#and you best believe there are more examples than this

[fuzzballsheltiepants]

Vet here!

I 100% believe that there are situations where rehoming the pet is the kindest, most humane thing to do for the pet and the people involved.

I'm not talking about dumping the animal on the street, but working to find a more appropriate home for that animal's needs, or because your needs are different than you thought.

Here are some reasons I have seen pets rehomed, all of whom thrived afterwards:

A person in the home developed an allergy or other medical issue that made keeping the pet unsafe for them, or made it so they could no longer meet the pet's needs

The family had a child, and the pet was not at all okay with having a tiny screaming, crawling, etc. person in the house

The people did not do their research and ended up with a bad match

The people did their research, but the animal in question did not fit the expected behavioral profile and thus is stressed in the lifestyle they are in. One example of this was, someone who had competition dogs (they did agility, obedience, and flyball) got another member of their breed of choice. This particular dog wanted to sit on a couch and cuddle with someone, and do a nice easy daily walk, and maybe give paw for a biscuit. She absolutely did not want to have to travel every weekend and do intensive daily training, even though 99% of her breed would be absolutely bonkers without all that work. Nor did she want to deal with her rambunctious housemates. She ended up in a pet home and being a lovely companion for her new (experienced) older human

A person wanted to get a cat after their sweet older cat died. They went to the shelter asking for an adult cat, and someone handed them a sweet little wiggly kitten that they promptly fell in love with. They took said kitten home, and he was extremely high-drive, playful, climbing everything and getting into everything. Without daily active playtime, he started biting. The owner did not have the time or desire to do that type of intensive play this cat needed, and didn't want to get him a companion cat due to finances

Pets who have medical issues that the family is not financially (or time-wise) prepared to handle, but someone else is willing to take on that expense/time. This happens often in emergency clinics, and is how I obtained one of my cats and a former dog

This one is controversial BUT often improves safety for the pet: the person gets a new partner, and the partner dislikes the animal or vice versa. While in my own personal ethical code, that would mean finding a new partner, I would rather see the pet rehomed to a loving family that wants them then have to live in a household where they are at risk

Sometimes, recognizing that you are not in fact the best fit for your pet, and finding someone who is, is a great act of love. There are a tremendous number of resources available to help find that better fit, including training groups, online communities (beware though, and make sure you investigate proper homes thoroughly), breed rescue, friends, family members, and even talking to your vet who, presumably, knows your pet to some degree. If you have a pet from a responsible breeder, contact your breeder! If you obtained through a rescue, contact that rescue group! Not all of them will help you, but many will.

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[abadbadbrujah]

Jane Espenson writing the majority of Spike episodes where he shows positive character growth, the fact that Spike is the antithsis of Angel and that Joss Wheadon hated his popularity can not be by coincidence.

I know I'm connecting a lot of dots with this one (that have probably been connected before), but she quiet literally wrote the episode where he is reintroduced in season 4 with "Harsh Light of Day", where he becomes part of the Scoobies with "Pangs", "Doomed" and "A New Man".

Then later on in Season 5 saved his character with the masterful "Intervention" where in the same episode she writes Spike creating the sexbot he also shows his worth by being tortured (where we see him being penetrated) and not breaking.

In the season 6 episode she wrote "After Life" where we see Spike's trauma of Buffy dying and how he is literally the only Scoobie to be able to look after her after being resurrected, as he himself has gone through the trauma of dying then digging out of his own grave. Also in this episode we see that he has now taken the mantel of Dawn's supernatural protector, out of surviors guilt from the events of the season 5 finale, and then later on how those events have haunted him every night. Jane then wrote Spike to be the only person in Doublemeat Palace to offer Buffy a way out of working there.

Season 7 Jane co-wrote the highly acclaimed "Conversations with Dead People" then "Sleeper" and "First Date" where we see Spike's fall to The First and where he killed people, but also where we see how he has risen in Buffy's eye's to being trustworthy in "First Date".

With all this being said you can probably understand now why I'd say a lot of Spike nuance is credited to Jane Espenson. To quote James in the SDCC 2012 Buffy panel "Joss would come up to me about 3 episodes in to every season and say he has no idea what to do with me", so this meant the other writers (mostly Jane) to take over with writing Spike. So you can see why it's not too far fethced to say she is the reason behind his popularity as she set a lot of the ground work after s2, outside of James's himself giving a masterful preformance. Later on in the SDCC 2012 Buffy Panel she says "we knew we had this amazingly verstial character largely because we had this amazingly verstial actor, we knew whatever we put infront of James he could do..." this shows that she felt comfortable making Spike into whatever she wanted.

For my last point, there's a lot of examples here that the fandom loves to highlight Spike's being Angel's opposite, like how Spike's treament of a Minor having a crush on him compared to the soul having Angel's. Spike's complete polar opposite on how he see's love as something postive to protect, where as Angelus's use of love as a tool to torture someone with. William loved and respected women where as Liam only used the ones around him.

This all leads me to the conclusion that Spike was more popular than Angel mostly because of Jane's input and groundwork on the character after season 2, and we all know how Joss felt about Spike's popularity and there's no way Jane didn't make all his postive traits the opposite of Angel by coincidence.

Thank you Jane for creating what I believe to be one of the best characters in media history and for being the original Spike girlie.

[elliee3e]

‘primal needs’

⋅˚₊‧ 𐙚 ‧₊˚ ⋅ logan howlett x f! reader

thinking about logan in heat/with ruts x reader who’s ovulating … ohhh my god !!

content warnings ;

piv, size difference, heat/ruts, dubious consent but it’s very slight okay mentions of breeding kink but not really ?? it’s just cumming inside but it’s implied guys

author’s note ;

guys, i’m going through a slight writer’s block urgh . but it’s christmas & so i came up with this little idea !! merry christmas to everyone & hopefully i can also get something out before or shortly after new years <33 MWAH!

the air between you two is thick and heavy as logan’s cock stretches you to the hilt like nothing else.

the sloppy mess and smell of pure, primal driven need also clings to the air — as well as the lewd, squelching sounds of him pounding into you: pulling delicious moans from both your bodies.

even after going like this for more times than you can count, both you and logan are anything but tired. and the reason for that?

logan’s in heat. all you could feel all week was him pressing up against you, whether from behind or in front, anywhere, anytime — just trying to get some friction. and as much as it pained you to shove him away each and every time, you didn’t want to risk anything in public.

however when he gets you to himself in his room, you two are all over eachother like rabid animals. he’s biting at your neck, big hands pulling at your clothes and nearly tearing them apart; not that you cared — all you wanted was to get dicked down, as your sex drive had spiked all week too.

and logan could tell. his already heightened senses only peaked when he was in heat: causing him to sniff you out from far away even, the sweet scent of your pussy dripping for him was enough to drive him to find you no matter where you were. and when he did, best believe he’ll drag you somewhere just to toy with your pussy.

