#but if you don't understand the significance of the labels then you might assume that a single gummy is a small amount.

[cursedvibes]

I went on @epickiya722 blog and ranted all about how I think that the womanizer characterisation of Gojo by the fandom does not make sense. The points I gave to why this man can not even be in one relationship were:

Trust issues. Gojo does not trust a lot of people due to being the target of assassination attempt since his birth.

Self isolation. He does not feel like others truly understand him or can relate to him. So, he does not truly give himself the opportunity to be close to anyone.

I could go in more detail but I already saturated, the previous blogger ask and I do not want to trigger a hypefixation that will make me write a 2000 words essay on " Gojo got no hoes: this man has a negative rizz".

Also, I'm new to the fandom, so my interpretation could be lacking a lot of elements from the manga.

What do you think? (This is a bait for you to write a loooooooooooooooooooong answer)

I forgot to add. I don't think that most Jujutsu Sorcerers are in the mental headspace to be in a relationship with all the things they have to deal with. Maybe if it is for politics, as in getting married to someone because of their abilities and how it can be beneficial for your clan.

Well, I wouldn't really say I'm an expert on Gojo, but he's definitely not a womanizer. The only reason this is even such a popular perception of his character is because of some misinterpretation of a comment Gege made before Hidden Inventory started, where they said Gojo wears sunglasses when meeting girls/a girl (Riko). And I guess fans assume because they think Gojo is hot, he must be swimming in pussy. In canon, most people seemed to be turned off by his personality and status though. Yuuta (guy who still runs around with the replica of the girl who made a pinky swear with him in elementary school) even teases him about how ridiculous him having a significant other is. Gege said that at least when they were teenagers, Geto was the more popular one. Can't say I understand that because the guy seemed like an absolute bore and always looked down on the people he considers weak just like Gojo. Gojo was being straight-forward about it and not pretending he's a nicer person than he actually is, which I can respect much more than Geto's slimy attitude.

I agree that a big problem for Gojo is the self-isolation he puts on himself that comes with being considered The Strongest. People might be intimidated, but fundamentally there is nothing keeping him from forming close relationships with others once he knows them better. He sees himself as entirely removed from others and not even having/being the same existence.

He is the one who put himself up there and who thinks that only someone on a similar pedestal like Sukuna or previously Geto could understand him because he considers them separate from other humans and closer to himself. The label "The Strongest" is a necessity for him to think he could ever form a truly equal relationship with someone. That way he is very similar to Kashimo and Yorozu, also people who tried to teach Sukuna about love and desperately tried to relate to him because they thought he was the only person who could understand them (he doesn't and he isn't) and that way they only managed to close themselves off to people who could've actually helped them.

Vulnerability also plays into it to an extent because it's no coincidence that Gojo has his Limitless on almost constantly. The thing is, to form a real personal bond with others and have a close relationship with them, he needs to make himself vulnerable and also step down from the pedestal he put himself on to meet them at eye-level. You see that very well with how Takaba and Kenjaku's fight ended. Kenjaku also used to separate themselves from others for safety reasons, suspicion and just general habit. They craved friendship, but had trouble forming the truly equal relationship friendship requires for them. In the end, Kenjaku allowed themselves to fully engage with and get involved with Takaba and that vulnerability led to their death, but it also made them happy and as they said, was one of the best moments in their long life because it fulfilled the base wish/desire that was behind all the wild experiments and merging of people and curses and whatnot.

You could say Gojo is similar and had a similar death in that he was made vulnerable, but it wasn't so much that he stepped down from his pedestal to connect with the people who were already trying to reach him and cared about him, instead he made himself vulnerable by antagonizing someone who also stands on a different pedestal. He doesn't lower his guard, he seeks out someone who could overcome it by force. Unfortunately, that person doesn't actually care about him. If he had tried to connect more with the people already next to him, he might've been happier or more emotionally fulfilled, even if that means he would have to give up his strength or lower his defence. Instead of making children into weapons in hopes of some of them also climbing on that pedestal, he could've left his. There is pressure for him to be in that high position, no question, but he is the one who separates his existence and status as a living being from others. He would've needed to unlearn that thinking first.

All in all, the last thing you said in the second ask is most important. Sorcerers, especially the ones at Jujutsu Tech, generally just don't have romantic relationships or close relationships in general. Not the type the "womanizer Gojo" people are thinking about at least. Gege avoids talking about couples, but the only sorcerers who might be in a relationship are Kirara and Hakari and they aren't part of Jujutsu Tech anymore. Yaga is divorced and we don't know anything about the others except that most of them are very lonely and depressed. Some sorcerers, particularly those in the big clans, are married, but they don't seem that happy. Maki's parents don't look like they love each other or have any joy in their life really. So if we go by canon, no sorcerer is in a committed and/or loving relationship as far as we know (like I said even Hakari & Kirara are up in the air), which makes sense because most of them will soon die anyway. Maybe some of them have sex on the side, but probably more as coping mechanism. With how hung-up Gojo is on Geto aka the closest relationship he had in his life, I don't see Gojo being one of them. Not saying he's crying into his pillow 24/7, but getting close enough for sex with others seems difficult. Plus, ideally the other person also has to like him enough to agree to do it with him and finding someone like that isn't easy either.

tldr: I agree "Gojo got no hoes: this man has negative rizz"

[butchabouttown]

how can you be a lesbian who’s attracted to/fucks all genders? genuine question no hate just doesn’t align with my understanding

hi!! thanks for asking I LOVE this subject and am so happy to talk about it!! This reply might get kind of long so I apologize in advance hehe <3

I assume you're sending this in response to the ask I got the other day asking about if bisexual women can say dyke, to which I said that I am bisexual & also a dyke (woman is debatable). That's the first place I want to start—that bisexuality does not necessarily equal attraction to all genders. It can! And I have no problem with someone who is attracted to all variations of all genders identifying with the lesbian label if that's what makes sense for them. But for me, I am attracted to women, and men, and people who fall outside of that binary—but I am not necessarily attracted to gendered expressions.

Personally, someone's gender identity really doesn't impact whether or not I might be attracted to them. I am specifically attracted to people who's gender expressions align with or reflect my own in some way—so as a butch, as someone who moves through the world as a lesbian, as someone who identified as trans masculine for several years, who has been on T and may go on T again—that is pretty expansive. For me, I am attracted to queer versions of masculinity—in all its shapes & variations. I don't think that experience precludes me from using the lesbian label! There is not one person that sees me move through the world that does not immediately clock me as a butch lesbian. I cannot change that (and nor do I want to). Does the fact that sometimes I fuck & fall in love with men mean that they're wrong? Or that I am for feeling comfortable with that label?

And that really isn't a new experience!! I am absolutely not alone in that kind of attraction model, and I am not the only person who gets clocked as a lesbian that is attracted to people who aren't women.

I can think of many significant figures & authors & activists in lesbian history who have really traversed what has been coined the "butch/FTM borderlands" by author C. Jacob Hale in 1998. Identity categories do not have hard borders—there's a liminal space that exists between them, and it's impossible to draw a distinct line between them. Hell—even the poet & lesbian icon Sappho wrote about both same-sex and different-sex relationships.

I think of communist, activist & author Leslie Feinberg & the exploration of being a leftist, working class butch in the 60's & 70s in Stone Butch Blues. That novel in particular, although fictionalized, is very much a reflection of their own life and details relationships with many different kinds of people while being very much rooted in lesbian culture.

I think of Jen Manion's article in Transgender Studies Quarterly titled "Transbutch," (article begins on page 213 of the linked pfd) where they write the following:

‘‘Transbutch’’ signifies a gendered embodiment that is both butch and trans, not tied to any singular definition of butch or trans but rather falling somewhere in between. Transbutch marks a liminal space that embraces both the historical legacies of the category of butch and the more expansive possibilities created by the transgender rights movement for recognition, community, and empowerment."

(italics my own) In other words, transbutch is about that sticky place between two identities. Someone can have ties to both of these identities at once—particularly since they have been so historically tied in terms of community.

And the argument being made by Manion I think really connects to the discussion here - being a lesbian is about more than who you sleep with. It's a political identity, it is a gender in of itself, it's about your community and how you connect to it.

Many of the lesbian icons that the community holds dear trouble the "woman loving woman" definition of the identity. And besides—it's not like lesbian is a finite resource. We have infinite space to welcome all kinds of people, anyone who wants to be in community together. There are so many ways to move through the world and so many ways to come to this identity.

Anyway! I don't know how to end this! I hope it was helpful <3

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

cw: mentions of fatphobia, body image issues, gendered beauty standards

hey sex witch! love and appreciate your sex ed posts and the resources you've shared. i noticed that you've answered some asks about becoming more comfortable with expressing sexual attraction, and finding ways to see yourself as desirable -- i was wondering if you had any similar thoughts about becoming more comfortable with other people expressing attraction to you, especially verbally. it's something i'd really like to start enjoying in a casual way (i'm more okay with it within a long-term relationship or a kink dynamic, partly because it's something i can negotiate), but it's pretty consistently something that feels "off" for me and kills my interest. i don't want to react that way! i actively want to enjoy it, especially with people i otherwise like and connect with, and i feel like i might enjoy it a lot someday if the circumstances were right or if i changed my mindset/framing. plus, i know that i really like complimenting people i'm attracted to (if i know that they like it and i know what it means to them), and i'd like that to be a mutual thing.

to be clear, i haven't experienced sexual trauma, i'm nondysphoric (transmasc), and i'd say that i really like my appearance (in a nonsexual/aesthetic sense), so i think i can rule out a few of the common reasons that people feel this way. others have suggested that i might be aspec/demisexual when i've talked about my experiences, but i've gone through that particular questioning process before (and identified as aroace/"not interested" for most of my life), and i feel like it's probably something else.

i think a significant part of the problem is that when people have flirted with me/said that i'm physically attractive, they've usually referenced beauty standards that i'm both very opposed to and which are at odds with my sexuality and what i see as beautiful. i'm a guy who's always been viewed as thin and as having a "conventionally androgynous" (?) body type, and i've generally been attracted to people with body types and/or presentations that are noticeably different from mine -- that includes feminine-presenting people, fat and chubby people, and trans and gnc people who present in ways that combine masculinity and femininity. i've pretty much never been attracted to men who look like me. but when people compliment me on my appearance, they often compliment my body type or size directly or indirectly, and i feel like there's a certain undertone of "i'm labeling you as attractive because you don't look like Those People." i don't want to be around that attitude, and i don't find it flattering or "nice."

