#but fictional fantasies are fine because it’s not actually going to harm her

[area51-escapee]

YOU hate booktok books because you can’t conceptualize what a fantasy is and think these readers need therapy and professional help for enjoying dark topics in explicit material even though it takes exactly .2 seconds to understand the difference between something that is interesting and exciting in fiction and something that would be deeply unpleasant in real life. I hate booktok books because they all feel like overhyped copy and pastes of one another, the amount of bigotry that goes unchecked in these stories is astounding, and I also get tired of this attitude that if something isn’t 🔥spicy🔥 it’s boring and not worth reading. We are not the same.

[achaotichuman]

ACOTAR Fandom Rant

Trigger Warning- Discussions of sexual abuse.

I think some people forget that even if a book is in the fantasy genre, you cannot just say "it's fiction, so it doesn't matter" there still needs to be rules to the world. It cannot all be a free for all, there needs to be consistency. When you make a rule for the world, it needs to apply to everyone, your world needs to serve the story, not the other way around. Everything has to revolve around moving the plot forward, and part of this is how your society functions and treats certain experiences, including experiences like SA.

You can have books that stretch the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable in your fantasy, but, it has to make sense within the world and you have to be consistent.

This goes for Rhysand, Nesta and Feyre. All of them were SAed by their captors of the time. Amarantha put Rhysand into a position where to avoid harm and gain even a little bit of autonomy he had to have sex with her. Rhysand put Feyre in a position where she was forced to do lewd acts for him and in front of people whilst (practically) naked, until she vomited. Cassian took advantage of Nesta being in a vulnerable position, knowing she had been using sex as a means to self-harm, to have borderline violent sex with her.

It's SA across the board, even though SJM cannot for the life of her admit that. Idk why she keeps writing about SA when she cannot at all, but she does. However, it's not right, and no one should be picking and choosing like she is within the series.

SJM is unable to create good world-building and handle these kinds of experiences with the delicacy and respect they deserve. And no one should be trying to do the same as she is, by attempting to say one character's SA was not valid when it was.

I'm not trying to comment on anyone in particular, but I wanted to comment on this idea as a whole. Because I think it does come down to people picking and choosing because of who their favourite characters are, which is fine and dandy, but the discussion is revolving around what actually happened in canon. And what happened in canon, is that Amarantha raped Rhysand for fifty years. Full-stop. There is no argument. Like there should be no argument for Feyre and for Nesta.

Amarantha had all the power over Rhysand. Like Rhysand had all the power over Feyre, and Cassian had all the power over Nesta.

In each situation, Rhysand, Feyre and Nesta had been forcibly removed from their homes, put in a place where they were locked up and emotionally and physically vulnerable, and all choice was stripped from them.

Amarantha had enslaved Rhysand. Rhysand had taken control of Feyre. Cassian was the equivalent of Nesta's prison guard.

Even though it is fiction. Fiction has the ability to explore these kinds of topics. They are very real, and have very real consequences.

Fiction can stretch boundaries, it can go well beyond what we consider morally right irl, but a good fictional writer will still implement rules and keep consistency with their writing.

There is no morality in fiction but there is a massive difference between a poorly written book and a really well-written book. And there is a difference between genuine discussion and commentary on media and invalidation of experiences, even when it comes to fictional characters, because as I mentioned above these are very very real situations and when it comes to big authors, what they write, can have a very real effect on people.

All this to say, Sarah.J.Maas is a horrible writer, she lacks any kind of consistency and cannot keep up with her own rules. But instead of picking and choosing, and invalidating one experience whilst upholding another, we can look at her writing as an example of how not to handle themes of SA when it comes to the victims in her books.

[roadhogsbigbelly]

she did NOT say that fictional csa is fine though, that’s the thing that everyone is very expressly telling you. and IM not defending ““people who jack off to fictional children”” either, where the fuck are you getting that, do you just say this shit to every trans woman you see? you can’t argue by putting shit in people’s mouths. the “standards” you are describing are the same standards that the people you’re smearing agree with. im not saying its all or nothing at all, you just can’t take anything we’re saying seriously

when you read "stopping being mean to sex freaks who like ageplay and incest shipping" why do you think that suddenly stops at loliporn or fictional csa when that's part of the package? do you think "ageplay and incest shipping" only applied to game and thrones fanfiction and mild "daddy" play? like of course those posts saying "don't be say you love sex freaks if you don't include ALL sex freaks" is also including fictional csa, like fucking cailou porn or whatever. because the posts those are response to are like "stop being mean about people with weird fetishes that make you uncomfortable! (except fictional csa fuck you you can die)" if she's not supporting fictional csa great, but why did she reblog the fucking post than?

