#but i think there’s a lot that is just natural reaction inherent in the body that is pretty hard to consciously adjust

[star-crossed-lizards]

the thing about all the stuff i think/worry about and like “the mean voice” is that all that stuff is like at least kinda true even though it is contradictory and also the opposite of what i think is also true despite being contradictory and the thing about it is that my problem is actually just a lot of things randomly come together that can’t really be like Solved or Fixed they’re like natural normal situations and i just respond to them as a living being and then i just exist in response to everything and none of this is a bad thing

[camplease]

harrow grew in her emotional awareness of other people as people at an incredible rate during the events of gideon the ninth, a rate that honestly stretches the bounds of plausibility. and i think a lot of it, maybe even most of it, was specifically a reaction to an awareness of gideon, specifically, in genuine mortal danger that harrow had never previously considered

even before harrow was able to accept that she feels any affection for gideon, her covetousness of gideon's presence is evident. but, on drearburh, even though there might’ve conceivably been natural disasters outside of harrow's control that could’ve changed this, i think gideon’s survival of the child massacre made gideon seem like an almost supernaturally ever-present fixture of harrow’s universe. no matter how much gideon bled and broke in those 17 years, i don’t think harrow had truly considered the reality of gideon’s mortality before

when harrow thought of losing gideon, she thought of gideon escaping. prior to canaan house, though death involving those close to her was already something harrow knew intimately well, each example is inextricably connected to its specific context. with "the body," the cause of death didn't pose any immediate, direct threat to harrow or those she cared about. as horrific all of drearburh’s children’s deaths were, as heavily as they weighed on harrow, this was a part of her history rather than an imminent threat. and, as much grief and sorrow that the personal responsibility harrow felt for her parents’ suicides colored her existence, as much as she even once blamed gideon, ultimately, harrow's parents killed themselves. these were all so different by their very nature from the deaths at canaan house and the possibilities they illuminated. something or someone was maliciously seeking out those among her in the present. gideon's very existence could no longer be taken for granted, never mind simply losing possession of her

i believe that both accepting her own care for gideon and accepting the risk of losing gideon beyond losing control over her is what led harrow to assess the inherent harm and dehumanization of their power imbalance and to begin to understand the flaws in her worldview overall, the flaws in the system that granted her and others in power the power to abuse it at will and use those under them as tools

but the reason why i say this was a lot of/most of and not all of the reason for harrow's growth is because i think she always had some latent capacity for it that she'd just previously suppressed. and i don't think this is unique to harrow. i think the worst people within any system wear away at their humanity, and, thus, their ability to perceive the humanity of others and act accordingly, a bit at a time. but this process isn't irreversible. harrow's relation to gideon was just the catalyst for that reversal in her

i can’t say exactly who harrow would’ve become without gideon at canaan house with her for the lyctoral trials, but she would’ve certainly been very different from the person she is now

decided to make my own post because i was thinking about this poll way too much and it led me to a big enough tangent that it's its own creature at this point, though i also wanna credit that initial spark

[lenaellsi]

I'm wondering how much of the fandom reaction of "Aziraphale doesn't ACTUALLY want Crowley to be an angel, he just wants to keep him safe/happy!" is because we spent four years between seasons assuming that Aziraphale had already accepted that Heaven and Hell aren't all that different, and that demons and angels aren't inherently good or bad. And it's difficult to let go of that idea in the same way that it's difficult to let go of the idea that they talked their shit out That Night At Crowley's Flat and have been happy ever since. But to actually understand Aziraphale's choice without hiding it behind coffee or lies or secret plans or body swaps or magic tricks or purely romantic intentions, we have to to understand that Aziraphale is still working under an incorrect framework of the world as divided into Cosmic Good and Cosmic Evil.

Because the thing is. Aziraphale does not like that Crowley is a demon. He just doesn't. We can talk about his reasons, but I really don't think that it's a disputable fact at this point. Aziraphale CONSTANTLY talks down to Crowley about the differences between them, and disparages demons in general and Crowley in particular over and over again. I mean, he's obviously just spewing the party line at this point, but he even describes the ultimate triumph of Heaven over Hell as "rather lovely." To Crowley. Where does he think Crowley fits, in that scenario? Is he thinking about it? (He is, surely, given how distressed he is over the danger Crowley is in due to the Arrangement?)

Crowley, to be fair, often says similar things about himself, and hates when Aziraphale calls him things like 'nice.' But as I've mentioned in another post, I think 2.03 makes it all but canon that a lot of that is self-preservation. Hell can't know that he's running around saving children and rescuing people from suicide and poverty, or he'll get dragged down there for decades. Crowley doesn't really think of himself as evil--he's visibly upset during their argument when Aziraphale hits him with "you're the bad guys!" because he thinks Aziraphale knows him better than that.

But instead, Aziraphale makes knee-jerk assumptions about Crowley and his intentions over and over again, including that he's behind the Reign of Terror in Paris and, about two minutes before realizing he's in love with him, that he's working with Nazis. Crowley seems annoyed and hurt both times, and denies it. There's no demonic posturing from him then.

Which makes the Job ep really interesting, right? Because Crowley actively lies and says that he is doing the properly demonic thing, but Aziraphale doesn't buy it. And why doesn't he buy it?

"I know the angel you were."

To Aziraphale, Crowley's kindness stems from the traces of that angel he knew. He thinks Crowley does good in spite of his nature, and not because of who he is as a person, life experiences as a demon very much included. This is because to Aziraphale, Heaven is Good, and all goodness must stem from it.

I've seen people get accused, when making this point, of attacking Aziraphale, or saying that he doesn't love Crowley, which is a ridiculous takeaway from S2. I've never seen a person more obviously in love, or a person more obviously trying to do good in the world. But so much of Aziraphale is tied up in his ability to believe multiple contradictory things at once. (See: the 80 years between "maybe there is something to be said for shades of gray" and "Heaven is the side of truth, of light, of good.") That doesn't make him stupid or ill-intentioned (in fact, he wouldn't need to do the kind of mental gymnastics we see from him if he wasn't clever enough to see through at least some of the bullshit) but it does mean that he's fully capable of loving Crowley while at the same time believing that demons are 'the bad guys.' Solution? Make Crowley an angel. Fix him, fix the bad apples in Heaven, be happy together, eliminate human suffering. Vavoom. Sorted.

