SEND THEM TO THE SLAMMER - When characters other than Vriska get away with something morally questionable. Covers everything from sexual harassment to not trying to save people from the apocalypse. SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS - Later on in Homestuck’s run, Hussie tried to make up for the offensive humour and casual -isms counted by Clockwork Problematykks above. How successful he was at this varied. This count goes up whenever an attempt at progressivism is waved in front of the reader but doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. WHAT IS HAPPENING?? - When the already confusing plot kicks it up a notch. Admittedly this is as much a selling point of the comic as it is an issue, but either way, we’re going to keep track. Points will be added to when it gets confusing, and taken away when a previous confusing thing is explained adequately. WHITE SBURB POSTMODERNISM - What is shown about Alternia repeatedly contradicts what we’re told about how different it is from Earth. For example, trolls still use heteronormative terms even after it’s established they reproduce bisexually, and the demonstration of the class structure doesn’t always add up. This count goes up every time that happens. It also goes up every time something happens which strongly implies Hussie was envisioning the human kids as white, despite his later claims that they were always supposed to be “aracial”, and every time their economic statuses don’t add up either.

[kithmet]

Astrology: VirtueMoir Edition (Part 1—Scott Moir)

On today’s edition, we thoroughly unpack Scott’s birth chart. The next post will be on Tessa’s chart (if there’s enough interest after this). Beware: long post ahead and lots of astrology talk. I’ll try to be as clear as I can.

Please note: I’ll try my best to explain astrological terms, but as briefly as possible as I only have so much time. For certain stuff I will include links to further reading if you’re interested in learning more about them. 

I’ll also preface this by saying: these are my own opinions based on my own astrological knowledge. I do not present them as fact. 

Scott Moir’s Birth Chart

This might look like nonsense to some of you, but I’m going to spend this post dissecting this very circle chart. It is how each of the planets were aligned when Scott was born, and the signs that were in each of those planets at the time. Please refer to this image, especially when I discuss his chart shape. 

I got this from astro.com, which is the most accurate site for these readings. We don’t know his exact birth time so we will do this reading without the knowledge of his astrological house placements or his Ascendant (otherwise known as the ‘rising’) sign. However, that still leaves us with a lot to talk about.

I’ve organized this into sections in case you want to search for specific things. I know a lot of you want to know about Scott in reference to Tessa, and I do refer to her a lot throughout this reading, but this has an emphasis on who Scott is as a person. 

Scott’s Important Planetary & Asteroid Placements

For this section, I’ll be dissecting how the major planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter) impact Scott’s personality. I personally don’t find Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to be incredibly impactful on a chart as they’re so far from the sun, and change very rarely in sign between years, so I’m going to leave them out.

Sun in Virgo: the Sun sign is the core and identity of a person.

For more on how this manifests through Virgo in Scott, refer to my explanation below on his Virgo stellium. That is Scott. 

Moon in Sagittarius: the Moon sign is the feelings, emotions, and tone of a person.

Scott is passionate and fiery and intense. Refer to my explanation below on his Sagittarius stellium for more information on that.

Mercury in Virgo: a person’s Mercury sign is their communication methods—their reasoning, rationality, the process of exerting and taking in information.

Scott’s Virgo in this placement might indicate that he pays a lot of attention to detail. 

He might be an over-thinker, and as a result is very critical of both himself and others. 

He is probably very useful because he completes all the goals he sets out to do. He needs routine and order.

Venus in Virgo: the Venus sign rules love and relationships, as well as beauty and pleasure.

Serving others brings Scott pleasure, according to this placement. It says that: “The only problem in relationships is that you may believe that people like you for what you do, rather than for what you are. You may underestimate your own worth and not understand why other people like you. Learn to love yourself as well as others.” This is incredibly relevant to Scott, as he might think that people like him because he’s an elite figure skater, and not for who he truly is. The underestimation of his own self-worth is also reflected on his self-deprecating comments, at times. He always strives to compliment Tessa, who is his best friend, but he simply says, “I’m okay,” with regards to himself.

Regarding Scott’s love life, though, @thevirtch​ has already dissected that aspect of his chart very well in this post.

Mars in Virgo: the Mars sign represents the energy, action, level of aggression, and sexual desires.