i generally wouldn't want to assume that a person who uses these compliments actually has extremely normative views on sex, is fatphobic, etc., and i believe that attraction is morally neutral no matter what your "type" is. it's not like i don't have specific preferences myself, though i probably have some biases that i'm not yet aware of. the whole idea of people being attracted to you because of aspects of your appearance that you didn't choose is...inherently messy, i think. i also know that in most cases, i can just leave, or ask people not to talk about me in these terms. but i still find the whole thing alienating and off-putting, to such an extent that i feel disconnected from most discussions and portrayals of sexuality, especially re: attraction to men. and that's on top of having to deal with the very common assumption that it's a universal experience for women and trans people to hate their bodies and want certain types of validation (but that's kind of a separate issue that i won't get into here).

do you have any thoughts on how to navigate this? i feel like i might be missing something important, but maybe i just need to understand and accept what doesn't work for me.

thanks!

hi anon,

I hate to be so brief when you've presented me with a veritable novella, but listen: you've already answered your own question here.

if I'm reading this right sounds like what you're experiencing isn't an issue of disliking compliments because you lack self esteem, but disliking compliments that are focusing on your body in ways that you don't enjoy. the problem in this scenario really isn't on your end. no matter how well-meaning people might be, you're not under any obligation to make yourself enjoy compliments that make you uneasy, and I'm certainly not going to be the person who tries to tell you how considering I operate my own life almost entirely around the notion that if it sucks, one must hit da bricks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you already said it yourself: if you don't like the way someone talks to you, especially if they're someone you'd like to continue having a relationship and building rapport with, the best move is to ask them not to talk about you that way. (if they're someone you'll never see again and don't give a shit about, by all means just blow it off.) if they're not cool with that boundary, awesome! you've learned something very important about them and can terminate that potential relationship immediately.

[patience-knowledge-focus]

I spent a long time thinking I wasn't part of a system because my lived experience was nothing like it's portrayed in the media (the only place I'd encountered the concepts for most of my life).

I've always known about my other, even though for a long time, I assumed there was just me and him. He had no particular name, but he existed alongside me.

My friend.

I've never experienced blackouts, though I'm missing significant chunks of my childhood. From age four to ten, I have one coherent memory. Of apples. Another kid in school brought me an apple; I was hungry; it was red. My only real memory from six years of living.

This nameless other never took over and we haven't struggled to communicate. Instead, we become each other. He slips in, and I slip out, hiding away while he kept us safe from my parents. I remember that bit. I was twelve. My mom (and, his mom, you have to understand) had her hand raised, ready to strike me.

"Let me," he said and fought back. Imagine it from his point of view for a minute.

I was twelve. He was twelve. His name is Keith now.

I've been in therapy for ages; I didn't mention him until well into the process because I thought my experiences were normal. Surely, everyone has someone protecting them? Surely, everyone grows up with imaginary friends that become people? It felt so desperately normal, and he was always so very kind, that I could not imagine that there should have been only one person here.

I cannot imagine a life without Keith and Micah, and the rest.

But once I knew them, it got both easier and harder. There was more than one other. Our shared brain is good at taking nothing and making it into something. We're older now, old enough that the wounds have largely healed through the sheer power of time. We don't go hungry anymore.

I still turn on music he likes -- they like, there are others, they don't always agree. I go out and get snacks I know they like. I see my existence -- our existence -- as utterly normal. Much as I did for most of my life. It is normal for me to hear my others, for them to have names, hopes, and likes. For them to be different and precious and yet, shards of what might have been.

I can't imagine a world without them now.

I care not for labels. It doesn't matter why we are what we are. It only matters that we survived and continue to do that.

[gryphonlover]

I was just thinking recently about how to be an ally to my queer friends on tumblr. Do you have any suggestions? What kinds of things would be supportive and gender affirming to you? How can mutuals support you?

The good news is that asking those questions is one of the most important parts of being a queer ally. 👍 Now this does get a bit long because I'm trying to explain as much as possible to give you a solid idea of how to approach things, so I'm putting it under a readmore.

General Advice

One way you can communicate that you're an ally is by making that clear on your blog. This can mean displaying an image like the straight ally flag, or just saying that your blog is a safe space for queer folks. I don't know how other queer folks feel about the straight ally flag, but I'm of the opinion that it's a great communication device, which is really what all flags are for in the first place.

Most queer folks will have their pronouns in their blog. It could mean that they're transgender or intersex, or it could mean that they're just an ally to those folks. You can't tell unless they let you know, but it's usually safe to say they are an ally at minimum. This means that putting your pronouns on your blog can signal that you're a safe person. It also frees us from the awkwardness that is asking for someone's pronouns, although it should be noted it is always better to ask than to assume.

Reblogging/liking content that's queer-friendly is another good way to show support. It tells people that you're safe and friendly, with the added bonus of interacting with a queer Tumblr's content. I'm of the opinion that it's good for everyone to mingle as long as no one is hurt in the process. I don't really see straight, cisgender folks do this, and I think it's probably because they don't really know any queer folks or they don't feel comfortable engaging with queer content. It can be awkward, but I think the only queer stuff I'd recommend straight, cisgender folks to avoid putting on their blogs is discourse, especially if it's nuanced because that gets really messy really fast and you might not have context for what's going on. But if you like a gay fanfic, or someone you know took some beautiful photos of pride? You're probably fine hitting the buttons on those.

Something that's recently popped up is a significant increase in bots distributing spam in queer tags. A lot of this spam is designed to look like transgender people in sexually suggestive and/or explicit photos. If you spot a post like this, and you're sure the account is a spam account, it's best to report it. Reporting the post and/or blog as spam and then blocking the bot account is the best thing you can do. If you're not sure, then just block the account and a queer person will probably come along and take care of it later. The bots are very problematic because they're taking advantage of the people whose photos they've acquired and they're putting mature content in the community tags without any content warnings.

If you don't understand a queer label, slogan, etc. you can either look it up on a queer wiki (like this one!) or just ask a queer person. Personally, I am more than happy to explain what I know if someone has a question. A lot of other folks are, too. They will let you know if your question is rude, but in general it's better to ask with a genuine desire to understand than to assume anything.

Supporting Me Specifically

I don't have my legal name listed online for multiple reasons, such as internet safety and the fact that it is a gendered name. I ask people to either use my username or call me Gryphon if they want to use an actual name I go by. I don't respond to names that aren't mine, so if you try to use anything else it just won't work. :)

In English, I generally prefer that people refer to me by using "they" instead of "he" or "she" because it's gender neutral. This is obviously an issue in gendered languages. In these cases, I normally use neopronouns. In Portuguese this means using "elu" instead of "ele" or "ela." It might take some practice to get the hang of, but it's the thought that counts.

Adding on to the previous bullet point, I don't normally use other gendered terms to refer to myself (with rare exceptions). In practice, this means replacing "man" or "woman" with "person." The same goes for honorifics. Instead of being "Mr" or "Ms" you should use "Mx." In Portuguese this means using "senhore" instead of "senhor" or "senhora."

I'm asexual. This means I'm not straight or gay, and is not something that will change if I have a partner. Straight, gay, and lesbian are, unfortunately, gendered terms and thus I do not use them. More detailed information is on a need to know basis.

TL;DR: The best thing you can do to show support is avoid using gendered language when you talk to or about me.

If you've read this far, I hope I've been able to give you some practical advice. If you have more questions, feel free to drop those in the askbox, comments, tags, etc. I've got plenty of time to write out explanations for people these days.

[carrocel]

Dos and Don’ts of Buying Antique Furniture in Toronto

Buying antique furniture in Toronto can be an exciting venture, but it requires careful consideration and knowledge to ensure you make a wise investment. Here are some dos and don'ts to keep in mind:

Antique Furniture Buying Guide: Toronto Tips

Dos:

1. Research and Educate Yourself:

   - Do research different styles, periods, and types of antique furniture to understand what you're looking for.

   - Educate yourself on common materials used in different periods, such as wood types and upholstery fabrics.

2. Set a Budget:

   - Do establish a realistic budget before you start shopping. This will help you narrow down your options and prevent overspending.

3. Visit Reputable Dealers:

   - Do buy from reputable antique dealers or established antique shops. Check reviews and ask for recommendations to ensure credibility.

4. Inspect Thoroughly:

   - Do carefully inspect the furniture for signs of authenticity, such as dovetail joints, handcrafted details, and original hardware.

   - Look for any signs of damage or repairs, and inquire about the restoration history.

5. Ask Questions:

   - Do ask the seller about the piece's provenance, age, and any available documentation. The more information you have, the better.

6. Check for Labels and Marks:

   - Do look for labels, marks, or signatures from the original maker. These can add to the provenance and authenticity of the piece.

7. Consider Size and Scale:

   - Do consider the size and scale of the furniture in relation to your space. Ensure it fits well and complements your existing decor.

8. Negotiate and Be Patient:

   - Do negotiate the price. Antique dealers often expect some haggling.

   - Be patient and don't rush into a purchase. Take the time to find the right piece for your needs.

Don'ts:

1. Overlook Condition:

   - Don't overlook the condition of the furniture. While some wear is expected in antiques, extensive damage can significantly decrease value.

2. Buy Without Documentation:

   - Don't buy an antique without any documentation or provenance. Authenticity is crucial for the value of the piece.

3. Ignore Quality:

   - Don't compromise on quality. Even if a piece looks good, ensure that it is well-made and crafted with quality materials.

4. Assume Age Equals Value:

   - Don't assume that just because a piece is old, it's valuable. The condition, rarity, and craftsmanship play significant roles in determining value.

5. Forget to Measure:

   - Don't forget to measure the space where you plan to place the furniture. Antique pieces might have different dimensions than modern furniture.

6. Dismiss Restoration:

   - Don't dismiss a piece solely based on restoration, but do inquire about the restoration process and its impact on the value.

7. Neglect Transportation Considerations:

   - Don't forget to consider how you will transport the furniture to your home. Some pieces may require special handling or arrangements.

8. Impulse Buying:

   - Don't make impulse purchases. Take the time to think about the purchase, and if needed, get a second opinion from an expert.

By keeping these dos and don'ts in mind, you can enhance your chances of finding a valuable and suitable antique furniture piece in Toronto.

[thebreakfastgenie]

As you pointed out in your response there are many conservative people who are also queer, so in my opinion the identity of the person expressing the viewpoint is not in and of itself context, though it can be the starting point for context. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you meant is you know this person and what you are trying to communicate is that the OP is not a transphobe but — well, unfortunately, there are trans people who are. In the same way that there’s gay conservatives, etc.

