#and on the spectrum of closeness people in authority are on the far end of ''you are not my friend'' you can address me with the formal you

[mishkakagehishka]

Hate being forgetful actually

[mrkerina]

Decent 𓍼 Park Jisung

— (high school au) in which you’re insecure and he worries about you.

Pairing — Park jisung (nct) x fem!reader

Word count — 1384

Content — You have never gotten validation all your life, life felt a little bit bleak but he managed to light it up even if for only a moment.

M.list + Author’s note — I decided that i’ll post for leisure, still love the feeling of just writing. I’m a sucker for words of affirmation btw. Happy reading!

You look decent.

Your grades are decent.

Your skills are decent.

Decent. That is just what she was. Regardless of how much tireless effort she places in everything she does, all she ends up with is that one word - Decent.

It has never been anything more nor anything less. She felt suffocated by that word like she could never be recognised for being something more. It was as if she was just a figment of imagination in a sea of people. No one wanted someone who was just decent.

They would always go for exceptionally good people. The ones who stood out. Those that were way more skillful, talented or smart in everything they do.

It was just unfair.

Why is it that she was never anything more than decent to anyone? Why did she have to struggle so much just to try to be something better?

Perfection seemed unattainable. She felt as if she always fell short from everyone around her. She could study for days for a test but still score decently as compared to others who study the night before and still do better than her.

Maybe it was just her method of studying that was not suited for her, but to her - it felt like she just had something lacking in every aspect of her life.

⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉

Just like everything else in life, there are always two ends of the spectrum. In this case, Park Jisung was everything but decent. From his looks to the way he dances so flawlessly and smoothly, everything about him was exceptional.

No one is perfect, but he sure comes close to being perfect. You were envious of him. He had the reputation that everyone wanted, it felt like he had his entire life already laid out in front of him. It was easy to tell where he was headed towards, whether or not he would be successful in life. Everything just felt easy for him, while you had to constantly suffer from the pessimistic thoughts of not being able to make it far in life - ending up with a job that you absolutely hate to do.

From Jisung’s perspective though, it would be a lie if he said that his life was not easy. It did feel like he could have everything and anything he wanted, he didn’t feel like a complete failure. But that was exactly what kept him up at night - the fear of failing.

He constantly worked to make himself seem like a strong person, someone who was so accomplished and had everything set out in life. And he is successful at doing just that, in accomplishing everything he puts his mind to, everything except for you.

⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉

“Okay class, settle down, I will be giving back your test papers that you did two weeks ago,” the teacher’s voice roared through the class. “I would like to congratulate Park Jisung on getting full marks….again.” A round of applause sounded throughout the class as he smiled shyly at the attention as he went up to take his paper. His eyes skimmed the class and towards the girl in the corner who was just staring out of the window into space.

Unknowingly, the corners of his lip tilted down slightly and a slight wave of sadness washed through him.

As people walked to the front one by one to collect their papers, his eyes couldn’t help but drift towards you. When it reached your turn, you took the paper in anticipation but when you saw the score on the front page, your heart sank.

64%. That was the usual grade that you got and yet you still couldn’t help but feel disappointed over and over again. Your classmates were all squealing at their scores while you sat back at your seat silently. Another test that you studied hard for and yet still didn’t improve nor get a score that you wanted.

“For those who did well, good job. For those who didn’t do as well, go home and reflect, and do better next time. You are all dismissed.”

⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉⑉

You sighed in defeat, looking through your mistakes as you stayed at your seat while everyone else in class ran out of the door. Your heart felt heavy, as you started to grip the paper progressively harder the more you stare at it.

Once it was only you left in class, it was as if it was the trigger as the tears started rolling down your face. One came after another until you were full-on sobbing. The pressure just felt too much for you, and the disappointment that came with it just further aggravated the emotions that you felt.

Your future felt bleak. How can you pursue something if you weren’t good at anything?

In this vulnerable moment, a boy happened to rush into the classroom. Seemingly in a rush to grab something but got alarmed when he saw the teary-eyed girl sitting in the corner. Jisung stopped in his tracks, grimacing when the door slammed behind him causing you to jump in surprise.

You didn’t expect anyone to come in, especially him.

You vigorously jumped into action, wiping away your tears and calming yourself down. Although it didn’t exactly work, you continued to hiccup and looked away from the boy who looked like a deer caught in headlights.

He let out an awkward cough. “Um..sorry…I forgot to grab something…” he trailed off. You simply nodded in response, still facing away from him, not wanting him to see you in this state. Jisung hesitated before asking “are you okay?”

“Yes,” you softly replied, your voice slightly choked up from the lump in your throat. “I’m fine.”

The boy walked to his desk to take his phone before walking back towards the door but paused midway. In his head he knew that maybe he should just leave her alone to sort out her feelings but he couldn’t simply shake away the tightening of his chest with every sob that she quietly let out in the midst of the silent classroom.

With a goal in mind, he turned back around and quietly took a seat opposite her. His palms started sweating as his brain spun sentences on what to say or do. After a few wordless moments, he finally spoke up. “Do you want to talk about it?” He questioned softly, not wanting to scare the girl. “Uh or if you’re uncomfortable I can actually leave…maybe i’m just being intrusive, if so i’m sorry,” he started rambling.

You looked up, slightly surprised at how close he was to you. “No, it’s okay. I’m not uncomfortable, I'm just upset about my test that’s all,” you said, mumbling the last part.

“64% is pretty good. Why are you sad? Cheer up okay, there is always a next time!” Jisung smiled trying to be optimistic but stopping when he watched the girl scoff.

“You can say that because you got full marks.”

“Huh what, no, of course not. I’m just saying it is pretty good considering half the class failed.”

You sighed, shoving your test paper in your bag before zipping it up. “It’s just a decent score, there is nothing good about it,” You muttered. “Nevermind, you can go, I’ll be fine. You’re right, it is just another test I did decently in. Whatever. I’ll just leave after I look better, you can go though, thanks for checking in on me.”

You looked back out the window, resting your chin on your palm, expecting him to leave. However, instead, Jisung grabbed a pen from your pencil case and took a post-it paper that he kept under his table before scribbling on it. He left it on the corner of your table before quietly turning around to leave.

“Just text me if you ever need help in anything or uh just need someone to talk to okay?” He said before closing the door behind him.

You looked at the post-it after the door closed with a thud. Your heart warmed reading it, your lips stretching into a small smile. Hope bloomed in your chest, maybe everything will be okay.

You are never just decent to me.

You did well, I’m proud of you :)

It’ll get better.

Here is my number if you ever need it

061-321-3928

— Jisung.

[bookscandlesnbts]

Quick facts about me that no one asked for:

Figured since I’ve posted more here and answered some asks, I would share some facts about me on my blog both BTS/Jikook related and non related.

1.) I became ARMY during quarantine era. A friend got me into them. After I watched their MMA 2019 performance I was blown away. She was a Yoongi bias so that is whose content I initially watched and gravitated towards. When I ventured out on my own and watched more performance stages and Run BTS I knew immediately that I was drawn to Jimin. Everything from his stage presence, gorgeous vocals and dance lines, funny and sassy personality, but also super empathetic and caring. He was it for me and still is. But I do love all seven of them. I could probably rank them in order of my “favorites” but Jimin would be number 1 without a doubt.

***super fun fact is that I actually first was exposed to BTS in 2017 :( that’s right, I could have stanned back then. I frequently kind of kidding but not really refer to this as my biggest regret. An undergrad in my research group was obsessed with them. She showed me a clip of them dancing and probably because I didn’t like her that much (she was friends with someone toxic) I chalked it up as so they sing and dance? Who cares. I ended up reconnecting with her later when I stanned and found out that she was a low-key TKK shipper and loved reading their fanfics. By that point, I was already sus of Jikook so we clashed and I don’t talk to her. 🤣

2.) That brings me to point number two. The most important: Jikook. I wish I could remember the first time I was like yep this is a thing but I don’t. I do remember the first Jikook moment that I was exposed to was their Black Swan pas de deux. I remember finding their chemistry palpable and bold of them to perform a romantic dance together but that was it. The more I watched Run BTS and being a Jimin bias I couldn’t help but notice JK too and their closeness. What was the nail in the coffin so to speak? The cliches. GCF Tokyo and Rosebowl did it for me and I’ve been endeared by them ever since.

3.) I’m a sort of Jikook fanfic writer on A03 who I guess is on a hiatus and has been for awhile now. I love fanfiction and have been reading it and writing it a little since I was like 12. I was never a RPF girlie until BTS but I view them as characters in a story because that is what they are when I’m reading or writing fics. Not the actual people.

4.) I’m asexual and probably aromatic to some extent too. Asexuality is so misunderstood, I could go on about it for days, but I’m not the authority on it by any means. I like the idea of sex in the abstract. Fanfics, great. M/M where I don’t feel inserted in the act, even better. I’m not a prude, I just don’t experience sexual attraction. The idea of looking at someone even the tannies and wanting to fuck them makes me uncomfortable and it’s something I can’t relate to and have never felt. I’ve had sex of course, but it’s never lived up to the hype for me. I can definitely live without it. As far as being aromantic that I’m not sure. I love the idea of romance or I wouldn’t be so smitten with Jikook and other cute couples. I don’t actively seek romance in my life. I don’t date or want to date. I haven’t had a crush on someone in like 10 years. I’m not opposed to it. Their gender wouldn’t matter to me but it’s not something I feel like I need in my life. If you are anywhere on the ace spectrum or are LGBTQIA+, hi you are more than welcome here.

5.) I’m educated! I have a PhD in chemistry. I am on the Professor track and I teach organic chemistry. I spent 7 years in grad school combined for my masters and PhD.

So yeah! This way you know a little about me when you send in asks. I am terrible at formatting and use my phone only for Tumblr, so my blog probably won’t ever be pretty. I’m just here for connections and content that is more in depth than Twitter. Yes, I’m still calling it twitter. Sorry not sorry Elon.

[greenerteacups]

Hi GT! Curious to know: do you have thoughts about people wanting to be friends with or close to people they admire or are a fan of—especially when they only know them through their work (music, movies or writing)? Would especially love to know what you think of this in the context of fandom spaces.

Hi, anon! I don't think there's anything wrong with people wanting to be friends with someone whose work they admire. Especially in fandom space, where we're all hobbyists, and the line between creator and audience is much less blurry. You get much more of a creator's personality in fandom than you do in professional media, which makes it easier to feel connected to them as an individual. It's a bit different from watching Oppenheimer and going "I want to be Chris Nolan's friend."

Reading someone's work is inevitably a revealing experience, so it's not wrong for an audience to feel closer to the author as a result. The problem arises when they project that closeness in the form of an imagined relationship with the creator, whom they do not know, and who — perhaps more importantly — does not know them. That's where you get discomfiting levels of overfamiliarity from strangers, and at the far end of the spectrum, a sense of entitlement to the creator's time and attention in the same way you'd feel entitled to a friend's. The danger of these relationships is honestly way more on the audience side than the creator (though it's not, like, super comfortable to be the object of parasocial attention), because it feels like their actual friend is rejecting them. It's a hard thing, especially when one of the great joys of fan community is mutual validation through offerings of love and time (writing on the one hand, comments and appreciation on the other).

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Salomé Sibonex

Published: Jan 15, 2024

You can’t make a move or state an opinion without confronting the real pandemic of our time: control freaks.