Virgos are perfectionists. They want to be good at everything they have to put effort into. As a human being, Scott (unless he’s on the ace spectrum, which I’m pretty sure he’s not) will have sex, is having sex, does have sex, et cetera. He’s a perfectionist at it. He wants to be good, and he will literally achieve it because Virgos set their minds to things and almost always achieve their goals. 

He wants to please because, as his Venus in Virgo says, pleasing others gives him pleasure. 

Mars in Virgo is notoriously known as one of the ‘kinkiest’ Mars placements in the zodiac. Proof in the link. He is down for whatever his partner wants.

Virgo Mars likely have sex to exert the stress from their lives, but funnily enough, they treat sex like it’s another job for them to excel at as well.

Jupiter in Aries: the Jupiter sign is about the life’s purpose, meaning, justice, and fortune. 

His only planet in Aries. I wrote a lot about his Jupiter in Aries singleton (otherwise known as the ‘bucket handle’) in the Scott’s Chart Shape section of this post, so please refer to that in addition to this.

Scott likely attracts good luck when he acts as the leader of his communities, demonstrates enthusiasm and positivity, and inspires others. So far in his life this has been true. He’s also said he wants to continue his career by inspiring others and giving back to the skating community—I’m sure that good luck will follow him throughout his life, in this case.

I would also like to touch on some important asteroids. I’d touch on Chiron, which is a person’s biggest wound in life, but because we don’t have houses (due to not having his birth time) and I feel like it would be inaccurate because of that, so I’m leaving it out.

Lilith in Leo: this asteroid is known as someone’s ‘dark side’. 

Definition: “These people are very proud, or even stuck-up. Lilith in this sign may indicate the struggle "I against the rest of the world". These people are self-centred and selfish. They do not acknowledge other people. It is not always easy to live with this attitude because the likes and preferences of our partner should be taken into account as well.”

I feel like this is quite accurate from what we know of Scott’s ‘dark side’. If you watched their reality tv show (which, of course, was a lot of bullshit but there’s some truth to the stuff that happens in it), you can see that Scott was once quite selfish, inconsiderate of how his actions or tempers might affect Tessa, and very prideful.

Juno in Aquarius: the soulmate asteroid.

Please note: Scott’s partner doesn’t need to be in the sign of Aquarius—but the way he romances them and the things he looks for in a partner might embody Aquarian characteristics. 

Friends to lovers is a huge thing for Juno Aquarians. If they aren’t friends first and foremost, the relationship won’t last. Strong friendship foundations in a relationship are essential.

I’m not going to say what we’re all thinking. We’re all thinking it. We all know it. Anyway.

Emotional aloofness might intrigue Scott. He’s attracted to emotional unavailability... why? Who knows. Maybe it’s the mystery, intrigue, and challenge to figuring them out. He’s probably into people with strong air sign placements.

Can I just drop in here that Tessa has a Gemini stellium and a Libra moon, which screams emotional aloofness? Yeah? Okay, moving along...

Traditional relationship structures don’t bother Scott. He’s adaptable and open to weird arrangements, as long as it works for him and his partner.

Can we collectively say: platonic business partners, anyone?

Eros in Libra: this asteroid represents the raw sexual energy in a person.

He is flirtatious and charming. He aims for sexual equality. He might disregard his own needs because he’s focusing on pleasing his partner (because Libra signs always want to be likeable). Communication is sexy. Falling in love, repeatedly, highly appeals to him.

This is probably accurate for Scott, especially when thinking about his Virgo in Venus which is also all about pleasing your partner (and being good at it). The falling in love stuff—probably true. Scott is a serial long-term dater, so he probably chases finding that feeling.

Scott's Virgo Sun & Stellium

Scott is a typical Virgo because he has his Sun sign (which is someone’s truest identity and their core) and three other major planets in Virgo. This means he has a Virgo stellium, which is 3+ planets in the same sign. Therefore, Virgo energy is extremely present throughout Scott’s chart.

Virgos are known as perfectionists. They are analytical thinkers, and very critical—especially of themselves. If Virgos do not reach the standard which they set for themselves, they tend to be self-pitying. They have impossibly high standards for both themselves and the people they surround themselves with. 

Does this relate to Scott?: Scott is said to be a perfectionist with his skating. He is extremely self-critical—when he makes a mistake in a performance, he clearly dwells on it and beats himself up about it. He continuously aims to be the best version of himself, and surrounds himself with the best people. Scott also might tend to be overly critical of the people in his life because of this.