and again the fact that i criticized her has nothing to do with her being a trans woman, that didn't even cross my mind, and i've criticized cis men, cis women, trans men, non binary people and people of all genders and sexuality that have been dismissive of concerns over this shit. i've criticized cis women on twitter for publicly posting their weird underaged boy rape fantaties and i got accused of "hating women's fantasies", i've also critcized other cis gay men for drawing actual "toddlercon" and got accused of being a "pick me" gay, and other variations of "stop criticizing grown adults for what they do in private even if they post in publicly actually oops"

i don't actually care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but the only reason people on tumblr make posts about how "you should stop being mean to people about their age play, incest porn" is because most people don't actually keep it private actually, or else other people wouldn't be seeing it and complain about it. like if you go into someone's dms or a locked private space to "out them" for being into scooby doo or even some actually more harmful fantasy than that's still kind of gross and intruding and they shouldn't do that, but if said person is doing it in a PUBLIC FORUM than yeah they're not above criticism because it's their own "private fantasies" when it's clearly not.

(and before you take words out of my mouth i am not inherently against public displays of sexuality or even kink, i don't think a child seeing a man in a pup mask and harness is going to tramatize them, i think they'll be fine, and in general i think try to hide the fact "sex" like. exists from children does not nothing to deter grooming and kind of causes it in some cases. i've seen people insisting that people who don't lock their nsfw twitter accounts of adults have regular but explicit sex that they're are personally grooming children who might have to figure out porn exists, and i think that's an unhealthy attitude to have. my point is more that the entire argument that noone can criticize or have a negative opinion on "ageplay" or "incest kink" because "it only exists between two private consenting adults" is just. not true.)

[neechees]

Your review of that racist whitewashed Native American book is exactly why I have mixed feelings about the concept of the literary genre of historical fiction

That's fair. Personally I really like historical fiction & it's probably my favorite genre to read, but where I think I start disliking certain books in the genre is when people invented specific things & go WAY outside of actual historical events specifically for drama (which is what Rose Christo did with her shitty book) or maybe even to push an agenda.

Like, something like inventing minor characters to fill a specific role in the story (but don't actually majorly affect the historical events in the plot) but didn't exist in real life to me personally is fine. Creating scenes for the book that we don't 100% know happened (but maybe there's some small evidence or rumors it did) in real life & then maybe imagining how it MIGHT have went down if it did, I can roll with that. Adding some filler scenes like character interactions that show character development or just add interest where historically nothing major happened but the scenes themselves don't depict any major historical event (so the scene doesn't have any major bearing on the plot & doesnt change anything that happened historically), I'm fine with that too, because who's to say it definitely DIDN'T happen either? Or even things like if you have to suspend your belief a bit, where it probably wasn't historically plausible, but it's happening in this book.

But in books like Christo's, where almost every major historical event is changed completely down to the details, & the historical context for why those things happened are completely disregarded, & the necessary research to create an engaging historical fiction book is the quality equivalent to the effort of a middle schooler who hates history, & then the real historical figures' lives and personalities are barely included for the book at all or are even completely changed solely for the sake of drama, then like.... why are you even writing a historical fiction book?? Do you even like history?? At this point why not just write alternative historical fiction or historical fantasy or just straight up fantasy if you're going to completely change everything that actually happened in history?

& then obviously there's the "pushing an agenda" books, but that can be another can of worms as well. I don't really like the alternative historical fiction genre, but at least they have the guts to call it what it is, ALTERNATIVE history. Rose Christo's book diverted SO far away from the actual historical events that actually happened, she should have just called it alternative history but she didnt. & that's also where I think it can get harmful, because even if it IS called historical "fiction", there'll be people who become misinformed about some of the information there, like most people aren't going to know a majority of the Cree cultural & spiritual stuff mentioned in Christo's book was either completely made up or wrong the way I did. And I think part of the reason why so many people gave it such a high rating is because they don't know Canadian history that well, nevermind CREE history in Canada, nor do they know about Cree culture, so for all they know this was a pretty faithful retelling.