The loudest people today are the ones who are most certain they alone have everything figured out—everything. Which ideas are worth debating, how you should raise your kids, what makes a relationship good, what political beliefs you should have, and of course, how the entirety of our society should be run. 

There’s no need for you anymore—that is, the you who’s an individual with unique experiences, insights, and the desire to forge a life of your own. The you that control freaks want is a body with a social security number that grants them the ability to sway society through social pressure and majority rule. All that extra stuff you call “individuality" is an obstacle to making you a cog in their machine.

Because what’s the point of other people if you can’t make them do what you want?

Instead of living out the unique life that each of us has, the pressure from those who want control over us has pushed many people to pursue conformity. Whether it comes from parents, peers, or authority figures, people learn to give control freaks what they want early in life.

It should be restated (every day, at least): we live in strange times. We all know this, but it’s easy to acclimate to the weirdness and forget just how strange our times are. We focus on the big examples: war, political polarization, TikTok-transmitted illnesses. The truly strange stuff is more subtle, though. It’s the way your online reputation is increasingly more valuable than your real-world reputation. It’s the way your government and strangers in far-off countries have access to your attention any time you check the news or your phone. It’s the way our migration into massively populated cities and our constant connection to all of humanity online makes humans seem less precious, and more disposable. All the right ingredients are coming together to make your individuality worse than useless. 

As our culture becomes one where the appearance of being a good person surpasses the importance of actually being good, the way we value others is also mutating. More people are losing their tolerance for anyone who isn’t like them. While we act like our political differences amount to a battle between good and evil, the truth is less extreme: some people value freedom more than care, and others value care more than freedom. This is the normal spectrum of different beliefs and values we encounter daily, whether among friends, colleagues, or the neighbors we now ignore. These are the old, inevitable differences that have shown up since the birth of electoral politics, where we routinely face the reality that about half our country is more liberal or conservative than the other half.

But as talking TV heads, curated newsfeeds, and infinite block lists invade our lives, it’s getting harder to recall the value in tolerating our differences.

Trust degrades quickly when the threat of being controlled by strangers looms too closely. We were once incentivized to accept occasional losses to the other side as the cost of democracy, but when it seems like one side is playing for keeps, few will risk giving an inch.

As our culture has become more embattled, our lives have become more comfortable and customizable than ever. An entire country that once sat down at the same time to watch the same cable broadcast is now divided into nearly infinite timelines, with each individual choosing what they’ll watch and when. You once listened to music in the order the artist arranged their album, but most people I know don’t listen to albums anymore—they listen to single songs out of a library they’ve customized. Social media is customized to give you an experience dictated by you, from what you see and who you see it from to what you’ll mute and block out of your attention. We’re so accustomed to our custom lives that we don’t even see the novelty in our customized home temperatures until we’re somewhere we can’t control.

Would it be crazy to question whether our customized lives are making us intolerant of anything—and anyone—that doesn’t bend to our will? 

I wasn’t born appreciating the ways people differ from me. I once believed people with different political views were just blocking the path to where society “should” be. My dysfunctional relationship with reality meant anything that didn’t conform to my beliefs needed to be denied or suppressed. Whether it was other people’s beliefs or my own flaws, I hadn’t yet learned that “should” is a dark, intoxicating concept that can trick you into denying reality for the sake of a fantasy. My immature moral certainty about what I thought other people “should” believe entitled me to use any means to change them, from social pressure to government policies. The reality of other people’s different values, ideas, and goals didn’t conform to my desires, so in my naive mind, the obvious response was to change reality. But reality is hard to change—especially when you refuse to acknowledge it first, and especially if it involves anyone’s perception of reality besides yours. My resistance to reality made me turn to manipulation, deception, and defensiveness—all strategies for taking control when reality doesn’t affirm delusion.

I’m lucky that my resistance to reality failed me early in life. A painful break-up made me realize how futile my efforts to deny reality were. No matter how much I tried to change myself or the other person, the reality of our incompatibility remained. The only real choice I had about reality was whether I would face it or fight it and eventually face it regardless, but with added suffering.

The more willing I became to see reality as it was, the more equipped I became to understand and deal with it. 

Unlike most things in our lives today, other people are not customizable. The control we enjoy over what we watch and who we block doesn’t transfer to the real people in the world around us. When leftists complain that every conservative is a racist or conservatives complain that every leftist is evil, they’re refusing to see an inconvenient reality: annoying, misinformed people still exist no matter how passionately you believe they shouldn’t. No amount of deception, manipulation, or other control tactics will change reality—they just obscure it. Or worse, when too many people forget the value of tolerating the reality that people unlike you have a right to their existence too, the result is often suffering and loss of life. 

Instead of trying to control people we differ from, we have to see the reality of our differences as information to work with. It won’t be as easy as clinging to delusion, but people who value others as more than a means to their ends make for neighbors we might actually talk to again.

[jrhartauthor]

When it comes to writing contemporary romance, there are certain expectations that readers may have:

A happily ever after or happy for now ending (HEA or HFN)

Chemistry between the main character and love interest

Intimacy

But when it comes to the last point, it’s high time to recognize that intimacy comes in different forms. For one, not every book needs on-page sexual intimacy. Many writers choose a closed-door sex scene, or to have their characters go as far as kissing and stop short of anything past that. But as LGBTQ+ representation in fiction grows, and we start to see more asexual and aromantic rep in stories, it may not just be about what an author wants to share on the page, but also about what a character feels comfortable with doing with their partner.

When it comes to writing characters under the ace and aro umbrellas, it’s important to know that these identities aren’t a monolith. Some asexual characters are sex-repulsed. Some enjoy sex in the right circumstances. Some enjoy sex under all circumstances. Asexual simply means “does not experience sexual attraction.” It doesn’t necessarily mean the character doesn’t want to have sex. Similarly, asexual characters may have an identity anywhere along the ace spectrum. A character could be asexual, gray asexual, demisexual… the list goes on.

Aromantic characters could want a queerplatonic partnership. Some aromantic characters may be okay with a relationship where their partner is alloromantic, and experiences and shares romantic feelings toward them, even if they don’t share those feelings in return, and that’s okay too.

When writing your character, taking time to research their specific identity and make sure that you’re writing it authentically is a huge help. Spend time learning about the terms used within the ace and aro communities, and what your character might feel, think, and understand of sexuality and romance.

As I wrote The Heartbreak Handshake, I honestly wondered whether or not readers would be okay with an contemporary romance with hugging as the peak of physical intimacy in the story. While the series it is a part of—the Clover Hill Romance series—ranges from no sex on page to open-door fully descriptive sex, and I knew there was a place for it in the series itself, having space in a series and space in readers’ hearts is a very different thing.

It turns out a lot of my fears were unfounded. The reality is, pushing your character outside of their comfort zone will bother a reader far more than writing something they may feel is “tame” by comparison to other stories. And if they’re not a fan of where your character (and you) draw the line? They may not be your target audience!

Regardless of if you’re writing the spiciest of spice allo romance, or an asexual one, using inclusive language is incredibly important. In the same way that you wouldn’t want to say “my friend Taz likes both genders,” (if Taz likes men and women, you can say men and women without dismissing that other genders exist), using inclusive language when it comes to asexuality and aromanticism can be helpful too. Check out the difference between these two ways of phrasing things:

“After spending so much time with her, my hope is that one day, we’ll be more than friends.”

“After spending so much time with my best friend, my hope is that she’ll feel the same spark I do.”

Both of these sentences imply that two people are on the cusp of a potential relationship, and that maybe they’ve been friends in the past with a possibility the relationship may shift in the future. Now take this example into consideration.

“Judging by the way they both acted, I got the impression they were more than friends.”

“Judging by the way they both acted, I got the impression they were definitely into each other.”

Again, both sentences convey the same basic meaning. But once again, one conveys that being friends is “less than” being in a romantic or sexual relationship. This isn’t true! And for many, a friendship is equally (or more) desirable.

All it takes is a little shifting of your language to make it more inclusive, and make sure that you’re putting romantic, sexual, and platonic relationships on equal footing.

If you’re not asexual or aromantic, writing a character that is can be hard. After all, there are tons of misconceptions about asexual and aromantic people. Hiring a sensitivity reader within this community—especially if they share your character’s exact identity—can help you ensure the most accurate portrayal possible. Even if you are ace or aro, the reality is, different ace and aro people have different experiences, and getting a second perspective (or third! Or fourth!) can help you flesh out your character more realistically. Lived experience when writing will almost always be better than writing a character you don’t share an identity with, especially if that identity is a margilized one—like another race, sexuality, or gender identity. Keeping that in mind as you write can help you pick your character and what you’re writing to begin with.

No one will ever argue that beta reading isn’t difficult or time consuming, but unlike beta reading, sensitivity reading places a special burden on the reader, often on a marginalized reader. Sensitivity reads are often reserved for reading a specific racial, sexual, gender, cultural, or disabled identity, and this can put a huge emotional or mental drain on a sensitivity reader. As a result, sensitivity reading should be paid work whenever possible. That said, if a sensitivity reader is up for a work or goods exchange, by all means, that’s an option too. Just remember that a sensitivity read requires a very different skillset and level of effort than beta reading or editing, and should be compensated accordingly.

You don’t have to skirt around your characters’ identity in writing. Often, sharing character identity actually helps a reader find what they’re looking for, both as you write and as you market your work as a writer. Being unapologetic about your characters’ ace or aro identity can help you find the readers your book is after.

Understanding Asexuality-The Trevor Project The Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN)* Asexuality, Attraction, and Romantic Orientation-UNC Chapel Hill’s LGBTQ Center 5 Asexuals Explain what Asexuality Means to Them-Tinder (Video) 4 Demisexual People Explain what Demisexuality Means to Them-Tinder (Video) r/Asexuality and r/Aromantic on Reddit (Additional identities linked in Reddit Sidebars)** What it Means to be Aromantic-VeryWellMind Aromantic-spectrum Union for Recognition, Education, and Advocacy (AUREA)

*Please note: AVEN’s forums have sometimes been problematic. Your mileage may vary. Viewer discretion is advised.

**Reddit can often be problematic, especially outside of LGBTQ+ subreddits, but also within them. Viewer discretion is advised.

Please note Amazon links are affiliate links

The Heartbreak Handshake (cis m/nonbinary)

Goodreads | Amazon

Clover Hill Romance Series website | Goodreads | Amazon

Sex-repulsed asexual MC, nonbinary MC, autistic MC with sensory aversion to sexual intimacy, MC with ADHD

Content warnings: real-life aviation disasters resulting in death, autistic character faces unkindness for being autistic, referenced ace-phobia

Paxton McKee, Clover Hill’s rideshare driver and handyman, is known by his customers as responsible, dependable, and loyal. On first dates, though, he’s known by another word: boring. His dates never seem to appreciate his in-depth knowledge of famous aviation disasters or his LEGO expertise. His book club buddy, Mrs. Sawyer, keeps trying to set him up. But after so many failed dates, Paxton’s given up on finding someone who can accept him, special interests, stims, and all.

Hand-crafter Remi Sawyer put Clover Hill in their rear-view mirror to sell at craft fairs across the country. But being a traveling artisan is harder than Remi thought. With mounting bills, they’ve ended up back home. Being in their old teenage bedroom is weird. Even weirder, their mother keeps trying to set them up on dates, even after they’ve made it clear the homecoming is temporary.