Idk man. I'm constantly seeing takes that just...completely discount that Aziraphale really, genuinely, has misunderstood Crowley and the way the world works in his choice to return to Heaven. We can't blame it all on miscommunication. The most honest conversation in the world wouldn't fix this. Aziraphale has to go up there, without Crowley, and learn for the last time that Heaven is not Good, and will never be Good, because there is no Good. Good doesn't come from Heaven, or God, or even Crowley (and I see y'all, putting Crowley on a pedestal, saying Aziraphale wants to remake Heaven in his image--stop it.) Good comes from making the choice, in a very complicated world, to help as best you can, and it comes from love. And that's what Aziraphale will learn in season 3.

[mrs-stans]

Golden Globe Reactions

Jeremy Strong

It felt like much of Hollywood wouldn’t touch this film with a 10-foot pole. Were you surprised to see your name and Sebastian’s included today?

A 100-foot pole! I was incredibly surprised and gratified. I found it thrilling, especially Sebastian. You know, his work in this film is as good as any performance I’ve ever seen in a film – and I worked on “Lincoln.” I think it’s that good. For whatever reason, this moment that we’re in, of a reticence in our culture to go to places that are difficult or uncomfortable, or to touch the third rail — people just didn’t want to support this movie. It’s been a battle. Studios didn’t want to touch it. The streamers wouldn’t touch it. Even in the lead up to the election, I reached out to someone who runs one of the studios and said, “What do you think? Can we do this now that Trump has come out against the film and called us human scum?”

I think this film has a lot to say about this historical moment. I think it is capable of moving the needle, in an even infinitesimally small way. It can at least offer insight beyond a Wikipedia page or the way we get our information now. I was told, “It’s too hot.” It’s been dismaying. I was prepared for the movie to be left out of this part of the conversation, so today’s news was just really amazing. For the Globes to recognize this work, just on the grounds of its artistry, that’s been the real hard thing. Ali Abbasi is a visionary filmmaker, and he made a really fearless piece of art. I think this movie has as much in common with “Barry Lyndon” and “Boogie Nights” and “Midnight Cowboy” and “Mean Streets” and a Shakespeare play than it does with any kind of political diatribe. I think a lot of people still haven’t seen the film, because they have a preconception of what kind of film it is. It’s really not what you expect. I think it’s a very bold, an exciting film that also puts its finger on the pulse of where we are right now.

It’s certainly been talked about far more in a political light than in an artistic one. Of course, a Trump story is inherently political in this climate, but the film is really a character study.

We’ve been trying to get people to see the film. We don’t have a studio behind us. We don’t have a budget for any of these things. We can’t participate in some of these bellwether events that you have to pay to participate in. We’ve been excluded from awards things because the publications have not wanted to “support anything to do with Trump.” I feel a bit stupefied by it, because the truth is, if we’re talking about the art form of acting, this kind of stuff is the highest level of difficulty. What Sebastian did in this movie, the challenge that we both had, the size of the limb to go out on … this film exists in this moment that is difficult for people. Anthony Hopkins played Hannibal Lecter and Hitler, as well as Picasso and C.S. Lewis. For some reason, this film has been declared a no-fly zone.

It’s clear how much admiration you have for Sebastian and his work on this film. Have you spoken with him today?

We texted a bit. I’m just so happy for him. I mean, he was nominated twice today! He’s a heavyweight actor. My greatest hope is that today we’ll invite more people to see the film. If both of the lead performances are nominated for Globes, then surely it’s worth watching or just paying attention to. Maybe that will help reframe the conversation around the film, which has been slightly overlooked. If the role of storytelling is to hold a mirror up to nature, as he says in Hamlet, “to show the very age and body of the time its form and pressures,” I can’t think of something that does that more than this film. This is what we’re living through right now, and it is the past as prologue. Kai Bird wrote the “Oppenheimer” biography, and his next book is about Cohn. That alone speaks to how influential he is on this moment that we’re in. Sean Penn hosted a screening for Sebastian and I two weeks ago. Sean said, “Just wait, you’ll see, this film will have a second life.” I hope that’s the case.

[omniscientwreck]

I will preface this by saying that I haven't directly seen anyone trying to "cancel Smitten" but I've seen a lot of reference to it, and a lot of reference to people being very upset with him and I have a lot of thoughts about that.

Spoilers under the cut

Firstly, I think trying to make moral judgements about the goodness or badness of any of the Slay The Princess characters kind of shows a bit of a lack of comprehension of what the game is trying to say.

The voices represent feelings and impulses that get stronger based on your actions and the events you experience. Just like in real life, different people lean to different emotions based on what happens to them and who they are and what they nurture. This works because we feel all the emotions we feel and even the less present ones are still present in our minds and bodies.

So the Voices are that right? Feelings. They're slivers of you that have distinct voices to show the player how the characters affect and perceive each other.

What I've learned in therapy is that you have to acknowledge and balance your feelings and emotions. They are your helpers, but when things happen to us that cause us to favour one, it can take over too much and make us worse (my overwhelming shame makes me avoidant, non-confrontational, contributes to my anxiety, and outwardly wishy washy to make sure I am accepted by others).

Smitten has always been covetous, idealistic, obstinate, and naive. He is the part of you (as the Long Quiet) that desires the princess, not desire in the mostly sexual sense, but in the sense that he wants, he needs.

When you bear your heart to the princess, when Smitten takes over to get his happy ending, to get what he wants. He wants his happy ending. He wants the princess to be happy and he wants to protect her and he covets her.

None of these things are inherently bad, feeling these things doesn't make you evil, it's what you do with it that makes you evil.

The voices all internally push their agendas, they try to convince you to do what they think is right. They're balanced by each other, and by you making the choices (except when you can't, when one of them asserts themself over you).

In The Epilogue, when he is separated from you, he's alone, and so he doesn't have other voices tempering him and he doesn't have you to choose a different path. So he is all the things he is, and he is them uninhibited and unbalanced. He goes to his extreme because he isn't a whole person, he's just a sliver. This is why he manifests as a shadow.