I would also like to clarify that I used the term “feminist theory” rather than “feminism” to try to make the point that there are several radically different things that fall under the label of feminism. In hindsight, this was poor choice of words.

I do think I agree with your point that there should be more mainstream attention drawn to what I will loosely term the building blocks of feminism. Some of it is simple poor choice of language - for example, the example you gave about how cis women don’t experience gender based discrimination might have been a poorly worded attempt to say that cis women don’t experience transphobia/cissexism/transmisogyny, which would be correct. Other times there are gaps in knowledge that some people think are “too obvious” to teach about and other people think are a solved problem, a historical issue.

However part of the post still rubs me the wrong way a little bit and your explanation doesn’t quite cover it. It would be extraordinarily strange for example to say cis women need to learn feminism because they only think that they understand gender - you might say that they need to learn about feminism because they would benefit from it, or so they don’t perpetuate harm to other women, or so they would understand the history of what women have experienced so they don’t risk retreading past mistakes, or so they know what to be vigilant for to avoid harm, and learn skills for how to respond to oppression, etc, but it would be very strange to say that they only think they know what being a woman is unless they’ve learned about feminism. This seemed to be the implication of the post though; that trans people “think” they know about gender because they’re trans, but they need to learn more about feminism and gender theory.

OP's identity felt very relevant to me, because your first message spun a bunch of potential ways the post was transphobic based on assumptions. I think in this case the context that this was a trans person making an observation about her own community is significant.

I don't think it's at all strange to say women need to learn about feminism. Quite frankly, if we are talking about dismantling structures of oppression, then yes, we need to learn more about feminism and gender theory. OP did not say trans people only think they know what being trans is, or what being their specific gender is. There is a lot more to gender than the individual experience of being a gender. A personal identity or experience does not automatically confer an understanding of the systems at play.

[mallowstep]

<you aren't obligated to post this anyways but i do request you don't if it sends as an off anon ask Somehow because idk if it would cause Discourse and i don't super. want that>

honestly hard agree w your tags on the queerhollyleaf post. like. i'm not necessarily proship! i'm not necessarily anti! i personally think it's a topic that can't be narrowed down to yes or no and uhhh a lot of the fandom just doesn't seem to understand that. it's like you (the general you) see one word and the part of your brain that controls complex thought goes dark

okay! i tried to write an answer by myself earlier and it wasn't working so now we're both going to do it. everyone say hi mari. mari says hi everyone. for those of u who don't follow us on main: we = matthew-and-mari, i = matthew, and "m: ..." = mari. not that that's TERRIBLY significant, but so you know.

also for context, my tags were:

✨✨✨unless it’s not proship in the sense that I refuse to label ‘being a reasonable person’but that might just be mexd

sorry that copied kinda weird.

okay so anyway.

we're going to only be discussing fannish media because that's the main focus of this blog. other topics can be forwarded to @fencesandfrogs yadda yadda yadda. we're all here for the fic, aren't we?

m: i do not write fanfiction i am here solely for making sure matthew doesn't go off topic again

right. anyway.

we definitely feel that the conversation can fixate so much on this false axis it can even become harmful. we firmly believe many antis are only antis because of social pressure and a lack of understanding of the proship opinion. we also don't feel the proship position is really wrong. "do not harass people, and tag work responsibly," is our position and it is the proship position, as we understand matters.

that said, there's so much misinformation about what it means to be proship that (a) i don't feel super comfortable identifying as proship (influenced by bad actors as well) and (b) saying you're proship activates this hard wall in a lot of people's minds. we saw people's opinions change while they were following us, but as soon as we explicitly said we weren't an anti, those people unfollowed us. they're within their rights to do so, ofc, and we don't follow up with them, because that would be stalking and weird, but the point is, it's like a magic word.

i don't run this blog to change people's minds. ship discourse has ALWAYS been toxic, as long as we've been on the internet. before it was the modern incarnation of pro/anti-ship, it was voltron bullshit (for us --- not being able to partake in fandom because of the toxicity is actually why we stepped away from fandom for several years), and before that, it was something else. nonsense internet discourse isn't new.

but this is a particular flavour of nonsense that we are frustrated by. five-or-so years ago, our opinion was the default, neutral position. people understood that you tagged content appropriately, that you didn't put nsfw of work aimed at children in the main tags, and that was it. you didn't tag nsfw for mlp as mlp, and you put a content warning up, and that was that. yes there's nuance here, we're not going into all of it.

m: matthew's wrists WILL regret it also we said most of this in the post about abusive rare pairs

so we feel like we shouldn't have to label that.

also, not labelling ourselves means people can't assume our positions. for example, when i'm not trying to be problematic to either (a) piss someone off/out of spite/etc or (b) explore themes, i usually choose to write out problematic content. the example i like to use is that if i want to write moth/misty, then in that fic, misty was never moth's mentor. i might not say/explain it, but it's true. because apprentice/mentor makes me really uncomfortable. so they just never have that relationship.

uh. mari is reminding me that antis usually don't support writing shit out and ALSO that's not even an opinion.

right.

what we mean is, people have a lot of Ideas about what it is to be proship. we don't see ourselves as proship to begin with (see: our opinion is the opinion the average person on the street would have, trust us, we've asked), and we don't want people to make assumptions about our opinions based on that.

at the end of the day, we don't like using pro/anti ship as terms. for clarity, we will use them, but we prefer to think of the average fandom member as a reasonable person, and call antis puritans.

because that's what they are.

we want to restate that our opinions on published media are a lot more complicated and nuanced (and we also think that's another thing this discourse often misses: fanworks and published media are not the same), just because it feels disingenuous to NOT make a point of that. we don't really care if someone is writing fanfic smut that glorifies abuse: we do care if a book is published that glorifies abuse.

anyway.

we're going to leave it there, but basically, yeah. pro/anti discourse is a really ugly flavour of internet nonsense discourse that not only do we have no desire to be in, but fundamentally do not understand.

m: no this is true. regularly we will see something and not understand how someone could hold that belief/opinion/etc. like, matthew finds these posts and we look at them and can't make sense of them. neither of us can remember an example, but yeah.

so, yeah. we feel you hard.

<3

[estrel]

hey this is gonna sound weird but I got back into spn VERY RECENTLY and I want to draw something for Nov 5th (used to do spn fanart way back in the day) but I haven't seen a bunch of the eps from the last few seasons (post S11). I don't have time to rewatch them all before the 5th, do you have a list of eps I should prioritize? Also I'm open to concepts/ideas for the art, I'm good at realism mostly. thank u sooooo much for ur help but also I blame u and the hellers in general for pulling me back in so the art is gonna be dedicated to u guys

hey, that's awesome!! i'm very glad you're back!! here's some episodes you might want to cram in before nov. 5th, from s12 onward! bolded are, in my opinion, essential in terms of understanding either the plot or the fandom (’C’ for ‘cule as in desticule) but of course i’ll advise that you read the plot summaries for any eps you can’t watch, including those that aren’t listed!!

s12e1 — keep calm and carry on : first ep of the season, i assume this would be easiest to start with so you can recall s11, and also just so you can get the gist of where the season will be headed. [PLOT]

s12e8 — LOTUS : introduces you to kelly kline. it's not my favorite and it's a bucklemming ep but plot-wise it might be important to know who kelly is, though tbh you can just read the synopsis and you should be fine. [PLOT]

s12e10 — lily sunder has some regrets : just a genuinely great episode! lots of cas background info and dean/cas moments [C]

s12e12 — stuck in the middle with you : davy perez ep!! cas says i love you!! sorta plot-heavy i GUESS? but if you want destiel angst then this is for you. it's mostly about the angst. [C]

s12e19 — the future : really important in terms of jack [PLOT]

s12e23 — all along the watchtower : season finale in which Very Significant things happen. s13 picks up right from where this leaves off. beginning of the widower arc. [PLOT, C]

s13e1 — lost and found : again, first ep of s13, lots of destiel angst (beautiful beautiful angst. the jacting joices....superb) [PLOT, C]

s13e4 — the big empty : cas!!! answers the question of what happened to him. [PLOT]

gonna go ahead and mention here that in order to watch s13e6 you should probably watch, like. the last ten minutes of s13e5, because again, ep 6 picks up right where ep 5 leaves off.

s13e6 — tombstone : destiel must-watch and end of the widower arc. also significant in terms of jack's development [PLOT, C]

s13e10 — wayward sisters : read the synopsis of ep 9 beforehand though if you want to get a background on kaia. [PLOT, C]

s13e16 — scoobynatural : 'nuff said. [C]

s13e19 — funeralia : not necessary but there’s a good amt. of rowena and cas in this ep so <3 [C]

s13e23 — let the good times roll : season finale, lots of stuff happens plot-wise [PLOT]

s14e1— stranger in a strange land : “i thought you two were joined at the—you know. everything.” really a slow ep tbh, but read the synopsis [C]

s14e3 — the scar : dean is back! there is a scene bt dean/cas in which the score makes me lose my goddamn mind. [PLOT, C]

s14e4 — mint condition : not essential, but a favorite. you’ll especially want to watch it if you’re a dean girl (gn) [C]

s14e7 — unhuman nature : again not necessary, but good jack development/jack scenes with his family [C]

s14e8 — byzantium : VERY important plot wise, re: cas and jack. [PLOT, C]

s14e10 — nihilism : so good. so very very good. also, pamela barnes. [PLOT, C]

do not watch s14e13 lebanon. i repeat, disregard lebanon.

s14e14 — ouroboros : again, one of my faves. gay motw, and v cute scene between dean and cas (: also, rowena!!! [C]

s14e17 — game night : the plot in this ep bleeds through onto the divorce arc of season 15. the ending is...ambiguous, but you can either watch 14x18 or find out what happens in the summary of that ep [PLOT]

s14e20 — moriah : again, a season finale. eps 18-20 really hinge on the events of 14x17, so all you really need to know is that they’re all v upset about [redacted redacted], which happens in ep 17. [PLOT]

s15e3 — the rupture : what i consider to be part one of three re: the divorce arc. also we’ve got a good smattering of characters and it’s important for plot reasons [PLOT, C]

s15e6 — golden time : part 2 of 3 in divorce arc. definite angst, lots of cas, and lots of eileen ((: [PLOT, C]

s15e9 — the trap : now, ofc this is part 3 of 3 in the divorce arc, and while it may be a great dean/cas ep, i must say it’s also one of my favorite sam episodes. sorry, but you really can’t skip this one!! [PLOT, C]

s15e10 — the heroes' journey : one of my favorite episodes, but it's garth-centric and you can really read all you need to know via episode summary but still. the implications of this ep haunt me. why lamp. [C]

s15e17 — unity : lots of god-stuff happening, and it leads into 15x18 [PLOT, C]

s15e18 — despair : the last episode of spn!! [PLOT, C]

so, added up, that’s 4 essential eps in season 12, 4 essential eps in season 13, 4 essential eps in season 14, and 5 essential eps in season 15. grand total of 17 eps across all four seasons! (which is less than one full season of the show)

quick run down in case you need a TL;DR: 

season 12: episodes 1, 10, 19 and 23

season 13: episodes 1, 6, 10, and 23

season 14: episodes 3, 8, 10, and 17

season 15: episodes 3, 6, 9, 17, and 18

now, if you need to narrow it down even further, i’d prioritize the eps that are labeled “[PLOT, C]” (12 eps) as those are important plot-wise and also for references w/i the fandom. good luck, i hope this helped!!