To get Mrs. Sawyer off their backs, Paxton and Remi agree on a scheme: they’ll go on three dates. When it’s over, Paxton can pretend to be heartbroken, and Remi can get back on the road. They even shake on it. But awkward dates lead to the realization the two have a lot in common. Kissing is gross? Check. Spending quiet time doing projects together is enjoyable? Double check.

But Remi is still hell-bent on leaving Clover Hill again, and Paxton is dead-set on staying. Can they find a new vision that doesn’t involve Remi leaving their kindred spirit behind, or are they both destined to lose the person who might be their perfect companion?

–

Go Truck Yourself (cis f/nonbinary)

Coming Soon

Clover Hill Romance Series website | Goodreads | Amazon

Aromantic MC, nonbinary MC, Asexual MC, bi/panromantic MC, single parent MC, autistic child side character

Content warnings: attempted business sabotage, mentions of absentee parents, brief mention of a parent’s sobriety/rehab, brief mention of a deceased parent, mention of the death of a sperm donor/family member, minors using curse words, family member with dementia, mention of foreign exchange study programs in a positive light, mentions of travel social media and modern colonization

Between being a single parent and running a successful food truck, Myla Horan has no room for drama in her life. She's got her nose to the grindstone to make Tasteful Noods a successful noodle business year-round. But when her friend-turned-rival Zo comes back to town, they start to squeeze into her prime Clover Hill locations… and her profit margins.

After Zo moves back to town to care for their ailing uncle and starts a business of their own, they’re not surprised that Myla’s Tasteful Noods are faring better than their tiny food trailer, You're My Jam. After all, driven Myla can do anything she sets her mind to. Unfortunately, it also means all of the animosity they ended things with has resurfaced.

When Myla and Zo agree there's only room in Clover Hill for one of them, they make a deal: whoever loses the First Annual Clover Hill Food Truck Frenzy shuts down their truck. Forever.

But will serious sabotage leave them both truckless for the competition and threaten both of their chances at victory? Or will they work together as an unexpected dream team and find out they’re better as partners than rivals after all?

–

Getting Off (cis m/cis m)

Goodreads | Amazon | NineStar Press Website

Demisexual MC, biromantic/bisexual MC, gay MC

Content warnings: homophobia, homophobic slurs, bi-erasure, biphobia, sexual assault (on page), forced outing

JJ is certain he’s got everything figured out. He’s straight, right? He’s just not into the hookup culture prevalent on his college soccer team. But he’s trying to hide that to avoid getting on his team captain’s bad side.

Kade is anything but straight. Out and proud, he’s curious about how the “other half” lives… even as his best friends remind him there’s more to the LGBTQ+ community than just the “G.” Curious, Kade texts JJ a simple question: do straight guys ever get off together?

When JJ’s reply leads to a head-spinning sexual spark, he starts questioning everything he knows about his sexuality, both in terms of who he’s attracted to, and also why hookups have never been his thing. But when JJ endures trauma that confuses him more, he starts pushing Kade away. Kade has to learn how to be a supportive friend, and more than that, a supportive partner, or risk losing JJ altogether. And JJ? He has to fight for his team to be team players, even when they suspect he’s “playing for the other team.”

Please note: I haven’t read every book on the above lists, and cannot vouch for them. My inclusion of these lists here is not a recommendation of these books specifically, but instead an indication they exist.

LGBTQReads List of Books by Romantic/Sexual Orientation from @lgbtqreads

EpicREADS list of 23 YA Books with Asexual Representation from @epicreads

QueerBooksforTeens list of books with Aromantic Characters

QueerBooksforTeens list of books with Asexual Characters

Buzzfeed’s list of 17 Books about Asexual and Aromantic Validation from @buzzfeedbooks (cc: @buzzfeedlgbt)

Did you find this post helpful? Consider buying me a Ko-Fi!

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter 1. Human Nature

Aren’t domination and authority natural?

Nowadays, it is harder to make ideological justifications for the state. A massive body of research demonstrates that many human societies have been staunchly egalitarian, and that even within capitalism many people continue to form egalitarian networks and communities. In order to reconcile this with their view that evolution is a matter of fierce competition, some scientists have postulated a “human egalitarian syndrome,” theorizing that humans evolved to live in close-knit, homogenous groups, in which the passing on of members’ genes was not assured by the survival of the individual but by the survival of the group.

According to this theory, cooperation and egalitarianism prevailed within these groups because it was in everyone’s genetic self-interest that the group survived. Genetic competition occurred between different groups, and the groups that did the best job of taking care of their members were the ones to pass on their genes. Direct genetic competition between individuals was superseded by competition between different groups employing different social strategies, and humans evolved a whole host of social skills that allowed for greater cooperation. This would explain why, for most of human existence, we have lived in societies with little or no hierarchy, until certain technological developments allowed some societies to stratify and dominate their neighbors.

This is not to say that domination and authority were unnatural, and that technology was a forbidden fruit that corrupted an otherwise innocent humanity. In fact, some hunter-gatherer societies were so patriarchal they used gang rape as a form of punishment against women, and some societies with agriculture and metal tools have been fiercely egalitarian. Some of the peoples in North America’s Pacific Northwest were sedentary hunter-gatherers and they had a heavily stratified society with a slave class. And at the far end of the technological spectrum, nomadic hunter-gatherer groups in Australia were dominated by male elders. Older men could have multiple wives, younger men had none, and women were evidently doled out like social property.[13]

Humans are capable of both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian behavior. Horizontal societies that were not intentionally anti-authoritarian could easily have developed coercive hierarchies when new technologies made that possible, and even without a lot of technology they could make life hell for groups considered inferior. It seems that the most common forms of inequality among otherwise egalitarian societies were gender and age discrimination, which could accustom a society to inequality and create the prototype for a power structure — rule by male elders. This structure could become more powerful over time with the development of metal tools and weapons, surpluses, cities, and the like.

The point, though, is that these forms of inequality were not inevitable. Societies that frowned on authoritarian behaviors consciously avoided the rise of hierarchy. In fact, many societies have given up centralized organization or technologies that allow for domination. This shows that history is not a one-way track. For example, the Moroccan Imazighen, or Berbers, did not form centralized political systems over the past several centuries, even while other societies around them did. “Establishing a dynasty is next to impossible,” wrote one commentator, “due to the fact that the chief is faced with constant revolt which ultimately becomes successful and returns the system to the old decentralized anarchic order.”[14]

What is the factor that allows societies to avoid domination and coercive authority? A study by Christopher Boehm, surveying dozens of egalitarian societies on all continents, including peoples who lived as foragers, horticulturalists, agriculturalists, and pastoralists, found that the common factor is a conscious desire to remain egalitarian: an anti-authoritarian culture. “The primary and most immediate cause of egalitarian behavior is a moralistic determination on the part of a local group’s main political actors that no one of its members should be allowed to dominate the others.”[15] Rather than culture being determined by material conditions, it seems that culture shapes the social structures that reproduce a people’s material conditions.

In certain situations some form of leadership is inevitable, as some people have more skills or a more charismatic personality. Consciously egalitarian societies respond to these situations by not institutionalizing the position of leader, by not affording a leader any special privileges, or by fostering a culture that makes it shameful for that person to flaunt his or her leadership or try to gain power over others. Furthermore, leadership positions change from one situation to another, depending on the skills needed for the task at hand. The leaders during a hunt are different from the leaders during house-building or ceremonies. If a person in a leadership role tries to gain more power or dominate his or her peers, the rest of the group employs “intentional leveling mechanisms”: behaviors intended to bring the leader back down to earth. For example, among many anti-authoritarian hunter-gatherer societies, the most skillful hunter in a band faces criticism and ridicule if he is seen to brag and use his talents to boost his ego rather than for the benefit of the whole group.

If these social pressures do not work, the sanctions escalate, and in many egalitarian societies in the final instance they will kick out or kill a leader who is incurably authoritarian, long before that leader is able to assume coercive powers. These “reverse dominance hierarchies,” in which the leaders must obey popular will because they are powerless to maintain their positions of leadership without support, have appeared in many different societies and functioned over long periods of time. Some of the egalitarian societies documented in Boehm’s survey have a chief or a shaman who plays a ritual role or acts as an impartial mediator in disputes; others appoint a leader in times of trouble, or have a peace chief and a war chief. But these positions of leadership are not coercive, and over hundreds of years have not developed into authoritarian roles. Often the people who fill these roles see them as a temporary social responsibility, which they wish to hand off swiftly because of the higher level of criticism and responsibility they face while occupying them.

European civilization has historically demonstrated a much higher tolerance for authoritarianism than the egalitarian societies described in the survey. Yet as the political and economic systems that would become the modern state and capitalism were developing in Europe, there were a number of rebellions that demonstrate that even here authority was an imposition. One of the greatest of these rebellions was the Peasants War. In 1524 and 1525, as many as 300,000 peasant insurgents, joined by townsfolk and some lesser nobility, rose up against the property owners and church hierarchy in a war that left about 100,000 people dead throughout Bavaria, Saxony, Thüringen, Schwaben, Alsace, as well as parts of what are now Switzerland and Austria. The princes and clergy of the Holy Roman Empire had been steadily increasing taxes to pay for rising administrative and military costs, as government became more top-heavy. The artesans and workers of the towns were affected by these taxes, but the peasants received the heaviest burden. To increase their power and their revenue, princes forced free peasants into serfdom, and resurrected Roman Civil law, which instituted private ownership of land, something of a step backwards from the feudal system in which the land was a trust between peasant and lord that involved rights and obligations.

Meanwhile, elements of the old feudal hierarchy, such as the knighthood and the clergy, were becoming obsolete, and conflicted with other elements of the ruling class. The new burgher mercantile class, as well as many progressive princes, opposed the privileges of the clergy and the conservative structure of the Catholic church. A new, less centralized structure that could base power in councils in the towns and cities, such as the system proposed by Martin Luther, would allow the new political class to ascend.

In the years immediately prior to the War, a number of Anabaptist prophets began travelling around the region espousing revolutionary ideas against political authority, church doctrine, and even against the reforms of Martin Luther. These people included Thomas Dreschel, Nicolas Storch, Mark Thomas Stübner, and most famously, Thomas Müntzer. Some of them argued for total religious freedom, the end of non-voluntary baptism, and the abolition of government on earth. Needless to say they were persecuted by Catholic authorities and by supporters of Luther and banned from many cities, but they continued to travel around Bohemia, Bavaria, and Switzerland, winning supporters and stoking peasant rebelliousness.

In 1524, peasants and urban workers met in the Schwarzwald region of Germany and drafted the 12 Articles of the Black Forest, and the movement they created quickly spread. The articles, with Biblical references used as justification, called for the abolition of serfdom and the freedom of all people; the municipal power for people to elect and remove preachers; the abolition of taxes on cattle and inheritance; a prohibition on the privilege of the nobility to arbitrarily raise taxes; free access to water, hunting, fishing, and the forests; and the restoration of communal lands expropriated by the nobility. Another text printed and circulated in massive quantity by the insurgents was the Bundesordnung, the federal order, which expounded a model social order based on federated municipalities. Less literate elements of the movement were even more radical, as judged by their actions and the folklore they left behind; their goal was to wipe the nobility off the face of the earth and institute a mysticist utopia then and there.