Virgos are incredibly goal-oriented. They have a set list of goals and things on their to-do lists, and they take pride in completing these tasks. Because they’re so goal-oriented and perfectionists, when Virgos set their sights on something, they are very likely to excel in that thing. 

Does this relate to Scott?: Scott is a go-getter. He wakes up early and wants to complete his goals for the day. He’s said many times that he feels a need to set goals and that completing them brings him pride. He’s also very good at the things he choses to focus his talents on. He is not mediocre at anything he wants to be good at.

It’s rarely talked about, but Virgos are also very nurturing. They want to make the people around them feel better in whatever way they can. If you need advice or someone to help you out, go to your Virgo friend.

Does this relate to Scott?: I may not know him personally, but from what I’ve seen of his interactions with Tessa, he is very comforting. He is also seems to be very nurturing with his family and the other people he cares about.

They are sarcastic—and sometimes this is used as a coping mechanism. It might come across in a bad way from time to time, because Virgos can be blunt. They are naturally funny and witty, due to the fact that Mercury rules the mind, so they are intelligent beings.

Does this relate to Scott?: He is hilarious and quite smart, but sometimes can be blunt and it comes across in a negative way. 

I think that it comes out because of his Virgo, but it stems from how strong his Saggitarian energy is as well, but we will get to that later. 

Examples: “I hate this event”-gate, every other time Scott has publicly criticized his competitors and previous coach, etc. 

Virgos are an Earth sign (which is an Element). This means that Virgos are stable, loyal, and rely on routine. That being said, Virgos are the most flexible Earth sign because they are also a Mutable sign (which is a Modality). Mutable signs are extremely adaptable, to new people and new environments, and welcome change within themselves. (This is a link on more information about the Elements and Modalities of the signs.)

Does this relate to Scott?: I’d say so. He’s clearly very loyal to Tessa. He relies on routine. He seems to be a very adaptable individual—in that he gets along with almost anyone. He is ever-adapting and changing, but at the same time, very stable and steady in how that change comes.

Scott’s Sagittarius Moon & Stellium

Now, all that Virgo information is great and all, but we’re forgetting one of the most important parts of Scott’s personality: his intense passionate energy. Where does that energy stem from? Not his Virgo placements, but his Sagittarius stellium. Scott has Sagittarius in his moon sign (which rules his emotions and tone of character—a very important placement), and two other planets, therefore he has 3+ planets in Sagittarius. 

Sagittarius is the hilarious sign—they are the ones that make people laugh. They are weird but in a good, funny way. They are blunt, straightforward, and sometimes can come across as abrasive.

Does this relate to Scott?: Scott is funny, that’s a given. He’s always doing weird stuff to make people laugh. He’s also extremely blunt: if he has an issue, he will state that issue. He also quite literally said on that reality show that he’s bringing two condoms to the Olympics. Like, who is he? Copy and pasting what I said before, but more examples of his abrasiveness: “I hate this event”-gate, every other time Scott has publicly criticized his competitors (and previous coaches), etc. Even after the Olympics, he said there was a “clear technical difference” between him and Tessa and P/C. Other people might hold that in—but not Scott.

People with strong Sagittarius placements are confident and sometimes extroverted. They are very positive—often, if a person is ruled by Saggitarian energy, they are optimistic about everything, and like to look at the silver linings. They are lighthearted. 

Does this relate to Scott?: He is most definitely extroverted and confident. He always picks himself up after he falls and brings a positive energy to everything he does—rarely does he bring negative, dark energy. 

Sagittarius is the sign of adventure and spontaneity. They are impulsive and reckless, and can sometimes be impatient. They want to travel to fun places and they want to try new things. They are independent.

Does this relate to Scott?: Between Scott and Tessa, he is the one that wants to visit atypical travelling countries and do atypical things (he literally said he wants to go to Australia to learn to surf and go to Africa for a safari... again, who is he?), he is the one that wants to try new foods and makes Tessa try them, he is the adventurous one, he is the spontaneous one.

I don’t think Scott’s recklessness or impulsivity need explaining, but it’s kind of clear by the things he says without thinking sometimes.

People ruled by Sagittarius are typically philosophical. Sagittarius is the sign that rules morals and ethics, so they might have a strong moral compass. 

Does this relate to Scott?: With this one, who knows. From the podcasts I’ve listened to where Scott speaks, he is clearly a big thinker and likes to reflect. He’s also very well-spoken. 