[ceescedasticity]

After another week:

For a sighted person who understands the system and has a functioning access card, there is a slight increase in convenience. It points you towards which elevator car you want (as opposed to hearing a ding and looking around frantically), and it eliminates the problem of not getting your card + floor in before the elevator passes your floor. (And there was this one car where the reader would only read one card before the door closed, so if you were second/third/etc person in you had to wait for that and then hurry? Annoying.)

(For a very short sighted person who has trouble reaching all the buttons this would be a significant increase in convenience. I'm not sure how common that is, I don't think any buttons were more than four feet high, but should this occasion arise.)

For a sighted person who can figure out the system but actually wants something accessible through the atrium and has no credential, this will keep them from getting on the elevator and finding their button won't work. Ditto for someone whose card isn't working.

For a sighted person unfamiliar with the system, I don't think it's too hard to figure out? But it is an unexpected "have to figure this out rather than a near-universal system", and it's going to be harder to figure out if you don't read English. Not impossible, but harder.

I still have not actually tried what I assume is their accessibility feature (labeled with a wheelchair symbol, which is kind of funny since wheelchairs aren't really the issue here). If it works, a non-sighted person familiar with the system with an access card may see a slight increase in convenience — all the same reasons a sighted person with access would, plus it might be more of a nuisance for them to find the right button?

Even if the accessibility feature works perfectly, a non-sighted person unfamiliar with the system may have a harder time figuring it out. (With sight you can tell at a glance that the usual call buttons are missing and there are these touchscreen consoles instead. Without sight or familiarity, you have to find the consoles, deduce they're for the elevators, and press a poorly labeled button.

From a security standpoint: Slightly worse, I think. You already needed an access card to pick any floor but 1; there was just still a risk of piggybacking (following someone who does have access). In fact once someone picks the floor it's pretty silly not to piggyback, and what are you going to do, make them stay on the elevator? — but you do know if someone is following you without using their own card. With the new setup, it's very reasonable for Person A to pick Floor X, sent to Car Y, and then before the door closes Person B also picks Floor X and is sent to the same car. To Person A, this looks the same as Person C, without an access card, following them into the car.

From a maintenance/technical standpoint: Look, I don't know very much about elevators. For all I know the system of buttons also depended on a lot of delicate electronics which could easily stop functioning. Maybe the touchscreen system is not inherently less reliable. But based on my limited knowledge, a touchscreen is inherently less reliable and not having contingency controls is really stupid.

Hopefully I will not be updating this with "so the controls stopped working and we all had to take the stairs".

Does anyone know of any good reasons to replace elevator call buttons with touchscreens?

[aspecpplarebeautiful]

So I've been thinking that I might be grayromantic or cupioromantic, and it's because of two reasons. First, my significant other is always talking about "soft hours," and I have no clue what that is supposed to feel like.

Second, I don't know if there's a difference in how a squish and a crush are supposed to feel. Like, if there is, then I'm assuming I've never felt a crush before. If there isn't then it just adds another level of confusion.

I want a relationship with them, I want to spend my life with them, and I even want to raise a family with them one day. But there's something going that I don't understand and it's bugging me. I like to be able to understand things and it feels like I just can't wrap my head around this one. I am very confused and I don't like it.

A squish and a crush don’t feel different for everyone. For some people they feel the same, or the line blurs. So that may be something to look into if you’re interested. Three of the more common labels you may find useful include:

Platoniromantic: unable to differentiate between romantic and platonic attraction.

Idemromantic: classifying relationships as romantic or platonic, but experiencing no internal differences in how you feel.

Quoiromantic: An umbrella term for people disidentifying with romantic orientation or not finding it useful/applicable/accessible etc. There’s a great write-up form the Aromantic Wiki here, but it can be a very useful label for people who have trouble figuring out if they’re experiencing romantic or platonic attraction.

For some people they do feel different, but can still have a lot of feelings in common. So a lot of common crush feelings can also be present with squishes, like feeling flushed/blushing, butterflies, nerves, etc. But the big difference between the two is that a squish doesn’t have a romantic element to it. It’s more about being important to the person you’re attracted or being close to them. And while some (though not all) may be comfortable with or even want a romantic relationship with the person they have a squish on, it will be because it accomplishes that goal of being closer to them.

A crush on the other hand will often involve a desire to engage in romantic scenarios. Often people experiencing romantic attraction will have an idea in their head of what is romantic (and this can vary from person to person) and they will want to do those romantic things with the person they’re attracted to, or be in a relationship that’s defined as romantic with them.

Even knowing this it can still be hard to tell, especially if the person experiencing the squishes has never felt romantic attraction before. So don’t worry if you’re still not sure but hopefully the info here helps. Or at least gives you a direction to look in or consider. Remember the most important thing for labels is that they work for you, they’re not scientist classifications, they’re identities. So it’s OK if it’s not a perfect description, or you’re not 100% sure of it’s accuracy, so long as it gets across what you want to get across to others.

Just an aside, I’ve never heard of the term ‘soft hours’ before too, I had to look it up. Very interesting.

All the best, Anon!

[aorish]

(I assume you'll excuse the omitted parentheticals, etc. in blockquotes, which seem to be mostly true and not directly related to what I'm responding to)

Well, keep in mind that the label was invented by Jews to refer to how many athiests will continue to espouse essentially Christian morality and values (such as, for example, your bizarre obsession with forgiveness as an end in and of itself) We need a label for that thing, so that we can clearly think about it and discuss it.

If we're restricting the discussion of the term to it's use by Jewish people in majority Christian nations, I will concede that "cultural Christianity" is probably a useful term for that, as a descriptive set of terms or category, especially within intracultural discourse. But I think this sort of concept is often best understood in terms of negation, what a Jewish person considers as "cultural Christianity" is not identical with what e.g. a Chinese Buddhist would identify "cultural Christianity" as, because the shared overlap of cultural values between Judaism and Christianity is something that someone who is Jewish wouldn't see as an outside cultural influence, while a Buddhist would probably ascribe it to Christianity.

My point here with Buddhism isn't intended to delegitimize the use of the term by Jewish people, I'm willing to work with it in your sense of it from now on. It's just to illustrate that in the sense we're discussing it now, "cultural christianity" is as much interior to Judaism as it is exterior to Christianity. But since this means it's best understood with a Jewish cultural context, it's not clear why you're so eager to insist that non-Jewish people would find it useful. I would think the most productive use of this term is to work with other Jewish people to identify specific values that are components, like your example of "forgiveness as an end in itself" and work from there.

And if what you're saying is that Jewish people, as a distinct group of people, came up with a label to describe a different distinct group of people, ex-christian atheists, you at the very least shouldn't be surprised that most of them would be upset about that! What you're saying is: "We came up with this term to describe certain members of our outgroup, which is defined in terms that are mostly non-intuitive to them, and also lexically contradicts something significant that they consider true about themselves." This doesn't seem like a very useful or productive term to insist others use for themselves, when, by restricting its definition to that understood by Jewish people, you're simultaneously precluding them from fully understanding what is even meant by it!

That people who are both influenced by and hate Christianity get upset that we have a phrase for easily discussing that they’re influenced by Christianity seems like, y’know… not our problem? You’re trying to do an emotional appeal to counter a logical argument, and it’s not even an emotional appeal that I’m that sympathetic towards.

Well no, I'm not intentionally making an emotional appeal here. You asked why people might be upset about having a label like "cultural christian" applied to them, and I answered that, which includes both logical arguments in the direction of "they think this label is inaccurate or misleading" but also certainly includes a number of other reasons why such an approach might not be tactful. If the ultimate goal of talking about what you call "cultural Christianity" is to dismantle it, it's a poor strategy to take an approach that will antagonize the subset of ex-christian atheists who are otherwise most receptive to that shared goal!

You... don't actually need to be sympathetic to someone's beliefs or values to use them to your own advantage? If I'm trying to convince an economic conservative of the value of a socialist policy, I don't dismantle the concept of a free market or try to convince them they don't actually believe it anyway, I work from whatever common ground we share instead. If you see someone as a "cultural christian" and they see themselves as an "ex-christian" you probably do share quite a few other values with them, which will be far more productive to work from than saying "you only believe that because of cultural Christianity." If dismantling this power structure requires that you beat down all of your interlocutors and make them agree with you on everything first, it probably wasn't much of a power structure to begin with, and this is not generally a successful way to argue from a minority position.

If using this useful label requires acknowledging the (somewhat embarassing) fact that Jews in Christian countries are also influenced by Christianity, well. Okay. Being forced to acknowledge our own embarassing truths as we investigate other people’s embarassing truths is really a blessing, if you think about it? ... Again, it’s a useful term for talking about a real thing. Christianity can have influenced you even if you hate Christianity.

I think you keep touching a set of unstated assumption here that I often see come up often in this sort of discourse, but I rarely see explained, which I want to outline and respond to:

If you hold a particular value that might potentially be a result of the cultural influence of Christianity, that's:

Inherently a poor justification to hold a value

Implies that that value should be discarded

Implies it's a value that's harmful to Jewish people

????

If I have any of that wrong or I missed another reason you believe is important, please let me know, but I'm going to do my best to respond to these because they seem like what's being gestured at.

I'm broadly sympathetic to the first claim, that cultural influence is a poor justification for holding a value, with some reservations; I think that generally all beliefs or values should be questioned, and that unexamined beliefs are worse than examined ones, even if you don't choose to reject them. But although this seems to be a presumption of yours, I don't see why Christian cultural influences are inherently worse or a higher priority to expurgate than any other unexamined influences? This is also more closely ties to my own concept of morality, though, so maybe this is irrelevant to you?