Obviously people are going to misinterpret books no matter what, and everyone should question what facts might be made up or misinformation in historical fiction or even just history books (I feel like that's a given, everyone should do that regardless), and it's not always the author's fault what people might misinterpret from what theyve written. But I can also see why you'd dislike Historical Fiction, & that's some of what I dislike about it too

[mallowstep]

Hii! Previous shipping discourse anon here after doing some Thinking(tm). I think the problem that people see in proshippers is not that it *is* dark or deals with sensitive topics, but that's its weirdly...fetish-y? Like, there's a specific breed of anti that I don't like that's that's kaeluc antis(basically, sworn bros v adopted bros)(because their entire argument is a bit sinophobic) but there are ppl who will go out of their way to make them adopted bros anyway so. You can Tell it's a fetish

Oh man I vaguely remember when we were talking about kaeluc on here. Still know Nothing about it but I remember it (for some reason) came up.

…or I read about it on another blog?

Whatever. More to the point.

I’m a strong defender of “it’s cool to like dark fiction just because you enjoy it.” I don’t think anyone needs a justification. We don’t demand people explain why they like watching action movies with blood and death, do we?

But also I know exactly what you mean. Like. Eurgh. I am way too tired to explain my very complex thoughts about human sexuality. But for one thing, adopted siblings falling in love is like. A really old trope. Do I like it? No. Is it a thing? For some reason! (S/o to Cassandra Claire for letting me accidentally read her weird incest fantasy books.) But okay, I think I can say…

There are people who write things purely for porn purposes. I try not to judge those too much, with a few exceptions, mostly what I referenced earlier.

Then there are people exploring themes etc. Which is like. That’s what I do. Actually it’s funny that you used that example because one of my fic ideas includes the line “Why do I want to call you my brother when we’re having sex?” (It’s a joke in context, but explaining that context is beyond the point.) So like yeah they are generally speaking fine in my book.

And then there’s the middle ground where things get murky. It’s clearly not someone just writing something for the purposes of getting off, but it’s also not a sincere exploration. It’s…yeah, it’s something else.

I’m too tired to really wrap this up. Lemme try anyway.

I think a lot of people…okay, this goes back in part to media literacy, but there’s also some current cultural factors here, but a lot of people struggle to separate their intrinsic disgust from actual risk. It’s like — there was a spider living in my bathroom for a while. It kind of terrified me at first but the spider is just chilling. The spider is not an actual harm to me.

And as an author, sometimes I just want to make people feel revulsed and disgusted. God knows I’m familiar enough with the feeling.

Okay I am literally falling asleep as I type. Hopefully this makes sense? I am so exhausted, it’s been a Rough Ass Week in ya boy.

Maybe like. In reference to my previous comment on Lolita, I want people to understand the disgust they feel in response is part of the stories. Stories are meant to be felt. Sometimes horror is part of the feeling.

Oh my god I cannot keep my eyes open why did I think this was a good idea.

I really don’t have a label in the discourse. I don’t care what I am labeled as, so as long as it doesn’t involve misinformation.

K that’s all for tonight but I’ll check my inbox for you in the morning nonnie

[impeccablebackside]

You think the Queens would use a more animalistic dildo like a dog or horse? Imagine them getting knotted

Do I have permission to be a bit of a furry, uwu? Is this a safe space?

Can y'all promise not to be too weird about this? I know it will be fine though.

Deal? Deal. Thanks for your patronage. *gives head pats*

To start off, there has been a fair bit of talk about toys / dildos / vibrators / strap-ons / other paraphernalia on this blog over the years, so I do ask that you read over some good posts about solo toy fun, toy usage during sex, pegging (which even got to be part of one of my fics), and / or pussy pumps if you are interested.

Along with those, someone has also asked about if anyone is a size queen, and I think those thoughts bridge any talk about toys and the topic of this ask pretty nicely. Expanding past ideas to include fairly specific kinks or adding some extra fetishism is all good in my opinion, and I will say that your ask is not an unwelcomed one at all anon. I like have new things to talk about.