“ah, look at her. always a sloppy mess for me, ain’ she?” he’d tease, lips hovering right over your neck as his hand had started to make it’s descent to slip into your panties, fingers already dragging lazy circles over your clit.

it was always a messy combination.

even in the mornings, when logan would wake up first, he’d notice you still asleep and slot his knee between your thighs and up your little short nightdress — nudging you awake by rubbing his knee against your clit through your already damp panties. by the time you’d wake up, you’d feel his warm cock already pressing against your folds, wake up to the sight of him on top of you, his arms pressed on either side of your pillow. “this okay, doll? m’ sorry, i couldn’t wait..” he’d grunt, voice still rough and tired, but you nodded in silent agreement — needing this just as much as him and feeling as he then sunk his cock into your wet, eager walls no problem — a groan leaving both him and you.

when you would wake up first, it was a little different, as you’d find yourself spreading your thighs to get onto his with a little whine. you rocked your hips against his thigh needily, awaking the man easily. he’d wake up to feel your heat rubbing up against his thigh.

“mm.. well look at my pretty princess, grindin’ like a lil puppy all over me—..” his tired voice would finally speak up as he registered the situation in his mind, his cock already starting to strain against his boxers. it made you whine for more, as his big hand shamelessly pulled your hand onto him to palm his cock — the beginning of a morning you two knew would last all afternoon.

and when i mean anytime, anywhere, i mean it. the man’s practically a dog, a dog in heat if you may. he’s absolutely rabid when in heat and will look for any excuse to get you someplace private just to get some release.

sometimes, you feel like you can barely keep up, with the way he’s manhandling you and shifting your position so he can get the best friction on his cock — for example, you could be on your back and this man, with his godforsaken huge hands, will shamelessly turn you onto your stomach and hold your head down against the pillow, slipping into your sweet pussy from behind to slam his cock against that spot he knows has you seeing stars, from the way your words turn into jumbled whines and moans.

and from that, he could also easily turn you back over into a mating press. his favorite. he’d most likely be like that for a while, until he empties his cum into you and has you doing the same all over his cock, before sitting back and starting to pull you onto his lap to ride him for another orgasm, a repeat of all week all over again.

[olderthannetfic]

TW Suicide. I talk about suicide from a religious perspective, and religion is not kind with suicide.

I might be reaching but I think religious Asian countries might be more proship-friendly than western countries??

Let's see a few cases. Japan. I'm not sure how religious Japan is, but they have very strict values and traditions. There are so many how-tos and even the language has levels that you can only use to certain people, otherwise it's rude. They can't express queerness so freely that yaoi/yuri is the best outlet they have, and they got called rotten for it.

Japan is notorious for being very proship friendly. There was even a huge "what is proship and why should you block those with 'proship DNI' in their bios" thread over on Twitter and it was so widely shared by Japanese users. At that point, even antis took off the "proship DNI" off their bios (such cowards lol).

The people in my religious (Muslim) country and its neighbor, Malaysia and Indonesia, even the minors, are so proship-oriented that I only ever saw exactly one person with "proship DNI" in their bio. And their posts tell me they're the more "liberal" people of the country. You know, the ones that the older people are using as examples of "Look at that girl. She's been poisoned by the western values, she's showing so much skin. Don't be like her". Now I obviously will just laugh at older people who says such things but hear me out.

The people who are actually practicing religion to the point where nothing sexual is allowed, who WILL screech at sex (both vanilla and kinky) in fanworks should they ever join, won't touch fandom with a ten-foot pole. This leaves us with the absolute freaks who thinks "I'm religious, I believe in God that other people call fiction, but I can't have sex until I'm married and masturbation is haram, so smut fic is actually a great way to let off tension! No one real is having sex so it's a green area. I'm not masturbating, I'm just reading. Sometimes they excite me, most of the time not! Halal mode."

Also, murder and suicide is a sin. A huge sin. If you tell someone to kill themselves and they actually did, the religious guilt would be MASSIVE. I can't imagine an actually correctly-practicing religious sending death threats and not be haunted by the promise of a sin. A sin that involves other people is much harder to forgive (it requires forgiveness from the hurt people, and that's impossible with suicide. They can't forgive you if they're dead) than a sin that involves yourself (masturbation. All you have to do is regret and never do it again. Which is why suicide is seen as unforgiveable. You can't undo it).

So, it sometimes makes me wonder that in the west, MAGA catholic conservatives shares a lot of values with fanpols. But in religious countries, the actually rigid religious ones aren't in fandom, so the fandom is filled with people who aren't evangelical purists.

This incoherent yap might be reaching, but hey, a new perspective to US-Europeans or non-religious people. It's just kinda funny to think about. Since you are very well-spoken and critical (I think so from your replies to the asks!), what do you think?

--

Well... I think there are a lot of specifics here that are hilarious in how you've framed them. (The situation with queer people in Japan has evolved a lot over the last couple of decades. That isn't at all how I'd describe politeness levels in language, and I think your assumptions based on how politeness works in Japanese are ludicrous. Catholicism isn't the big, powerful flavor of Christianity in the US, so it's not where the majority of the nutbars ruining politics come from. Etc. Etc.)

But back in the 90s in US fandom in English, slash was the domain of freaks, and the puritywankers were openly homophobic and did not hang out in the same spaces.

Yes, I do think that part of the rise of the current flavor of antis has to do with somewhat wider acceptance of queerness combined with an overall anxiety-inducing and uncertain situation. They're not secure enough to chill the fuck out, but they wrongly believe that our battles for queer rights here are done and/or that they can be won by throwing the freakier members of the community under the bus.

[artbyblastweave]

Is it weird that, the more posts you make about how being a genre fiction protagonist would suck and ruin your life (posts I love and think are great), the more I want to go full "No, suck eggs, Alan Moore, being a superhero is cool and good, actually?" I can't tell if it's mindless contraiantism or an actual point.

I think it's an understandable impulse, because there are absolutely strains of very-online genre-fic and cape-fic critique that, if taken super seriously as a blueprint for how fiction ought to be written, would basically amount to the Wertham Scare with a social justice gloss, and we don't need a second one of those. If a person bins the entire superhero genre as "irredeemably fascist" or anything similar, for example, I start paying extremely close attention to the implicit back half of that proclamation, the part where they lay out what part of that condemnation they consider actionable. The censorious should be made to eat their own black markers. You can do whatever you want forever.