I'm much less sympathetic to the second claim, that identifying a christian influence implies a certain value should be discarded. The example you gave as a culturally Christian value was "forgiveness as an end in and of itself" which on the surface of it seems... inoffensive to me? I don't hold this value in the Christian sense of it, but I wouldn't expect someone to know from your description of it why you find it bizarre, or why you expect other people to find it bizarre, and I think I could confidently draft up arguments for or against that don't originate from Christianity. Certainly also the bare fact that it's a moral value held by Christians means little to me, when I see it brought up in intercultural discourse it's usually farther removed cultures criticizing Christians for claiming to hold this (apparently to them, good) value while not actually doing so.

As for the third claim, that the fact that other people are or continue to be culturally influenced by Christianity is harmful to Jewish people.... I'm highly skeptical. This seems to be a position you hold(?), because you said it was an "embarrassing truth" that you were culturally influenced by Christianity, and it seems related to the first reblog you made on this chain to begin with. To the extent that Christianity is antisemetic, I'm entirely sympathetic, but antisemitism is neither peculiar to Christianity nor an incontrovertible part of it, let alone of all of its influences, and it seems like if we're talking about "cultural Christianity" instead of "antisemitism" that there's something else to this. I hope you have a much better example than the fact that people might suspect you're religious for attending a seder? Is there an unambiguous way that other people's cultural Christianity harms you somehow materially? What's the best example you can give me?

The rest of what you said is mostly a set of moral precepts that I find so obviously false that it seems obvious that I don’t understand them, a set of assumptions about human rationality and self-mastery that I find similarly obviously false, and some stuff chastising racists that I agree with but find misses the point.

I can't guarantee that I explained my own moral precepts well, but they are certainly ones that people other than I do hold, and I've explained them to other people in detail before and had them understand, so I think it's more likely that we're talking past each other than that they're obviously false. This is okay with me, I don't need to fully outline them again here, but I believe my values are derived from sources I can distinctly identify, and I think to the extent that you and I understand the same (Jewish-defined) concept of "cultural Christianity" we can both agree that they aren't derived from it. There are "culturally christian" moral systems that invoke "rationality" or "self-mastery" in some sense of those terms, and those people often get very angry or confused if they argue about morality with me.

I think this is a good illustration of the point I want to make about the term "culturally Christian" though. If I were to say that you don't understand my system of morality and it seems obviously false to you only because you're "culturally Jewish" that would both potentially be true, and, I suspect, also not be particularly useful to either of us. If when you asked me to explain what you meant I just doubled down on my claim and told you that you needed to deeply examine your beliefs, or I implied that you were harming me in some way by not understanding me, or I said that it was "embarrassing" that Jewish culture might have also influenced me in some ways, then, even neglecting and moral or emotional appeals, even if you were willing to be charitable and take my word for it, would you conclude that I had told you anything additional that's useful to you?

Which is why I'm still lost here, I think that "cultural Christianity" seems to be a term that you and other Jewish people who use it need to dissect further into component parts before opening a dialogue with others, because it's currently unintelligible.

Something a lot of Christians fail to realize is that they have the luxury of choosing atheism. For instance, you never see a Muslim or a Jew only saying they’re an atheist.

Imagine thinking something like this, typing it out even, and not realizing you’re telling on yourself that you think every person who was raised in your stupid little cult belongs to you forever.

Not to mention that there are plenty of ex-Jewish and ex-Muslim atheists who don’t consider themselves Jewish or Muslim, you just don’t meet as many of them because you live in a country where Jews and Muslims barely crack 2% of the population combined.

[wenevergotusedtoegypt]

I hope you don't mind me coming to you for advice. I have a friend I'm considering dating, but don't plan to bring it up for a few months for unrelated reasons. We're both observant orthodox but not interested in the shidduch system and might be a good match for each other. I'm trying to make a list of good questions to discuss (i.e. finances, number of children, aliyah) but was curious if you had a list of suggestions of questions to ask a potential partner outside of the get to their (1/2)

get to know their personality stuff, which we’ve already done. I know the basics—where do you want to live, what’s an ideal budget lifestyle, etc. but I’ve never dated and so I’m trying to be mindful of what the important things are ahead of time and since you only married a year ago, I was hoping you might recall what your important questions were. Thank you so much for reading! You always give such good, thoughtful, and kind advice (2/2)

Hey, sorry for the delay - I know you sent this twice, probably thinking I didn’t get it because I’d answered other asks. The more thought a response takes, the more time I need to write it, so I’ll sometimes answer certain things very quickly because they take less thought while delaying others.

You know, it’s funny how very much memories can fade in just 2 years when they no longer feel especially relevant (our 2nd anniversary is in Cheshvan) - sometimes shidduchim really feels like it was a different life. I honestly don’t even remember very many questions my husband and I asked each other, let alone anyone else. I also never dated someone I already knew, so there were very few people with whom I ever got much past getting to know their personality; I only went on 2 or more dates with 5 people including my husband, and he was the only person to make it past 4 dates. But I guess just some things to consider (which should by no means be considered a comprehensive list):

-Hashkafa - even if you identify with the same label, what exactly does that label mean to you? How do you relate to secular media or education (and how would you want your children to relate to it - which may not necessarily be the same as you do)? What hashkafically-based customs or the like are important to you? How did you get where you are today religiously? (This last one is more obvious for BTs and converts, but if you’re FFB, I still think there’s what to discuss - have you taken ownership in some way of your own yiddishkeit as you’ve gotten older? Are there ways that your hashkafa varies from how your parents raised you, and if so, how did you arrive at them? If you’ve pretty much stuck with how you were raised, what about it made you choose to do so?)

-Parental/gender roles - do you believe there are defined roles for each gender in a marriage? If yes, delve into what those are. If not, discuss how you feel husband and wife should relate to each other/how you picture your ideal relationship. Would he change diapers (if not, run IMHO)? Is there a place for the husband sometimes missing minyan to help out with the kids, or is it more important that he is always at minyan even if it’s difficult for the wife at times (both of you can have opinions on this fyi, not just him)? How do you envision splitting household responsibilities like cooking, cleaning, running errands, etc? (if you both say something vague like “equally,” how would you determine what’s equal?) Would you want to stay home with the kids, work part time, or work full time, and does that line up with his vision for a family?

-Women’s issues - if you have any struggles as a frum woman, talk about them. This isn’t a question. This is just you sharing your experience and observing how he reacts to it. Does he mansplain that this really shouldn’t be such a big deal for you? Is he sympathetic? Does he claim to totally understand (this is not good because it’s not possible and means he hasn’t fully internalized/listened to what you’ve shared) or does he acknowledge that he can’t 100% understand an experience he doesn’t live, but will do his best to try anyway? Does he seem like someone who will do what’s in his power to improve your experience with whatever struggles you express, even if he can’t fix a wider issue as a single individual?

-Style of handling conflict - this can be a little tricky because sometimes the way we want to say we’d handle conflict isn’t what actually happens in reality, but try to be honest with yourself when presenting your side and hope he’ll try to do the same. If you were upset at your spouse, would you want to be left alone until you were ready to talk, or would you want them to approach you to try to work it out? If you did [insert really annoying and/or thoughtless hypothetical thing here], how would he handle it (and vice versa)? When you have an issue with someone, e.g. a roommate, do you tend to confront them about it directly, or be more passive-aggressive?

-(a little later on - not first date material) Discuss any significant medical or mental health issues that a potential spouse should be aware of prior to getting engaged. Explain what it is and how it affects your life.

-How you want to raise your kids - What did you appreciate about your upbringing (and want to replicate) and what did you dislike (and would not want to replicate)? What would you prioritize when choosing a school?

-Shabbos - Do you envision having a lot of guests, or mostly just eating as a family, or trading off depending on the week?

Related advice but not what you actually asked for: Always keep in mind when you are giving your own answers to these questions (and any he might bring up) that this isn’t about having the “right” answer to convince the other person to keep dating you/marry you. It’s about giving your honest answer and finding out if your honest answer and his honest answer are compatible. If they aren’t, you want to find out now, acknowledge that unfortunately the two of you are not a match, and move on (assuming the issue is a dealbreaker; if it’s not an outright dealbreaker, you still want to have the cards on the table and be aware that a compromise will be required should you move forward rather than finding that out later). You don’t want to give the “right” but dishonest answer, get married, and then have issues because the two of you aren’t in fact on the same page.

Hope this helps! Whether or not this guy is your beshert, may Hashem give you full clarity on the situation as you proceed. :)

[funknrolll]

Celebrating Prince: discovering a timeless artist and his meaningful and impactful art. Part 3. The legal battle against Warner Bros, The Gold Experience and Emancipation eras.

Hi music lovers, as I anticipated on monday, music addiction is going to celebrate Prince and his amazing and timeless work!! The article will be split into a few little articles. I hope you enjoy this new format and these articles!!

For some reasons I had to repost this article therefore the 4th part will be uploaded tomorrow✨ stay tuned for more✨

As I said yesterday, let me say that I have heard so many things about Prince’s artistry. Some comments came from uneducated people who did not even take a second of their lives to understand, and do research on his art. Hence, I think the time to shed some light on Prince’s art, has come (finally). I hope to help some of those people understand this artist better and to finally appreciate him the way he deserves. We owe Prince big time. Today’s music and musicians  owe Prince everything. Without him, many of the artists we listen to today, WOULD NOT BE EXISTING. As we all know, Prince loved to experiment with music, trying out new music genres, new styles, new harmonies, melodies, rhythms and so on. This is one of the factors that led this legend to create a unique, wide and broad vault. There are so many songs of his that I love so much and that I find relevant for this article. The ones I chose, are going to prove that Prince and his music did not just revolve around sex and sexuality, (even if the artist through his music took the topic to another whole level). Through the article, we will see that Prince was more than all that I mentioned above. He was an extraordinary human being, blessed with so many enormous talents, with a beautiful mind, a uniquely pure soul. A true gift of God. With this in mind, let us start this article.

This is the sequel of the 2 articles I posted yesterday, so in case you guys missed them, check the previous 2 out.