This is just how he is, he is simply acting out of nature. And that hurts the princess and it hurts you but that's what the whole game is about. You and the princess hurt each other over and over again but that's not all of who you are, it's not your whole relationship.

There are many ways to hurt each other within Slay the Princess, and I understand the strong emotional reaction that comes with it, but in my opinion trying to cancel Smitten or to apply real world motality to anything within the game is reductive. This isn't to say that if you're triggered that you're wrong or bad for having reaction, but the Smitten isn't uniquely evil here. He isn't good and he isn't bad, he's Smitten. Can't judge him by human morals because he isn't operating on the same scale as we are.

It's fine to not enjoy things or to recognize that they hit too close to home, but I think that for me at least, that's the beauty of this game. To recognize myself in it and to process parts of myself that are difficult to cope with or love. And to understand that I am not one aspect or facet of myself, but that I am a whole person with lots of qualities and tendencies and thoughts that are good and bad, and to know that that's true of others as well. And to be able to explore that in fiction and see myself both in TLQ and TSM is incredibly powerful and one of the reasons I love this game so much.

[brw]

Do you think Carol Danvers is an industry plant?

I'll be honest I kind of don't believe in industry plants as a whole, just because I think it's kind of silly, but I'm assuming you don't mean in the literal sense of "musician or artist with corporate backing but isn't upfront about it", but instead on her being pushed less because of demand and more because of corporate mandates.

And yeah, that's definitely true. Carol became Captain Marvel in 2012, and it's not a mistake that that year is also the origin of what many people call the fourth wave of feminism, which also gave rise to an increasingly aggressive "Anti-SJW" culture and incel culture online in reaction to this new feminist movement that focused more on body shaming and body positivity than previous waves. It definitely feels like Marvel was trying to capture some of that energy and momentum with Carol, while also probably feeling a little self conscious for the past decade of her showing her ass with Frank Cho and Greg Horn covers every month.

It does make sense; Carol's character was conceptualised as a means of capturing the feminist movement of the 70s, so she's always been very tied in with feminist movements and the culture surrounding those movements, which has always informed how she has been depicted and designed. In the 70s, a woman owning her sexuality while also being brazen and physical and fighting with her fists was thought of as more empowering, while in 2012 being more covered and in a position of power and leadership was instead the emphasis. Neither of these positions or lines of thought are wrong, they just speak to different era's priorities shaped by the culture around them.

But it is also that Marvel seemed to become increasingly aware that they lacked a strong female character in their main line up of solo title characters the way DC had Wonder Woman. And with the MCU completely erasing Janet, doing that to Wanda, and making Natasha very much so a b role in other characters' stories, I think there was a growing anxiety that they needed to fill this vacuum with someone, and Carol, who had enjoyed a lot of prominence in the 2000s as an Avengers mainstay, who didn't have the baggage that Janet had and hadn't been ruined by comics and films alike like Wanda was at that time in her history, who already had this legacy of feminism as a core part of her conceptualisation, was the natural choice.

But it has also always come across as kind of... odd. It's always going to stick in some people's mouths, because Carol was not the first woman to hold the Captain Marvel title. Probably other than Mar'Vell himself, she is the most conventional, least challenging person to hold that mantle. Monica Rambeau as the second person ever to hold the title, being a black woman and the first black person period to lead the Avengers, has had that history largely underplayed and ignored (and I don't necessarily think she should "take back" Captain Marvel or anything, but she was the first person to make that title a legacy and it's weird how that has been downplayed to suit Carol's narrative by Marvel). Genis-Vell was interesting as a clearly unstable, mentally ill man holding this power and this legacy, later becoming a villain because of his struggles with his mental health and powers and how they interacted. Phyla-Vell and Noh-Varr are both queer, lesbian and bisexual respectively. Like Carol is probably the least diverse person to hold the Captain Marvel mantle after Mar-Vell, so it was always a little odd how much Carol's marketing and depiction acted as if she was this great figurehead for women with superpowers, who is a massive inspiration by virtue of being Captain Marvel, a woman who leads the Avengers, when Monica did that in the 80s!

But anyway. I don't really think Carol is an "industry plant" in, well, any context, because by virtue of being published by Marvel Comics, every character is an industry plant. They are an inherently money-minded, capitalist entity. Every character is going to be thought of in part by how they sell. If publishing this character or this story will bring in money, or not. That's just big publishers as a whole. Carol's history and trajectory into Captain Marvel, while interesting and representative of a larger cultural movement, is definitely not the first instance of this, and really isn't anything new to big two comics and how they react to things.

[blushedfemmes]

young 21yo lesbian (??) here, wondering about stone identities. i spent most of my teenage years thinking i was a bottom, but as i get experience, im realizing that i lean heavily top. im actually incredibly uncomfortable with bottoming, but i cant tell if it's an anxiety thing or an actual preference. in fantasy, i may bottom, but even those fantasies tend to be cnc in nature—as if the only way i want to bottom is to be forced. if im imagining myself with an actual person, im ALWAYS topping. i dont really want Anyone to touch me, although the one time i allowed someone to go down on me, it was really nice except the performance anxiety. it just feels embarrassing and i don't like the feeling of being at someone else's mercy.

my question is, how can i tell if it's a true preference or just anxiety? objectively i can realize it doesn't matter, and the best way to find out is practice, but ah. do you have advice to help me figure it out?

sorry if this is weird or oversteppy, you just seem knowledgeable 😭

my take on stone identities is that they are functional above all else. their purpose is to help you feel more secure about what you want in real life with another flesh-and-blood person in bed, and to communicate that. fantasy does not enter into it. and what you want may change over time, and that’s okay! if it’s helpful to you to use the stone top label, and this makes you feel safe and empowered and happy in your sexual encounters, then do it.

that being said, and more to your actual question: i do think the vulnerability of bottoming is real, and not talked about enough. contrary to what many people believe (subconsciously even), bottoming is a skill that requires a lot of mental presence. to me, it’s almost meditative. being a good bottom means that you are fully grounded in your body and in your pleasure, and this takes a lot of self-work and attention!!! bottoming is not being at someone else’s mercy. you are always in control of what happens to you. even if you are subbing. (especially then!!) you are always in control of your own body and what you do with it, and what someone else does to it.