On the other hand, you really can't get around what happens to a lot of escapist genre-fic- cape-fic in particular- if you apply any kind of scrutiny or big-boy grown up emotional or moral logic to it whatsoever. It wasn't built to survive that level of scrutiny, it wasn't built to still see publication 80 years after the fact- and indeed, stuff in that space that isn't seeing active mass-market success, John Carter and the like, that tends to get judged basically as harshly as I think it deserves. There really isn't any way around the fact that we're all playing Frankenstein with the innards of mass-market children's stories. And moreover I feel like there's an offputting mealy-mouthedness to a lot of the contemporary big-two output that notices the cracks in the foundation and tries to have their cake and eat it too, having capes that beat bad guys up but in a markedly progressive way. A certain level of pessimism and cynicism is often the only believable way to get those wires to connect if you're trying to make your spandex crowd interface with real-world cynicism. (Superman is ironically one of the Big-two properties that I think most consistently threads this needle. Batman has a harder time due to the billionaire thing. The X-Men are turbofucked and have been for a while.)

Astro City is one of the capethings that I think hits the best balance on all of this, and nonetheless one of the worldbuilding beats that does a lot of the heavy lifting on believability for me is that the Nixon Admin executed the setting's Captain American analogue on trumped-up charges as a show of force and as a distraction from Watergate. Because he would! He would do that! "What about Nixon" is a fantastic litmus test for this kind of thing IMO- even if the answer is that he was the head of a cult that built a mutant-powered flying saucer to take over the world with, that's still better than dodging the question entirely, or having Superman suck off Reagan like Byrne did.

[rei-ismyname]

Logan shouldn't be allowed near children

I know that's a loaded title but I stand by it. There's obviously an element of Flanderisation going on but considering his stated reason for opening the Jean Grey school he is far too eager to murder children.

Why TF is he leaping at children, snarling with his claws out? Check out the frothing drool.

For example, in All-New X-Men, the O5 have just been bought to the future by Hank McCoy. He stops teaching his violence through yelling class and heads out the front, leaping at the 16 year olds with his claws out. Not Hank, who brought them there but clearly traumatised children - while screaming like a lunatic of course. Even if he's not trying to kill them, what purpose does terrifying them serve? He clearly IS trying to kill them, though. I'm sure his students would love to see their headmaster butcher confused children in front of them.

Unsurprisingly, he scares the fuck out of them. In part influenced by constant threats of his violence, the O5 steal the X-Jet and flee, explicitly doubting this guy is an X-Man. His thoughts about the 16 year old Jean Grey... No dude, this isn't the Jean you know. She's a child you've tried to kill. Fucking creep.

This one is great. Young Scott has enough going on without this frothing beast advocating for his immediate execution as punishment for his future self's actions. Out front of the school with literally everyone watching. He's using his authority to advocate for slaughtering a child. Thankfully nobody agrees with him, but this is traumatic, terrifying, and affects Scott especially so badly he runs away.

No wonder he freaks out and leaves. Obviously the headmaster of a school should drop what he's doing, not for his wellbeing but to get his bike back. How is he in charge of anyone's wellbeing or moral instruction? He demands absolute obedience while doing nothing to deserve it. It's all about how Logan feels.

Here he is trying to gut a 15 year old Wiccan for having Scarlet Witch vibes, not for the or last time. I'm a little surprised he remained an Avenger after this. When you have knives for hands everyone looks like a pincushion. Except that's not it, because everyone else is a living weapon too and they mostly manage to be somewhat rational.

Why are his claws out here? Is he trying to kill him? What did he expect after threatening and traumatizing him? Snarling and shouting like an animal - isn't he trying to emulate Chuck here?

I can't remember why he's doing this but it's not the first time he's tried to kill Hope. Didn't work then either.

A 16 year old Jean uses a telepathic projection of the Phoenix to aid Wolverine in a fight. He stupidly thinks it's real and straight up tries to kill her. The bad guys get away. Not sure how many times he has to attempt to kill the Phoenix before he understands it's not an appropriate thing to do, nor is it about him. He's more like Sabertooth than he thinks, except he thinks he's in the right and somehow never gets called out. Logan has advanced senses - how is his instinct to straight up kill her instead of investigating further?

We can do better

I think that once Logan reached a certain point of saturation he became static. The lone wolf that's the best there is at what he does, and what he does is behave so unpleasantly it's hard to believe anyone would want to be near him, let alone allow him to run a school. He says 'bub' a lot and he snikts at the drop of a hat while repeating the same interpersonal drama over and over. I see him as a frequent self insert for the worst kind of toxic masculinity yet he's more popular than ever. No judgement if you like him at all, but I think the character deserves better. Somehow he's still a misunderstood loner despite a lot of people knowing him very well - with the amount of teams and books he's in he has the most active social life in 616. It'll never happen but I'd like to see him retire, as there are several Wolverines better than he..

[spongeknife]

Timebomb: A look at supportive relationships with amnesia (a focus on DID)

I have been rewatching S2 Arcane, and of course Echo's scenes in E7 have left me with a special type of joy. So, coming from someone with DID, I'm looking at how DID effects relationships and what a supportive partner may look like. I would like to note, I do not think Echo has DID, nor do I wish to make that connection: But, Powder's perspective of Echo's changing behavior has a lot of similarities to my own real life experiences and I wanted to highlight that. Also the advice I give may not work for everyone. This is more a guide for partners who have no clue where to even begin, with examples, not a step-by-step instruction manual. I will do my best to go in order.

Alright, so I'd like to start at the beginning, where Echo is writing in his journal and seems to "become aware" of where he is. In Arcane, I understood this as our Echo taking over Powder's Echo. But, in a system sense, this can also be seen as "switching" (one part becoming aware of the body/taking control).

Now, I think in a lot of cases, these "switches" can lead to confusion and stress, as a part tries to piece together what is happening and who they are. It terms of relationships, Powder is unaware of this "switch" when she begins to talk with him. Much like a system, many switches can be very internal - leading a partner to not be aware of what is happening inside a person's head.

Powder, pretty obviously goes about conversation as she normally would, walking up to Echo with a smile and even making a joking quip. Echo, internally, is connecting Powder with Jinx, and I think the visual in the mirror depicts that really well. Much like a part who has switched in, Echo is relying on his old memories and is unaware of who this present "Powder" person is. I have experienced this as well, being unaware that a problem from the system's past is no longer a threat. Powder proceeds to process that Echo is clearly not okay (by the way he jumps back in defense) and tells him to relax. Even when Echo throws an object at her and grabs a screwdriver in defense, she does not attack back, instead just questioning why. Now, I do not think in a real world scenario any OBJECTS SHOULD BE THROWN, and I do believe Powder is a lot more patient than most people. (I know if my partner threw something at me, I would not just be confused and then move on).