Everyone has heard about the cheating rumours regarding him and his girlfriends, and if they’re true, then who knows? Maybe he has a messy Rising sign which impacts that aspect. 

That being said—Scott is loyal, and that relies heavily on his morals. He did not think it would be right to leave Tessa when she was injured, and therefore stood by her because of that. He also didn’t think it would be okay to leave Marina in 2013, despite the rumours that she was on the American’s side. I think it’s because of his moral compass.

Sagittarius is a Fire sign. They are all about passion, enthusiasm, and they have hot tempers. However, this sign is also a Mutable sign, which means he is adaptable and welcome to change.

Does this relate to Scott?: Obviously. Scott’s abrasiveness comes from his temper and bluntness and passion—all which come from his Sagittarius placements. His passion is evident in positive ways in how he interacts with people and how he feels due to his Sagittarius moon. Everyone and their mother calls Scott passionate, and he himself has said he has a bad temper. Sagittarius being a Mutable sign is relevant because Sagittarians are always welcome to trying new things, just like Scott.

What is his Ascendant (or ‘rising’)?

The Ascendant is one of the big three of astrology (which are your sun, moon, and rising signs). Definition of the Ascendant sign, taken from this website: “Together with the Sun and Moon the ascendant is one of the most important single factors... The sign tells us a lot about someone's personality, temperament and constitution. It typifies our immediate, instinctive reaction and shows how we present ourselves to the world.” The rising sign, lucky for us, is one of the easiest signs to guess when looking at a person. Why? Because it is how they instinctively react, and how they seem to other people. 

I’m personally willing to bet my money that Scott has a water rising—that’s why he’s known as ‘the emotional one’—not just between him and Tessa, but also as an individual. Yes, his Sagittarius moon makes him passionate and full of intense emotion, but that emotion manifests in different ways in fire signs than it does in water signs. I believe Scott feels a lot of emotion as a result of his Sagittarius moon and stellium, and then presents that emotion via his Ascendant sign, which (in my opinion) is most likely a water sign.

Which water sign would that be? Not Scorpio. Scott doesn’t project Scorpio energy to me—Scorpios have darker energy, are secretive, and almost always have trust issues because of their natural paranoia. Scott, on the other hand, has a blind faith in people and trusts in the good of humans (example: Marina-gate). This is because of his Sagittarius energy, but I also really think that he isn’t a paranoid person like a lot of Scorpios. Scott does not seem like that to me, and rising signs are all about how people present themselves to others.

Personally, I think he is a Cancer rising. Why Cancer, and not Pisces? Because he is so family-oriented, and proudly shares how nurturing he is to other people. Cancers are the mothers and nurturers of the zodiac. They are also very sensitive, both as humans and to their environments and the people they interact with. Pisces risings are more dreamy.

Some more information about Cancer risings: they’re warm, kindhearted, moody (warm to cold very easily), easily hurt, defensive, and very protective of the people they care about.

If he isn’t a water rising by the grace of lord knows what—I’d vote Aries rising. They’re childlike, fun-loving, passionate, and have a lot of energy and emotion. If not Aries, then Capricorn, because they are such driven workaholics. 

That being said—he already is hardworking because of his Virgo stellium, and he’s already passionate because of his Sagittarius stellium. That is why I really do believe his Ascendant is in a water sign—if not Cancer, then Pisces. He already has enough Earth and Fire energy—where does that all emotion come from? Why does he cry easily? It has to be his rising sign.

Scott’s Chart Shape

Something that is rarely talked about is the shape of a person’s natal chart. Scott’s chart shape is in the ‘bowl and bucket’ formation, which is defined on this site as: “All planets but one are distributed together (‘bowl’ of the bucket) and are opposed by another planet - singleton (‘handle’ of the bucket).”

The bowl of Scott’s bucket is tested by the handle of the bucket. All of Scott’s planets are in the bowl, which is the top right corner of the chart (and please look at the chart to know what I’m talking about). These planets are tested by his Jupiter in Aries bucket handle. 

I find it interesting that Scott’s handle is in the planet of Jupiter, because Jupiter is the planet that is all about luck and fortune. Scott has indeed had insane good luck in his life—meeting Tessa, getting paired with her, both of them growing to be the exact, appropriate heights for one another, the chain of events that led them to dominating three Olympic cycles. That doesn’t happen easily. Sure, they worked very hard, but they also had the good fortune of Jupiter by their sides. 