i think the weird patriarchal nonsense re: bottoming being an inherently weak, lesser, embarrassing act has a much bigger impact on all our brains than anyone wants to admit, even us queer enlightened kinky people. it’s hard to undo this. and bottom or not, it can be really hard to get comfy with your own pleasure, especially if you had a repressed, sex-negative upbringing (like i did)

so i guess to answer your question, the best way to find out what you genuinely prefer is to get comfortable with your own pleasure. it belongs to you and there is nothing embarrassing in it. ever. and getting comfortable with your pleasure doesn’t mean you have to do anything, or let someone touch you, or even touch yourself!! it means confronting those feelings of embarrassment and shame and being like “hm. where did you come from.” it means getting curious about your gut reactions. it means letting your horny thoughts take you wherever and reward your explorations with self-reassurance rather than shutting it down. it also means getting okay with the fact that if you are having sex, your pleasure is involved, even if it’s the purely mental pleasure of a stone top. because if i can be so honest for a sec, being topped by someone who doesn’t have a strong connection to their own pleasure, or finds shame in their pleasure, is a difficult experience. it ends up being more effort on my part as a bottom to connect with them and enjoy myself. super long answer but as befits a complex question, hope some of that resonated and sending love!!

[genderkoolaid]

okay, so, i keep seeing this take come up a lot from non-trans men and non-trans mascs, and it’s making me a bit uncomfortable. for background, i’m a trans man that writes smut for trans mascs, trans men, and non-binary folks. i write in fandom spaces so this is a strictly fandom basis and not irl basis

more and more often i keep seeing non trans men and non trans mascs saying “if you think mpreg is gross you’re just transphobic” without nuance and when i explain “hey, this maybe isn’t a good take to have since there’s a LOT of reasons people may be grossed out by mpreg (eg. dysphoria, how heavily fetishized it is in fandom spaces by non-trans writers, how it’s used to fetishize trans m characters, the person grossed out may be a closeted trans man or trans masc or don’t realize that the “gross” feeling is dysphoria, etc.)”, i get shouted down and told that i’m wrong. and it’s kind of making me question my own line of thinking.

i guess, i’m just looking for some perspective from trans men and trans mascs on this topic? if there is any? bc i honestly can’t tell if i’m having a knee jerk reaction to my own personal experiences with fetishization. idk if you do much with fandom spaces, but i also don’t really know where else to get perspective

I think there's an important difference between different interpretations of "finding mpreg gross." One interpretation is male pregnancy being a squick for people as individuals for a variety of reasons, such as dysphoria. But in the context of systemic transandrophobia, "gross" is describing the idea that male pregnancy is an obscene, disturbing fetish akin to guro, something that is objectively abnormal and inappropriate.

The reason why "mpreg is gross" is transphobic is because its based in the idea that a pregnant man is unnatural and wrong, and that pregnant men can only exist as a "fucked up" sexual fetish. People are incapable of being normal about male pregnancy in any context and will compulsively go "EWW mpreg is so weird and fucked up!!! is this omegaverse!!!" even when talking about real men's experiences or desires. Male pregnancy is seen as a joke, a kink, or a crime against nature, but never something normal, natural, neutral.

Feeling dysphoria around pregnancy for yourself isn't transphobic, and people can write/depict male pregnancy in ways that are uncomfortable. Personally, I don't like how a lot of people's first thought when it comes to male pregnancy is cis men getting pregnant, with trans men- men who can and do actually get pregnant- are an afterthought. Its annoying to see posts joking about "getting a man pregnant" where people immediately jump to "cis male mpreg," distancing transmascs from our own bodies' abilities & replacing us in the cultural mind with cis men. I don't think cis male mpreg is inherently bad, but there are valid criticisms to be made.

And while you are just talking about fandom stuff, I don't think we should entirely separate this from the wider treatment of pregnant men- who are constantly dehumanized irl, treated like walking freaks (I was just reading an article the other day where a trans father talked about being called "it" throughout his pregnancy, and this is not uncommon), and having their gender validity heavily scrutinized for using their "female anatomy" even though they "want to be a man," sometimes even from other trans people. The way mpreg is treated in fandom spaces does very little to counter this narrative- if anything, in my experience, it just adds that "dirty" connotation, where pregnant men aren't just freaks, their pregnancy must be inherently sexual and should be kept out of public spaces. And this really does not help the idea that trans people are groomers who shouldn't be around children- I have also seen transphobes fearmonger about transmasc fathers & their children & whether or not the children will be safe, or be able to grow up properly, or if they'll be traumatized because of their father.

This is all to say: I don't know exactly the contexts you've heard "saying mpreg is gross is transphobic" in, but to me, arguing against "mpreg = gross" is a necessary part of dealing with the objectifying & dehumanizing way we see male pregnancy discussed in fandom spaces. Male pregnancy should be just the same as female pregnancy. Its normal, its natural. Some people have fetishes relating to it. Some people are really disturbed by the idea of it happening to them. & while there are unique brands of misogyny directed at pregnant women, the image of a pregnant woman isn't treated like something inherently dirty and obscene the same way a pregnant man is. People finding male pregnancy strange or gross- not because of dysphoria or personal preference, but out of transandrophobia- is the status quo right now, and its important to counteract this by normalizing male pregnancy as A Thing Some Men Do.

[sophieinwonderland]

your theory about proxy bypassing as it currently stands seems to anthropomorphize brain functions, which is to say it is lacking a lot of steps and explanation.

Anthropomorphize? The human brain?

Isn't the human brain inherently anthropomorphic? 🤔

But I think I get your meaning. I'm explaining in a way that makes subconscious processes sound more conscious than they are in the same way someone might describe natural selection as creatures "deciding" to grow wings or better brains or opposable thumbs. It's obviously a simplification.

I'm not a neurologist. And even if I was, I'm not sure how much insight could be drawn from our current understanding of the brain.