But, in a less extreme example, Powder is staying true to who she is, and what her reactions are. I find in systems, when disorientation and stress happens, one of the best things a partner can do is be routine and patient. Or, even helping a part ground themselves (which we see later on). Powder is clearly upset and confused (I would even say hurt), but she doesn't become reactive. In the real world, I would not recommend just ignoring if a part has done something hurtful, but instead, disengaging or supporting until there is a better time to address it. In this case, when Echo does not respond to her asking what gives, she drops it (and I would recommend coming back to it when the person has a clearer head). What is not seen here that I would also recommend is coming up with clear boundaries and sticking to them BEFORE incidents happen. Having a sit down with your partner's system and letting them know what you are okay and not okay with, is a great way to show the system that there is stability.

System note: Now, I would also like to note there is a couple times, I as a system, liked to believe Echo has this reoccurring problem (or a similar one) because that's comforting. And, as a side note, one of those times is Benzo seeing Echo and saying, "one of those days, huh?" Benzo and Echo's relationship (familiarly) is also a great example of being a healthy support system, but that's a story for another time...

Now, continuing on, Powder is flexible. She does a good job (it seems at the moment, at least) with accepting this "different" Echo, and choosing to support him through verbal and physical affection. While in Arcane, Echo isn't very appreciative of her gestures, in the real world, being flexible is a good way to remove pressure from an already stressful situation (Imagine how this would've gone if she had snapped at him in that moment for being so distant), even if he doesn't believe it, Powder is showing she is still on his side through this (and, I believe this helps him open up later on).

Walking through the bar to sit with the group, Powder seems to be holding his hand as well. Again, using physical touch as a grounding tool to help guide Echo. She continues talking with him as she normally would, and when he seems dissociated from the conversation (going from partially aware to completely unaware), that's when she snaps to ground him again, out of concern.

She asks what's wrong, and notes that he's been out of it. In real life, many systems experience time loss - and, when switching or dissociating, may not even realize they are. Reaching out and describing how a part is behaving may help them realize something is off as well. Powder has been supportive, compassionate, and above all else, VERY patient. Echo opens up about how he feels ("waking up in the wrong universe"). All the small steps she's taken has helped him feel he can open up. (Again, imagine if she snapped or threw something back at him, in his eyes, equally viable options from her). Now, not all parts switching in may feel ready to open up, some parts may need a LOT more small steps, some may only need one. Her ability to come back and keep trying is a beautiful illustration of how much support people with systems or DPDR may need. AND, when he opens up, she reminds him of what he's been through (staying up all night). In real life, a part may be unaware of what the body's been through, and empathetically letting them know may help them adjust to the present. Along with this, Powder talking about sleep is, again, showing a partner is likely to be unaware of what is happening internally if the system does not communicate it. Given that, Powder still tries to reassure about what some current stressors may be (there being "plenty of time before the competition") and reminds him AGAIN, that they are a team ("we'll work out the kinks"). She goes to touch him and he flinches away, in reality, parts may be doing this because they are still not fully grounded. Again, if they have been living in the past (especially a trauma covered one), they're natural state is being on the defense. When a part dissociates they may be reliving their experiences silently, or even becoming unaware of their body - reverting to that naturally defensive state. Powder looks hurt at his rejection, which is completely valid. She still picks up the cup that gets knocked over, is still aware that now is likely not the time to talk about it, and doesn't degrade Echo in front of their friends.

Milo runs off, and Powder has a good reason to follow behind. I think it's a good reminder that, yes, it can be very tiring, and as a partner, it is not wrong to take breaks from situations. Sometimes, things are stressful, and taking a moment to do something else is NOT wrong. I know a lot of partners really want to stick through it with their partner's system, but please remember your own health is just as important. Go on that walk, hangout with friends, drink some water, write about it, whatever you need to do to regulate. Additionally, in this case, Powder is the direct stressor (it seems), and she's giving a break to Echo to process what is around him. Sometimes that's needed too, hopefully the system you're with tries their best to communicate when they need to take a step back (and they may need some help at times). Sometimes what a partner does CAN be an indirect trigger, but that does not mean that partner is to blame. System note: I'm going to skip over most of the parts where Powder and Echo aren't interacting. But, I would like to note as a system, I can relate to Echo not being present, instead being focused on something else. (When he redraws the anomaly over and over and OVER again), just a little tidbit that I can relate to. Along with Echo not wanting to be in the "present" moment. Powder, despite all the stressors, invites Echo into her routine (seeing Vi).

And, she does not show how confused or upset she may be feeling. Continuing to show him respect. Once they are in a private, safe (I assume it's safe to the original Echo and her) space, she tries to ask about why he's acting so distant. This is a good example of coming back to what happened later. She saw him talking with Heimerdinger and likely believes he is feeling better enough to talk with her. Now, in real life, a part may not be ready. That does not mean the partner should never check in about how they are feeling. Dating a system has a lot of trial and error, sometimes it's the right time, sometimes it's not. Now, if a system DOESN'T hold space for how you may be feeling (aka, EVERYTIME you try to check in it backfires), I would recommend a genuine conversation about it. Again, just because your loved one is struggling does not mean you as a partner deserve to feel like crap for trying to be supportive.

In this case, Echo wants to know about his present situation. Powder does a great job of summarizing for him and tries to help fill in the gaps she thinks he could be missing. In real life, again, a part may need help connecting to present day, letting them know what may be obvious can help them feel more grounded AND stable. Additionally, when Echo has doubts about Powder's character, she shows there's no reason to distrust her. She doesn't get offended by his questioning, instead just letting him know who she is, through the perspective of Echo. In real life, highlighting what a part has done with you can help them see that their system trusts. "You weren't gonna figure it out yourself", "You're the big idea guy." are both lighthearted ways to remind Echo who he is, and that he has trusted her in the past.

I'd also like to note, she continues with what she went there to do. She takes a lighter and heads over to Vi. She's not being dismissive, but she's also not cornering him, either. This emphasizes her reliability and trust, and shows Echo that she's not focusing in on him like a hawk. In real life, some parts who switch in may feel like they're just waiting to be punished, like they're just waiting to make a wrong move. By continuing routines, a part may feel the lack of attention means they don't have to be on defense. System note: "having an identity crisis again" is just adding to my previous notes LOL.

At Vi's altar, we see a great example of what to do in situations where a partner is getting hurt by a switch in (which can happen). Ekko is processing the fact Vi is dead AND Powder has been handling a lot of stressors that can come from switches (rejection, being treated like a bad guy, ect.). In this scene, Powder is clearly hurt, and, I believe she has every right to be hurt. Yeah, not every switch will be 100% great. That being said, I loved the way she handled it. She places a couple firm boundaries, like letting Ekko know what she doesn't want to talk about ("That's not funny Ekko" and "Just 'cause you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me."). She's letting him know how she's feeling, and without being mean, is letting him know she is reaching her limit.