Before I continue with this article, it is important to mention the Prince’s fight against Warner Bros. I know this was a matter so close to his heart and he cared about that. Hence, I think there is the impellent need to explain the situation to spread awareness and to remind the huge efforts Prince made beside his beautiful music. Back in the 90s, the artist’s music was owned by the aforementioned record company, although Prince was the person who composed, wrote, and performed HIS music. The artist was extremely aware of the importance of owning his masters and therefore his music wanted to buy back the rights to his music from Warner Bros, but the company denied that. Therefore, the artist would have had to re-record his music, the same music HE composed, HE wrote and performed. Indeed, as Prince stated in a 1999, Paper interview, “I wanted to buy my masters back from Warner Bros. They said no way. So I'm going to re-record them. All of them. Now you will have two catalogs with pretty much exactly the same music—except mine will be better—and you can either give your money to WB, the big company, or to NPG. You choose.". During this long legal battle, the artist decided to leave Warner Bros and created his own record label The NPG Records. Besides all of that, Prince, during the legal fight with Warner Bros, changed his name into an unpronounceable symbol and started to write the word slave on his face to symbolize the condition of slavery under which many artists had to stay. This battle lasted for about 4 decades. With this Prince was fighting for his artistic freedom, ownership of his work, and his rights. In addition to that, Not only was this huge artist fighting for himself, but also for all the other artists exploited by record companies. The artist formerly known as Prince was not to be silenced. Indeed, many of the works he crafted during the 90s, were an act of protest against record companies. It is extremely important to remind people how this artist gave his contribution and paved the path for other artists to be free and be more aware of this ENORMOUSLY important issue. I briefly summarized and addressed this HUGELY RELEVANT issue, but there would be more to say, and I will write an article about that. I will never stress enough the importance of Prince’s battle against record companies and his music being robbed from him. He has made a big impact and we all should be thankful and grateful to him for being bold enough to speak up about the topic and address this issue. 

Moving back to his music, in 1993 Prince ended the partnership with Warner Bros and started his own record label the NPG Records. Needless to say, as soon as the artist started his label, he began working on his new project, The Gold Experience, that eventually was released in 1995. This timeless gem is the product of Prince’s deep and broad artistic evolution. On this masterpiece, there are 3 songs that I find extremely relevant which are: We March, The Most Beautiful Girl in the world, Billy Jack Bitch, and Gold.  Through its forthright and explicit lyrics, We March is a powerful protest song where the artist speaks up against racism, misogyny, and prejudice.

If this is the same avenue my ancestors fought 2 liberate

 How come I can't buy a piece of it even if my credit's straight?

 If all the water's dirty and I wanna lay the pipe, my dammy

 The river that I drink from, will it be the same as your mammy 

In these lines, the artist is raising his voice against the prejudice of moneylenders.

If this is the same sister that U cannot stop calling a bitch (Bitch)

 If U can't find a better reason 2 call this woman otherwise

 Then don't cry, U made the bed in which U lie

These lines are a protest against misogyny, particularly slurs such as the term bitch which is seldom referred to women. 

Now's the time (now's the time) 2 find a rhyme (Yeah)

 That's got a reason (Yeah) and frees the mind (free your mind)

 From angry thoughts, the racist kind (Yeah)

 If we all wanna a change then come on get in line (Get in line!)

 Next time we march (Whoa)

 We're kickin' down the door

 Next time we march (Hey yeah) (Whoa)

 All is what were marchin' 4

With this bit of the lyrics, Not only is the artist revolting against racism, but it is a warm encouragement to react and change the situation. This song is a total anthem against racism, prejudice, and misogyny, to the point that in 1995 it became the hymn of the Million Men March. Moreover, I think it is urgent to focus on the arrangement of this song. The arrangement is strictly connected to the lyrics to make the song even more vivid.  I picked the music sheet for the piano. I am not going to annoy you with some obnoxious details, and I will try to be brief. I hope to be as clear as possible. The arrangement is presenting a key signature at the beginning of every staff which means the song is arranged in G major.  The key signature designates notes that have to be played higher or lower than the corresponding natural notes, and it is applied through to the end of the piece or up to the next key signature. In this case, after the clef, we can find a sharp sign which means that some notes are raised one semitone above the natural notes. Some other notes have the natural sign near them which means that the sharp key signature is canceled for them, hence these notes are natural. With this said, the question should be, why would Prince arrange the song like this? In my opinion, the artist might have used a key signature to raise some notes and the natural sign to cancel the accidental, for a specific reason. Musically speaking, Prince was an educated genius, hence I am sure he knew exactly what he was doing and why. The artist wanted to create an imbalance between the notes to create the effect of a real and difficult march, almost like climbing a mountain. Perhaps this arrangement might symbolize a difficult march that eventually will lead to the achievement of freedom, respect, equality, acceptance. Therefore, I would say that the connection between the extremely complex arrangement and the lyrics was magistrally crafted. This song is just one of the many examples of how brilliant Prince was.

Furthermore, another song that I love is Billy Jack Bitch. This is another protest song, but the topic is totally different from the previous one. Through these hilarious and sarcastic lyrics, Prince is revolting against a gossip columnist named Cheryl Johnson who was caught being utterly rude. As a matter of fact, the song is so crystal clear that there is no need for further explanations. However, one thing that I noticed in the lyrics Prince managed to mention the initials of the woman. 

Joy - it's in the dictionary

 See "J" Billy Jack Bitch 

The artist could not write the actual initials of the woman, because otherwise he would have been sued. Nonetheless, Prince was so smart that through a phonemic effect (see J) he managed to say the initials of the woman and thus give subtle hints about the woman’s identity. Moreover, what impressed me about the song is the drumline which is in my opinion phenomenal. The striking background vocals also caught my attention because, after some research, I found out that the voice we hear belongs to the rockstar and Prince’s fellow artist Lenny Kravitz’s. Two geniuses in one song are there anything more iconic?

Last but not least, my favorite song on the album is Gold. I love this masterpiece with every cell of my body. The meaning and the message this song is delivering are so POWERFUL!! The deep meaning behind these uplifting lyrics is to be ourselves, be unique, and never follow the mass because “All that glitters ain’t gold”. We should never follow the crowd. Not everything the crowd does is gold, even if it looks like it. We should be ourselves and make a difference. We should take difficult roads and climb the highest mountains to see the top. There would be another method of interpretation. The majestic music video and the scribble slave across Prince’s face might be inferring another significance. Thus, I would assume that this song might be another protest but this time against Warner Bros since Prince was in the legal battle against record label. Indeed, the meaning of the song may apply well to that situation. As a matter of fact, Prince might be inferring that even if contracts with a record company look like gold, in reality, they just glitter that tie the artists to a condition of slavery. Anyways, the arrangement also deserves attention. Indeed, the chorus of the song goes “All that glitters ain’t gold” and in my opinion, the arrangement of the keyboard is extremely peculiar and well related to this bit of the lyrics. First, it is important to say that the keyboard is dominating and I also think it is important to pay attention to its arrangement.  As I could see from the music sheet, the arrangement is characterized by high notes which are raised by the key signature after the clef. Indeed, this song is arranged in D major which means that the arrangement contains 2 sharps and the arrangement is written like this : 

This also means that all the already high notes on the staff are raised one tone. Now you might be asking: what is the point she is trying to make? what does this have to do with Prince? I am aware that the logic behind this might seem odd, but I will get to the point of this. As I said, this song’s composition is characterized by a range of middle-high notes. As Prince was musically educated, I am quite sure that the composition of this masterpiece and its arrangement, have a deep connection with the lyrics. Indeed, I would assume that Prince might have opted for this arrangement to enhance the meaning of this beautiful masterpiece. The chorus of this song goes “all that glitters ain’t gold” and in the music video we can see Prince being “showered” with a rain of golden glitters, therefore this recurring topic might be what connects the lyrics to the arrangement of the song. As a matter of fact, when we think about glitters, especially a rain of glitter we might associate this with a particular sound which most likely might be characterized by some high tinkling sound. This is exactly the effect Prince aimed to create with this magistral arrangement. Those middle-high notes I mentioned have the peculiarity of creating this beautiful effect that is the sound of glitter tinkling, which is even more enhanced by the music video. 

The release of Emancipation marked Prince’s definitive end of the partnership with the record label Warner Bros. It was the artist’s 19th studio album and probably one of my favorites. From the self-explanatory title, it is quite evident that Prince was still fighting against WB for his rights. However, not only is this work featuring protest songs but also some covers and some love songs where the artist expresses his affection for his former wife Mayte Garcia. Through some well thought and precise details, Prince’s personal touch is quite evident in this project. Indeed, this is a triple album and each album is consisting of 12 songs. Each album lasts exactly 60 minutes. Hence, the accuracy and the precision behind this masterpiece are quite impressive. In fact, the artist had an explanation for this, as he explained in several interviews, this was based on his studies of ancient Egypt and Egyptians: “The building of the pyramids and how the pyramids were related to the constellations. They were a message from the Egyptians about how civilization really started."

Among the most significant songs on this masterpiece we can find: The Holy River, Slave, The Love We Make, and the homonymous Emancipation.

The first song mentioned is The Holy River. Through these exceedingly deep lyrics, we can infer that the artist went through a major spiritual shift. More precisely, the Holy River might be a metaphor that might be symbolizing the baptism. Indeed, if my guessing is correct, this metaphor will be perfect with the general meaning of the song as being baptized also means the beginning of a new life, which is what Prince experienced with this major spiritual shift. 

Let's go down 2 the holy river

 If we drown then we'll be delivered

 U can still see the picture upon the wall

 One eye staring at nothing at all

 The other one trying 2 focus through all your tears

 U can try and try but there's nothin' 2 hide

 U can't run from yourself and what's inside

 U got 2 find the answers 2 the questions that U most fear

So over and over U ask your soul

 Why'd U come down 2 a world so cold?

 And the voice inside says 2night the truth will be told 

Also, the chorus of the song is quite eloquent as Prince is providing a detailed explaining of how he went through a dark moment in his life where he was struggling to find answers, where he was afraid to look inside of himself and to find the truth and the answers. 

U surrounded yourself with all the wrong faces

 Spending your time in all the wrong places

 Puttin' your faith in things that only make U cry

 People say they love U when they wanna help

 But how can they when U can't help yourself?

 The more they say they love U, the more U just wanna die

 So here we go again, the self-analysis

 Have another glass of Port and uh... forget this

 The band's playin' at the club 2night and they're bound 2 groove 

Also, these lines are quite eloquent, and I think there is no need for some further explanation. These are practically a description of the troubles he went through and how lonely and hopeless he felt during that time of his life and how he managed to survive. 

There U are, U think U're high

 U can't ask yourself cuz U'd only lie

 If U had a dollar 4 every time U tried

  U can't call nobody cuz they'll tell U straight up

 Come and make love when U really hate 'em

 Relationships based on the physical are over and done

 They're over and done (They're over and done)

 U'd rather have fun

 With only one, with only one

 Only one... one (one) 

Again, in these lines, the artist is describing what he went through. In the last 5 lines, we can notice that a major spiritual shift was occurring and thus the positive change the artist went through Indeed, in the next lines, the artist describes how he started to change after he realized that God was by his side.