Social tension increased throughout the year, as authorities tried to prevent outright rebellion by suppressing rural gatherings such as popular festivals and weddings. In August 1524, the situation finally errupted at Stühlingen in the Black Forest region. A countess demanded that the peasants render her a special harvest on a church holiday. Instead the peasants refused to pay all taxes and formed an army of 1200 people, under the leadership of a former mercenary, Hans Müller. They marched to the town of Waldshut and were joined by the townspeople, and then marched on the castle at Stühlingen and besieged it. Realizing they needed some kind of military structure, they decided to elect their own captains, sergeants, and corporals. In September they defended themselves from a Hapsburg army in an indecisive battle, and subsequently refused to lay down their arms and beg pardon when entreated to do so. That autumn peasant strikes, refusals to pay tithes, and rebellions broke out throughout the region, as peasants extended their politics from individual complaints to a unified rejection of the feudal system as a whole.

With the spring thaw of 1525, fighting resumed with a ferocity. The peasant armies seized cities and executed large numbers of clergy and nobility. But in February the Schwabian League, an alliance of nobility and clergy in the region, achieved a victory in Italy, where they had been fighting on behalf of Charles V, and were able to bring their troops home and devote them to crushing the peasants. Meanwhile Martin Luther, the burghers, and the progressive princes withdrew all their support and called for the annihilation of the revolutionary peasants; they wanted to reform the system, not to destroy it, and the uprising had already sufficiently destabilized the power structure. Finally on May 15, 1525, the main peasant army was decisively defeated at Frankenhausen; Müntzer and other influential leaders were seized and executed, and the rebellion was put down. However, over the following years the Anabaptist movement spread throughout Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, and peasant revolts continued to break out, in the hopes that one day the church and the state would be destroyed for good.

Capitalism and modern democratic states succeeded in establishing themselves over the following centuries, but they have been forever haunted by the specter of rebellion from below. Within statist societies, the ability to organize without hierarchies still exists today, and the possibility remains to create anti-authoritarian cultures that can bring any would-be leaders back down to earth. Appropriately, much of the resistance against global authority is organized horizontally. The worldwide anti-globalization movement arose largely from the resistance of the Zapatistas in Mexico, autonomists and anarchists in Europe, farmers and workers in Korea, and popular rebellions against financial institutions like the IMF, occurring across the world from South Africa to India. The Zapatistas and autonomists especially are marked by their anti-authoritarian cultures, a marked break from the hierarchy of Marxist-Leninists who had dominated international struggles in previous generations.

The anti-globalization movement proved itself to be a global force in June, 1999, when hundreds of thousands of people in cities from London, England to Port Harcourt, Nigeria took the streets for the J18 Carnival Against Capitalism; in November later that year, participants in the same movement shocked the world by shutting down the summit of the World Trade Organization in Seattle.

The most remarkable thing about this global resistance is that it was created horizontally, by diverse organizations and affinity groups pioneering new forms of consensus. This movement had no leaders and fomented constant opposition to all forms of authority that developed within its ranks. Those who attempted to put themselves permanently in the role of chief or spokesperson were ostracized — or even treated to a pie in the face, as high profile organizer Medea Benjamin was at the US Social Forum in 2007.

Lacking leadership, short on formal organization, and constantly critiquing internal power dynamics and studying more egalitarian ways of organizing, anti-globalization activists went on to achieve further tactical victories. In Prague in September 2000, 15,000 protestors overcame the massive police presence and broke up the last day of the summit of the International Monetary Fund. In Quebec City in April, 2001, protestors breached the security fence around a summit planning the Free Trade Area of the Americas; police responded by filling the city with so much teargas that it even entered the building where the talks were taking place. Consequently many city residents came to favor the protestors. Police had to step up repression to contain the growing anti-globalization movement; they arrested 600 protestors and injured three with gunfire at the European Union summit in Sweden in 2001, and a month later they murdered anarchist Carlo Giuliani at the G8 summit in Genoa, where 150,000 people had gathered to protest the conference of the eight most powerful world governments.

The Dissent! Network arose out of the European anti-globalization movement to organize major protests against the G8 summit in Scotland in 2005. The Network also organized major protest camps and blockade actions against the G8 summit in Germany in 2007, and helped with the mobilizations against the G8 summit in Japan in 2008. Without a central leadership or hierarchy, the network facilitated communication between groups located in different cities and countries, and organized major meetings to discuss and decide on strategies for upcoming actions against the G8. The strategies were intended to enable diverse approaches, so many affinity groups could organize mutually supportive actions within a common framework rather than carrying out the orders of a central organization. For example, a blockade plan might designate one road leading to the summit site as a zone for people who prefer peaceful or theatrical tactics, while another entrance might be designated for people who wish to construct barricades and are willing to defend themselves against the police. These strategy meetings drew people from a dozen countries and included translations in multiple languages. Afterwards, fliers, announcements, position papers, and critiques were translated and uploaded to a website. The anarchist forms of coordination used by the protestors repeatedly proved effective at countering and sometimes even outmaneuvering the police and corporate media, which enjoyed teams of thousands of paid professionals, advanced communications and surveillance infrastructure, and resources far beyond what was available to the movement.

The anti-globalization movement can be contrasted with the anti-war movement that arose in response to the so-called War on Terror. After September 11, 2001, world leaders sought to undercut the growing anti-capitalist movement by identifying terrorism as enemy number one, thus reframing the narrative of global conflict. Following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the end of the Cold War, they needed a new war and a new opposition. People had to view their options as a choice between hierarchical powers — statist democracy or fundamentalist terrorists — rather than between domination and freedom. In the conservative environment that followed September 11, the anti-war movement quickly came to be dominated by reformist and hierarchically-organized groups. Although the movement kicked off with the most widely attended day of protest in human history on February 15, 2003, the organizers deliberately channeled the energy of the participants into rigidly controlled rituals that did not challenge the war machine. Within two years, the anti-war movement had completely squandered the momentum built up during the anti-globalization era.

The anti-war movement could not stop the occupation of Iraq, or even sustain itself, because people are neither empowered nor fulfilled by passively participating in symbolic spectacles. In contrast, the effectiveness of decentralized networks can be seen in the many victories of the anti-globalization movement: the summits shut down, the collapse of the WTO and FTAA, the dramatic scaling back of the IMF and World Bank.[16] This non-hierarchical movement demonstrated that people desire to free themselves from domination, and that they have the ability to cooperate in an anti-authoritarian manner even in large groups of strangers from different nations and cultures.

So from scientific studies of human history to protesters making history today, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the statist account of human nature. Rather than coming from a brutally authoritarian ancestry and later subsuming these instincts into a competitive system based on obedience to authority, humankind has not had one single trajectory. Our beginnings seem to have been characterized by a range between strict egalitarianism and small-scale hierarchy with a relatively equal distribution of wealth. When coercive hierarchies did appear, they did not spread everywhere immediately, and often provoked significant resistance. Even where societies are ruled by authoritarian structures, resistance is every much a part of the social reality as domination and obedience. Furthermore, the state and authoritarian civilization are not the last stops on the line. Even though a global revolution has yet to succeed, we have many examples of post-state societies, in which we can make out hints of a stateless future.

Half a century ago, anthropologist Pierre Clastres concluded that the stateless and anti-authoritarian societies he studied in South America were not holdouts from a primordial era, as other Westerners had assumed. He argued that, on the contrary, they were well aware of the possible emergence of the state, and they were organizing themselves to prevent this. It turns out that many of them were in fact post-state societies founded by refugees and rebels who had fled from or overthrown earlier states. Similarly, anarchist Peter Lamborn Wilson hypothesized that anti-authoritarian societies in eastern North America formed in resistance to the hierarchical Hopewell mound-building societies, and recent research seems to be confirming this. What others had interpreted as ahistorical ethnicities were the end results of political movements.

The Cossacks who inhabited the Russian frontiers provide another example of this phenomenon. Their societies were founded by people fleeing serfdom and other inconveniences of government oppression. They learned horsemanship and developed impressive martial skills to survive in the frontier environment and defend themselves against neighboring states. Eventually, they came to be viewed as a distinct ethnicity with a privileged autonomy, and the tsar whom their ancestors renounced sought them out as military allies.

According to Yale political scientist James C. Scott, everything about such societies — from the crops they grow to their kinship systems — can be read as anti-authoritarian social strategies. Scott documents the Hill People of Southeast Asia, an agglomeration of societies existing in rugged terrain where fragile state structures face a severe disadvantage. For hundreds of years, these people have resisted state domination, including frequent wars of conquest or extermination by the Chinese empire and periods of continuous attacks by slavers. Cultural and linguistic diversity is exponentially greater in the hills than in the state-controlled rice paddies of the valleys, where a monoculture holds sway. Hill People frequently speak multiple languages and belong to multiple ethnicities. Their social organization is suited for quick and easy dispersal and reunification, allowing them to escape assaults and wage guerrilla warfare. Their kinship systems are based on overlapping and redundant relationships that create a strong social network and limit the formalization of power. Their oral cultures are more decentralized and flexible than nearby literate cultures, in which reliance on the written word encourages orthodoxy and gives extra power to those with the resources to keep records.

The Hill People have an interesting relationship with the surrounding states. The people of the valleys view them as “living ancestors,” even though they have formed as a response to the valley civilizations. They are post-state, not pre-state, but the ideology of the state refuses to recognize such a category as “post-state” because the state supposes itself to be the pinnacle of progress. Subjects of the valley civilizations frequently “headed for the hills” to live more freely; however the narratives and mythologies of the Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, and other authoritarian civilizations in the centuries leading up to World War II seemed to be designed to prevent their members from “going back” to those they perceived as barbarians. According to some scholars, the Great Wall of China was built as much to keep the Chinese in as the barbarians out; yet in the valley civilizations of China and Southeast Asia, myths, language, and rituals that might explain such cultural defections were suspiciously lacking. Culture was used as another Great Wall to hold these fragile civilizations together. No wonder the “barbarians” gave up written language in favor of a more decentralized oral culture: without written records and a specialized class of scribes, history became common property, rather than a tool for indoctrination.

Far from being a necessary social advancement that people readily accept, the state is an imposition that many people try to flee. A proverb from the Burmese encapsulates this: “It is easy for a subject to find a lord, but hard for a lord to find a subject.” In Southeast Asia, until recently, the primary goal of warfare was not to capture territory but to capture subjects, as people frequently ran for the hills to create egalitarian societies.[17] It is ironic that so many of us are convinced we have an essential need for the state, when in fact it is the state that needs us.

[kiwiana-writes]

🌈🌿💝 please MJ

Ahhhh what excellent questions pal!!

🌈is there a fic that you worked *really fucking hard on* that no one would ever know? maybe a scene/theme you struggled with?

It’s not that no one would know because I do talk about it in the author note, but only @ships-to-sail and @celeritas2997 know how dead fucking serious I am about how much trouble I had with chapter fourteen of much ado. Almost everything between the first scene break and the text messages was ships; I came very, very close to giving up on that fic at the end of chapter thirteen.

🌿how does creating make you feel?

Amazing when it’s flowing and terrible when it’s not 😂 A little bit too much of my self-worth is wrapped up in the words I write and the worlds I build, which is something I’ve been working on with�� mild success at best lmao.

💝what is a fic that got a different response than you were expecting?