She's upset, and to me, she has every right to be. Some systems/some parts I've met have a hard time recognizing that just because they are in pain means what they're doing can still have consequences. That is a seperate topic I could talk about for days, but in this case, I'm treating Ekko as a part who pushes boundaries. Ekko continues to ask questions about what happens. Yes, some parts may do this. The reasons are endless (maybe they feel this reality isn't real so who cares, it could be any reason), but at the end of the day, if you're interacting with a part that is pushing boundaries and you don't want to handle it, don't. I'm not saying walk away forever, but Powder does a great job if placing a final boundary, "You should leave." Again, she's being firm, she's letting Ekko know she doesn't appreciate what he's doing, but she's not going out of her way to attack him. When you're supporting a system with parts who push boundaries, it can be hard to not react back. But, imagine it much like arguing with a person without a system. I know very few arguments where attacking back has worked in favor of both parties, and that compounds when you're interacting with a system.

Now, in this case, Ekko leaves. But, what do you do when a part isn't respecting boundaries, if, hypothetically, Ekko didn't leave the room? I know this may not work for everyone, but I would stick to my own boundary. If I ask someone to leave the room, and they don't - choosing to continue a conversation in this case, I leave the room. Remember, again, your own stress and health is equally important, and it'll be hard to help anyone (including yourself) if you can't remove yourself from the high stress situation when you need to. If placing boundaries is hard, I would recommend practicing. I've at times, told my partners I would like to practice ending conversations and what not in low stress situations (letting them know so they don't feel rejected), so I can get used to being able to.

Following this, Powder is very clearly avoiding Ekko. When Ekko looks up she turns away. I think this is a good reminder that things parts do CAN have an effect on their surrounding support systems. I think it's good they show Powder is clearly upset by what Ekko has done. In real life, this can happen. Being a partner should not mean having to be 100% whatever emotion their partner's system needs. That's not very healthy or feasible. Again, it's okay to feel upset and hurt, especially if a part is doing something upsetting or hurtful. Powder doesn't go out of her away to attack Ekko or retaliate, and that's another good thing to keep in mind, even when it's hard.

The next scene we see with Powder and Ekko communicating is Ekko showing Powder the shrine he created of Vi. In a real life sense, a part may be trying to apologize OR may also be trying to show their partner that they are doing their best to be connecting to the present. Parts that are traumatized may have a hard time communicating complex emotions in a way that's understandable, so they may communicate through creative methods. Now, Powder does a good job of recognizing he's trying to apologize and open communication, so she does as well. And in that opening of communication, she learns more about Ekko and vice versa. In real life, this could mean a part opening up more, or just a part being more willing to be cooperative. Ekko, in this case, also stops recognizing Powder as a threat, and in real life, a part may begin to do the same thing. When Ekko talks about his version of Powder compared to the real version, it is very akin to a part trying to synthesize present day situations and past traumas/situations.

In turn, Powder opens up about her own feelings. In real life, opening up to a part may give new perspective on a situation, and can lead to a mutually supportive environment after a switch. In this case, Ekko is willing to hear Powder out and help her (giving advice), and Powder begins helping him with his own project. This goes back to those baby steps I mentioned at the beginning. If Powder hadn't continuously taken small steps to show she wants to be on a team with him, their conversation may not have gone like this. Additionally, now that a "team" foundation has been built, Powder and Ekko can build each other up. In this case, Powder bumps him with her shoulder, a form of physical affection he appreciates now that he's more grounded, compared to earlier that day where most physical touch was met with defense.

I think it's also good to recognize, Powder seems more willing to show support to Ekko in ways she didn't previously because they communicated.

Like the fact she chooses to sit across from him instead of next to him. This is a part of the flexibility I was talking about earlier. Because different parts may have different wants/needs/boundaries, being flexible can help both parties feel desired - instead of trying to continue things as if it were a previous part.

Another example of them now working as a team is Ekko supporting Powder at Vi's altar. Even though he has not experienced what she has (or doesn't remember it that way), he still recognizes it's importance to Powder and helps out. In real life, a part becoming aware of a partner's feelings and communication styles can also lead to moments like this, where a part who may not be aware of everything, tries their best to support you through your own struggles, even if it's not how your partner's system "typically" shows support.

Now, it seems in Arcane, Powder isn't fully aware of what Ekko is trying to build, but she still helps him to work through it. Now, in real life, a part who has switched in may have alternative goals compared to the rest of the system. In a case like this, where the goal isn't threatening or harmful, supporting that part can help build up that "team" based foundation. The part knows that even though you may not be their partner, you're still a safe person to go to in times of trouble, or just when they want a comfortable person around, even if there are no romantic feelings for them. This can be very important when high stress situations come about later, and can help parts open up about what's going on internally (because, remember, a lot of system communication/mental health is internal).

Additionally, because Ekko and Powder feel safer with each other, Powder feels okay asking questions. In real life, having a bridge of trust, even if it seems small, can lead to moments like this as well. Where a part feels open enough to answer questions, and not become defensive. Remember, at the beginning of this Ekko couldn't even be close to Powder without becoming defensive. These small steps have worked towards the goal of being able to communicate and trust each other, it's all built up.

Powder is clearly excited for what they've worked on together, because they're now a team (even if, again, it's not romantic like her Ekko). In real life, these connections can lead to those same feelings of excitement and commitment, even if it looks different from how it was with a different part.

We can also see that Ekko is open to how she likes to show affection (physical touch), and she's looking out for him ("Please go change before the party") because she understands and cares for him. Ekko also does change for the party, and in real life, this can be seen as a part caring right back. Following this is where they dance together, now she recognizes he dances differently ("Where'd you learn those moves?"), but still has a good time. Again, she's flexible and compassionate towards him.

Instead of choosing to be upset about how things are different, she accepts these differences and chooses to have a good time with Ekko. In real life, a part may do things differently - they may dance differently so to speak, but you can still enjoy what they have to offer (again, even if it's not inherently romantic).

Ekko thanks Powder. He was able to have a good time and experience something he thought couldn't be real. In real life, a part may be feeling the exact same way. They may feel their trauma memories, their past, clouds how the presents can be. By finding ways to support them and have good moments in the present, it can help them feel things do not have to be as bad as they've experienced. Along with this, Powder leans on his shoulder. She feels supported again as well, even if it's different. It took some work, but she's able to be vulnerable with him in the same way he's being vulnerable to her. And that's really important, even if the relationship between some system's parts aren't romantic, it's really important to feel like it's not completely one sided as a whole. Yeah, some parts may not be supportive like you're used to, but if you begin to feel resentment towards the system or feel like certain parts are ruining your relationship, I would recommend having a conversation about it. If you feel like you're not getting back what you're putting in, I would recommend having a conversation about it, because again, your feelings matter.