And then it hit 'cha like a fist on a wall

 Who gave U life when there was none at all?

 Who gave the sun permission 2 rise up every day? (Ooh, oh yes)

 Let me tell it (Go'n)

 If U ask God 2 love U longer

 Every breath U take will make U stronger

 Keepin' U happy (happy) and proud 2 call His name (Go'n and say it)

 Jesus (Jesus)

  And over and over U ask your soul

 Why'd U come down 2 a world so cold?

 And the voice inside said 2night the truth will be told

 And this time I was listening, hear me 

As a matter of fact, as I mentioned, these lines explain, perfectly a time of transition when the artist was evolving and changing. In the next lines, the artist describes the moments after the spiritual shift took place.

Let's go down 2 the holy river

 If we drown then we'll be delivered (Yes we will)

 If we don't then we'll never see the light (No)

 If U die before U try

 U'll have 2 come back and face the light (Oh yes)

 When U believe it, U got a good reason 2 cry (Oh my, my)

  So I went on down 2 the holy river

 I called my girl and told her I had something 2 give her

 I asked her 2 marry me and she said yes, I cried

 Oh, that night I drowned in her tears and mine

 And.. and instead of a glass of sorrow and wine

 Looking back y'all, I don't miss nothing except the time

 And when I see that picture up on the wall

 The one eye staring at nothing at all

 My eyes trying 2 focus but these are much different tears

 Oh, yes they are 

Like the end of a beautiful story, these last lines, are the conclusion of this masterpiece that closes with a “happy ever after”. Indeed, in these last lines, the artist compares the act of going down to the holy river to facing the light which means a new beginning, a new life. In these last 9 lines, the artist describes the exact moment when he proposed to his girlfriend to marry him. He then reconnects to the beginning of the song where he cried tears of sorrow while at the end of this story he said to be crying “much different tears” which perhaps might be tears of happiness. Moreover, musically speaking, the arrangement of this song is quite homogenous except for the very last bars. After the artist finishes performing the lyrics, he reprises the main harmonies and performs them with a guitar and piano solo, then adding a choir that performs the background vocals with some light head voices that recall the angels singing. These last bars are played in such a manner that reflects the feeling of the artist: joy, love, relief, ultimate happiness. All the emotions a person who has experienced a major spiritual shift will feel. Furthermore, I have also noticed a shift in the instrumental. At the beginning of this masterpiece, the instrumental is “softer” and the sound of the instruments is kept lower. This happens for the first part of the song where Prince describes what he experienced when he was going through a difficult time. Then, after the artist sings these lines: “ Relationships based on the physical are over and done

 They're over and done (They're over and done)

 U'd rather have fun

 With only one, with only one

 Only one... one (one) “ 

it is extremely evident that the instrumental changes. Indeed, Prince turns up the volume of the instruments which are in my opinion, also joyously played, like he is telling his listener “listen to me, this is my story, I Am happy, and you should be too”. 

Another song that I totally love is Slave. This is, in my opinion, such an ingenious masterpiece and we can hear how Prince took inspiration from the whole work songs genre. With the forthright message of the song, Prince was still raising awareness about how record companies exploited artists, hence he wrote this powerful masterpiece, a protest song, to release all his rage and frustration. 

Everybody keeps trying to break my heart

 Everybody except for me

 I just want a chance to play the part

 The part of someone truly free 

From its chorus, this song is extremely eloquent. Prince is basically protesting against his enemies who most likely would be record companies and perhaps, as he mentioned in the 4th line 

“My enemies kept it turning, but now they pound the gavel

 And judging me accordingly, I know, I know”  

 those who judge him for commencing a legal fight against record companies. However, I am quite sure that this masterpiece is a protest song crafted to vent and raise awareness about the condition artists had to stay under for an extremely long time which was treated as slaves. In support of my theory, I would report these lyrics:

Slowly candle burns, where'd they learn hypnosis?

 How'd they keep me under for so long?

 Break the bread I earn, just keep me far from closest

 I need their kind to illustrate what's wrong - what's wrong?

 Well, I'll tell you they just keep trying to break my heart

 They just keep trying to break my heart, ow! 

From the second line, it is quite clear that those who kept the artist under and broke the bread he earned might have been the record companies, particularly Warner Bros, that contractually forced Prince to produce his music and kept a big part of his earnings OF THE MUSIC HE PRODUCED, HIS OWN MUSIC. Another interpretation of this line might be that Warner Bros owned the rights of PRINCE’S MUSIC. Therefore, the artist did not have the rights of his own music which should have been HIS OWN. Moreover, as Prince explained in several interviews when he asked the record company for the rights of HIS MUSIC back, they just said no. This might explain well this line as the record label by not giving him his rights back kept Prince far from emancipating, and hence the artist just left Warner Bros and started his own record company. Moreover, what left me speechless and mesmerized, in total awe about this MASTERPIECE, is the instrumental and the music genre Prince chose to craft this MONUMENTAL PIECE OF ART. Why did Prince choose to give this masterpiece the title of Slave and what music genre could suit well a song with this eloquent title? Obviously, a work song with some soul influences. Indeed, what amazed me is that this masterpiece is crafted as a real work song. To understand this masterpiece better, I need to step back to the work song genre and explain some of their distinctive and relevant peculiarities. Work song is a music genre that was spread around the world (indeed there is more than just one type of work song, they were used all around the world), but focusing on Afro-American work songs, this music genre developed in America during slavery times between the xvii-xix century. This genre had several functions for instance: to coordinate the labor of a group of people working together, which improved the efficiency of the work, and to relieve the boredom of a tedious job, which improves the lives of the workers. Also, work songs were seldom used as an act of protest against the condition of slavery, injustice, and poverty. These songs were frequently sung by a leader followed by a choir. Additionally, to keep the rhythm of those chants, workers generally used their working tools or the stomping of their feet or they even clapped their hands. With this said as I would say that Slave by Prince is part of this music genre. Moreover, as we can hear, the beats of this masterpiece resemble the use of the tools used by slaves to create the rhythmic path to their chants. Another peculiarity that was taken after the music genre just mentioned, is the choir to which Prince was the lead singer. Indeed, the artist performs the main lines while the chorus is performed by the choir. This technique is called call and response which was quite typical in Afro-American work songs. Additionally, the emphatic and emotional and heartfelt performance the artist offered, makes it easy to sympathize with his pain, his rage, and his exhaustion. 

Furthermore, one of my favorite songs on this album is The Love We Make. Such a breathtaking masterpiece. In my opinion, the meaning of this masterpiece is quite hermetic. Indeed, just by reading the lyrics, it might not be clear what Prince meant with those words. However, It is widely believed that this song might have been produced to remember Jonathan Melvoin, Susannah, and Wendy’s brother, who died from heroin overdose. Melvoin was a musical child prodigy who worked with Prince on several projects and he also collaborated with some punk bands. It is believed that this song is dedicated to him for several reasons: the first one is the year he passed away which was 1996, secondly, and most importantly because the artist described the song as “written to speak to the spirit of a friend lost to drugs”. Moreover, in the liner notes to the Emancipation 1996 LP, the song is described as “written for a lost friend”. Hence, for all these reasons, this song is believed to be about Jonathan Melvoin. This is perhaps one of the most powerful and inspiring songs in Prince’s vault, truly breathtaking. With the reassuring yet preaching lyrics the artist was delivering an enlightening message: no matter how difficult life might be, there is still hope and we should all be grateful for the miracle and the gift God gave us. 

Happy is the way 2 meet your burdens 

 No matter how heavy or dark the day 

 Pity on those with no hope 4 2morrow 

 It’s never as bad as it seems until we say 

As I mentioned, specifically in these lines Prince is encouraging the listener to be happy and full of hope no matter what, condemning those who do not have hope in the future as things are never as bad as they seem. 

Precious is the baby with a mother 

 That tells him that his savior is coming soon 

 All that believe will cleanse and purify themselves 

 Put down the needle, put down the spoon 

 Even though these lines are quite hermetic and enigmatic I will attempt to give a proper explanation. The artist is mentioning a baby and his mother, and the mother telling the baby that his savior is coming soon. Hence, as Prince was extremely spiritual and had a great, broad, and keen knowledge of the Bible and the Gospel, I would assume that these two lines are related to the Scriptures. The logic behind this might seem odd, but I will attempt to get to the point with a proper explanation. As Prince was fascinated by the ancient Egyptian world, as it is evident from the set up of the songs on the album, I would assume that these lines are connected to two biblical figures. Honestly, at first, before doing my research, I was going to assume that Prince was alluding to Jesus Christ and the Holy Mary. However, the biblical figures he was hinting to, were instead Moses and his mother Jochebed. For those who are not familiar with the Scripture, Jochebed to avoid the mass slaughter of Hebrew boys, and therefore, her son to be brutally killed, she set her baby adrift in the Nile River, hoping someone would find him and raise him. God so worked that her baby was found by Pharaoh's daughter. Jochebed even became her own son's nurse. Then, God used Moses mightily, to free the Hebrew people from their 400 years of slavery and took them to the Promised Land. Although little is written about Jochebed in the Bible, her story speaks powerfully to mothers of today. Hence, the connection between those two lines of the song and the biblical figures is quite clear. Moreover, as the title of the album is Emancipation and one of the topics of this masterpiece is the artist’s rebellion against Warner Bros, which forced him to work in a condition of slavery, Moses's story who freed Hebrews from slavery and took them to the Promised Land, might apply quite well to Prince’s story who fought to free himself from Warner Bros and start his own record company. Moreover, with the following two lines Prince is suggesting that by believing in God we are purifying and cleansing themselves. As regards to the last line, as I mentioned, is what created the widespread belief that this masterpiece might have been dedicated and inspired by Jonathan Melvoin. In addition to that, on the album, there are not reported the full lyrics of the song, but just one line of it which is precisely “Put down the needle, put down the spoon” and on the bottom line we can find “Written 4 a lost friend.” which hints even more to Jonathan Melvoin. Again, referring to the line I just mentioned, Prince is using another tone to sing these words. Indeed, if we listen to the song attentively, we would hear how the artist was preaching against drug addiction. Furthermore, the next lines, are extremely well related to the previous one. 

Sacred is the prayer that asks 4 nothing, oh 

 While seeking 2 give thanks 4 every breath we take, oh 

 Blessed are we inside this prayer 

 4 in the new world, we will be there 

With these lines, Prince is encouraging the listener to be grateful for the gift of life, giving thanks for every breath we take, praying God without asking him for anything but rather praying him with gratitude for the gift of life. In the last two lines, Prince is basically telling the listener that those who pray God, believe in Him, and have faith in Him, will be blessed with a “new world” which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The last lines of the song are the chorus.

