#and the only difference between someone allowed to use it vs not allowed to use it

[thirdtimed]

unfortunately if i ever developed the lifeseries orv au in my head in earnest i would in no capacity whatsoever manage to be normal about it at all and like. i mean it

[pluviophile-imagines]

One of the things I’m rlly loving about Witch Hat is how it’s not shying away from the idea that law enforcement exists to maintain the status quo & systems of power, not to protect the people; in fact this is a trait explicitly shown in even our more emphasized/“sympathetic” fantasy-cop characters, the primary one being introduced by assaulting and attempting to erase the memories of our 12 yr old girl protagonist. It’s def not something I anticipated at all, and I’m enjoying it a lot! Especially when those little girl protags explicitly point out how unfair the system is & how it punishes victims rather than helping them

[jytan2018]

I read the comic in one sitting less than an hour after finishing the movie, and wow I have many Thoughts™.

- It's very obvious the two versions were meant to cater to different audiences AND tell different messages. I don't get why people are going "But the comic was better! It had more nuance!" just because Nimona was easier to root for in the movie.

- The comic was written back when ND Stevenson was still trying to process a lot of stuff, so all the characters are morally grey/straight up evil and the climactic battle is between a Ballister who regrets turning against Nimona, even if it was to save others vs. a Nimona who's too hurt to care if her lashing out was going to hurt innocent people.

- By the time Nimona got a movie adaptation, ND was a lot more secure in his sexuality, so the climactic battle was Nimona vs. the Director, the symbol of religious oppression and bigotry. It's not just about your friends turning on you because you're "too much" for them anymore, it's also about a society that would rather bring itself to the brink of ruin than coexist with you.

- (I totally get why people were upset about Ballister's surname change, though. Like come on, the media dubbing him Blackheart just to be mean was RIGHT THERE).

- Nimona's metaphor for not shifting is such a neurodivergent thing. Even in the comic, Nimona's parents insisting she's a monster who replaced their daughter is reminiscent of the changeling myth, which is what many parents thought their neurodivergent kids were—changelings who replaced their "real" children.

- Ambrosius being trained to cut off HIS BOYFRIEND'S WHOLE FUCKING ARM instead of merely disarming him is a very cop thing to do. As much as cops claim they're trained to de-escalate situations, their training still teaches them to treat everyone as a potential threat, and that level of constant vigilance can turn anyone into a trigger-happy/arm-choppy bastard. Even the Director, who can use a sword but probably hasn't actually fought someone in ages, STILL can't see Ballister reaching for the squire's phone without assuming he has a weapon.

- And on that note, the Queen getting killed simply because she was trying to reform the Institution and allow commoners to become knights? That's the best "no such thing as a good cop" metaphor I've seen. Because even if there ARE good cops and they ARE in leadership positions, the system will crush them before they make any meaningful change. It's not a good institution that turned rotten, it's an institution that only exists to spread its rot and refuses to be good.

- That's why Ballister's characterisation is so different in the movie vs. the comic. Comic Ballister had 15 years to come to terms with his trauma and the Institution's evildoing, while Movie Ballister is still freshly traumatised and hasn't found a way to define himself beyond the role he was assigned by the Institution.

- Not to mention Comic Ambrosius was not very noble to begin with and genuinely believed Ballister was better suited to villainy than heroism, while Movie Ambrosius never wanted the glory that came with his lineage in the first place and only antagonised Ballister because of indoctrination he needed to unlearn (which he did, all by himself, after witnessing the lengths the Director will go to just to kill Nimona).

- It really shows how important it is to surround yourself with loved ones who are open to change. Comic Ambrosius can love Ballister all he wants, but he'll still blast his arm off because he thinks Ballister deserved it anyway. Movie Ambrosius will stop to question what "the right thing" even means, even if he didn't love Ballister enough to defend him unconditionally.

I have so many more thoughts bubbling beneath the surface, but I'll probably address them some other day. In conclusion:

[ID: A pink-haired Nimona grinning evilly while holding up a knife.]

Watch Nimona. This is not a request.

Edit: Added more thoughts!

[dailymanners]

I feel as though in the past few years it's becoming more common for me to be interrupted while I'm speaking, and I can't help but wonder if more people are losing a sense of conversational rhythm due to communicating more and more digitally and less and less in person.

When you communicate digitally you don't have to worry about finding the natural rhythm of the conversation, you're not taking away someone else's ability to finish their thought or make their point if you send a message to them while they're still typing. I'm not here to scare monger about the kids and their phones, but it's important that you don't let your skill of finding a conversational rhythm, if you have that skill, atrophy, lest you speak over someone and take away their ability to complete their thought and make their point.

But I also realize that it's really important to specify what I mean by interrupting someone.

When someone says that interrupting is really normal and not considered rude in their community or culture, what they're actually talking about is what's known in linguistics as "cooperative overlap", that or simultaneous talking. Here's an example of cooperative overlap and/or simultaneous talking that you might see in a culture where this is normal and acceptable:

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: Oh let me take a wild guess! You went to the shoe store again didn't you?

Person A: That's right, and I got a -

Person C: Oh come on, don't tell you got another pair!

Person A: You know it baby!

Now let's compare that to a different style of interruption, what I like to call "steamrolling"

Person A: So guess where I went today? I went to the -

Person B: UGH did you guys catch the game last night?

Person C: Yeah the refs sucked!

Now, what differences can you see between the first example, aka "cooperative overlapping" vs the second "steamrolling" example?

For one, in the first example Person A is still allowed to make their point, tell their story, and finish their thought. They're not being silenced or completely derailed, and most importantly their conversation partners still seem interested and engaged in what they have to say. In the second example, Person A is being completely derailed and stripped of their chance to finish their thought and make their point, which is unfair to Person A, which is what makes "steamrolling" disrespectful even in many cultures and communities where "cooperative overlapping" would be acceptable.

Now, conversational overlap isn't for everyone, and that's okay, but it makes it awkward and tricky when someone from a community or culture that uses conversational overlap talks to someone who is from a culture that doesn't. For example:

Person A: So the other day I went to -

Person B: Oh my god did you go to that one store?

Person A: Um, no, I went to the movies, and I saw -

Person B: OH did you see that new creepy movie about the aliens?

Person A: No, can I please just finish my story?

Person B: Oh, uh, sorry

Neither person will probably feel great after this conversation. And I'm not here to condemn either conversational styles. I understand why some people see cooperative overlap as a more engaging and exciting conversational style, but I also understand why some people find it frustrating. My mother's family has a cultural background big on conversational overlap, but my father's side of the family ehhh not so much, so I personally grew up seeing these two conversational styles clash a lot.

If you're person A in the above conversation who doesn't like conversational overlap, that's totally fine, I'm personally not a big fan of it either only because I have a terrible memory, so when someone disrupts my flow I usually end up completely forgetting what I want to say. Just try to recognize the difference between cooperative overlap vs steamrolling. If someone is just trying to cooperatively overlap with you, patiently and politely tell them something along the lines of "sorry I have a terrible memory so if I don't finish I'll forget what I'm trying to say". But it's generally a good idea to be more patient and understanding with conversational overlap than steamrolling.

If you're someone who cooperatively overlaps and you encounter someone who isn't a fan of it, try not to take it personally, maybe like me they have a horrible memory and will forget what they're trying to say if they get side tracked.