Moving on, they kissed. I don't necessarily want to focus on that. I want to focus on what happens right before. Powder goes in for a kiss, and Ekko rejects her ("Sorry, I..." and pulling back), and she looks hurt. She lets him know it's fine, but even while she's hurt, because they have that base "team" foundation, she waits patiently for him to explain. She doesn't just walk away, or lash out. She waits for him. And I think, a lot of systems, and certainly myself, just want someone to be willing to take it slow when we need. It's rough, and we recognize a lot of "typically" relationships don't have the amount of waiting that can be needed. But, truly, one of the most compassionate things I've experienced, is having someone gently pull the brakes and wait for me to be able to communicate.

Ekko communicates, he asks for her to "just pretend like it's the first time," but note, he looks hurt after asking. He seems to be waiting for rejection. In real life, a part may be like this. After the trauma they've went through, or the stress of switching in, they may just feel like they're waiting for the other shoe to fall. Ekko and Powder have worked towards being able to communicate towards one another, so he does open up, but that doesn't mean that feeling of anxiety goes away. This is part of why some parts may feel the need to take it slow, while others may be open and ready after only a couple steps.

Powder is flexible, patient, and kind to him. She is willing to pretend like it's the first time, and she doesn't act like it's some sort of chore. In real life, while a partner may be "pretending" it's the first time, please keep in mind that to the part that switched in it is the first time. It may be the first time for a lot of things (for feeling included, for being affectionally touched, for working with someone positively, for going out to a party, any of it). The good moments a partner chooses to have with a different part can help them feel more relaxed in the agitated state they've lived a lot of their life. Ekko grew up in a vastly different world, all of the kind things she is doing is completely foreign, and some parts switching in are the exact same way.

At the end, Powder sees him. In real life, in our time, I can't imagine being able to see other parts like this - where they have a physical body and what not. But, you may have a moment like this. A moment of recognition, of understanding. You might even have that moment without your partner's system knowing. You might find things you love (romantically or otherwise) that are different part to part. To keep the conclusion short, Powder does a wonderful job of showing patience, respect despite being confused, empathy, and compassion throughout this episode, and many moments shows kindness in unconventional ways. Please, remember to be kind to yourself, and of course, every system is different - so remember to communicate.

[danishphoner]

The Last Shadow Puppets: ‘We've become aware of our vocal harmony, it's a magical thing’ | La Vanguardia | June 2016

Eight years after their first album, the British band present their second album at Primavera Sound 2016

The Last Shadow Puppets have visited Barcelona these days to perform at Primavera Sound 2016, in what has become the band's first performance in Spain. Alex Turner (Arctic Monkeys) and Miles Kane presented their recent album ‘Everything You've Come To Expect’, an album whose cover is dedicated to the singer Tina Turner, featuring a photograph taken in 1969 in New York by Jack Robinson.

The new album, recorded in 2015 in a Californian studio, arrives eight years after the release of their first album, ‘The Age Of Understatement’, and with Turner and Kane's desire to work together once again.

To warm up the engines, at the beginning of 2016, The Last Shadow Puppets released their new album's first single, ‘Bad Habits’, a song full of soul music and with traces of retro rock that has preceded the official release of the eleven singles that make up the British band's new album. 'Everything You've Come To Expect' has reached the number one position in the UK and Belgium, and the 83rd position on the American chart Billboard.

Alex Turner and Miles Kane meet us a few hours before their performance at Primavera Sound, in Barcelona.

Written by David Palacios June 4, 2016

Translation below

Is this your first time in Barcelona?

No, we've been here before on vacations. We like the city.

Your latest album, ‘Everything You've Come To Expect’, was released on 1 April and has hit the top of the charts. How do you feel about it?

We're delighted to have had so much success. On the other hand, we're not too used to it, because it's only our second album. We're really enjoying our most recent work, and all the concerts we've played so far have been great.

It's been eight years between your first and second album...

Yes, we both have been working on other projects in the meantime, but a chance to work together again came up. It was too valuable an opportunity to let it pass, and we've always been interested in working together.

And are you pleased with it?

Yes, very much so. We're very happy to share a project together. We've become aware of our vocal harmony, and it's a magical thing when we sing together. It is like we're brothers.

How was the recording of the latest album?

First, we recorded songs like ‘Used To Be My Girl’, ‘Bad Habits’ or ‘Aviation’, which is the first single of our new album, and every time we recorded new singles, we were excited about it.

Has it been a gift to your fans after so many years?

I don't think our album is a gift to them, it would be a bit arrogant if we went to each one of them to thank them. People already saw that, on the first album, there was a connection between the two of us, and they fell in love with our music. We knew that the first album was some kind of appetizer for what was coming next.

How is the promotion of the album going?

We're doing a lot more gigs with this album than we did with the first one. I believe that with the first album, for example, we didn't get to visit Spain. At the moment, we've done two shows in the US, and we're going to play at some festivals as well. We're really looking forward to it.

Your first album was heavily inspired by the music style of the 60s. Is the latest one as well, or has there been an evolution?

The first album consisted of music inspired by the 60s because all the reference materials we listened to had that musical influence. Despite that, eight years later, there are still some influences from those years in our songs.

What adjective best describes The Last Shadow Puppets?

‘Explosive’ (laughs). We're like the rock when it erupts from a volcano.

[microwavesaferat]

This is a different topic than my usual stuff, but I was relistening to Epic: The Musical and wanted to talk about my personal interpretation of Calypso's character both within and out with the musical.

So a couple things to consider when going into this:

The original material and the biases/lense that it was created through

The long game of telephone that has moulded the current view of her character

The changes made from the Odyssey to Epic

In the original material, Calypso is trapped on the island of Ogygia for supporting her father, Atlas, in the battle between the Titans and the Gods. When Odysseus washed up on her shore, she took a fancy to him and proceeded to attempt to court him. She did not take no for an answer and in fact cast spells on him through song to force herself onto him. It is noted that, later in his stay on the island, Odysseus would spend most of the day crying on the shore before being forced into bed at night.

TLDR: in Greek Myth, Calypso is a horrible person.

In Epic, some liberties are taken for a multitude of reasons:

Dramatic effect

Narrative flow

Thematic storytelling

Making it more 'PG'

The big one here is the last point, although Epic covers a lot of violent acts and tough topics, but some aspects do need to be cut in order to not make the musical too graphic. For example, in the original myth, Odysseus and Circe definitely have sex, in fact, she has a child with him. So Jorge trimmed down the complicated relationship Odysseus has with Calypso, that is perfectly fine, in fact, it probably works better in the medium than being 100% accurate.