What we do know for certain is that plurality exists. And in these groups of plurals, there's an incredibly common phenomenon where when a headamate is fronting and starts acting for the non-fronting headmate, the fronter commonly sort of goes blank while the nonfronter gains more control, even if it feels like the fronter is still in front.

The existence of this phenomenon is without question.

So the question we're left with is why this happens?

I personally believe it has to do with keeping the organism running efficiently and cutting out the middleman, because typing would be much slower if everything you want to type has to be told to the fronter.

...

But actually, since you bring it up, there's another interesting thing about all of this that's been on my mind

Whatever mechanisms cause proxy bypassing... they didn't evolve for writing. Aside from proxying for headmates not really having much benefit at an evolutionary level, the oldest written language is only about 3000 years old.

So it's not like humans evolved specifically to let headmates write for themselves.

So the reasons we evolved in a way for proxy bypassing to work is a mystery.

If I were to speculate, I might suggest that proxy bypassing also could work for other automatic responses. Perhaps in the distant past, our ancestors relied on a sort of "combat bypassing" with more combat-oriented headmates being able to control the body during battle without actually taking front.

In that case, maybe a full switch would be too disorienting, but trying to tell the fronter what to do would cost too much reaction time in a life-or-death situation.

Allowing the combat-headmate to control their actions quicker than the fronter could react if simply relaying advice could be a survival trait.

But this is all just speculative.

We sadly don't have any way of knowing what plurality was like or how it may have manifested in hunter-gatherer cultures millennia before the first written language.

And another possibility is that this mechanism isn't even for headmates, and is more for other types of non-sentient "parts" influencing the body's actions; and we're just sort of piggy-backing off of those mechanisms.

[timaeusresponds]

A buddy and I have been playing with the idea of Hal getting a Human Body post sburb and I think it would do them both good.

I also think Hal doesn’t like it at first.

It’s been a while since he had a lot of his senses. It’s also been a while since he’s had an inefficient, easily altered, foggy human brain instead of a constantly self maintaining and learning piece of code. More on the latter later but the immediate issues that come with being a person is like. Eating. Drinking. Pissing. Sleeping.

If you’ve ever had the covid taste loss, you might know the feeling of becoming totally aware of chewing. No flavor, just mashing shit up in your mouth, and all the sudden food is nasty as fuck because the process to eat it involves a nightmare sensory journey into soggy mash. Bagel and eggs? Wrong. Soggy mash. We kind of bypass the soggy mash when flavor is there. But Hal hasn’t eaten in like years. And flavor itself is this overwhelming, sensory attacking nightmare on top of *wet soggy mash in mouth.*

Not to mention all the other overwhelming facets of humanity. It’d be sensory overload for the first month, I think he’d be facing a sense of regret and this confusing “this is all I wanted, why am I not happy” as he navigates being perpetually underfed, overstimulated, and anxious. Not to mention he doesn’t necessarily have a healthy way of processing emotions, so everything just gets either filed away into a growing emotional coke and mentos bottle or gets translated into the only emotion he actually knows how to process. Anger.

There’s little things he likes !! He dyes his hair to look different than Dirk, he adorns his new body with decoration and buys ugly graphic tees and sleeps in nice blankets and slowly warms up to good drinks and nice food, but there’s STRUGGLE.

Which is what he needs. Struggle outside of his with Dirk, a sense of ‘oh, being alive isnt easy and I cant keep doing this alone’ and unfortunately his pickings for help are slim and, well, Dirk is having just as hard of a time adjusting to a populated world.

So I guess they’re roommates.

And Dirk has to remind him to eat. Remind him to sleep. Remind him to drink. Dirk has to harken with his own face making expressions he despises, because Hal sure can’t control his reactions. He has to also harken with natural human empathy. Hal is a *person* now, not a screen, so when he says or does something harmful and Hal recoils or frowns or reacts in ANY fashion there’s this innate human pull of guilt and remorse. On top of that he is not about to let Hal die, so now he’s stuck with that same human need to care for another human that is struggling, so now he’s making food that they can both eat and he’s nervous when Hal’s got a knife for chopping vegetables because, yes, ‘what if he uses it on me’ but also ‘what if he gets hurt this time.’

And that’s what HE needs, an image that looks somewhat like himself that is both more emotionally unguarded(against his will) and also needs help innately. He also needs a chance to realize that the harm hes done isn’t a fully burnt bridge, but something he has to put WORK into fixing. Hal is inherently distrustful of Dirk and for once there’s this. Nagging discomfort. “I want him to trust me” is a thought Dirk has(and then considers running into traffic over) and it’s something he has to come to terms with AND fix. For the sake of both of them sure, but also so Hal doesn’t galavant off and die because he’s stupid.

[thenightfolknetwork]

Hi, we are several hundred rats. More accurately, I am a rat, writing on behalf of my several hundred friends, who are also rats.

It's pretty good, being rats, certainly compared to all the nonsense sapios and other bipeds have to deal with. Like knees, and dentist appointments. Recently, though, we've run into a problem. It's very common for sapios to mistake us for a multi-coporeal entity or a collective intelligence or something of that nature. You know, quote-unquote hive minds. Ignoring the fact that most hives don't actually work like that and the way that the common vernacular exposes the inherent sapionormative biases of the modern social system, it usually isn't a problem. One of us corrects them, the human reacts however they react, no big deal. Their reactions are on them, not our problem.

I'm being asked to add that it's a little sad that the humans don't have the close social bonds that could be mistaken for that kind of thing. So now I have. And now they're discussing whether it's sad or just the nature of the human condition. I'm going to keep writing while they're not trying to co-author this letter.

Well, about three years ago, a colony of cerebrachnids moved in next door with their host body. We don't need to tell you, of course, that brain spiders are actually a collective intelligence. Almost all of us have been of great terms with them since day one. It's nice having someone around who can sympathize with how sapios view us. Rats and spiders, right?

Turns out that they've thought we were some sort of multi-coporeal entity this whole time. It came up last week when some of us were visiting for tea. They've thought for years that we were some manner of genus similar to them, and have just been too polite to ask what we are. I, the rat doing the typing, wasn't there, but the ones who were there all agree that our neighbor got a little weird about it, and they're a lot less overtly friendly since then.