But what I meant earlier about conversational rhythm is that too often a lot of interrupting comes from not realizing the other person wasn't finished speaking.

For example, personal A wants to say "so the other day I went hiking, and I saw a fox" some people might not recognize when person A is actually finished speaking, typically they assume as soon as they've heard a complete clause that means the thought is finished, so the conversation goes like

Person A: So the other day I went hiking -

Person B: OH I went hiking a few weeks ago with my girlfriend but it was so slippery out!

Person C: Oh how is your girlfriend doing by the way?

Person B: She's doing great! How's your partner doing?

Do you see how this style of interruption, unlike cooperative overlap, also derails Person A and deprives Person A of a chance to finish what they want to say? It's not quite steamrolling, and often just comes from a lack of rhythm or understanding. As a general rule, if you want to avoid interrupting someone, pause for a few seconds after you think they're finished in case they aren't actually finished. This way you avoid accidentally depriving someone of the chance to finish what they want to say and completing their thought.

We should never be too eager to assume someone has finished making their point because you never know what someone might actually be trying to say, and if you cut someone off before they make their point you can miss important context. For example:

Person A: I don't think I see stray cats here -

Person B: AHA BULL FUCKING SHIT! I totally saw a stray cat the other day!

Person A: I was going to say as much as in other places if you had let me finish?

Or:

Person A: I hate when it's hot out. When I was a kid it was usually around 25 or 30 degrees Celsius in the summers -

Person B: OH come one don't be such a wimpy little baby! 25-30 degrees isn't even that warm! I've totally seen WAY hotter summers than that!

Person A: Uh, that's what I was going to say if you'd let me finish, the summers were pretty mild when I was a kid, but they're a lot hotter now . .

Do you see how in both conversations Person B was too eager to assume Person A had finished making their point and ended up missing important context? If person B had only paused and waited for Person A to finish making their point, they wouldn't have ended up making an ass of themselves to put it frankly. This style of interruption can make you come across as eager to dominate and "one up" other people, which frankly a lot of people find obnoxious and exhausting. This is different than cooperative overlapping because it comes from a place of wanting to correct or one-up your conversation partner, rather than play and/or build into what they're saying, which is why I'd argue it's closer to steamrolling.

Good conversational rhythm ideally means everyone is allowed to finish their thought and make their point, whether or not that includes overlapping or even simultaneous talking. If you're not sure someone has finished their thought, pause a few seconds to make sure they've had the chance to complete their thought, less you miss important context. OR, if you do interject, it should be about building/playing into what they're saying rather than derailing/steamrolling them.

What's important to keep in mind is that it's often a matter of power and respect when someone is or isn't allowed to finish their thought and make their point. If someone is unable to finish their thought or make their point before getting steamrolled, they're going to feel like their input to the conversation isn't valued or important, and that's never a good feeling.

[writers-potion]

Writing Group vs. Group & One vs. Many Fight Scenes

Group vs. Group

To win the readers' sympathies, make sure there are more (and stronger) bad guys than good guys.

Portray a strong "them versus us" mindset. Sometimes, this is a microcosm of a larger religious, social, racial conflict.

Visual clues are often used to emphasize the divide between the two groups: black coats versus white suits, jeans against shorts, etc. They'll have different weapons, use different languages or speech patterns.

Each group will have a leader who spearheads strategies and motivates the rest. This can be an established leader like the eldet sibling, the head girl of the school, etc. Or someone who has the respect of the others and takes charge spontaneously when the situation rises.

The Point of View

Group fights are easiest to write in omniscient PoV

Otherwise, choose a PoV character who is invovled in most action, and restrict yourself to their line of vision. You can take short breaks (like two seconds after he kills his immediate opponent) to account for how his comrads are doing.

One vs. Group

1 vs. many fights where the single person comes up triumphant are fun, but hardly plausible. The key is to provide an illusion of reality.

Keep the number of opponents realistic: three, not thirty.

He would be more highly trained/have special powers than all of his opponents.

He is positioned in such as way that all of his opponents come at him from only one direction (like having his back to a wall), or he stands in a higher terrains from where he can keep an eye on all of them.

She identifies the group's leader and takes him out first.

She creates a situation which forces the group to spread out, or hits when they are already dispersed rather than tightly knit together.

He uses a weapon which can take out several opponents at once. The most effective one for this would be a machine gun, or the hero holding two swords, one in each hand.

If you want the bad guys to come at the hero one by one, some ideas:

The hero has aken p position in a place where only one villain can squeeze through at one time

The attackers don't arrive simultaneously. They come running, and each attacks as soon as they reach the hero.

The gang has a code of honor which demands 1:1 fights.

The fight is an initiation requirment where the newbie must prove themselves in 1:1 combat with all of the established members.

Some tips:

If a hero with superior arms taking on many who are unarmed will make the readers see him as a butcher, and their sympathies will be lost for good.

If he take out too many opponents at once, the readers wouldn't feel like he has really put up a fight. If your hero has a superpower that allows him to do this, establish the boundaries of this power and push the hero to the limit.

If the novel has too many 1:many scenes, it will lose its dramatic effect, and worse, seem unrealistic as you move along.

If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 📸

[archiveikemen]

"Come Play With Us, Miss Fairytale Keeper" Story Event: Chapter 1

Alfons Sylvatica VS Ring Schwartz

This is a fan-made translation solely for entertainment purposes with no guaranteed perfection; expect mistakes, grammatical errors, and some creative liberties. All original content and media used belongs to Cybird. Please support the game by buying their stories and playing their games. Reblogs appreciated.

Read this before interacting

One afternoon, Alfons and I were being briefed on our next mission. 

Victor: That’s the general outline of it. Additionally, I have a favour to ask of you two… 

Darius’ Voice: It’s me. May I come in? 

Victor: You may. 

Upon being granted permission, Darius entered the room with Nica and Ring. 

Victor: You came at the perfect time, I was going to talk about you.

Darius: I saw Miss Fairytale Keeper enter the room with Alfons earlier, so I figured as much. 

(Does Victor’s favour have something to do with the members of Vogel…?) 

Victor: Actually, I was asked if one of the Vogel members could accompany you on a mission. 

Victor: I’m thinking that it’d be a good idea for this mission. What are your thoughts, Alfons and Kate? 

(This mission is to find out the time and place of a transaction involving “illegal drugs”.) 

(We’re only going to eavesdrop on the target’s conversation, so it shouldn't be a problem to have more people with us.) 

Kate: I think it's fine with me. 

Alfons: I don't mind as long as I get to choose who comes with us.

Darius: Fufu, who will you choose?

Ring: I’ll cut every single member down if anything happens to Dari or Nica. 

Alfons: Ooh, how scary! But there’s no need to worry.

Alfons: The one I choose is you, Ring. 

Ring: … Me?

Surprised to hear that he was chosen, Ring cast a glance at Darius.

Darius: Isn’t that great? I think you can learn various things from this. 

Darius: So… Pass auf dich auf / Have a nice one. 

Ring: … Alles klar / Understood. 

And so, the first mission with Alfons, Ring, and I began.

…

The day of the mission. Ring stared wide-eyed at me when he boarded the carriage. 

Ring: W-what’s with that outfit… 

Kate: I put it on for the mission. … Do I look weird? 

Ring: … I was just a little surprised because you look different from usual. 

As Ring gave a blunt response, Alfons put an arm over my shoulder. 