That being said, he has also had bad luck in his life. Tessa getting injured a year before the Olympics? Having to skate their first Olympics with an injured partner? Having that partner go through two surgeries? 

Read this carefully: “Jupiter [bucket handle] can manifest as a God/Deity Complex. We often find the Messiah Complex with its sense of “I can do anything!”... A young man named Stephan heard a Biblical quote, “With God all things are possible.” He was fourteen at the time and blithely replied, “I don’t know much about God, but that sure is true for me!” That is a Jupiter in Aries [bucket handle], only Fire sign! One of the dangers with a Jupiter singleton is a bad case of hubris; that means the feeling that, “I am equal to or better than the gods!” Jupiter eventually extracts a price for that, for Jupiter is also the ‘wrath of God.’” 

Does this relate to Scott’s life?: Hell yes. Scott himself has said that he was too arrogant growing up, too cocky, thought he could do anything. It was only when wrath was given to him by the power of the universe in bad luck that he was able to tone down his bad case of hubris and become the Scott we know today, who is much more down-to-earth.

Some other significant things about people with this chart shape:

People with this chart shape tend to have a tendency to live their lives to extremes. Jupiter in Aries bucket handles are also incredibly ambitious. This is relevant to Scott because he could have been a figure skater, but he didn’t have to be a five time Olympic gold medal athlete. 

I’ll also briefly point out that this bucket handle is at the 29th degree—which, in astrology, is a critical degree and basically makes this placement even more intense. You can read more about it here.

In summary, though: the 29th degree means that this handle will be tested a lot with decision-making—so Scott’s fortune is repeatedly tested by having to make decisions as a result of either his good or bad luck. This is relevant, especially to the stuff about Tessa being injured. Scott had to make the decision to stick with Tessa during this time. He was tested, apparently, by the universe.

Other Important Notes

Below we have an image of the breakdowns of how heavy Scott’s chart is in each of the planets, signs, elements, and modalities.

Scott is ruled primarily by mutable signs (as he has two stellia in both Virgo and Sagittarius). 45% is a lot. This mutable energy can manifest in both good and bad ways:

He is extremely adaptable and flexible to new environments, new people, and trying new things.

He might be indecisive, unreliable, easily distracted.

Often changing how he perceives the world, other people, and himself as a result of new perspectives.

Unafraid of change and bringing new elements to the table, especially career-wise.

He is practically half Earth energy, which is amazing to me. Stable, loyal, committed to the things he invests energy into. His Earth energy comes all from his Virgo stellium and Capricorn Neptune.

That being said, his second biggest element is in Fire, which accounts for Scott’s passion and intensity.

The reason why Scott is an elite athlete with five Olympic gold medals? His abundance of Virgo energy, high at 24%. He is a perfectionist, driven to accomplishing the things he sets out to do, and often meets his goals.

Conclusion (TL;DR)

Scott is a perfectionist and driven because he wants to excel in achieving his goals. This is because of his Virgo stellium. He is passionate and full of enthusiasm, positivity, and intensity. He is funny and straight-forward. This is because of his Sagittarius stellium. He appears to be emotional, and I believe that is because he might have his Ascendant sign in a water sign, either Cancer or Pisces.

I would continue yapping but this bitch is the length of a fanfic one shot and it’s 7k long. What the actual fuck is this. Goodbye, and hope you’re all enlightened!

Seriously though, if you read all of this, thanks for that. Feel free to ask me any astrology questions if anything needs clarification! Love from your local Aquarius sun, Sagittarius moon, Scorpio rising. 💓

[polyamorouspixie]

Do you agree that, when opening a relationship, things should move at the speed of the more uncomfortable/less poly/more insecure partner? I've read that a lot, but also feel like forcing somebody to "take things slow" with another partner can create a lot of strain and tension in the pre-existing relationship? I've seen people on blogs/forums/reddit talk about doing things step-by-step for YEARS and meanwhile my relationship has changed a lot in less than a month... where is the middle ground?

I’ve been thinking this over for a little while. I even made M let me talk it over with him; and he’s not nearly as into relationship theory as I am (he’s found something that works, he’s happy with that. he doesn’t need to dissect it into a million pieces; I feel the same way about his political work). It’s not a thing I’ve ever had to work with consciously in my life, so I didn’t have an immediate answer. 

I think the middle ground involves looking at the circumstances.