The only love there is, is the love we make {x2} 

 (the only love there is, is the love we make) 

 Only love there is, only love there is 

 The only love there is, is the love we make (yeah) 

 The only love there is, is the love we make 

These lines repeated four times like a beautiful monumental hymn, are used to teach a vital lesson: the only thing that matters is the love we give out, the love we spread while we are alive. That is to say, this is the ultimate purpose of life: to give love and being grateful for the gift of life. Furthermore, as regards the arrangement of this masterpiece, it was crafted in such a way that it allowed the artist to use a preaching tone during the interpretation. This peculiarity in the performance of the song is even more enhanced at the end of the masterpiece. Indeed, when the artist performs the lines that begin with “Sacred is the prayer that asks 4 nothing”, he changed the vocal register from a light chest voice to a powerful head voice which also gives more power to the words he was singing turning them into a real preach. The shift of vocal register in this particular bit of the song is also extremely effective as the artist is singing out loud such an important lesson that MUST be heard by everyone. Perhaps Prince has put so much emphasis on these magistrally written lines because this is the fulcrum of the song that everyone must listen to carefully. Additionally, if we listen to Prince’s voice attentively, we will hear some slight shifts in the intention put in the performance. As regards to the instrumental, the Artist opted for a slow ballad in 4/4. Although the choice of a slow ballad, the song is reinforced by guitar, drums, and piano. Additionally, while I was listening to this masterpiece, I realized that the instrumental is characterized by a progressive raising of the tonality of the song. This way, the instrumental was raised by 2 octaves. This characteristic, besides making this masterpiece even more effective and turning it into a beautiful and inspiring preach, gives the listener the idea of a beautiful climb that gets straight to heaven. Personally, whenever I listen to this masterpiece, I feel like I’m watching a beautiful sunset or hiking in the mountains. Moreover, the arrangement is mostly characterized by music accidentals, which in my opinion are an extremely important part of the composition of the song since without them the song would not be perceived as a powerful preach. 

If you guys would like to purchase your copy of the albums I wrote about in this article (which I recommend, PLEASE DO NOT BOOTLEG PRINCE’S MUSIC), I’ll post the links below here

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G4RYC5D/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=giuliabianchi-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=2a37eabce98ae7fd530fddeff2287ed5&creativeASIN=B07G4RYC5D

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VRFM9YJ/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=giuliabianchi-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=a1e0d017e5a3de4e6b01f3fc5a5f4f3c&creativeASIN=B07VRFM9YJ

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07G4LHQHQ/ref=as_sl_pc_tf_til?tag=giuliabianchi-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=1da616a288e24d1a38bd64113cbb08a0&creativeASIN=B07G4LHQHQ

This was the third part of a series of articles dedicated to Prince to celebrate his life and most importantly his art. Stay tuned for more. If you have missed the first part feel free to check it out✨ In the meantime stay home, stay safe and healthy. Peace and Love 4 one another. thank you so much for your attention 💜 G  💜

[wisdombooklets]

Oh wow, I completely forgot that most protestants don't use the Apocrypha! I grew up Catholic so I guess it didn't register as weird to me when I was first reading this section. I screenshotted this a long time ago so I'd have to go back to see what more they say about Maccabees, but I'm realizing now what an interesting inclusion this is.

Obviously many protestants would know about Maccabees or find it "useful", but IBLP's treatment of Maccabees here and elsewhere could potentially serve as a helpful bellwether for IBLP theological foundations (given that they otherwise class themselves as "non-denominational", a term that means nothing and only serves to obscure a church's actual beliefs). Bill Gothard studied at Wheaton College (interdenominational evangelical, founded by Wesleyan Methodists) and Louisiana Baptist University, so I'd be curious what kind of material on Maccabees Gothard would have encountered in those contexts, and whether the IBLP affirms or diverges from those encounters. I'm assuming it'd affirm a general Protestant understanding, but that's just my impression. This whole thing would also require you first to answer a larger question of whether these different Protestant denominations tend to emphasize different arguments against Maccabees and the Apocrypha (and ig prayer for the dead? bc that's in Maccabees I think lol).

This is more just me speculating on a potential vein of research—I'll end up looking into it if I ever end up looking into it. Obviously most of what catches people's attention with the IBLP (for good reason) is the extreme, wacky fundamentalist beliefs, but I admit I'm kind of fascinated with the opinions these fundamentalists might have on the more longstanding/less flashy theological questions.

Beware a major tangent lol. Last year I did a semester-long ethnography on a certain church-planting organization in the SBC—as far as churches go, much less dangerous than the IBLP and not imo deserving of the "fundamentalist" label, but still bearing a few cult allegations that I was interested to examine for myself. You can only get so much info out of a semester-long relationship, but in talking to several leaders in the church (as well as a person very close to the main heads of the church), I found that several of them didn't even really keep themselves abreast of current theological discussions going on in the SBC (notably the debate over women pastors), nor did they seem to believe those discussions had significant bearing on the work they were doing in their organization (despite having many women who, though they were not labeled as such, did the work of pastors—but I'm getting further off topic).

I'm giving the example of women pastors, arguably one of the MORE flashy theological questions, but the example is useful to me because it represented an attitude toward theological debate that was not fast and loose, per se, but which treated it as secondary to whatever on-the-ground work would keep their organization running and growing. This isn't uncommon by any means—if you have an organization of that size, keeping it afloat becomes the most important thing—but admittedly I saw it as them possessing an odd lack of curiosity in what their church actually believes. Don't you wonder why you, as a church, are affiliated with the denomination that you are? Why you use the translation of the Bible that you use? Why you structure yourselves the way you do?

Going back to the IBLP, it just makes me wonder about the intentions behind labeling your church "non-denominational" in the first place. The most common explanation is about avoiding "rigid dogmas" and accepting a wider tent, but when you're a fundamentalist non-denominational church with a charismatic leader, that just doesn't hold water. Therefore the most immediate explanation in my mind is about organizational power and logistics—you want to be able to run your church with minimal oversight, you don't want to have to answer to anyone. The second most immediate explanation is about power over belief—you want to be able to preach according to what you believe (or, less generously, according to what you want your congregation to believe). You want the option to adjust mainline doctrine when you disagree with it. Maybe you want the option to smoothly renege on certain beliefs when they come under fire.

This "power over belief" option is most clearly utilized to extreme fundamentalist ends, but would an organization like the IBLP ever care to utilize the power over belief forged by a non-denominational label to more obscure ends? Like, this is DEFINITELY not the case here, cannot stress that enough, but can you imagine if Bill Gothard was just randomly like "actually we're accepting the Apocrypha into our canon because I say so"? It's non-denominational, you can do anything! Listen to your inner testimony and go reinvent Nestorianism or something! If you as a church are not willing to accept that (or even something as simple as a translation of the Bible that's not the KJV or the ESV), then you've just discovered that you are not, in fact, truly non-denominational. You have found a line you're not willing to cross. In that case, you're probably just recycling the beliefs of some other church while distancing yourselves from them in order to market yourselves or retain control.

[writcraft]

I don't know if you've posted an answer before, so I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat it, but given you're so open about bi stuff I thought I'd ask so as I can support people in the community better and stand up for them. I've never got the difference between bi and pan and I know you said it's not just about gender, so could you enlighten me please? Or link me to your answer if you've already done so? Thanks! You definitely make a different so honest and open. Don't doubt yourself ❤️

Hi Anon, thank you for the question. This is actually a pretty loaded question that can incite significant debate/upset so I hope my answer can remain relatively conflict free. There are certain misconceptions about around the ‘bi’ prefix - literally meaning ‘two’ - as relating to gender. That is incorrect. Like homosexuality and heterosexuality, bisexuality has its roots in science, studies of ‘sexual pathology’, where bisexuality was used to describe people who had sex with men and women. The ‘bi’ relates to both same sex and other sex attraction, just as homosexual means same sex attraction and heterosexual means opposite sex attraction. The word bisexual - as originally formulated - was the bridging of the two binary ends of the sexual orientation spectrum, and it encapsulates all fluid orientations which is why bisexuality sometimes functions as an ‘umbrella term’ within which many different identity labels fall, those labels appealing to different people for different reasons, which are typically very personal. 

The word pansexual (‘pan’ meaning ‘all’) is sometimes differentiated from bisexuality on the grounds that for pansexual people, gender is irrelevant, which can sometimes (depending on how such explanations of pansexuality are framed) suggest by implication that bisexual people don’t experience multifaceted attractions to people of different genders, that bisexuality is linguistically rooted in an adherence to binary gender and is, by extension, a transphobic failure to recognise gender beyond cis male and cis female, on account of the implications of ‘twoness’ within the word itself. Not only does bisexuality not originate from that kind of nuanced understanding of gender, but placing such limitations on the definition of bisexuality rewrites recent history. Bisexual literature such as the 1990s manifesto produced by the Bay Area Bisexual Network (x) suggests that bisexuality as a sexual orientation has never demanded a strict adherence to either a 50/50 weighting of attraction or to gender binaries: “Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have “two” sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.”

Many bisexual people feel the label is as fluid and inclusive as the pansexual label and the two are frequently used interchangeably. Some people use one, some people use both, some may use neither. I myself use ‘bisexual’ and ‘queer’, the latter speaking to the ‘queerness’ of my non-binary gender identity in a way that, for me, reflects that no specific label currently feels right for me in that regard. Labels - for those who find them useful - are intimate and personal choices and I have no issues whatsoever with people adopting whatever labels suit them best or using no labels at all. Sexuality is fluid and people may find themselves more aligned with a particular identity at a different point in their lives and that too is equally valid. What I do take issue with is when labels are described in a way which misunderstands identities where people already feel erased, misunderstood and invalid, or where definitions get repurposed in a way that marginalises other groups that ostensibly should feel part of broader LGBTQ+ communities. Examples would include if somebody might say ‘I identify as pansexual because bisexual is transphobic’ which not only grossly misunderstands bisexuality, but also demonstrates an ignorance of how many transgender people actually identify as bisexual themselves, or ‘I was bisexual but now I identify as gay and therefore bisexuality is a stepping stone’, or ‘pansexuals are by definition anti bisexual’. How you choose to identify is your choice, but harm can occur when in seeking to explain ones own identity in a way that invalidates or misrepresents another or which purports to speak on behalf of those with identities which are not our own.