Alfons: It suits Miss Robin, doesn’t it? I picked out this dress for her. 

Alfons: She looks so lovely it makes you feel like you want to pin her down and get dirty with her, doesn't she? I understand that feeling.

Ring: Wha…! I- I never said anything like that…

Alfons: My, are you secretly thinking about it then? What a pervert. 

Ring: I would never! … You’re exactly as the rumours say you are. “A walking offence to public morals”! 

Alfons: I don’t deny that, but isn’t your reaction too exaggerated, Ring? You sound like a virgin.

Alfons: I wonder if you can handle this mission when you’re so innocent… I’m worried. 

Alfons: Since you’re not used to women, perhaps we should have someone else replace you— 

Ring: W-wait… I have plenty of experience with that, so I don't have any problems completing the mission. 

Alfons: Is that so? That’s a relief then. Isn’t it, Miss Robin?

Kate: Y-yes… 

Alfons continued talking to Ring amusedly, his facial expression looking as though he had found a new toy. 

On the other hand, Ring looked uncomfortable and was clearly not liking Alfons’ teasing. 

(... I hope we complete the mission without any problems…) 

…

The carriage sped through the streets and arrived at a large mansion in the suburbs. 

Alfons: Allow me to explain about this mansion which is the location for our mission. 

Alfons: This mansion is a meeting place for people who indulge in illicit love affairs. 

Alfons: All forms of love are accepted here… regardless of social status, gender, or marital status.

Alfons: Therefore, all conversations between the pairs that take place in this mansion are kept strictly confidential. 

Ring: That makes it the perfect place for criminals to meet in secret. 

Alfons: Exactly. Moreover, participants can choose to get a key to a private room to enjoy some alone time together as a pair.

Alfons’ explanation reminded me of what happened when we first arrived at the mansion.

= Flashback Start = 

Butler: Please hold, dear guests. The rooms can only be used by two people. Three is… 

Alfons: No need to worry. We don't intend to have a threesome.

Alfons: He and I are competing for this lady’s love. Isn’t that right, Ring? 

Ring: Huh!? Y-yeah… that’s right.

Despite not fully understanding the situation, Ring seemed to be going along with Alfons’ story.

Alfons: She will choose between Ring and I later on.

Alfons: It won’t be a problem if we only obtain the room key after that, right?

= Flashback End = 

Kate: We have to choose the room next to our target’s in order to eavesdrop on their meeting… 

Kate: That’s why you made it seem as though two of you are competing for me, then we’ll find out which room our target is in and get our key. 

Alfons: Your quick understanding is very helpful. 

Ring: … I wasn’t told about this mansion prior to starting the mission.

Kate: It was my first time hearing about it too. 

Alfons: Ah, I withheld that piece of information on purpose. 

Kate: What.

Ring: Withholding information… is this Crown’s way of doing things? Or were you trying to trap me…? 

Ring: Whichever it is, I guess I don’t have the right to complain if you were to kill me right here and now. 

Kate: P-please calm down, Ring! I’m sure he had his reasons for doing that. … Right, Alfons!? 

Alfons: Why did I withhold information, you ask…? It was for Ring’s sake.

Ring: For my sake? 

Ring looked at Alfons suspiciously. 

He was definitely feeling the same way I was — “this man can’t be trusted”. 

Alfons: I figured that you’d get nervous if you knew we’d be pretending to compete over a woman… so I chose not to tell you until the last minute. 

Alfons: But you said you’re very experienced, right? My worries were unfounded then. 

Rint: R-right. No need to worry about me.

Kate: What about me? Why didn't you tell me?

Alfons: Because you’ll feel bad if Ring was the only one kept in the dark. 

(I can’t deny that…) 

Alfons: Well then. We’ll have to find out which room our target chose—

Alfons: And Kate will have to choose one person between Ring and myself to be her lover.

Alfons: If this goes as I expected, I’m the one you’ll choose, right? I’ll make you feel good today too, as always. 

Ring: … I won't let that happen.

Ring: As a member of Vogel, I can’t afford to make a fool of myself here.

Ring: I’m the one Kate will choose.

Tension sparked between Ring and Alfons. 

(What’s going to happen with this mission…?)

[vaguely-concerned]

it probably says something either sad or deeply unfortunate about me as a person, but I'm darkly amused to see some people react to the reveal of the ultimate permeability of souls in tlt as a triumphant thing -- the "you can't take 'loved' away!!!" side of it all -- when my first reaction was such an immediate wave of 'oh, oh so this is why this series is horror, I truly understand now' distress haha. ngl the final confirmation of the self not being inviolable in the deepest way freaks me the fuck out far more than any moment of body horror in the series has managed. (these two elements are of course the two sides of one thematic coin; it's about the horror of our bodies and minds and selves not being inviolable things, and about the effect of violence on them on so many different levels. violence psychological and interpersonal, physical, subtextually sexual, emotional, medical, political, a whole unlovely smörgåsbord of indignity and violation a person can be exposed to, and on a broader scale the spectrum of violence colonialism wields). The world and other people being capable of leaving indelible marks on us for good or ill through their presence in our lives is of course a pretty self-evident demonstrable truth in the real world, but somehow having it be proven metaphysically just uh. Fucks me up! 

It also drives home to me just how perfectly Muir has captured the dilemma at the heart of human connection and intimacy: the fact that the thing that gives us life and meaning is also capable of harming us so deeply. the same thing that can be so beautiful — even in a bittersweet, violently transformative form like with the creation of Paul — when done mutually and consensually and compassionately, is the same process that means someone like John can touch someone else's soul and 'after he's put his fingers on something, you'll never find anyone else's fingerprints on it; too much noise'. I think the text itself — the whole series, because to me this is what it is ultimately about, this tension between individuation/self vs. love/connection/enmeshment — is far more ambivalent in its treatment of it than saying it’s inherently a good thing or inherently a bad thing. The only thing it says for sure is that it is always a thing, that thinking you’re ever getting away from it is the height of futility, and that through being alive (or even through being dead lol) it is something you have to engage with in some way no matter what. Contact with other people is deeply necessary — without it we sicken and die. it can be the most beautiful and meaningful thing in a human life, and the most unspeakably horrific. All of these people are searching for some way to be whole, whether in total self-contained sufficiency on their own or in melding with someone else as their ‘other half’, and stumbling around in the dark they reach for each other and score deep wounds into the thing they’re trying to touch even when they don’t mean to. Taken to horrific extremes with the form of lyctorhood John guided his disciples to when they were ‘children — playing in the reflections of stars in a pool of water, thinking it was space’, because while people hurt each other all the time with differing levels of intentionality behind it, what John did was deliberate. It weaponizes the misapprehension of what closeness must be and destroys everyone involved in the process… and all because it leaves John the one sun their ruined lives have left to orbit around, because that’s the closest thing his soul will allow to connection. He doesn’t understand that to truly touch something you have to truly let it touch you back, and then wonders why he’s never satisfied.   

‘The horrors of love’ has been memed to death, I know, but… yeah. That is what it is, isn’t it.

[bitchy-craft]

Your Future Relationship Private vs. Public | Pick A Pile

Hello and welcome to this Pick A Pile! In here you'll find out about your dynamics with your FS in private vs. public. I hope you guys enjoy and find this useful. Do make sure to leave comments down below on your experience! I do want to remind you all that this is a General Pick A Pile which means this is for a lot of people; therefore keep what resonates and leave what doesn't.