I’ve said it before I’ll say it forever but Alex and Bea fake dating surpassed my WILDEST expectations. In terms of raw numbers it definitely got a boost when @clottedcreamfudge posted her POV flip but even before that happened it was still second only to much ado for kudos. It’s currently at serious risk of overtaking much ado, which is… flattering and delightful and also very confusing. That’s 100% a gen/friendship fic masquerading as firstprince 😂

At the other end of the spectrum… and look I’m not claiming this is some sort of horribly neglected completely unread fic, but just in terms of where it sits in my stats, I probably would have expected sex club spanking to be higher! There are other fics that I love that were a bit more niche and while I would LOVE more people to read them, I wasn’t necessarily expecting it… but sex club spanking is definitely the one where when I’m on my stats page I’m always surprised by how far I have to scroll to find it lol

[Let's Get REAL fic writer asks]

[sunshineandcheer]

𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜, 𝙣𝙤𝙬 ! 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚'𝙨 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝘼𝙍𝘾𝙃 𝙖𝙛𝙤𝙤𝙩 !

// This is a roleplay account! Any message or piece of text not marked with the two slashes shown above is in-character, and is completely fictitious.

This pinned post will inform you a bit about the character, some unique circumstances regarding him, things you should be aware of when interacting, and the person who writes him! I sincerely hope you enjoy it. :)

THE CHARACTER HIMSELF.

Liam Sunshine was an OC created on a Multifandom RP server about a year ago. He started as a character that I would rarely think about, and grew to be my #1 original muse. Friends of mine interlocked their character's lore with his, so you'll probably hear vague references to it in RP. He's set in the SCP 'verse, inspired by the title of a Will Wood song, with slight influence from the game We Happy Few. However, he is his own character, and he stretches far beyond just that!

With the "backstory" set aside, I invite you to look at his 4.3k word DOCUMENT, that entails everything about the character - from personality, to backstory, to strengths and weaknesses. That can be found at the bottom of the post! PLEASE mind the TWs/CWs at the top of the doc, they are serious and important, and I just want everyone who reads it to be safe!

There's one important character missing from the backstory, but they'll be mentioned in RP and, one day, added to the doc! Keep an eye out. 👁

One final thing, before we move on;

I (the writer) am an indie dev. I hold this character very, very close to my heart, and he, the mystery character, and his story are going to be turned into a full fledged RPG/VN in the coming years. It's going to take a lot of work! ^^;

With that said, if you end up liking his character, please keep posting about it strictly on Tumblr! This account is like a little experiment; to see how people like the character and what could be improved. (It's also quite a bit of fun, because I ADORE writing him!!)

I'd also like to keep most things about the game under wraps for the moment, so do note that when asked, I can only answer questions vaguely.

THE WRITER.

The writer of this account is a MINOR. (Which is to say; do not attempt to initiate NSFW with the author or his character.)

I'm a huge nerd, and a lover of writing, podcasts, and video games. I really love the opportunity of getting to share this MASSIVE piece of my writing with you guys!

I also am on the Autism spectrum, so please be patient if I (or Liam) doesn't understand something the first time. When speaking OOC, tone tags are greatly appreciated! /g

BEFORE YOU INTERACT.

This account comes with loads of Content Warnings that you really MUST be aware of before interacting. The following list is exhaustive, some of these are not likely to come up frequently or at all, but it's important that you know that they are a possibility. Don't trigger yourself, and stay safe!

The list of TWs/CWs is as follows;

Death, overdose, violence and gore (commonly associated with SCP), self-harm, suicide, forced suicide, mind-altering medication, mutilation/body horror, heavy discussion of manipulation and toxic relationships, religious trauma, hallucinations, and spiking.

That'll do it! I hope you enjoy learning about this little guy and interacting with him. Thank you for reading all this; and stay cheerful!

:)

(There's the aforementioned doc, by the way!)

[a-dragons-journal]

Bit of an odd question, so feel free to ignore. Only reason I'm even asking is because I cannot find **any** similar questions/answers online. I know there can be fictionkind of someone's OC, but what about someone else's **self insert**? I saw someone on Tumblr list a character as one they kin, but upon looking into the link they provided, it's actually an authors self insert. Albeit not a literal IRL version (a fictional species version), but I'm not sure if that's a **thing**?

Odd questions are the best kind! I love the interesting questions that really make you think and dig deep. (Spoiler alert: That's Rani code for "I am about to ramble for an hour and a half about the thing you just asked me about, buckle up.")

Tl;dr: It's complicated, it's theoretically possible but whether it's appropriate to frame it that way and/or be public about it is another question, regarding which I do not have a solid community consensus nor a solid enough personal opinion to really guide you on coming up with your own opinion on the subject too much. You're kind of just gonna have to come up with your own opinion on it.

Okay, so, here's the thing. This is where we start to get into a whole mess of a complicated gray area in the factkin debate where there's kind of no one right answer, or at least no community consensus I can confidently tell you is the majority opinion.

As far as whether it's possible, here's the thing: I am not, generally speaking, in the business of telling people they're wrong about their own internal, subjective experiences. Within the realm of internal, subjective identity, if you experience [x], it stands to reason it must be possible to experience [x], because if it wasn't then you wouldn't be experiencing it.

With that being said, whether it's appropriate to interact with/frame those experiences in a "this is literally who and what I am" way, especially in a public setting, when it comes to other people's self-inserts is a different question. It's a slightly less spicy version of the factkin debate, which is to say it sits close to the "definitely factkin" end of the factkin-fictionkin spectrum the middle of which makes up the inconvenient gray areas nobody likes to talk about.

I am going to assume we're talking about involuntary (ie not consciously, intentionally chosen) identity for the remainder of this post, because that's usually what people mean when they talk about kintypes and because if we're talking about voluntarily, consciously chosen identity, I think there's a lot more room to say definitively "no, it's inappropriate to intentionally form an identity as someone else/someone else's persona without their express permission."

On the one hand: When speaking of experiences that are largely involuntary, it is, in my opinion, fundamentally wrong to a) ascribe morality to involuntary things or b) dictate that you understand someone else's internal, subjective experiences better than they do. These are core principles of my morality and without them I feel like you start having a lot of problems with morality in general, so I feel like they're a solid baseline to start off of. Given that baseline, 'kin of this nature are by necessity within their bounds to exist.

The counterpoint: While the experiences themselves may be involuntary, you still have the choice of how to frame and interact with those experiences. It is possible to acknowledge the experiences you are having and understand them in ways that are not "I literally am [x]", without actually discounting their existence or importance.

However, there's a problem with that: If you accept that that is a valid argument when it comes to factkin, 'kin of sonas, etc., you accept necessarily that it is a valid argument to have with regards to other kinds of 'kin as well, and there's a dangerous history there (slippery slope is only a fallacy when you don't have literal examples of it happening before), especially when it comes to fictionkin. You open yourself up to the argument that it's inappropriate to identify as small creators' OCs, or characters of a race other than your own, or any fictional character at all.

So: How do you draw the line between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" kintypes in a satisfactory, self-consistent way? How do you decide how much of a person's selfness needs to be put into a character before they become off-limits (after all, many creators will tell you that most if not all of their characters have some amount of their own self reflected within them)? What happens when someone identifies as fictionkin of a given character for weeks, months, or even years, and only much later does it come to light that the creator considers that character a representation of themself but didn't want to talk about it publicly initially - are they then suddenly "invalid" and required to reshape their entire sense of self and identity, despite the fact that it was acceptable prior to that day and nothing about the character themself or their experiences has changed?

This is, for the record, a common problem with the arguments surrounding factkin and similar - the vast majority of them ("you can't claim to know someone else's self and identity that well" comes to mind) can reasonably be applied to other kintypes, and then you have a problem when trying to delineate when it's a valid argument and when it isn't.

So, the point against it that I have the most trouble coming up with a satisfactory counter to: the difference is that with factkin, and to a slightly lesser extent self-insert OCs, the person in question can see you. Fictional characters, bluntly, cannot have their sense of self invaded because they are not present to see it - fictionkin and fictives who are uncomfortable encountering "other yous" exist, certainly, but no one can definitively claim to be the original; all of them have the same amount of "claim" to the identity in question, and thus the only way to reasonably handle it is to demand coexistence (in the sense of "not fighting about it," not in the sense of "being forced to be in each other's presence if that's uncomfortable" - quietly blocking and ignoring is a valid form of "coexistence" here). That is, I would say, objectively not true in the case of factkin, and slightly more arguably in the case of self-insert OCs*. The original is right there to be made uncomfortable, and they do, I would say, objectively have more right to their own selfhood than anyone else does.

*The trouble with including self-insert OCs in here is that we get into the "well how much self-insert is too much self-insert to be Valid(TM)" argument again then. You get the gist by now.

...Buuuuuuuuuut then we get into the problem of "telling people to suppress their identity is inherently wrong because it harms them" and how to balance those things.

*deep breath* If it seems like I'm running in circles a bit here, you may begin to understand why I haven't taken a solid stance on factkin in general. You can probably guess at my leaning based on the biases present in my writing here, but the fact remains that there's solid points on both sides of it that I struggle to refute adequately in a way that doesn't rattle some rather important pillars of my morality. (This is, to be clear, a me problem.)

So where do we go from there?

Unfortunately, so far where I go is "case-by-case basis" and "no one objectively correct answer, only a handful of definitely incorrect ones (ie, harassing people for being factkin (or whatever adjacent thing) is definitely not the right answer)." Which is... frustratingly unhelpful, vague, and open to accidental hypocrisy, I'm aware. Personally I think it depends a lot on how the individual handles their experiences and identity, both in terms of internal understanding/framing of their own experiences and of external things like "how hard would it be for the person in question to find them and be made uncomfortable, or, gods forbid, are they actually going up to that person and telling them about it". I also think that everyone's criteria for what's appropriate on both those counts is going to be a little different, and that's probably unavoidable. I also think that frankly the first one is kind of none of my business unless the person wants to share, and shouldn't be made a requirement for being welcome in the community for anyone, so it's not actually a valid criterion to determine this on a community-wide "are they allowed to be here" level, only on a "what do I personally think of and feel about this person" level. Ultimately I generally default to the "if they're not hurting anyone or being obnoxious to the person affected by this, leave them alone" position and anything from there is personal interaction choices, not community policy choices.

So... yeah. I guarantee there's points I have not covered here, either because I didn't feel they were strong enough or I just forgot about them (or I hadn't heard them before at all). More than happy to host discussion in the notes if people want to go at it, but I'm off to bed for the night myself.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Special Relativity and why People don't understand it

Simply put; it's explained poorly, both by physicists and comic book authors. (The Media)

It's a complex explanation of what we're actually seeing when we see light. Any observer of light is inherently seeing things from some time in the past.

It's just that light is *so fast* it appears instantaneous, or as if we're seeing the present time.

But as we've noted with sound and thunder from lightning; there is an amount of time light takes from where it last reflected from to an observed; an Eyeball, or a Telescope, or a Camera.

And as that distance increases between objects, the time it takes to "see" something increases.

Anywhere between a millimeter and a couple of kilometers or miles might as well seem instant to your average human observer.

<aside>MangaKai; your new superhero. He has the ability to see the world in microseconds, and sees a differentiate the emited light as it arrives instead of instantly like your average human.</aside>

As you get further and further, what you see is delayed. So the light we get from the sun is about 8 minutes. The light emited by stars could take years or more depending on their size, Diatance, and even frequency (color).