My general, one-size-fits-most advice for a couple looking to go from monogamous to poly without anyone in particular in mind, is to spend about three months untangling from each other. Three months isn’t ages to wait but it’s long enough to establish a new normal in which you spend periods of time without your partner. You take it in turns being the one at home with no plans while the other one does something fun. You see your family and friends by yourself. You cultivate a solo or uninteresting-to-your-partner hobby. You spend entire nights without each other (sneaking back in at 5am misses the point). 

If you find it takes longer or less time than three months, absolutely fine. What it does is separate “I’m feeling bad because you’re romantically/sexually involved with someone else” from “I feel bad because you are having fun away from me”--two different problems with different solutions. You know you’ve reached the point where I’d recommend you start creating dating profiles when it’s normal and not a big deal to spend a large chunk of a day without your partner, even when you don’t have to because of work or other unavoidable commitments, and you can go to bed without them there without tossing and turning for hours. 

Once you’ve done that, you can tune back in for my advice for people opening a relationship for a particular person or people, which I’m going to waffle on about below.

I think the thing to remember here is that whether or not this works out for you is not constantly on a hair trigger of going one way or the other. Waiting an extra day or doing things in a different order isn’t the make or break of your relationship. 

I don’t believe in vetos. If you want to have certain boundaries (”I’m sorry, but I would no longer wish to be a part of this relationship if...”) that’s perfectly fine and healthy, but “you can’t do x y or z” is going to cause issues. And I don’t believe it’s a good idea to put restrictions on what your partner can do with their newer partner. I don’t think things like “you can’t have sex on the first date” or “this act is only for us and not for anyone else” or the worst, “you can’t fall in love with anyone else” ever work, because as soon as you’re in a position where the Forbidden Thing is a possibility, then it suddenly seems a very silly and arbitrary rule, and anyway it’s disrespectful to the newer partner, who is a real person too. And a lot of this “going slowly” stuff is just saying “that particular act is off the table... for now”, and falls into exactly the same pitfalls as doing that forever.

So I don’t think you should do that. What I do think you should do is instead of thinking of rules, is think in terms of being considerate. Would it upset my partner if I announce I’m in love with someone I met three weeks ago? Is it inconsiderate to ask my partner to sleep on the couch to make space for someone they don’t know? Chances are you know your partner extremely well, and even more likely, you’re in a position where you can talk to them about it. This kind of advice can’t have a “one size fits all” time frame on it because people are different. Things like “since this is the first date, I’d really prefer it if you did come home tonight afterwards, though once I’m used to the idea I’ll be fine with you staying out” are reasonable requests; “I know you have a date but you have to be in by 10pm on the dot or I will have a breakdown!” is not reasonable. Reasonable means being able to debate “okay, but the only showing of the movie ends after the last bus and she lives much nearer the cinema than we do. What if I call you to say goodnight before bed instead?” and “I’d be much happier if not, if you can reschedule for another day I’d prefer it, but I get that you’re not doing this to hurt me so I’ll be okay if this is the only day you can go”. It’s okay to discuss things so long as you don’t make demands. If you have a healthy relationship, you’ll be able to come to a compromise that reflects the reality of the situation. 

Like most of my advice, I’ve taken far too many words to say “don’t worry about it so much, let it happen organically and look at each scenario that comes up individually while being kind and fair to each other”. 

So the things that might happen here are:

1) you both take each other’s feelings into account. You include each other in decisions, go out of your way to consider each other while accepting that your partner isn’t responsible for all your feelings, and it’s important as an adult to be able to process things without demanding someone else change any time you feel bad. You make healthy decisions with your new partners, e.g. not seeing them every day for a whole week when you started seeing each other a month ago, or deciding you’re in love with someone you’ve known less than six months. Your relationship transitions to an open one over a period of time that works for you. 

2) one or both parties makes unreasonable demands like “I’m poly so I’ll sleep with whoever I like even if it’s your sister/boss/mortal enemy!” “you can have another partner but only if you only see her on Wednesdays between 3pm and 5:05pm when there’s a full moon”. You become angry and resentful, return to monogamy and hate each other. Maybe you get married so you can hate each other with rings on. 

3) one person just so happens to always have a seemingly good reason to stop whatever their partner wants to do. “I’m just having a bad day today, can you cancel your date?” “I’ve always disliked her in particular, anyone but her is fine” “well also not him either, I don’t trust him”. On its own it seems fair but as a pattern you realise they just do not want to be poly, and for whatever reason (usually fear of losing their partner), they don’t want to just say so. A hard decision is going to have to be made. 