To talk about the version of Calypso in Epic; she was cast away as a child and naively fell in love with the first person she saw. My interpretation lies somewhere in-between these versions. I believe she was isolated on the island (something present in both), but I do not believe she was entirely well meaning yet harmful.

Calypso, at least in my eyes, became obsessed with the first contact she has had in a century and did, like a school-child, gain a naïve crush. But I believe she was cruel and manipulative to Odysseus and is not free of blame for what she did.

Based on the lyrics present in Paradise, she does not reveal her Godly nature until after Odysseus threatens violence if she does not leave him alone, this is a threat to him. She will play nice as long as he does, but she always has the upper hand. She also uses his friends' words against him to manipulate him (open arms), plus she almost completely ignores everything he says during the song to continue her fantasy of a perfect couple.

In Not Sorry for Loving You, she sings a very half-hearted apology that sounds like a YouTuber apology video where she apologises for how he interpreted her behaviour (I'm sorry if my actions offended some people), she blames her actions on her own problems (I've been having a real hard time you guys and wasn't thinking straight). My interpretation is that, she is (as she says) not sorry and is fully aware of what she did, just hoping he would believe that she was simply trying her best and that he would choose to stay.

An important factor that stops Calypso from being 100% awful is that she is a goddess with a skewed interpretation of mortality and of human emotions. She doesn't understand why this is such a big deal to Odysseus to be faithful and get home soon, they have all the time in the world. 7 years is merely a moment in her lifetime. It is also important to note the general reception to Calypso's actions at the time of the Odyssey. It was common for mythological characters to take war brides and the like in many Epics, even Achilles has a bride given to him as a spoil of war. The use of an action like sex in the Odyssey is to demonstrate a power imbalance and a sense of ownership. Calypso takes Odysseus like a spoil of war because he has lost and the Gods have won. In the Odyssey, Calypso does not do this because she is a horrible person, but because Homer wanted to demonstrate the loss Odysseus has faced.

I also find it weird that Calypso is brought up so much surrounding the topic of consent when, in the original myth, Circe does the same exact thing. In fact, it's like her main thing. She turns Scylla into a monster for being with a man she likes, she turns a king into a beast for noting accepting her courtship and has sex with Odysseus in exchange for help home, giving him a child.

The changes for Circe in Epic work because Circe's job in the story is to demonstrate Odysseus's wit and his devotion to Penelope, so she can still help him after he proves he's 'not like other men' (he's a monster rah rah rah). With Calypso, you cannot make it so that she respects his choice, or that would make for a pretty chill 7 years.

TLDR: In both the Odyssey and Epic, Calypso is more important as an idea than as a character. She serves to show how far Odysseus has sunk, lost the war and has been taken as a spoil, defeated and broken.

[ingravinoveritas]

I am entirely floored at the discourse that's been happening on social media (mainly Twitter) since Michael confirmed that his first crush was on John Taylor, to where I actually saw someone describe Michael as a "non-practicing bisexual."

Not only does this go right back to what I wrote last year about how in the past it was only okay for men to be gay/bisexual on TV and in film as long as they never acted on it, but I am nearly 100% certain that if Michael had said his first crush was a girl, no one would think he hadn't thought about kissing or having sex with them. In one fell swoop, this manages to disregard every other comment Michael has made about finding men sexually attractive, not to mention him going to the Scala Cinema in Kings Cross in the '80s--a place known for having late night gay orgies and nicknamed the 'Sodom Odeon'--and coming up with an entire head canon for Aziraphale and Crowley revolving around that.

Also, Michael Sheen has not spent the last five years making it extremely clear--both on and off screen--that he would fuck David seven ways from Sunday (and probably already has) just to have his sexuality erased by calling him a "non-practicing bisexual"...

[freakinator]

If you don’t mind, I’m gonna yap for a second.. I think another problem with Kab is how sudden the turn around was. Like in the first convo where Kab was acting “evil”, Zam fought back with the argument that she’s wasn’t really evil at all and I think he did believe that at least a little. And if Kab slowly began to turn her path around then he would be a bit more trusting cause he would have SEEN her actual emotional growth but the turn around was so fast, it feels like there was no emotional growth at all and that Kab is still the same as before, cause she basically is. She still wants Mane dead no matter the cost and she’s still, intentionally or not, trying to manipulate Zam, but she wants to be treated as if she’s had that whole long term emotional growth

yeah ii think this is where her majority experience with short-term smps really bit her in the ass, i think there are two main directions that other ppl take it tho: 1. is as what you speculate in that some ppl think that she hasnt had genuine growth and hasnt changed at all and 2. that she genuinely changes too quickly and is therefore unreliable regardless of if shes being honest or not

i think the reason zam was so receptive to her in silent scream was cause this has been a recurrent plot point for a couple streams now, kab trespassing zams base to yap while zam tries to decipher her wants and motivations until eventually she just let it all out and in that instance i think he did genuinely believed that she changed even if it was slowly/just a little bit

....but then die for you happened lol

ssee the thing about kab is that shes shes all-or-nothing, going from one extreme to the next after just a little bit of change in character which can be jarring to some ppl to say the least (unless you thought she was lying and therefore any character development shouldnt be believed i suppose) but is something that was a great asset in shorter and arena-based smps where you had to get as much advantage against your opponent as possible without having to worry about the long-term consequences of these actions ie them not trusting you while still having to interact often in mundane ways even after messing with them. while she Can be swayed this only really works with things she was already unsure of which while a great motivator and trait to keep her on track with her goals (again another great trait for short-term smps), can be really jarring and distressing for other ppl if the things she was absolutely sure about goes against their own perspective like for example her thinking that derapchu killing her constitutes zam getting payback for her as the protector of the server (The protector, not A protector like zam insists, The protector of the server)

i think shes far too used to the fast-paced instant acceptance of changed personality in arena smps that is a natural consequence of them being short-term and having a revolving door of members and teams which is why she expects ppl to accept her growth and efforts so quickly even if realistically nobody would hand over their trust that easily esp after essentially being harassed in their own home multiple times, like even in normal smps where theres a baseline amount of trust ppl still wouldnt trust you after doing that, what more in a server like lifesteal where general trust is low basically all the time?

[livvyofthelake]

well basically like raise your hand if you’ve ever been blocked by a close mutual you though you were actually friends with and not just fandom-mates because you expressed an emotion they didn’t like because apparently they only want to interact with people who watch the same media as them and when you didn’t anymore they stopped talking to you and the media you DID have in common they gave up on once they found something more popular and seeing as that thing happened to be your favorite thing you graciously let them have because you believed you were friends and they would treat it with care and love but they didn’t and it made you feel like they didn’t respect you or like you or think of you as a person but rather as a faceless entity who sometimes could make Posts about tv shows you have in common. despite the fact they know what your face looks like because they’ve seen it because you’ve gotten together on zoom and watched movies together like friends do but that doesn’t mean anything i guess if you try to delicately have a conversation about how you feel because they just immediately dismiss you and start talking to you like you’re coworkers in a polite email chain because you said you didn’t like their tv show. which was a fact they already knew but didn’t take seriously because they were apparently never viewing you as a person! or has that only happened to me.