Masterlist > Questions > Paid Readings

Pick A Pile!

Pile 1:

Your conversations will be much different between private and public. In public you guys will be able to talk about things as much as you want, but because of the fact other people are around, it won't go as deep as what you would've preferred or be able to do. Not only because more people will intervene with these conversations, but also because you two will have a level of trust so deep no one is able to understand or level at. There are many things in your mind that you love to share with your partner during conversations, but simply aren't able to when others are present.

Your conversations in private are incredibly deep and understanding. Any trouble or negative feeling is allowed to be discussed, and is encouraged to be discussed. The conversations between the two of you enlightens you both with new ways of thinking, new realizations and forms of understanding.

Pile 2:

Affection and love is something you both decided to be more private in this relationship. When you're with others you will make sure no one ever feels like a third wheel, possibly because one of you has felt like that a lot in the past. Your relationship is known, but when with others your time is for others. And in private when you're with one another, your time is for one another.

You guys might hold hands with one another in public, but anything more won't be present often. One of you, if not both, don't like it when you feel being left out, and have decided you'll make sure you're never going to be the cause of that to someone else. But in private, all attention, all physical affection, all giggles, etc. Will be for the both of you.

Pile 3:

Your future spouse will be confident about you and your relationship in both private and public. They'll automatically display affection in public; like holding your hand, putting their arm around your shoulder, kiss you on your mouth or cheek, put their hand on your leg while sitting etc.

But it'll always be different in private, with this pile being the amount of care and love put into these displays. In private everything will be more thought-through, more caring etc. They'll love to look into your eyes for a long while, while pushing your hair back or tracing your lips with their thumb. These actions are simply things you do more in private; all attention will be between the two of you, no one else in the world will be thought off.

[lav-bee]

HxH X Reader

PDA in public VS private

Character/s: Meruem

❤️- read as romantic

Warnings: 16+, This has spicy stuff in it but it’s not super detailed, I marked them sfw and nsfw if you didn’t want to read it ^_^

SFW

- Genuinely doesn't care where or when, how many eyes there are that can see you both, he will indulge in PDA

- Any prying eyes will be ignored because really, why should he care? He is the King

- However, if he notices you being tense because of the starring he will order the ant/ human away

- Your comfort is his priority and therefore will keep an eye on you -> trying to pick up on any cues

- Will try to keep his hands to himself but that doesn't mean he’ll leave you alone

- It's very rare for him to leave you alone, and if he isn't there with you he’ll assign Pieto to follow after you

- You're his, that means no one else will be allowed to touch you

- Possessive, you might say

- His reasoning is ‘To keep you safe’. After all, you are human, you're fragile

- It gets to his head sometime, there have been times that he was scared to touch you in fear he will break you. The smallest movement on his part could lead to you having a broken/ sprained limb

- You’ll have to reassure him a simple hug wont crush you

- I'm not trying to say he won't touch you at all, he definitely does. The touches are just more soft and gentle

- One thing he really likes is having you sit in his lap

- That way you have some control in how you sit, it also allows him to wrap his arms around you

- Will rest his chin on either your head or shoulder while playing against board game masters

- If the game he's playing starts to get boring he’ll begin to lay soft kisses along your neck

- Kisses will turn into sucking and sooner or later you’ll be sitting there squirming in his lap as he continues to mark you in hickies

- Won't admit it at first but he likes to see you squirm, in pleasure of course, not discomfort

- But again, if you don't like being all squirmy in his lap in front of others he’ll tune it down a bit, only a couple kisses

- In private isn't much different

- He is still careful where and how he moves in order not to hurt you

- But since there's no one around anymore it's free game, will cuddle and kiss you to his hearts content

- Cuddling is also one of his favorites, he's definitely the big spoon

- Will pull you into his chest by your waist and nuzzle his face into your neck

- Not many words are said, just enjoying each other in comforting embrace

- You’ll both fall asleep like that

NSFW

- Onto more spicy things

- You’ll have to convince him to do more sexual stuff

- Not that he doesnt want to do it, it's just he doesn't want to hurt you (no break it, its fine)

- Very slow to proceed once you do convince him

- Trust me when I say he can spend hours between your legs prepping you

- You’ll be a puddle of mush by the time he’s done, you might even pass out from how many times he brought you to release by just his fingers and tongue

- Will use it as an excuse that you need to rest and will once again prolong the real event

- Leaves kisses and hickeys everywhere along your body, it almost looks as if someone beat you up

- Back to the part where he sits you on his lap

- Let me introduce you to cockwarming

- He has spent hours playing against people, why not have some fun?

- There will be a blanket placed in your lap so the others in the room don't see anything, you're his and therefore no human or ant should see what's his to take

- Is very patient and has self control, but that doesn't mean he lets you do as you wish, he has a breaking point

- “No rocking your hips,” He mumbles against your neck. His hands stop you from any further movement, “You're distracting me.”

[ikeoji-subs]

Zettai BL Ni Naru Sekai VS Zettai BL Ni Naritakunai Otoko 2024 - Episode 6 Eng Sub

VS SHOOTING and VS FALLING IN LOVE

It's the season 3 finale!

For downloading instructions and where to find the raw files, please check our masterpost.

[Subs link]

We ask that you not upload our subs to streaming sites.

Sharing with friends is fine. We’re also OK with folks sharing them in other ways as long as they aren’t public. Please use discretion when talking about the fansub outside of tumblr, but don’t hesitate to get the word out in other ways, and feel free to promote it here. Please credit ikeoji-subs whenever possible—we put a lot of time and effort into this.

Feel free to use the fansub for fandom purposes. Gif-making, meta-writing, and other fandom-related creative endeavors made using our fansub are not only welcome but encouraged.

This is the final episode of this season! We're both going to miss working on this project. When it comes to plans for the future, we're still figuring that part out, but rest assured that we'll keep everyone posted here if we have another project in the works. For the moment, we once again want to thank everyone who has spread the word or had a kind word for us in the tags and elsewhere.

Big big thanks to our pal @my-rose-tinted-glasses for letting us make use of her talents and helping our posts and translation notes look special.

translation notes:

about “acknowledge the way I feel” (20:27)

The first, more literal translation of this line, which Hatano says on the bridge, was, “Can you accept my feelings?” That line definitely gets something across, but I knew we’d be leaving it open to varied interpretations–some of them inaccurate–if we didn’t make it more specific. I might go a little overboard in the specificity department sometimes. I think it’s probably due to a combination of my ADHD-related quirks and having spent too much time picking apart variables as a researcher. Whatever the reason, this time I was kind of in overdrive because this line seemed pretty important. 

I asked Snow some questions about what “accept” meant in this instance. In English–and in the American cultural context I’m used to–there are lots of specific ways to talk about a situation like this one. Someone in Hatano’s position in the US would have a plethora of options for inquiring about Mob’s thoughts and emotions and/or making requests about how he might respond to their feelings. Is Hatano asking Mob to simply believe that he has these feelings about him? To let him show these feelings toward him openly, even if he only allows this passively, without offering anything in return? To receive them in a way that implies he returns them or that otherwise implies some degree of connection between them? And so on. 