We can't agree if they're feeling awkward, or if they're maybe reevaluating the whole friendship in the light of how we have less in common with them than they thought.

Any advice? Do we just pretend it didn't happen and go on like normal?

Thank you for getting touch, reader – or should I say, readers? I'm extremely heartened to hear how healthy your collective attitudes are to the misconceptions people have about multi-corporeal entities and collective intelligences. I'm also pleased that you recognise your own boundaries in managing other people's expectations and reactions to your lived reality.

That said, I don't think there's any risk of your overstepping those boundaries by reaching out to this neighbour and clearing the air about their misconception. I understand you don't want to take on more than your share of the emotional work. But frankly, simply being aware of that as a potential issue is generally enough to stop it from happening.

There might be any number of reasons for your neighbours' sudden standoffishness. They might be embarrassed by their mistake, or feeling foolish for misunderstanding your nature. Or they might be disappointed at the loss of what they assumed was a friendship built on commonality of experience. The fact is, you won't know until you talk to them.

Invite them over for tea and let them know how much you've missed them. Emphasise how much you all value your relationship with them, and that you're keen that this misunderstanding should be set aside.

I would also take the time to stress how much you do have in common, despite these differences. You may not share the same kind of consciousness as them, but there has been enough shared between you to sustain years of friendship – not only shared interests and talking points, but also deeper commonalities around how sapios treat your genuses.

I don't think anything will be gained by making them feel shamed or punished, especially if they were acting out of nothing more malicious than embarrassment. Give them a little grace, and take the time to clear the air between you properly. Then, with any luck, you'll all be able to shrug this moment off as nothing but an awkward bump in the otherwise smooth road of friendship.

[For more creaturely advice, check out Monstrous Agonies on your podcast platform of choice, or visit monstrousproductions.org for more info]

[steaming-system-takes]

Hot take/thoughts. Idk :

I'm firmly anti endo. I don't think you can be a system without trauma, considering system is the medical term for the trauma disorder.

Hypothetically, even if there were other forms of plurality, which I'm dubious of, I think those would be different than systems. Again, system is the MEDICAL TERM for the TRAUMA DISORDER. I think anyone who genuinely feels as if they experience similar symptoms but don't have trauma, they should find and/or make their own label to use instead of barging into the space for traumatized people. It was extremely disappointing when I discovered I had DID and got excited over having a community of people who understood, at least in some senses as it varies from body to body, what it was like; only to see people who don't know what it's like saying they do.

Because, if you don't have trauma, you don't know what the trauma disorder is like. It's not just alters. It's flashbacks and dissociation and fear and anger and one person is hypersexual the other is sex repulsed and now they're in front together, it's not knowing who you are or who you were and your personality changing as you switch or even as an alter merge with others.

I don't think endos are systems. I think, maybe, some of them might have disorders that present similarly, and I think, maybe, some are confused. Maybe they don't remember their trauma. I hope they heal, and I hope they realize their trauma was valid and enough. And I hope they stop contributing to endo rhetoric.

I don't think everyone who is endo or pro endo is inherently harmful. I think some of them are, definitely, but I think most don't actually have bad intentions; they're sharing what they believe to be true, even if the information itself is harmful.

But I do, as someone who has looked at both sides, think that we as a community have dealt with them the wrong way.

I think it's natural that a lot of people's first reactions is defensive, but we could be educating them and asking them to consider our points instead of jumping straight to "they're faking".

I'd be angry if a bunch of people told me I was faking what feels real to me, too.

And I am in no way excusing their actions; I'm just asking us as a community to stop getting angry for a moment, if we can, and try to solve this.

At the end of the day, threats and insults and whatever else is not going to change their minds. And I think, if they attack you personally, you're well within your rights to attack that person back; but don't go onto their pages and yell at them for the sake of it, please. It's making it worse.

I'm tired of having my trauma disorder be a source of anger and hurt outside of the body, because it already affects us enough internally. OSDDID is inherently a hard disorder to have; don't make it harder.

^

[thedreadvampy]

also as a side note: there absolutely are both physical and emotional risks to lesbian sex that you should be prepared for or at least prepared to talk about.

sex is intrinsically vulnerable both physically (mucous membranes, delicate tissue, and fluid exchange) and psychologically.

Just cause you can't get pregnant when there's no dicks involved (and some lesbian sex may involve dicks) and are at less risk of some fluid-borne STIs doesn't mean you're not at risk of contact STIs (like herpes), tearing/scratching/foreign body infection, allergic reactions to toys or lubes, or general stuff like joint strains and cramps.

And sex is fucking vulnerable! There's stuff you might abruptly find painful or panicky! There's stuff that might be fine sometimes but uncomfortable if you shift 1mm left! What's fun vs what's miserable is deeply personal and something you have to collaborate with your partners and yourself to find out!

Sex is by definition in some ways physically vulnerable. The nature of any kind of sex is about high sensitivity, finding something that creates high sensory input and doing it a bunch. Good sex is even more vulnerable because high arousal or orgasm affects your lateral thinking, your fine motor control, your physical reactivity. It's good in part because it makes you vulnerable, it involves letting go of control a bit. buuuut that means it always comes with associated risk.

And that's not touching the emotional element. ALL intimacy is complicated and vulnerable, and sexual intimacy is no exception. You don't know what's going to hit you hard, or where your expectations won't match up to reality or to your partner's expectations. It's an ongoing conversation and it can be great but it's also delicate. There's so much important stuff tied up in intimacy that there is always risk and discomfort involved.

(Intimacy doesn't necessarily mean romance or emotionally close relationships, btw. Sex is intimate even when it's with a stranger you don't know and will never see again. It's intimate because you're making yourself vulnerable in a lot of ways, and because it's an intense experience that only you and the person/people you're having sex with share)

like you cannot. opt out of risk. when it comes to sex. sexual intimacy includes risk inherently - both because it's sex (physical vulnerability) and because it's intimacy.

dangerous to think 'oh I'm gay I don't need sex ed'. this is a line created and held by people who want to understand sex as purely reproductive PiV straight sex. gay sex is also significant, intimate, physically and emotionally vulnerable, personal and real. so is sexual intimacy that doesn't involve any kind of penetration or genital touching. it's worth talking about bc it's worth knowing what you're getting into and what you want to get out of it.