[idiaa-shroxd]

YOUR WRITING IS SO PRETTY I COULD EAT IT. YOU CHARACTERIZE THE CHARACTERS SO WELL TOO!!!

thank you so much!! ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ happy you think my writing is very pretty!! and also makes me happy you think my characterization was correct.

when writing for characters always take a bit of extra time to ensure they sound good? thinking about having an actual conversation with them for a minute and what they’d do! ♧ personally a big fan of viginettes since that reveals a lot of a character more than mainstory.

Σ('◉⌓◉’) mini (huge) rant within the tags of the way of my process to understand a character!!

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also reminded like yeah billions is pretty incapable of depicting like moments of kindness, warmth, consideration even like wildly limited in the ways it does it & unconvincing to that point of like, exceedingly rare that anyone seems to genuinely enjoy anyone's company & these instances are probably for more "unimportant" dynamics & scenes. & it's not all about billions just Not being about nice heartwarming material or anything like yeah of course it isn't but it also definitely has that & does just Indulge sometime like yes you're supposed to go [aww] or whatever's close enough & at least does ask us to believe characters are affected & motivated by such things sometimes....but it's like oh shit the series that's yeah about Events hinging on Power but also asks about the interpersonal & emotional aspect of that where people are entitled to act upon others & others are treated as inferior but answers with just embracing there being superior & inferior groups but like hey we need the Really superior people with the power & the Really inferior people thusly more vulnerable....like nooo way that again like you just get victim blaming all around & best "good" characters can do is stay in the background as props for their Betters & best "bad" characters can do is Get Destroyed like whee that was so fun & validating of my superiority & power....nooo way that This Material is completely shit at showing anyone actually having a pleasant interaction with another character

like you get shit like how rian is just shown being flatout abusive just for funsies to winston & the comment on that is jeez rian you're being a bit too nice. rian only shown having a miserable time assigned with Just Sitting There so taylor can like say things at a character while billions writes wendy as too busy to remember taylor exists for a few months, except oh rian is afraid of how much she loves taylor & what magical times she had working in the same room for a season b/c billions was doing nothing else w/either character. oh taylor is just someone wendy remembers exists when she wants something from them & then she can cast them aside but otherwise she's in charge of taylor's life & enabling someone who treats them like his property is so important that if taylor deliberately outmaneuvers & thwarts her efforts in helping axe keep them trapped it was a real sicko immoral move from taylor that personally wronged her? her doing whatever she wants with taylor's life Regardless Of Their Consent was beautiful & necessary & so For Their Own Good thank you so much forever? great times on billions. & then like all wendy's beautiful complex romances being just. ungodly

like the Lovely Moments you can have on billions are spending money on someone, from axe's helpful bribing off of an ethics panel to taylor actually getting a thoughtfully personalized gift as a specific gesture for a friend, really wide range to that. &/or you can Tell Someone oh you're sooo superior to others. &/or it can be one of those scenes that are just invocations of Family(tm) or Romance(tm) & are just godawful wastelands lmao like this is miserable too. but isn't that lovely. isn't that What Really Matters. versus like glimmers of people acting like friends or actual peers who have basic consideration for each other & are sometimes being kind or having an actually good time interacting with this person like huh what is that. well who cares. back to wendy's relationship arc of the day

[chronicbitchsyndrome]

i have been in community with profoundly developmentally disabled peers and peers with brain damage my whole life, bc i had a childhood diagnosis. i have also been leftist my whole life; my mother was a marxist and raised me that way, and while their politics were absolute dogshit, they were lefty dogshit.

my entire life, i have seen leftist educators throw mentally disabled people away as "lost causes" because they couldn't engage with the material the way it was being presented. leftist outreach and education does, genuinely, have a massive lack of accessible material. to be blunt, people are not interested in retrofitting their leftist outreach to be accessible to people who learn best through episodes of sesame street.

as in, i have repeatedly faced outright laughter and cruelty over the idea that this could be a priority. or even something that we consider doing at all.

"people who are that mentally disabled don't need to know about these things," the kindest interpretation goes. ("people who are that mentally disabled don't interact with the world, anyway, they're all in institutions or monitored 24/7 by their parents," the uncharitable underlying assumptions go. "they wouldn't be a worker who needs a union. or a library attendee. or a member of the community garden. or a volunteer at the food bank. or or or")

the people i have seen this hurt the worst, over and over again, are profoundly mentally disabled people of color whose lack of access to accessible antiracist education is causing real danger in their lives. institutionalized disabled people of color who have learned racist ideology and behaviors from white authority, whether they were adopted by white families or incarcerated in care institutions run by white staff. who are treated lower than garbage by leftist educators, who view them as "lost causes," as unworthy of time and effort and attention, as deserving of their abuses because they... what... internalized the abuses that make up every aspect of their lives since birth?

i see people saying things in this conversation like "disability isn't an excuse for racism or transphobia or whatever, people have the obligation to improve themselves." oh, believe me, i have seen again and again how many privileged disabled people utilize their disabilities to punch down on others, try to escape accountability for their punching down by citing disability. but individual weaponization of identity is just that: weaponization of identity.

the power structures at play are what they are. it is a noble and admirable goal to want leftist outreach and education to be more accessible to all. if that is truly your goal, you must eventually reckon with the existence of people who do, actually, really need it presented in a picture book. or an episode of bluey. or a conversation where you only use examples of people they know in real life, using things that happened to them personally. the existence of people who cannot grasp forms of abstract reasoning, who need information presented as rules, or as guidelines, or as categories. the idea that yes, fully grown adults who need daniel tiger to explain racism to them are human beings who not only deserve access to that very thing, but who also deserve to be a part of leftist spaces and benefit from leftist organizing. are people for whom it might be INTEGRAL they get to be a part of leftism. are victims of racism themselves and suffering without access to antiracist spaces and community and support.

and you will need to reckon with the abject cruelty of your peers who laugh and mock the very idea of this. you need to reckon with the fact that a lot of people you respect, a lot of leftists doing genuinely good work, will respond to this by making fun of the people you're serving, even outright telling you their violent fantasies about these people. that is the experience of organizing in leftist spaces for profoundly disabled people. that is why so many of us burn out so fast. there IS a structural problem with mentally disabled people being seen as disposable and not a part of community. and it is EXTREMELY present in leftist organizing and outreach efforts.

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”