I was expecting cultural differences to come up around this line, but they came up in a way I wasn’t expecting. Snow responded by telling me that there wasn’t a really specific meaning behind the Japanese wording of this line and that that was characteristic of the Japanese language around such things. I knew that I was more intense than the average American about wanting to pinpoint the meanings of things, but it would seem that the average American is more intense about it than the average Japanese person. 

That was a really interesting insight (one that I’m still thinking about), but it still left me with a conundrum when it came to this line. I could stick with “accept,” since it had a kind of vagueness to it (which was part of the reason I started trying to reword the line in the first place). But I thought “accepting” feelings sounded closer than I’d like to possibly reciprocating them, and I knew from my conversation with Snow that that shouldn’t be implied here. 

I started looking at thesaurus entries and going down different synonym paths. I wanted a word that, in its broadest sense, would be asking very little of the other person. I figured if the Japanese wording was open to being interpreted as either asking for very little or asking for more, then the English wording should be something that could at least be taken as not asking for much, because the implication that Hatano wants more than that from Mob is already clearly present. 

When I came across “acknowledge,” it fit the bill. At first, I just thought of its meaning on a smaller scale. It’s not much to ask of someone to simply acknowledge something, in most contexts. 

But after just a little bit of thought, I realized it also had a useful kind of vagueness. Acknowledgement can be as small as a barely perceptible nod, but it’s also used to talk about thanking someone, giving credit, commending or honoring someone, even giving someone a reward. In a romantic context, depending on the specific story, you could imagine “acknowledge” meaning anything from “yeah, I see you over there” all the way to someone’s devotion being rewarded in all the ways they’ve hoped for. 

Some of these uses are more of a stretch and would only work in just the right context. The default meaning of the word is clearly on the more modest side. But that works well, too. I took this request as coming from a pretty humble, unassuming place and I figured “acknowledge” was reflective of that. 

I ended up being really happy with this word choice. Hopefully, it’ll get the right idea across to folks who watch the show with our subtitles, even if they don’t read this translation note. But I hope that reading this gets it across even more effectively.–Towel

Tag list: @absolutebl @bengiyo @c1nto @come-back-serotonin @lurkingshan @my-rose-tinted-glasses @porridgefeast @sorry-bonebag @twig-tea @wen-kexing-apologist

[otogariado]

only halfway thru the new frieren episode i was almost tearing up because the theme of protecting each other and caring about life more importantly than winning is so poignant. not all the characters are human in species but once again the humanity is blossoming in frieren's story. i was so afraid they'd actually get killed last ep but i mean it's so funny now what was i even thinking. this is frieren. they won't kill unless it was really necessary.

the reveal that richter raised the platform not to make his fight with lawline and kanne easier but actually to protect them from denken's attacks was so good. the "magic is nothing if you cannot imagine it" line is so wonderful because i'm a big fan of magic systems that revolve around that logical "science-y" aspect of like. understanding how it will work in order to do it. (same reason why i love the magic in "world's greatest assassin".) laufen getting caught by frieren even though she knows it's a trap just bc she didn't want denken to get hurt was also so good. the reveal that denken didn't have a grander motive to be a first class mage beyond "i wanna go back to my hometown and visit the cementary there but only first class mages are allowed to enter" was so painfully human and so reflective of real life. it also strikes you because he was introduced as a high-profile, politically influential mage.

i love what denken says about not going out without a fight. i love that the episode ends in a fistfight for him. i love it when media uses fistfights and punching in such an emotionally-charged human way, beyond the violence, instead depicting it as some sort of catharsis really. because sometimes all you need is a good rough n tumble. in denken's case, it's his way of not giving up without a fight. i like that. i also like that this was foreshadowed by denken telling laufen to cut the tree down instead of trying to cut the restraint. "we don't have any mana" "neither do they". sometimes all it takes is to find a differently way to approach your problems and sometimes the solution is simpler than you think.

i'm a big fan of frieren breaking the barrier because she thought it was unfair to cut kanna (and by extension lawline) out of her source of magic, giving her an unfair disadvantage and honestly a handicap. it's a short part of the episode but it's so important, because it shows that if people are given the right tools and the accessibility, they can do for themselves what they want and need to do. i love that frieren is like "can you imagine winning against a water manipulating mage with water around? i can't."

i'm a fan of how the "basic" combat and defensive magic are depicted and treated as in this show. yes, people more on from traditions, but traditions are there in the first place. richter's explanation of magic history in their world provides an insight to how modern magic evolved from the foundations. but the foundations were still foundations for a reason. they made it a point with fern saying "frieren doesn't restrict me from spells" (even tho it was the setup for a small joke) that the point isn't to pick a side between tradition vs modern, but rather to learn from both and decide for yourself what you want to apply to yourself. the depiction of fern and frieren winning with traditional magic and richter and kanne overwhelming each other with modern magic makes it clear that the show isn't trying to preach to either side.

i also like the theme of "pursuing magic out for the sake of magic is enough". it's nice to hear that denken shares this mindset with frieren, because again he was introduced as someone influential and you'd think he thinks like he could use magic as a source of power. and that's the impression i got of him too from previous episodes, but a lot of first impressions of mine were proven wrong later and i'm so happy for that bc these characters have so much depth packed into them in so little time.

what else have i missed...

[coquelicoq]

justice of toren collecting songs and one esk/breq constantly humming/singing them is such a good detail and ann leckie does so much with it. an incomplete list:

justice of toren's eager collection of songs is part and parcel of its violent destruction of cultures: these songs are cultural artifacts that it only learns because of its presence on those worlds during their conquest, and in many cases breq is the only one to remember them because their people have died out due to that violence. JoT preserves cultural artifacts for its own use at the same time it directly contributes to the need for that preservation in the first place.

the matter-of-fact way in which this is narrated to us gives us information about JoT's stance on respect and imperialism - that is, contrasted with other characters who look down on the conquered cultures, JoT does actually seem to appreciate their value. and yet it communicates to us no sense of remorse over its role in their genocide.

singing can be a communal activity. this allows us to feel the difference between one esk's multiple bodies singing together in harmony/in a round vs. breq singing alone. this has emotional weight, is an evocative image, and illustrates quite nicely some of the logistic considerations of having one vs. multiple bodies.

the constant humming/singing is extremely notable and idiosyncratic according to other characters, which is a dangerous combination for someone who's supposed to be undercover, so it adds a lil bit of fun suspense for us.

the fact that no one ever figures out breq's identity despite this giveaway tells us something about the other characters' attitudes towards artificial intelligences (though see below about seivarden).

the fact that it's so idiosyncratic also tells us something about the ability of individual AIs to have personalities that distinguish them from other AIs, and the fact that one esk sings constantly but two esk doesn't tells us something about the ability of different ancillary decades that are all part of the same AI to have distinguishing characteristics. this is very relevant to, and illustrative of, the series' thematic throughlines around identity, personality, continuity, etc.

the fact that breq personally has a bad voice also serves multiple purposes. because breq and seivarden both believe that the medic could have chosen a body with a good voice if she had wanted to, we can infer something about how ancillary bodies work, how much the AI (and, by extension, its medics) knows about the individual capabilities of those bodies while they're in suspension, and what kinds of things the AI can and can't control once it has unfrozen and taken over a body.

we can also draw conclusions about the medic that chose that body and about intracrew relations on that ship.

breq's bad voice creates moments of humor and irony in the narrative, such as when breq's constant singing - aka the most obvious clue that she is one esk - is precisely what makes seivarden so sure that breq can't be one esk, because no esk medic would use a body with a bad voice for an ancillary.