Which is where "red shift" comes from. A phenomenon that happens to the electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to see light even farther away, and even invisible light spectrum after such a far distance.

Imagine; we can actually see ultraviolet or even gamma rays from a distance of millions of miles. Indicating that light can slow down after so long and that slow down reduces the frequency (color).

We use "Time" as a variable in math and physics to indicate time elapsed since the emission of light. Not any other reason. We can't change time, we can just observe it.

And so the "Fabric of Space Time" is said to have an effect on light itself, indicating that while they're not a particle, they *are* energy. That can be affected by and affect physical objects. As if it were another physical object.

The warmth of the Sun is the example of this..you can feel it, but it's not like you can catch it. (Maybe your molecules can, but that exact function seems more like excitation of molecules than anything else.)

And gravity can also affect light, like how it bends when light goes from air to water.

Allowing it to bend and curve towards objects of immense gravity, but always reflect (or at least be visibly reflected off of them)

And so things like stars and black holes, might be invisible if we are too close and infinitely bright if we get farther away and vice versa.

The sun, for example, might appear as a black hole if we're on its surface, or if we were on the other end of the solar system.

But all we have to rely on right now is our observations with our eyeballs and technological innovation.

MangaKai, Comic Book Artists, Authors, Movie Producers; they have an obligation to try to represent information as accurately as theoretically possible. And fill in the gaps of our knowledge with fun things to keep audiences wanting to learn more.

It's why as we get smarter as a society; we look at old media as cheesy and dumb. And new art as more realistic and smart.

And why audiences kind of dislike certain superhero tropes as dumb. Because instead of inspiring truth seeking, they're stuck in the older depictions because "Tradition" instead of the author's original intent; trying to be smart about the dumb magic we know is dumb.

Trying to create a reason that disbelief might be suspended.

[hashtagmagazine]

The Black Book Of Jokes — Part 5

Some of The Funniest Jokes From The Black Book of Jokes

If you’re on a quest for laughter, welcome to the perfect destination! Dive into our treasure trove of hilarity, handpicked from the renowned ‘Black Book of Jokes’. With the author’s blessing, we bring to you an exquisite collection of jests across a spectrum of themes. Get ready to brighten your day with our top-tier selection of jokes guaranteed to tickle your funny bone.

Golf Frustrations

Toward the end of a particularly trying round of golf, Jack was the picture of frustration. He’d hit too many far shots. Finally he blurted out to his caddie, “I’d move heaven and earth to break a hundred on this course.” “Try heaven,” replied the caddie. “You’ve already moved most of the earth.”

The Pianist’s Song Titles

A new pianist is needed in a posh restaurant in Manhattan. A guy called David comes in and says “Hi there, I’m here about the pianist position.” The manager replies “That is awesome, do you mind sitting at the piano and showing me what you can do?” David sits at the piano and starts to play one of the most beautiful songs the manager has ever heard. Stunned at the end of the performance he says “That’s absolutely wonderful, what’s it called?” David replies “Oh it’s one of my songs, I call it ‘Your daughter sucked on my balls and I jizzed on her forehead’.” The manager, shocked, stammers “Oh, right… urr, do you have any more?” The pianist resumes playing, and yet again plays an absolutely magical piece of music. The manager says “Incredible! What do you call this one?” David replies “Oh, I call that one ‘I’m going to stick my tongue up your asshole and lick your colon’.” The manager says to him “Ok, look, you’re hired. I can’t let a talent like you get away, but please never let the clients know the names of your songs, it simply won’t work in an establishment like this.” So David agrees and starts work that night. A few weeks later, the buzz about the restaurant was incredible. People are so enamored with this pianist they recommend their friends, come back regularly just to eat and hear this amazing music play. And one night, the pianist says to the diners “OK ladies and gentlemen, after this song I’m going to take a short break and I’ll resume my playing for you shortly,” and goes off to take a small comfort break. As he’s returning from the restroom the manager swiftly approaches him and exclaims “David! Do you know your dick is hanging out of your trousers and the whole room can see it?!” David replies “Do I know it?! Of course I do — I fucking wrote it!”

The Price of Elegance

A lady walks into a fancy jewelry store. She browses around, spots a beautiful diamond bracelet and walks over to inspect it. As she bends over to look more closely she inadvertently breaks wind. Very embarrassed, she looks around nervously to see if anyone has noticed her little accident and prays that a sales person doesn’t pop up right now. As she turns around, her worst nightmare materializes in the form of a salesman standing right behind her. Cool as a cucumber and displaying complete professionalism, the salesman greets the lady with, “Good day, Madam. How may we help you today?” Very uncomfortably, but hoping that the salesman may not have been there at the time of her little “accident!” she asks, “Sir, what is the price of this lovely bracelet?” He answers, “Madam, if you farted just looking at it, you’re going to shit when I tell you the price.”

Sleepwalking Parishioner

“I hope you didn’t take it personally, Father,” an embarrassed woman said after a church service “when my husband walked out during your sermon.” “I did find it rather disconcerting,” the vicar replied. “It’s not a reflection on you, Father,” insisted the churchgoer. “Christopher has been walking in his sleep ever since he was a child.”

The Drunk’s Dilemma

A drunk is sitting on a park bench staring disconsolately at a bottle of beer. A man passes and asks him what the matter is. “I don’t know what to do,” says the drunk. “My heart says yes, my mind says no, and I haven’t heard from my liver in two days.”

Sophie’s Marital Crisis

Things have reached a crisis point in Sophie’s marriage. “If things are so bad,” her friend advises her. “Then you should leave your husband.” “I would,” says Sophie. “If only I could think of a way of doing it that wouldn’t make him happy.”

Dan’s Distant Text

Dan was walking down the street with his wife earlier when she accused him of being ashamed to be seen with her. “That’s total bullshit.” Dan replied. By text, from across the road.

The Misplaced Potato

Boy comes up to his father, all angry, “Dad, you remember how you told me to put a potato in my swimming trunks? How did you say it would impress the girls?” Father looks up, smiling, “Yeah, did it work?” The boy screams, “You could have mentioned that the potato goes in the front!”

The Invisible Man’s Appointment

Secretary: “Doctor, the invisible man has come. He says he has an appointment.” Doctor: “Tell him I can’t see him.”

Lawyer’s Expensive Advice

Walking into a lawyer’s office, a man asked what his rates were. “Two hundred dollars for three questions,” the lawyer stated. “Isn’t that awfully expensive?” the man asked. “Yes,” replied the lawyer. “What’s your third question?”

The Italian Men on the Bus

Two Italian men get on a bus… They sit down and engage in an animated conversation. The lady sitting behind them ignores them at first, but her attention is galvanized when she hears one of the men say the following: “Emma come first. Den I come. Den two asses come together. I come once-a-more. Two asses, they come together again. I come again and pee twice. Then I come one lasta time.” “You foul-mouthed swine,” retorted the lady indignantly. “In this country we don’t talk about our sex lives in public!” “Hey, coola down lady,” said the man. “Who talkin’ abouta sexa? I’m a justa tellin’ my frienda how to spella ‘Mississippi’.”

Last Wishes

A man returns from the doctor and tells his wife that the doctor has told him he has only 24 hours to live. Given this prognosis, the man asks his wife for sex. Naturally, she agrees, and they make love. About six hours later, the husband goes to his wife and says, “Honey, you know I now have only 18 hours to live. Could we please do it one more time?” Of course, the wife agrees, and they do it again. Later, as the man gets into bed, he looks at his watch and realizes that he now has only 8 hours left. He touches his wife’s shoulder, and asks, “Honey, please… just one more time before I die.” She says, “Of course, Dear,” and they make love for the third time. After this session, the wife rolls over and falls asleep. The man, however, worried about his impending death, tosses and turns, until he’s down to 4 more hours. He taps his wife, who rouses. “Honey, I have only 4 more hours. Do you think we could…” At this point the wife sits up and says, “Listen, I have to get up in the morning. You don’t!”

A Child’s Inquiry

“Daddy, what is an alcoholic?” “Do you see those 4 trees, son? An alcoholic would see 8 trees.” “Um, Dad — there are only 2 trees.”

Circus Calamity

At a circus, there’s a calamity and two lions escape. They manage to grab hold of a clown and start devouring him. One lion turns to the other and asks, “Does this taste funny to you?”

Future Houdini

A couple have just had sex. The woman says, ‘If I got pregnant, what would we call the baby?’ The man takes off his condom, ties a knot in it, and flushes it down the toilet. ‘Well,’ he says. ‘If he can get out of that, we’ll call him Houdini.’

Super Encounter

Superman is flying around the city, horny as hell. He suddenly sees Wonder Woman spread eagle, naked on top of the building. Superman thinks, “This is my chance!” He swoops down, faster than a speeding bullet, bangs her, and is gone in the blink of an eye. Wonder Woman sits up and says, “What the hell was that!?” The Invisible Man rolls off her and says, “I have no idea but it hurts like hell!”

Roadside Assistance

The doc told a guy that masturbating before sex often helped men last longer during the act. The man decided, “What the hell, I’ll try it,” He spent the rest of the day thinking about where to do it. He couldn’t do it in his office. He thought about the restroom, but that was too open. He considered an alley, but figured that was too unsafe. Finally, he realized his solution. On his way home, he pulled his truck over on the side of the highway. He got out and crawled underneath as if he was examining the truck. Satisfied with the privacy, he undid his pants and started to play with his unit. He closed his eyes and thought of his lover. As he grew closer to the big finish, he felt a quick tug at the bottom of his pants. Not wanting to lose his mental fantasy or the orgasm, he kept his eyes shut and replied, “What?” He heard, “This is the police. What’s going on down there?” The man replied, “I’m checking out the rear axle, it’s busted.” Came the reply, “Well, you might as well check your brakes too while you’re down there because your truck rolled down the hill 5 minutes ago.”

Stolen Credit Card

A man noticed his credit card had been stolen — but he never reported it. The thief was still spending considerably less than his wife.

Dance Request

A man at a party: Hi, do you want to dance? Woman: Yeah, sure! Man: Great, go and dance, I want to talk to your pretty friend! If you’ve enjoyed these witty tales and humorous anecdotes, you’re in for a treat! Take a journey through the world of humor with “The Black Book of Jokes” — a comprehensive collection of awesome jokes that promise to keep you entertained for hours. Whether you’re looking to lighten up a gathering, bring a smile to someone’s face, or just need a good laugh yourself, this book is the perfect companion. Get your copy of the Black Book Of Jokes now and join us in the laughter! Read the full article

[thepapergirlandthespiegelman]

We need to look beyond the concept of the "morally gray"

I don't like the concept of "morally gray" characters because it still basically portrays morality as binary, or, if you don't want to call it "binary," linear. There are good actions and bad actions, good people and bad people, and sure, there might be some stuff in the middle, but all that can still basically be understood in terms of the relation to good and bad.

Because, of course, while we might struggle to understand these people in the "gray areas," no one struggles to categorize our more typical heroes and villains. The beautiful, righteous, trueborn king is obviously good, and the evil, selfish usurper is obviously bad.

That's what the narrative tells us. But I need people to take a step back from the narrative role that has been assigned and actually evaluate the values and actions of the characters. Because when you do that, you begin to see that almost every character can be characterized as "morally gray." And it's here that we see the concept begin to collapse in on itself.