But if you want me to put a time on it, less than a month is very rapid (though it is going to change if you open your relationship), but if after years an open relationship the participants are happy with hasn’t occurred, I’m pretty confident saying it never will. 

Feel free to message me if you have more questions about this, whether you’re original anon or someone else.

[ritamordio19]

The Idea of a Love Triangle in ACOTAR 4.0 vs. Nessian

So I’ve been much more active in the last two days on my Tumblr than I have since like....well, ever, to be honest (considering this is my first post), and I’ve been seeing a lot of mentions of a possible love triangle between Cassian and Nesta/Emerie, which I heavily disagree with, so I wanted to dissect Cassian’s character quite a bit in this post. I won’t touch Nesta’s character since, as much as I love her, I don’t think I could possibly do a better job than rhysand-vs-rowan did on the one reblog I have on my wall (seriously, read that one too; it’s amazing!!).  But Cassian is just as important (and real) to me as Nesta, and I think people don’t realize quite how large his main character trait drives his actions, which is to say: He has to help every female character in distress. And it’s true.  He literally cannot help himself whenever there is a woman in any type of problematic situation, which I factor largely due to how his own mother was treated when he was a young child and the helplessness he felt at that time when he couldn’t stop her from being killed. Now I’m not saying this is a character “flaw” per se-- he certainly does quite extraordinary deeds at times, sometimes at great personal cost, to help out these various women in his life -- but it isn’t really a choice for him and can cause serious emotional exhaustion for him when he’s overburdened (often the case when dealing with the Illyrian camps).  I see a helper’s complex in him where he can’t feel complete or satisfied as long as he knows a woman is burdened, causing emotional drainage until he’s fixed the issue. The reason I bring this up is because people are looking at how Azriel or [especially] Rhysand treat women they love/have romantic interest in and saying “Cassian treats X girl this way too, therefore there might be a love triangle.”  But they’re not comparable situations.  Rhysand --only-- put in the amount of effort he put in with Feyre because she was Feyre.  You do not see him draining himself to the bone to help Nesta now, and you did not see him draining himself to the bone to help Elain earlier either.  At best, he offered them positions in his court, a very low-energy offering, and he left almost all of the grunt work to Cassian, Azriel, and Feyre.  This is not to say he doesn’t -care- about their pain, but he is not the type to go out of his way to help while he’s busy being High Lord.  He is much more of a passive resource, available to help if asked for, which Elain only uses to a small extent and Nesta is incapable of using (as it would require her to ask for help, something she is currently not capable of and possibly/probably does not believe she deserves at the moment, with the amount of trauma she is dealing with). Azriel we have less information on, but he puts exactly zero work into helping Nesta, while putting in a noticeably larger effort with Elain.  And were Morrigan to ever have another traumatic event, it is almost assured that Azriel would be there for her as well. Cassian, on the other hand, has been like this with every woman he has encountered in the story who has been hurt, regardless of [lack of] romantic interest.  He put in emotional work with Feyre during their initial training, and he constantly, CONSTANTLY fights for the rights of Illyrian women to remain unclipped and holds these rights and their rights to be trained as his #1 and #2 priorities when in Illyrian camps during non-war times.  In addition, while he admits doing so due to jealousy and claims he regrets it, I don’t think he truly would reverse his decision to sleep with Morrigan if that decision had come five years ago instead of 500 years ago.  I do strongly believe that, even with age/wisdom/”maturity”, he would’ve risked sacrificing his friendship with Azriel to save her from a life in the Autumn Court with who he believed Eris to be (who Eris truly is?), not having advance knowledge of what her parents would do to her. Yes, he has gone overboard emotionally with Nesta as a result of his interest in her, mainly in terms of their mutual verbal jabbing, but remember this really crucial line, when Cassian realizes she’d been sexually assaulted, from their small story in the back covers of ACOMAF:

“She hadn’t answered him.  ‘Would it change anything if someone had?  Would it make you see me differently, treat me differently?’

‘It’d make me hunt them down and shatter every bone in their body.’ A shiver went down her spine -- not at the fear of him, but at the truth in the promise.  The sincerity. ‘You don’t know me,’ she said.  ‘Why bother?’ Cassian snarled, inching closer, his hand gripping hers -- then paused.  As if the question sunk in.  As if reality sunk in.  He blinked.  ‘I’d do it for anyone.’ She knew he meant it -- and that he would.”