constant singing/humming imposes itself on the shared soundscape, meaning other people can't easily avoid it and it has the potential to annoy them, especially if the voice itself has annoying qualities. the reactions of other characters to the frequency and/or quality of this verbal tic tells us something about the level of affection those characters have for one esk or breq.

because singing involves words, the meaning of the lyrics being sung can be used to advance the plot, communicate things about specific characters, create irony in juxtaposition with what's happening on the page, etc.

i especially like what's done with the lyric "it all goes around". it's woven throughout the story in such a way as to manifest its own meaning (the repetition of "it all goes around" is, itself, an example of something going around). by repeating the lyric, breq is the one making it true, and i would argue that her repetition of this particular lyric about things orbiting other things contributes to, and/or is a sign of, her growing understanding of the necessity/reality of interdependence and her place in that framework/her role in constructing it, or in other words, the extent of her own agency and the rights and obligations it confers upon her.

because the singing/humming is a constant, background, automatic action, it only ceases when breq is experiencing a strong emotion. from this we are able to infer things about the emotional state of our famously-omits-details-about-her-emotional-state narrator based on other characters' comments about whether or not she is currently doing this thing.

we also aren't even aware that breq is doing it constantly until another character says so. on a narrative level, this serves the dual purpose of making sure we know about how much she hums AND of reminding us that she's not telling us everything.

the humming is not mentioned constantly even though it is happening constantly - this helps us forget in between mentions that it's going on while also simultaneously reinforcing just how constant it must be, so constant that to mention it every time it happens would be like narrating every time she breathes in or out. whenever someone brings it up, we are reminded anew that something has been happening all along that we forgot about. this means that ann leckie is able, by leaving information out, to hammer home to us how much we are not being told.

through this one character trait, ann leckie efficiently and elegantly communicates not just aspects of character but also of setting, plot, tone, theme, and narrative. there's no extraneous exposition just to tell us about the song collection or singing; everything that tells us about it is serving other functions in the narrative as well. the ways in which she manifests this one character trait in the universe and in the narrative contribute to and exemplify both the story itself and the method of its telling.

[brazenautomaton]

Cannot reblog original post but: taboo "feminism"?

Less laconically it looks like you and your interlocutors are talking about different things. They understand "feminism" as the movement that is pushing for/has made strides towards at least formally and legally treating women the same as men (which seems straightforwardly laudable and needn't be zero sum) whereas when you talk about feminism yours is...a new concept for me, which I'd like to understand better.

okay, to do that, I need to "taboo" a different word, and before I do THAT, I need to remind you of something important: useful information is information that lets us make accurate predictions.

Okay so. "Sexism" is the word we need to do first. Let's say simply that "sexism" is whatever means or mechanism or system in the world that results in an observed difference between outcomes between men and women. There are different theories as to what causes this observed difference, and two are relevant:

Misogyny Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a unidirectional oppression created by men, to inflict on women, out of hatred of women. Misogyny is a desire to harm women for being women. Power is a thing held by men and denied to women. Misogyny theory says sexism is, intentionally or unintentionally, made to benefit men at the expense of women, against the will of women. Gender history is defined by men hating women and seeking to harm women, who were not powerful enough to make it stop.

Gender Bias Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a system of biases and perceptions that are participated in by both men and women whose aim is to maximize women's safety at the cost of their agency and maximize men's agency at the cost of their safety. Gender bias casts women as precious and incapable victims and men as threatening and disposable agents. Men and women both participate in and reinforce this bias and gender history is defined by punishing people who don't fit into this model and rewarding people who do.

These are not equally valid competing theories. Misogyny theory is wrong, because the predictions it makes about women's safety are very important and do not match reality at all. Misogyny theory predicts that women would be less safe than men, that they would have more crimes committed against them and the criminal justice system would be harsher towards them, that their victimization would be more acceptable and that the law would refuse to recognize their victimization. All of these things are the opposite of what happens. There is no category of crime that happens more often to women than men; rape and domestic abuse, the crimes that misogyny theory claims are the defining experience of women and are particular to the experience of women, are 50/50 and every other bad thing a human being can do to another human happens way more to men than to women. Crimes against women are more likely to be prosecuted than against men, more likely to result in conviction, and the sentences are greater; the same for male criminals vs female criminals. Misogyny theory is incorrect.

Not only does gender bias theory accurately predict outcomes (it predicts that sexism would result in women being protected heavily and denied opportunities to succeed or excel), gender bias theory perfectly predicts the existence of misogyny theory. Biases are not precision instruments. They are directions to err toward, they are inaccuracies in people's perceptions that overall bend people's beliefs in a certain way. The way you have a bias that ensures women are safe and non-agentic, is when people are extremely concerned with the well-being of women and extremely callous to the well-being of men. Someone who had powdered up gender bias and snorted it like a line of coke would be unable to see anything other than "women are not safe enough, men are imperiling women, men have to do more to keep women safe." That's the only belief gender bias allows, because if you ever concluded "women are safe," you wouldn't be doing things to make women safer.

This is why misogyny theory is sexism. It has the unexamined perceptions of gender bias and is by majority concerned with enforcing the central belief of gender bias: women are victimized by the power of men, men are threatening to women, men have it better than women, men must do more to enlist their agency to protect women. Every single example of historical sexism fits this pattern: women have to be kept safe, and to do this, women are treated as children who cannot be responsible for their own safety. If they were responsible for their own safety, then not enough people would be looking out for them. Women need men's supervision because if they make their own decisions they might make the wrong ones. Women can't dress provocatively because men are so dangerous and threatening it might provoke one to attack her. Rape is a uniquely harmful and destructive crime to women, because women are so non-agentic that they can't do meaningful things and the only thing they bring to the table is their sexual purity; a woman who has had that sexual purity taken has been effectively ruined, she obviously has no agency so she can't recover from it, and so we can't let that happen to her, and she should know to be very afraid of it all the time.

The Movement is a large and powerful group of people who claim to be the only way to fight sexism. They are misogyny theorists. The history of the Movement is the history of misogyny theory. The actions taken by the Movement are actions taken in line with misogyny theory. The power held by the Movement is power held by misogyny theorists. The theoretical structures and intellectual viewpoints of the Movement are those of misogyny theory. Within a rounding error, all of them are misogyny theorists, and the ones who aren't, are decried and excommunicated from the Movement when it is discovered they aren't misogyny theorists.

Some members of the Movement have a ravening hatred of men and seek to harm men more than anything in the world. Other members of the Movement are genuinely seeking to end sexism and are "for real equality." The relative proportions of each do not matter, because misogyny theory is incorrect. People who believe in misogyny theory believe in a worldview that despises men, sees men as threatening and hateful, views men as uniquely responsible for harm, and puts all responsibility to fix things on the shoulders of men. A misogyny theorist's view of how to be charitable to men is to believe "it is not your fault you are brainwashed to hate women, you did not choose to be complicit in a system that hates and imperils women, and you imperil women only because you have not been taught not to imperil women. But you need to recognize that you hate women and it is your responsibility to make the world stop hating women, you have to do work to stop being so threatening to women."