Because good and evil aren't static, defined, objective things, let alone easy to identify at a glance. And if good and evil aren't serving as the anchors at either end of the line, the spectrum itself cannot function.

I don't believe that "good" and "evil" are totally useless concepts. (Though even if they were, it would be difficult to get away from them with how entrenched this concept model is in our society.) But if we're going to have any sort of interesting discussion here, we need to start talking about morality in subjective, not objective, terms.

This is my other issue with the idea of the "morally gray" character—they might be morally gray to you, but I might think they're pretty cut and dry good or evil. One example is characters who are criminals. Most media and most analysis will tend to portray them as "morally gray" simply because of their criminal status. Sorry, but that's a you problem. You may hold that lawfulness is inherently good and unlawfulness inherently evil, but I don't. If a law is unjust, it is morally correct to defy it.

You're welcome to disagree with me, of course. But at some level we all have to accept that there can be disagreement. Morality is inherently one of the most controversial topics in existence and we are not all going to immediately agree, which is why it drives me up the wall when people try to categorize fictional characters in such overly simplistic ways.

The idea of the "morally gray" reinforces the idea that although we might quibble on some details, we all basically agree on what's right and what's wrong. There might be a particularly odd person, or a particularly complex, entangled situation, but for the most part, we all know what's good and what's bad, right, guys?

If we really opened up the discussion, I think people would be shocked by how deep some of these disagreements go. And it's only when we actually start talking about this stuff that we can begin to sift through and find the truth (or as close to the truth as we can get in this world).

The funny thing about the term "morally gray" is that the limitations are pretty self-evident from the metaphor. Sure, you've upgraded from black and white, but you've decided to stop at grayscale. There's hardly even much of a difference! We need the full visual spectrum of colors here.

I think that there was perhaps a time when the idea of "morally gray characters" served a purpose. After all, we are not so far removed from the era of the Hays Code. It was once controversial to even show what was deemed taboo or immoral by mainstream moral authorities. The advent of the "morally gray" character surely did bring greater detail and subtlety to the portrayal of morality in media. But the world has continued to change. We need to press even harder and demand that different moral perspectives be allowed to exist in media and that we be allowed to fully explore those perspectives in our analyses.

[littlestarprincess]

Chapter six is finally another Zade chapter. I'm not questioning the author's choice in POV when I say this, but for personal reasons (brain bugs) I hate when POV doesn't alternate properly.

Zade really does read like he belongs on reality TV. The mentality behind conspiracy theorists really bleeds through his POV, and it almost feels like the narrative is humoring him more than taking him seriously.

Some of it is definitely just not knowing how hackers work though, haha. It could just be that it's handled badly enough to read like a parody.

His talking points are also exactly how way-too-conservative guys talk about injustice. Very dramatic. Very much "I'm not emotional bc anger isn't an emotion."

This action scene is also reading like a copy pasta. Like that one from the guy claiming he's a Navy SEAL or whatever? In one move I take out three guys. Chunks of concrete fly into my eyes and I grunt and wipe them to clear my vision.

I can picture someone's 40yo dad on the recliner with a beer talking about "back in his day" and it sounds exactly the same.

He also describes the reactions of the girls as proof that they've been desensitized... While describing behavior that sounds more like shock than anything???

Weird comment on how one of the guys trafficking humans is ugly anyway so the world is better off without him. Hey, yeah, Zade, also he was trafficking people??? Would he be worth keeping around if he was pretty instead??

He also has bad breath???

Random spanglish from the bad guys, just in case there were doubts about fighting the Good Fight here.

Zade's personality so far is all over the place. Compared to Addie, who feels very much like a real person, Zade feels like smoke and mirrors in exactly the same way hyper-conservative guys tend to describe masculinity.

Ah, yes, they're drug addicts, too. Fighting the Good Fight continues.

"Why do they always think I work for someone else?" -- Z doesn't work for anyone but himself because he's a Rugged Individual, but he started his own business because that's the other end of the spectrum. Gotta be a Boss and also a Loner.

The concern he shows for the girls getting trafficked feels icky somehow, like he's being patronizing to the reader. It's hard to put my finger on.

There's a weirdly homoerotic response when Jay comments on how fast Zade was at taking everyone down, and then we reveal there was a bet taking place that Zade didn't bother to tell us about.

"he's so weak, he's like a girl. No, the girls here are tougher. He's just a whiny bitch in a man's body" you were SO CLOSE to saving yourself from being sexist, man 😭

"they will never have to wash blood from their body again if I have anything to do with it" I HAVE NEWS ABOUT PUBERTY SIR

(this is the right reference, right?)

Zade is weirdly controlling about this. He knows stepping in blood or not stepping in blood on the way out won't make much of a difference, right??

[mariacallous]

As the eight candidates who qualified for the first Republican primary debate convened in Milwaukee, two questions loomed over the proceedings. First, would anyone begin to emerge as the principal challenger to Donald Trump, or would the 2024 campaign repeat the 2016 failure of the anti-Trump forces to coalesce around a single alternative? Second, if 2024 is to be different, who will be Trump’s main opponent?

Six months ago, the answer seemed clear — Ron DeSantis, who had won a landslide reelection as governor of Florida and whose attacks on all things “woke” seemed to be resonating with his party’s base. But since the announcement of his presidential candidacy, little has gone right for DeSantis. Missteps on key issues, lackluster performances on the stump, and effective tactics by the Trump campaign have combined to diminish support for DeSantis, and Trump’s once-narrow lead over him has ballooned to more than 41 points nationally and a smaller but still formidable 26 points in Iowa.

DeSantis’s decline has opened the door for other candidates vying to become Trump’s leading opponent. Broadly speaking, they have adopted one of three paths to success. Some, such as DeSantis and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, have remained close to Trump in both policy and rhetoric. They offer the Republican electorate Trumpism without the baggage of January 6, multiple lawsuits, and character flaws that repel a substantial portion of the electorate. Others — former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson — have adopted the opposite path, vigorously criticizing Trump on multiple fronts and promising the electorate something completely different.

A third group — former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley — has tried to split the difference, combining praise for Trump’s achievements while criticizing the most controversial aspects of his record. Thus far, Pence’s campaign has been hobbled by the anger of Trump supporters who see his refusal to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s election as a betrayal. By contrast, Scott has been able to stay above the fray, running a positive campaign featuring his compelling life story and distinctive role as the only Black candidate in the race. Haley also is distinctive as the only woman in the race and as a candidate who can speak with authority about international affairs — attributes that have not gotten her much attention up to now.

Did anything happen in the debate to change this picture?

To the surprise of no one, Chris Christie was the most forceful in his denunciations of Donald Trump’s conduct and may have created space for other candidates to move in his direction. At the same time, he had little distinctive to say about the other major issues and seems unlikely to have raised the low ceiling on his potential support.

Governor Burgum of North Dakota and former Governor Asa Hutchinson are decent and capable men who had difficulty even qualifying for the debate and are barely registering in the polls. They said nothing that seems likely to move sentiment in their favor, and Hutchinson’s references to his accomplishments during the Bush administration strengthened the impression that he is a man of his party’s past, not its future.

At the other end of the spectrum, the 38-year-old Ramaswamy emerged as the candidate of the New Right — the rising force within the conservative movement that rejects the Reagan model as unresponsive to the ills of contemporary American society. In a telling exchange, Mike Pence invoked the goodness of the American people and announced in Reaganesque tones that America’s best days lie ahead. Ramaswamy responded by saying that it isn’t morning in America anymore and that our dark times require nothing less than an American revolution (an unconscious echo of Bernie Sanders’ argument in a very different ideological direction).

Ramaswamy relentlessly attacked everyone else on the stage as bought and paid for creatures of their Super Pacs — and by staking out extreme positions on virtually every issue. This placed him at the center of the debate, but only because most other candidates rose to the bait and responded to his provocations. Clearly, their campaigns had decided that the candidates needed to engage him to stem his surge in the polls. But doing so may have backfired. The Republican primary electorate will have to decide whether to place their hopes for victory in the hands of someone with no experience in elective office or foreign policy and none of the personal maturity that the office of the presidency requires.

Mike Pence emerged as Ramaswamy’s principal antagonist, and nearly his equal in aggression. He vigorously defended the record of the Trump-Pence administration and often interrupted Ramaswamy to contest his claims. Despite this, Pence managed to convey experience and a measure of gravitas. In response to questions from the moderators, all the other candidates praised his role on January 6, some grudgingly, others (such as Chris Christie) enthusiastically. Were it not for the resentment that his actions stirred among pro-Trump Republicans, he might well be a leading candidate. Even so, he probably did himself some good during the debate.

Fighting to recover his position as Trump’s leading competitor, Ron Desantis turned in a focused, well-organized performance. He knew what he wanted to say and said it crisply. At the same time, he evaded several direct questions from the moderators and may have come across as calculating rather than candid. His willingness to send American troops across the southern border to fight Mexican drug cartels may play well in some parts of the Republican Party, but will subject him to further attacks for his inexperience in foreign policy. In a similar vein, he reaffirmed his reluctance to extend further aid to Ukraine.

Tim Scott continued to execute the strategy he has pursued through his campaign, affably presenting his inspiring biography and articulating a conventional conservative message in a home-spun manner. He remained positive, refusing to engage in the often-heated exchanges that consumed much of the debate. While he made no new enemies, he probably made few new friends and may have raised questions about his willingness to fight hard for his beliefs. By taking no risks, he may have wasted an opportunity to advance his candidacy.

By contrast, Nikki Haley was the surprise of the evening. She knew exactly what she wanted to say and said it with authority. She skillfully used her status as the only woman in the debate and pleaded for an approach to abortion based on consensus rather than confrontation, drawing a rebuke from Pence about the need for leadership on the issue to move opinion in a harder pro-life direction. Haley also used her foreign policy experience to good effect, making a well-reasoned case for continuing aid to Ukraine and pushing back against candidates who rejected it. In the end, Haley may have done the most of any candidate to exceed expectations. Whether it will advance her changes of emerging as Trump’s principal opponent remains to be seen.

While the eight Republicans were on stage — Twitter (now known as X) was playing a pre-taped one-on-one interview between Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. The decision to allow Tucker Carlson to conduct this high-profile debate was ripe with irony, since during the recent trial against Fox News, emails were made public showing that Tucker Carlson hated Trump and couldn’t wait for the time when he wouldn’t have to deal with him anymore.

No doubt the existence of those comments contributed to an interview that was lacking in tough questions and follow-up and oblivious to many of the issues of the day. The first topic of the interview was not the economy, it was not Joe Biden’s presidency — it was not even the “stolen” election. Trump opened by criticizing all the television networks and boldly predicting that his interview would have more viewers than the debate on Fox News.

What happened next was even stranger. After insulting his Republican challengers — for instance, calling Governor Asa Hutchinson “Ada” because he’s “weak and pathetic,” the former president spent several minutes on the sins of his former attorney general, Bill Barr, and on whether or not sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was killed in prison or whether he took his own life. Trump and Carlson clearly thought (without any new evidence) that Epstein was murdered, and Bill Barr had lied about it. The colloquy about Epstein will go down as one of the stranger moments in presidential history.