[bleeding-star-heart]

These tags on a reblog of my Anders analysis are another problem I have with DA:2's writing

#god i have so many feelings about this#cuz i romanced anders my first playthrough#and i hated that our relationship did a 180 as soon as I was like#“im not gonna let you gaslight me into doing war crimes”#was it OOC?#i don't know#I can't say#I haven't studied anders as a character or taken the time to contemplate him enough to speak on it#but i just know it was such a turn off that i started a new game entirely EDIT: I have removed the word "gaslighting" from this meta owing to the fact that technically, Anders isn't gaslighting, because gaslighting is something different. Gaslighting being trying to make someone doubt their perception of reality, among other things. What Anders ACTUALLY does falls under emotional manipulation. I would say to the OP that yes, indeed, this is VERY "out of character", so to speak. Most definitely for JUSTICE, the spirit inhabiting Anders's body. But also for Anders as well. Think about it: emotionally manipulating one's romantic partner is an inherently unjust thing to do. It is not something two people who respect and love each other do. Yet the spirit of Justice is completely silent when it happens. A being that supposedly embodies nothing but Justice simply...allows his host to guilt his lover into doing something they disagree with. He does not protest or try to stop Anders from engaging in a truly toxic form of emotional manipulation. If written properly, Justice should immediately have called Anders out on this. Which should prompt either an apology from Anders or a long, seemingly one-man argument between the two. But that doesn't happen. In fact, Justice only shows up if you, as Anders's rival, manage to turn him AGAINST blowing up the Chantry. And then, only to railroad Anders back into the role of terrorist. This, combined with Justice's general lack of reaction to any injustice or violation of rights that DOESN'T have to do with mages, causes him to become little more than a cheap plot device. Now as to why I don't believe a properly written Anders would do it, either. Anders at this point in the story is a revolutionary, yes. He is passionate about his cause. But he is also MORE than that. And part of that 'more'-and also WHY he's a revolutionary-is that he was a victim of a controlling, emotionally manipulative institution. One that bombards people like him with all kinds of unhealthy messaging. Messages like: the outside world is guaranteed to hate you, your (unchangeable) nature is inherently wrong and sinful. As well as: you can't trust yourself at all, you are one bad day from being a monster, you need to let us control you for your own good. Anders probably saw more than one person like Keili-that girl in the Mage Origin who actively believes she's evil and prays to 'not be a mage'. He probably encountered a lot of mages with varying degrees of religiously based self-loathing. He probably had some himself. And he lived in the Ferelden Circle. He's also a person who not only left a toxic institution, but actively sees and complains about how toxic the institution is. People who've suffered from toxic environments/relationships and RECOGNIZE how toxic those environments/relationships were, tend to value healthy relationships/environments. They try and work on themselves to remove any lingering psychological effects of that toxicity. It is highly likely that Anders would NOT want to repeat the kind of emotional manipulation he and others were subjected to. While he might not agree with Hawke about methods, Anders would not believe guilt to be a good tactic because guilt is one of the very tactics the Chantry used on him! Guilt about being a target for demonic possession, guilt about what the magisters did, guilt about being a mage in general.

Guilting his partner into agreeing with him, is, essentially, him doing what the Chantry did to him. And if the writers had put any thought into his character, they would have realized that too. And thus, if they were smart, or and simply give the player the option to permanently decline the quest with no negative consequences. The other option is to lean into that, and purposefully make it a character flaw, that he's too blinded by trauma to see that. But the writers did NOT have the time to be able to successfully pull that off. Thus, yeah. They make Anders, who suffered from religious based emotional manipulation...into someone who emotionally manipulates his partners. Which is yet another thing done in the name of a less-than-stellar ending and plot beat. EDIT: I have removed the word "gaslighting" from my part of this meta owing to the fact that technically, Anders isn't gaslighting Hawke, because gaslighting is something different. Gaslighting being trying to make someone doubt their perception of reality, among other things. What Anders ACTUALLY does falls under emotional manipulation. Which I still don't believe a properly written Anders OR Justice would do, for the reasons stated above.

[quadrantadvisor]

Was desperate enough to use the search function to find posts about The Host by Stephenie Meyer and I just wanted to say, I love your takes and I agree with everything.

The love square never made sense. Jared and Melanie were impossible to root for because the sole basis of their love was that Melanie felt safe with him and Melanie was the last woman on Earth to Jared, and then neither of those things turn out to be true so all they have is intense sexual chemistry. And especially in contrast to Ian and Wanda, how and why am I supposed to care about them? And there is no reason for Wanda to love Jared. I get her falling in love with him through Melanie’s memory of him, but the reality ought to have shattered that illusion for both of them IMO. Especially for Melanie, because he’d rather scream at and hit her body rather than even entertain the hope she might be in there. Sure, he protects it from other humans, but then he abuses it, so that’s not in fact protection; it’s possession.

The gender bioessentialism never made sense. Sure, Wanda’s in a female body and can make the choice to reproduce, which is super cool. But given that her sense of gender hinges on that ability to reproduce and given that that ability is super rare, why would other Souls gender themselves? I think being agender or someone who just didn’t give a damn about pedantic human gender roles would have been super interesting for Wanda’s character and I think it would have added more dimension to her and Ian’s relationship. He barely had to struggle with the fact that the body she was in belonged to an attractive cisgender girl and he was a cishet man, in spite of Meyer’s weak attempts to call that into question. The gender question might have thrown him for more of a loop.

Contrast that to Jared’s very comphet interpretation of his relationship with Melanie, and ooh baby, we’ve got a stew!

Also would have liked more exploration on ethics in general. Why do the Souls care about the well-being of the organisms on the Fire Eater planet but not on Earth? Instead of stopping from eating them, do they steal their bodies too? And the humans killing other humans in an attempt to save them: Is it okay to murder them if they’re the ones doing the murdering, like before?

Sorry for the long ask. I just have a lot of thoughts. Please feel free to block and ignore if this is too weird. Genuinely no intention to bother or offend and I’m sorry if I have.

Oh man I'm always ready to rant about The Host with people!