This is wrong. This is not an accurate assessment of the world. Anyone who believed this about any other group of people would be correctly described as a hateful bigot even if, to them, they are the only ones who see their opponents as humans with potential to act like humans. There are total racists who feel like they're the only ones who recognize black people have the potential to NOT be rapists and murderers, and it is progressivism that says they all are innately criminals so we have to all pretend not to notice. This perception is more accurate than misogyny theory and we correctly decry it as a racist perception we shouldn't respect.

The Movement is synonymous with belief in misogyny theory, and belief in misogyny theory is belief in sexist perceptions. It is turbo-sexism. If you believe in misogyny theory you are wrong. When the Movement acts in accordance with misogyny theory to make the world a better place, they fuck up, because they're trying to abolish sexism while demanding people believe the things sexism believes as hard as they can. The Movement is obsessed with women's safety when all of the problems sexism gives them come from obsession with women's safety. When the Movement identifies any problem women face, it cannot address it in a non-sexist way and cannot gain anything for women without punishing men. The Movement can make shelters for battered women, but only because domestic abuse was not a gendered problem and it can only do so by ensuring battered men are erased and left without support. It can't see the world any other way. Women are victims and men are victimizers, women have to be protected from victimization. The Movement can support reproductive rights, but only because support or opposition to abortion is not a gendered issue (as many women are against abortion as men), and it can only do so while doing everything in their power to make sure men have no reproductive rights. Because they can't conceive of a situation where men need them when it isn't for the purpose of victimizing women. Men have to use their agency to make the world comfortable for women, it is hateful to women to let them escape this!

The Movement will always be filled with people who virulently hate men, because its conception of men is hateful and the way it is nice to men is thinking "it's not your fault you have these despicable attributes, having these despicable attributes also hurts you, I am sorry that sexism made you so threatening and cruel to women." The Movement can't kick people out for hating men, because the Movement thinks that there is a correct amount of hatred for men. The Movement can't kick people out for hating men too much, just regard them with pity and say they take a good idea too far. The Movement can and does kick people out for not hating men enough, because not hating men means allowing men to be threatening to women.

The Movement claims to be synonymous with the concept of fighting sexism, but it is not. It is misogyny theory, which is wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as meaning "misogyny theory" and "feminist" as "misogyny theorist," we can accurately predict outcomes. If we ask for a feminist perspective we know we will get a perspective from misogyny theory. If we know that feminists are doing something, we know they are doing something in line with misogyny theory. If we know someone tries to call themselves a feminist but is ostracized by the feminist movement at large, that person is not a misogyny theorist. If someone who is a feminist in good standing claims that the virulent man-haters "aren't real feminists," that they only can see the man-haters are wrong in that they hate men too much for being in a system that makes them evil and threatening, and without the ability to reject that entire worldview they will be making excuses for and be bad at resisting the man-haters. If someone is going to research the ideas of feminism, we know they are going to be reading things written from the viewpoint of misogyny theory. When feminists do or believe something, we know it's going to be wrong and we know how it's going to be wrong and we know why it's going to be wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as "any form of opposition to and desire to end sexism," then we can't make accurate predictions. We have to pretend we don't know a feminist is a misogyny theorist yet when they turn out to be every single time. We are given the obligation to assign power and credence to a floating signifier, the word "feminism," as if it did not mean "misogyny theory" and then make the shocked pikachu face when every single time the power we give them is used to advance misogyny theory. We have to pretend there is a war inside of feminism and not notice that no there isn't, one "side" has absolute definitive control of everything and the other "side" has no access whatsoever to the institutional or social power of the thing that is named "feminism." We have to run at the football every single time even though we know that Lucy is going to pull it back every single time, because there's so many different feminisms and we're not allowed to see they are all wrong in the same way.

Saying we have the obligation to call ourselves "feminists" and support "feminism" because it could mean "any worldview that seeks equality" and not "misogyny theory" is like saying everyone should call themselves "pro-life" and support "pro-life" movement because they don't think murder is a good thing in general and don't have to be against abortion. That's not what it means, that's never been what it meant, and pretending otherwise only benefits people you are opposed to.

[rondoel]

Quartz & Riebeck brainrot below! doodles + some snippets of my ponders about psychology & neurodivergence in hearthian society

(snippets but it's still very long! 😂)

Started with the thought I like that Quartz is of the same age as Riebeck, making them of the same hatch bath and therefore having grew up together :D

(hanging out with Riebeck who is very cautious is probably the only reason Quartz even reached the adulthood)

--

I think of hearthian society as potentially good place for neurodivergence because of its size and how they seem to function.

It makes sense for something like mentorships going on there where it comes to raising young - a hatchling picks an adult that resonates with them in some way and learns their craft. In small society it's very important to do what you're going to be good at. That would make a person that will be raising you the best fit for you.

I small society a common understanding would be that everyone is different. And again, it's crucial for those differences to be used in the best way. So no ostracizing, no assumption to "fit in" with the "norm". Endorsing those differences to progress.

Those things together create a fascinating environment for me to examine those traits in kind of a vacuum, where I can examine how person will function in society with just the traits they have - instead of mainly through lens of learned trauma responses, masking and social pressures.

--

I'm fascinated by the thought of these two naturally being thrown into the same box of "having a bit of difficulties with people" - while being just so NOT like each other (which later on becomes obvious, but early on they just hang out with each other because 'why not, we're both weird kids after all').

When it comes to social stuff Riebeck just doesn't understand how to relate and connect with others, and it's a big issue for them. While Quartz just doesn't want to participate because they don't feel this need at all.

So there's some common ground here - but they don't really understand each other. Which at some point they start to notice.

(Riebeck - the only person to ever make Quartz laugh. at their misfortune. but. still)

Where exactly the line lies in their difference came further in my research.

--

It started with me wanting to find a better name for Quartz' neurodivergence. I was thinking about psychopathy and sociopathy and how neither are recognized as a official diagnosis. Especially not medically/neurologically.

So to examine it in hearthian society I wanted to know where is that line between actual neurological condition vs trauma response + adaptation. I wanted to know If there are traits that are there from the start.

Then I found about the Callous-unemotional traits (CU).

This name allowed me to find to find actual scientific research instead of some biased bullshit people have about psychopathy - and it was so good. The interesting thing about it is that it actually shows in infants.

In similar way to autistic traits.

So again, I started to research the links.

I wanted to know hypothetically - what If those came from the same neurodivergence but psychopathy was a result of bad handling of those autistic traits? (far reaching, I know, but I wanted to know)

And then it turned out that NO. That those are very different! The difference most visible in different empathy responses.

I explored one of the differences in my last comic.

In which before Quartz leaves the planet for the first time - they want to actually confirm their suspicions.

A thought provoking moment for Riebeck, after which (and just the way Quartz cuts themself off) they start to wonder whether just spending a lot of time with someone is enough to make you friends.

Even more jarring of a thought - to spend most of your life with someone and for it to not mean anything to them at all.

All those things combined, current Riebeck is mostly unnerved by Quartz.

[awarmbowlofhomemadesoup]

Stories: Miyamoto Usagi vs. Yuichi Usagi

(made for Leonardo shippers who can't decide between two rabbits)

Both Miyamoto and Yuichi's stories are based on doing what's right -be it honor, justice or kindness.

There is a difference, with the former being for older age groups and the latter being for the younger.

(this is based on my opinion with no energy to put in sources, take it with a grain of salt)

Personalities

Assuming that Miyamoto came of age when he became a samurai during the Edo period, he became a wandering one at 16-17. Yuichi left home when he was 16.