After that opening — Trump returned to a theme that the rest of his party has been pushing for some time — not only is Joe Biden a bad president, but that he’s old and demented too. Trump’s assessment: “He can’t lift his feet, he can’t walk on the grass, I think he looks terrible on the beach… every time you watch him talk, you’re waiting for him to collapse.” After the Epstein murder discussion, this was a gentle return to normality — at least Trump was doing what front-runners usually do — ignoring those way behind him in the race for the nomination and focusing on the general election.

From then on, the interview did turn to some issues — but they were mostly rear-view issues. Trump is clearly having a hard time looking forward. For instance, he insisted that his great relationship with Korean Supreme Leader Kim Un Jong was instrumental in preventing a nuclear war and that had Trump been president, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine. He was tough on China, although, instead of tying his positions to things that might be attractive to his midwestern industrial state voters (like the 10% tariff he had been talking about only days before), he spent most of his time bemoaning the fact that the United States sold the Panama Canal to Panama for $1 — more than four decades ago.

But true to form he could not sustain a discussion of issues and had to return to the fact that the election of 2020 was rigged against him by Democrats and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). When he did discuss the issues briefly — it was to tell America that if it weren’t for his leadership at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), officials would only allow a dribble of water out of your faucets and it would make you buy electric cars that are only good for 10 minutes.

Even towards the end of the interview, when Carlson asked him the simple question, “If elected, what would you do?” Trump couldn’t sustain a forward leaning answer. He started with immigration, pledging to throw all the criminals and mentally ill immigrants out of the country. But he immediately shifted back to the enormous amount of “love and passion” in the crowd he spoke to on January 6.

Trump talked easily and smoothly but had nothing new or fresh to say. Those who hoped he might pivot away from the past towards the future got very little from his counter programming to the Republican debate. Although several candidates in the debate evoked the need to pivot to the future, none offered any coherent ideas about the new agenda. Those who watched hoping to find out what the Republican party might offer them were left with many old ideas and few new ones. It is a truism in politics that voters want to know what you are going to do for them today and tomorrow. So far, the Republican field, especially the front-runner, is stuck in the past.

[writeshite]

Had the idea for something with Mark where there’s a new doctor transferred to the hospital. The doctor’s this hot, badass, takes-no-bullshit type guy and Mark immediately tries to flirt and get them to sleep with him when he gets there. He’s confused when the doctor always turns him down every time so Mark just thinks he’s losing his magic. After a few more attempts, he decides to take another apporach by trying to get to know him better personally, and being assigned to cases together gives Mark the chance to do so. They grow a friendship, and Mark’s surprised to see a soft side to the usually work-driven, serious doctor he’s used to seeing. The friendship eventually grows into something romantic, but the doctor isn’t the hooking up and sleeping around type so Mark gets his act together to be a good partner for him. Maybe they even have a couple nickname given by the doctors in the hospital they find about later?

It's The Little Things That Make Fall In Love With You

Summary:

Mark Sloan has been on this earth long enough to know he is what people would consider on the upper end of the attractive spectrum. People practically throw themselves at him when offered the chance; he sees someone attractive, finds out they’re available, he hits it, and carries on to the next. All he had to do was smile, put on the charm, then, “No.” gets denied by you and is left standing in the middle of the hallway trying to comprehend what the fuck just happened.

Pairings:

Mark Sloan x Male!Reader

Tags:

Acquaintances to Friends to Lovers | Nosy Coworkers

Words: 1608

Author's Note:

Mark you sweet dumb dumb child, oh how I adore you.

Mark Sloan has been on this earth long enough to know he is what people would consider on the upper end of the attractive spectrum. People practically throw themselves at him when offered the chance; he sees someone attractive, finds out they’re available, he hits it, and carries on to the next. All he had to do was smile, put on the charm, then, “No.” gets denied by you and is left standing in the middle of the hallway trying to comprehend what the fuck just happened.

He can hear Karev choke on a laugh; as his mind comes back to the present, he sends Karev off for something, coffee he thinks, then he’s off doing his rounds while trying to understand what happened. He comes to the conclusion that he simply tried the wrong move, so he comes up to you again during lunch, leaning close, an easy smile on his face, “No.” Ok, so two rejections aren’t out of the question, though ten rejections are in Mark’s case. 

“A-am I losing my touch?” Mark asked, sweeping his hair aside; he pondered the thought as one would ponder the mysteries of the universe. “No, I can’t be…can I?” He turned and winked at a nearby attendant, and they blushed, hiding their face behind a clipboard before scurrying away, “No, I’ve still got it. But why doesn’t it work on him?” Mark pondered.

He observes you the next time he sees you, noting that you reject many others - though far more kindly - as you do him. So it’s not just him; it’s everyone, but why? Addison finds him like that, hiding behind the railing on the second floor, spying on you, “What are you doing?”

He stands, hands clasped like a child caught in the cookie jar, “Nothing.”

“Uh-huh, does this nothing have to do with Mr. Handsome down there?”

“Mr. Handsome?”

“It’s the interns’ name for him,” she informs him, “and I gotta say, they’re right about that.” Mark’s eyebrows scrunch together as he warns away Addison, “Oooh,” she laughs, “Possessive, aren’t we?”

“No,” Mark defends, but Addison laughs again.

“You want some help?” she teases.

“No,” Mark replies, then backtracks, but Addison is already gone, laughing to herself as Mark is left to his pondering. He finds himself beside you later and thinks of flirting but shuts himself up, “Hey,” he calls out to you.

“Mark, if this is another—”

“It’s not, I swear, I just wanted…wanted to talk…you know, have a conversation?” he winces at his own hesitation. “A conversation?”

“Yes…”

You scoff and leave him. Mark tries again to approach you but is rebuffed either by work, or you simply leave before he can utter a word. He ends the week having been rejected about twenty-something times; the atmosphere at Joe’s Bar doesn’t help ease his mood; thankfully, he had the foresight to get a table out of the way, so he can sulk in peace. Joe, the bastard, comes up to him when the crowd in the bar thins out; he wipes the table, takes the glass away, and sits across from Mark.

“Alright, what’s wrong with you?”

“I’m losing my magic, or rather,” he elaborates, “I’ve found someone immune to my magic.” Mark explains his woes to Joe, “and I’m pretty sure he hates me.”

Joe shakes his head, “I wouldn’t say hate; more so, he knows you’re a manwhore, and he’s not in favor of becoming another notch on your belt.”

Mark sulks more before leaving the bar; he faintly remembers Joe’s words when he walks into work the next day; when you pass by him, Mark makes another attempt at conversation, though this time, he does so more sincerely. You rebuff him, but he does get a greeting from you, it’s not much, but it’s something.

Mark manages to bump up to casual conversation after three weeks of brief greetings, granted the first one is awkward - on account that despite being a full-grown adult, Mark isn’t well equipped to hold his own in a conversation, at least not with people who’ve rejected him. So, you know, it’s hard. But steadily, he does manage, somewhat to speak to you; if you call nervous stuttering, clammy hands and wide eyes speaking, then yes.

“Smooth,” Derek remarks, “Real smooth.”

“Shut up.”

“I don’t think I’ve seen you like this since, well, not ever actually,” Derek notes; he stirs his food around, “it’s kinda funny.”

Mark glares at Derek, “Yeah, well, not for me.”

Derek shrugs, laughing at Mark’s plight, “Dr. Sloan,” your voice calls out from behind him, “would you like to help me with a case?” Mark agrees with a nod, rushing off after you, “You looked like you needed some help getting out of that.”

“Uh…thanks.”

“No problem,” you reply.

That little moment may not have seemed like much at the time, but that was another turning point in your relationship; it was also the catalyst for the nickname the rest of the hospital referred to you both as - M & M, you know McSteamy and Mr. Handsome. Which, quite frankly, was possibly the worst thing to ever come out of anyone’s mouth. Every time Mark heard it, he felt the urge to throw himself through a wall; the only thing stopping him was the fact that he had no idea about it, and he preferred it that way. Although bribing Karev was annoying, but worth it if it meant he could save whatever amount of dignity he had left right now.

All that side, Mark has learned a lot about you - you’re work-driven, really smart; also a tad scary when need be, and also really serious. But there was also more - you were caring, you made his heart race fast, your favorite foods, and also you’re sense of humor.

“Did you—you just laughed at my joke,” Mark remarked.

You placed a hand on your mouth to muffle your laughter, “No–I—” you couldn’t hold in the laughter anymore and doubled over. Mark folded his arms, his familiar cocky smile beamed.

“Would you look at that,” he muttered, “I have just accomplished the impossible.”

You punch him in the arm, “Shut up,” you tell him sternly but then dive into more laughter.

When the smugness dies down, Mark is left with a feeling of want - wanting to reach out and hold your face in his hands, wanting to hold you close, wanting to kiss you - he barely restrains himself from doing so. 

“Have I got something on my face?” Your voice breaks him out of his stupor, and it’s then he realizes the dopey smile on his face; he’s not sure what to respond with; you snap your fingers in his face, “Earth to Mark, you still with us?”

He nods, “Yeah, just…just admiring the view.”

“Oh…uh…” you shy away, wringing your hands together, “...uh….” Mark is leaning close, hand hovering by his side, as you avoid eye contact. It’s this scene that Meredith interrupts; you rush off before anything else can be said, and Mark is left there with her all-knowing smile taunting him. 

“Not a word, Grey.”

“I think he’s good for you,” she says, “makes you less of a douche, plus I think he likes you back.” Mark turns to her with a questioning look. “If you cleaned up more, you know, became less of a, what’s the word I’m looking for….”

“A manwhore,” he deadpans.

“Yeah, that,” she perks up. “Less of that, more of whatever,” she gestures at him, “that was you had with him.”

Grey wasn’t the first person to tell him that; Joe told him, Addison told him, Derek told him, Burke told him, everyone’s told him. Which he’d been doing, sort of, but the only issue was that he had to go back and ask you on a date again. When he’d asked you the first few times, he’d been alright with the rejection, though now, he’s not sure if he could handle rejection from you. 

The decision is taken from him when you approach him one day, a confused look on your face, “What’s M & M?”

“A type of candy?” He responds.

“Not that one, the one here,” you clarify, “someone just called me that, and Grey said I should ask you about it.” You stand there expectantly, arms folded, “So Mark, what is M & M?”

“It’s, it’s us.”

“What?”

“It’s us, you know, McSteamy,” he points to himself, “and Mr. Handsome,” he points at you, “M & M, McSteamy, and Mr. Handsome.”

“Huh, ok, but why?”

“Because people think we’d make a…a good couple, they ‘ship’ it,” he explains, “I had nothing to do with it, though,” he backtracks.

You chuckle, “I didn’t say I didn’t like it.”

“You don’t, I mean you do, I mean–” 

“Usually, I wouldn’t do this because going out with coworkers is never a good idea,” you mutter, grabbing his collar and dragging him towards you into a kiss. Mark’s hands hover in the air, unsure of what to do before coming around you; your hands move from his collar to his face, holding it gently as he closes his eyes. When you part for air, you bite your lip, grinning at the flabbergasted expression on Mark’s face. “I’ll take the look on your face as a yes then.”

“Yes…yes….what am I saying yes to?” Mark asks.

“A date, as long as Grey’s right and you have gotten your act together because I’m not another notch on your belt,” you poke his chest with every word, looking at him seriously, and Mark nods quickly. “Good.” You pat his coat, straightening it, “I’ll see you at lunch later then.”

End Note:

I'm not sorry for the M & M nickname, I'm actually quite proud of it.