In terms of him acting as the protector/helper figure that he is, he would go to the ends of the earth for anyone.  So the pain he feels at Emerie’s wings being clipped, the anger he feels that the entire village is ignoring her store because a female Illyrian is running it -- that would’ve been the same for any female he encountered. In fact, he demonstrates the same exact internal dialogue/speech with Emerie that he does with literally any female character in the cast other than Nesta.  While he may make comparisons to Nesta, these are still passive thoughts from his first impression of a new face (and daughter of an old friend), and they have no emotional baggage or romantic obsessiveness behind them. I want you to compare this to his attitude towards Nesta, far different than with any other member of the cast.  In their first and second meetings, he has a very low view of her due to her treatment of Feyre and insults her [protecting Feyre], earning a fairly large backlash from her as well.  Importantly, at no point does he see her in any way as vulnerable or burdened until he finds out her past trauma from sexual assault in their second meeting.  He doesn’t know about her starving herself (and by proxy her other sisters) in order to try to force her father to do something and the subsequent guilt she faces.  He doesn’t know about the trauma she faced watching her mother die.  He doesn’t know about Tomas until mid-second meeting.  He doesn’t even know about her loneliness/feeling of madness at being the only one to know the truth in their entire household in the midst of Tamlin’s glimmer on their household.  He doesn’t know how she braved the forest for weeks in order to try to rescue Feyre.  Yet, importantly, he says this in his inner monologue before meeting her the second time to deliver Rhysand’s message:

“Cassian surveyed the estate, the muddy, thawing grounds, the distant village, and looming, budding forest.  He’d left their first encounter not entirely sure where he’d stood, or who’d had the upper hand.  And, Mother damn him, in the past few weeks, he’d found himself turning over every word and look he’d exchanged with her, over and over.

None of it had been pleasant, every syllable from her mouth barbed and vicious, and...Cassian huffed a breath, hot tendrils ripping away in the wind.  He couldn’t tell what was worse: that he’d thought so much about it, or that he’d run here so damn fast.  And was now...dawdling.

The thought sent him into a swift, reckless dive for the green-roofed estate.

Nesta is the only character in the entire series that Cassian feels this way towards.  She is the only character who gets under his skin -- Emerie included. And remember, this started from their first meeting, whereas his meeting with Emerie was the very definition of platonic, even as he felt the need to solve her shop’s financial crisis.  Seriously, could you imagine the following:

He’d had lovers, some for a night and some for months, and Mor had never cared, but...

This woman standing before him like a pillar of steel and flame...Cassian didn’t want to tell Mor about her.  About how he’d touched her neck.

...being said about any other female character in the series, even Emerie?  Cassian would likely help any woman in distress the way he helps Nesta, but would he freak out about them, constantly replaying their conversations in his head?  Would he find himself drawn, time and time again, to any other woman that he views with as much disdain as he did Nesta in their early days?  He literally calls her a bitch at least three times in their second meeting alone, and that’s not counting the large number of other insults he sends her way, whether stated out loud or not, all with full intent.

Conclusion

Now, I will temper my comments to a small degree at the end here, which is that, despite being a huge Nessian shipper, I do think it is possible that they do not end up together despite believing, without a doubt in my mind, that they are mates.  I just do not think that this would ever be due to Cassian’s end, which is what an Emerie love triangle would entail.  

On the other hand, Nesta is dealing with quite heavy emotional trauma post-war, and she is [very understandably] pissed off that literally everyone sees her as Cassian’s.  She is free to do whatever she wants, and she may choose to take her own path as Cassian (and the rest of the Court) reminds her too much of the reasoning for various aspects of her trauma (the Cauldron, the war, her father dying).  And that is absolutely okay -- she has the right to make her own choice, even if it isn’t Cassian, even if the person she chooses isn’t her mate (are you hearing me Feyre about Elain?????).

But I 100,000% believe with my entire heart that Cassian would rather go single another 500 years than ever give his heart to anyone but her. Thanks for reading my way-too-long comments on Cassian.  Let me know if you agree/disagree -- I’d be interested to know why the love triangle theorists believe Emerie to be in play for Cassian’s emotions and am open to having my mind changed.  Until then, I’m straight Nessian trash though~~.