Both Miyamoto and Yuichi share similarities. Despite Miyamoto having a perpetual scowl, they both have a sense of humor. Both are not above doing stupid stuff on rare occasions due to age and arrogance (like the time Miyamoto tried to lord his status over a monk who turned out to be Mirage comics Leo). Both are patient and giving with kids.

In the start of their stories, Miyamoto has more experience with the outside world and fighting than Yuichi as will be explained below. However, it is Yuichi who has closer bonds.

Living Situations and Relationships

Both will have different perspectives due to their living situations. Because Miyamoto is on a pilgrimage for years to find himself, the people he meets only stay with him for weeks at maximum.

He is a good guest to kind families who would take him in. Miyamoto would end up helping with their woes (whether it's exploitative landlords or businessmen stirring conflict between communities).

Miyamoto seems to be closer to his master than his father as most of his backstories on upbringing revolved around his master.

Yuichi in his story is just beginning. He is bound to the city to help with the yokai and to train with his master since he lacks the temperament and experience.

He also has friends to support and accompany him -and being their own people, they have their own conflicts that affect him and the others too.

Yuichi also has closer relations with his family, particularly his aunt, whom he feels undeserving of her love because of his many mistakes of being restless on the farm.

Threats that They Deal With

Miyamoto's life is harsh because of bandits and assassins on the roads he travels. He is a bounty hunter to have money for his travels. Sometimes, he meets malicious spirits.

While Yuichi's aunt has protected and taught him long enough, he has to deal with interstellar threats that are over his head using mystical means.

Usagi Yojimbo

Based from what I've read of Miyamoto Usagi's story in the Usagi Yojimbo comics, most of the comics revolved around honor, the code of the samurai, and how far you take it to be true to the samurai way.

Some of the comic series show the harm it can inflict on others when warriors take duty, obedience, and self-sacrifice too far:

Gen's father who spent the rest of his life looking to avenge his master at the cost of his wife's exhaustion and death, and alienating his son who resented him for it.

Another samurai who was aware of how corrupt his sworn lord was and chose to keep his honor as a samurai by defending him to the death.

But that even if you follow honor over your heart, it's sometimes the most practical and wise -such as Mariko choosing to hide the true identity of her son's father and marrying someone else so that Miyamoto can serve his master instead of running to her to take responsibility. (while I don't agree with her decisions, I can at least understand where she's coming from)

The comics don't really show what's wrong or right. It allows the readers to decide for themselves.

And for Miyamoto, he would do the right thing (duty, obedience and self-sacrifice as a samurai).

And if he can't do the right thing, then he will do what's kind.

And if he can't do what's kind, then he will do what's just.

Like in one of the comics, he was tasked to retrieve the sword of a widower's husband as it is the birthright of her son. (do what's right)

But the village girl who had a relationship with the husband wouldn't let go of the sword -even for money. Miyamoto doesn't want to force her, so she decided to give her time to think about it. (do what's kind)

But the girl's brother accidentally killed her when they fought over the sword. When Miyamoto found out, he avenged her and buried her next to the husband. (do what's just)

Samurai Rabbit: The Usagi Chronicles

The name Yuichi means "kind." And while Yuichi doesn't seem formally and in-depth trained as his ancestor in being a samurai, it frees him from its complications. He isn't as burdened as his ancestor by the samurai code.

Miyamoto and the other samurais in his time are burdened with obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice. Yuichi is free from those.

Yuichi is more straightforward. He stays in the city and help with the yokai because it is his fault. But soon, he defies what is supposedly his lord (Lord Kogane) to stand up for the yokai who had done no harm and help them find their place in the city.

While being a samurai seems outdated or outlawed in their city, Yuichi has brought balance with it by following the code his auntie has instilled in him: to defend those who cannot defend themselves. And later on, with the yokai and Kagehito: help those who cannot help themselves.

But it doesn't come without consequences. By the end of Season 2, it would be believable if the risks he took would haunt him despite everything becoming alright. He risked his life, his family and friends' lives, and the city in an advanced alien invasion to help another alien. Things might have turned differently if he hadn't learned to connect with the Ki crystal at the last minute.

Conclusion

Comparing the two Usagis is like comparing a ponkan from an orange. Both use kindness as a weapon, but each wields it differently due to experience, situation, and period of living.

They will both carry different regrets. They will have different stories and choices because they have similar but different perspectives. Miyamoto has been doing his pilgrimage for years. Yuichi is still beginning his journey.

But this is just my opinion from having completed Samurai Rabbit S1 and 2, and about 40 series of Usagi Yojimbo before taking a break. Do what you will.

[pianokantzart]

I want to discuss the difference in the relationship between Mario and Luigi in the games vs in the movie universe. I mean, is their bond wholesome in both scenarios? Yes. Obviously. But there is a special closeness between Movie Mario and Luigi that I really need to ramble about. In the games, Mario was born into the world where he belongs– a world that needed a daring hero. One of his first acts was to go on an adventure to rescue his brother, even though he was a literal infant at that time. He hit the ground running the moment he gained consciousness, and hasn’t slowed down since. Everyone sees this heroism and determination, and admires him for it.

But in the Movie Verse, Mario is born into a lower-middle class family of blue collar workers in a world that doesn’t take well to reckless heroism. Bullheaded bravery is considered amusing at best, and an embarrassment at worst. There are no monsters to fight or princesses to save, there is only money to make and jobs to do, and Mario does his best to adapt.

In the games (the Mario & Luigi RPGs in particular) Mario doesn’t react to people disregarding or talking down to Luigi unless Luigi shows it bothers him, because, otherwise, I don’t think Mario even knows it hurts him. He probably thinks that surely Luigi knows his worth, and that there’s no use getting defensive over pointless nonsense when there’s more important things at stake. There is a lot of love between the brothers, but there is also the natural divide between someone who has fit in effortlessly his entire life, and someone who has been struggling desperately to keep up with him, just to get brushed aside because he doesn’t measure up in the eyes of the world.

Heroism doesn’t come easy to Luigi, but he does it anyways because he cares about his brother, and wants to do the right thing.

In both the games and the movie Luigi is an anxious, goofy, clumsy victim of continuous bad luck, whose kindness and good nature always shines through despite everything. He is deemed too gentle and nervous to fit in, an easy target who can be mistreated and pushed around without consequence... ... unless, of course, Mario is there.

In the games, Mario will argue on behalf of his brother if it’s clear his feelings are hurt, but in the movie verse Mario is prepared to throw hands in a heartbeat the moment you disrespect Luigi, because that version of Mario knows what it’s like to be talked down to. He knows what it’s like to be brushed aside and belittled, he knows that whether you take it personally or not all those small insults wear you down over time, and he isn’t going to let anyone do that to his little brother. 

On the flip side, Luigi is one of the few people who sees Mario for himself, and loves him for it. Though there are no monsters to fight or princesses to save (yet), Mario’s brashness helps Luigi stand up for himself... helps him move forward... balances him out. Luigi has always been the one person in this world who needed Mario to be as brave, bold, foolhardy, and heroic as he was.

Neither of them fit in, but they see each other and love each other for what everyone else has determined to be their weaknesses. 

In the games, Mario can easily stand on his own because he’s being helped, uplifted, and supported by everyone and everything around him.  In the movie? Luigi was, for the longest time, the only one who allowed him to truly be himself.