Yeah I feel like Meyer thought she was saying something really deep about human nature and the way that our instincts drive us? And there is something there, like, your body having a reaction to another person and that affecting your behavior is interesting! In my opinion she just went WAY too far with it, and it makes the characters seem unrealistic and childish. The ways that both Melanie and Wanderer act around Jared are bizarre (this may partially be my ace spectrum talking but like, c'mon.) Jared just kinda sucks, also. The whole idea that there's this inherent magnetism between MEN and WOMEN and that that physical attraction is the most important thing in the world is so heteronormative and amatonormative and uncomfortable

And the book was SO CLOSE to having an interesting take on gender! Examing the genders and/or lack thereof of a body-snatching alien species could be so fun! There's even the mention of the alien species with three genders, and talking about their family structures. You would think that something like that would indicate a more expansive view on gender, but really it's just an extrapolation of more bioessentialism. Because that species has those biological sexes, their families MUST be steucturedin this way, because that's what's natural for them. There's no room for variability or different sorts of feelings. She completely equates gender with biology, even when that biology is being coopted by a hitchhiker.

You're so right about Ian and Wanderer, I would love more examinations of how different she is from humans, including in a gender sense, and them having to deal with that as a part of their relationship. Setting up Jared as someone very entrenched in social norms and Ian as a foil to him in that way sounds really interesting!

Soul society and ethics are SO fascinating. I do sincerely think that Meyer is an compelling fantasy and sci fi world builder, if nothing else.

It's late and I feel like I'm a little incoherent but I love getting to chat about this book, it's so infuriating but so fun, now I want to read it again.

[smaller-comfort]

I am obsessed with your take on Zahndrekh so can I have a breakdown of what’s in your Zahndrekh/obyron doc? Also if you wanted to talk about how you see Zahndrekh and Obyron’s dynamic I would love to hear it? 

Tumblr really didn't want me writing this one up, for some reason. Kept crashing.

Snecrontyr! Most of it is the longer Thing, which is about Yama. (Obyron stands behind Zahndrekh and glowers a lot! Zahndrekh writes (bad) poetry! There's a battle! Assassins! Obyron has sex with Neb and tries not to think about Zahndrekh the whole time! (Failure.) Setekh is the wooooorst!)

Part two is set immediately after they arrive on Gidrim and rapidly devolves into porn, as all the tension I hopefully build in part 1 comes to a resolution. For pacing reasons I kind of do think these should be separate stories and not just two chapters of the same thing, but idk.

The other two wips in the file are smut set in the same timeline- one where Obyron tops/darts Zahndrekh and has a minor meltdown over it, and one where Zahndrekh dresses Obyron up like Princess Leia and makes him roleplay a concubine. (Obyron is less than enthused, mostly because he keeps forgetting his lines. Zahndrekh has a great time.)

So, this is a very young Zahndrekh, fresh out of the battle royale that is necrontyr military academy. He's brilliant and aggressive and extremely arrogant, and if it werent for his general weirdness and idealism, he'd be just as bad as his peers. He has very old fashioned ideas about chivalry and honor, but his ideals are very firmly embedded in the hierarchical mess that is necrontyr upper society. He's not a revolutionary; he thinks the social divide between the nobility and the underclasses is a correct and natural thing.

He doesn't view Obyron as his equal, and he never will; the power differential between them is the only reason he actually feels as if he can trust Obyron. The fact that he trusts Obyron is at odds with the fact that he also very badly wants to bend Obyron over a table, but that trust is marginally more important to him.

Marginally. Ironically, the more he trusts Obyron, the thinner that margin gets. Once they reach Gidrim, it basically dissolves. I'm not writing any of this story from Zahndrekh's pov, but he's a mess by this point. Not only is he separated from Setekh, but he sees Obyron distancing himself, and he decides he doesn't have anything left to lose if he finally makes a move.

Obyron, meanwhile, just wants to serve his master, because that's his job, and his professional pride is the only thing he has that can't be forfeited to a noble. He isn't supposed to want anything else, and the fact that he does is terrifying to him. He wants to be close to Zahndrekh, but Zahndrekh could replace him at any time. Soldiers are inherently replaceable and interchangeable, after all. So he has to make sure he doesn't make another misstep; he has to be someone Zahndrekh won't want to replace.

It's messy and a little fucked up and not particularly romantic, really. I can't write romantic pining; I can apparently only write characters sitting in different rooms thinking to themselves "well now I will sit here consumed with lust for the rest of the evening."

Other Zahndrekh stuff: his body language is slightly unsettling to everyone. Some of this is intentional; he's more observant and a better actor than anyone gives him credit for, Obyron included. He likes putting people on edge to see how they'll react. (Obyron's pointed non-reaction to his antics delights him. He longs for a straight man. Figuratively speaking.)

Necrontyr use their teeth for threat displays; Zahndrekh always smiles with his fangs out. No one can tell if he's actually thirty seconds from challenging someone to a duel or not, and no one really wants to find out. Not when Obyron is standing behind him with his warscythe, anyway.

He is hiding so much hair under that headpiece. Obyron eventually learns how to braid it for him; Zahndrekh jokes that his skills are wasted as a vargard, and he's going to put all of Zahndrekh's actual body servants out of a job. Obyron does not find these jokes funny at all, and neither do any of Zahndrekh's servants, but none of them are ever going to try to explain that to him. Obyron does like touching Zahndrekh's hair, though- at least, he does once he gets past all of his internal screaming about how inappropriate it is.

If you asked Obyron if his feelings towards Zahndrekh were romantic, he would be baffled, horrified, and slightly disgusted. If you asked Zahndrekh the same question, he would laugh and deflect and then sulk for a solid month about it. He'd try to force a noble title on Obyron so he could make an actual attempt at a proper courtship and Obyron would be so insulted, he'd stop talking to Zahndrekh for another month. Zahndrekh doesn't actually notice that Obyron isn't talking to him until week two.

By month three there would be whispers in Gidrim's court of petitioning the phaeron for a war or something to keep Zahndrekh busy, preferably somewhere far, far away from his crownworld.

I'm not writing any of that story, btw.

I'm not.