As a bit of background, I will freely admit that I am a furry in a loose sense and have been for quite a while. Nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion. I do not really consider myself fully devoted at all, as I am much more of an interested outsider to that fandom than anything else. Regardless, the appreciation is always there. I mention this because I think anthropomorphic characters, not unlike those in Cats, are pretty damn hot. There is something spicy about having the conflation of animal qualities and human qualities together, and if someone were to think that is fucked up or questionable, I totally understand their opinion. It is not simply furries or fictional characters either that are worthy of interest or lust. I think cosplay and petplay, especially kittenplay (if that is not the most obvious thing on earth), is really quite hot. Slap some cat ears and a tail on any girl and they are automatically better (to me). Catgirls are the fucking hottest thing ever.

Anyway, all of that being said, bringing in animal shaped dildos does play into my professed enjoyment of anthro characters or cosplay(ish) ideas because it simply is adding another related thing to expand the fun and pleasure. It is completely removed from anything getting too animal-focused just to be clear. Dog and horse dildos, amongst other 'fantasy' creatures, do exist in the human world. Not just a little bit either, there are all kinds and sizes of fake cocks and pussies to explore alongside porn of such toys in action. While I think that is always going to ruffle some non-animal's feathers, I do not personally see the harm in it. Hell, if there were toys modelled to look like any of the queens, I would be definitely interested.

Importantly, I think the most pertinent thing to consider is size for the dildo, as I have seen (online) some really big toys that are simply comically large. Those are too extreme for me, so the answers for this ask will be about 'regular' sized toys modelled as closely to nature as possible (or maybe a bit smaller for the horse). I am not going to be naïve and think that whoever makes such 'fantasy' toys got some of the measurements and such out of thin air - there is a bit of grey-area fuckery (pun intended - not actual) to how they make realistic animal sex toys, and I am not going down that road.

Regardless, in terms of if any of the queens would even use dildos, it will always be a bit contentious to me just how human they are, and whether something like sex toys are even a thing in their world, but honestly life is too short to get hung up on specifics. There has been enough great thoughts about the usage of toys up to this point to even remotely stop now (not that I would).

Here it is by queen, so don ye feral (but not like that) apparel and get wild:

Vic does not dabble in toys very much, particularly with her mans. Together they are much too interested in the other to bring anything else into their sex, and they certainly do not need it. Toys come into play with infrequent solo masturbation when she really needs something more than just her paws, but even then the lifelessness is a bit of a mood killer. The point where it gets enjoyable to have toys for her is with Rumple. The calico brings out the playful and adventurous excitement in the white queen, and they will share toys either together or by using them on the other (I really need to make a fic about that anon - the ideas are there). Vic is sensitive down there, so usually Rumple knows to go slowly to avoid over-doing it.

On a particularly special day, Rumple will tell Vic to lay down on her back like she always does when they play around with toys, slowly introducing the white queen to new things as a surprise without showing her them first. This time, the dildo feels different shape-wise, but not too usual. Rumple is slowly fucking her with a dog dildo by hand, going deeper and harder as Vic warms to it. When the white queen moans more and more (and for more), the calico will ask if she is indeed ready for more. Unaware as to what exactly she means by that, Vic will agree. Sliding the dildo in and out of Vic's wet and pink pussy a few more times, Rumple will then be a bit overzealous when she gives it all to the other queen. Forcing the knotted end into Vic to a small extent, the white queen instantly cums hard with a loud scream after it pops into her. Stretching her very tight pussy more than she is used to, the white queen is in shambles as her legs flail wildly from the intrusion and rush of pleasure. After a fairly stern look down at the calico between her legs for surprising her a bit too much, Vic asks for it to come out because she is too blitzed for more and is finding it to be a touch uncomfortable. Without realizing that it will happen, as Rumple tries her best to carefully pull it out, Vic ends up cumming just as hard when it comes out, the knot popping out to the white queen pressing her legs together as another orgasm ruins her. She will be more cautious next time the smaller queen says she has something new to show her, but keeps it secret that the sensation of being filled and stretched a bit was rather thrilling. Anything more than this is a no though.

Rumple is into whatever she can get her paws on and fuck. Willing to try anything (at least once), she is keen to see what new toys feel like as she finds them. Similar to the more impassioned times when she fingered herself and got carried away with hand insertion, Rumple prefers to be alone when she uses a new dildo. With the dog toy, she works her way up to taking the knot, possibly slipping her fingers in with the thinner portion of the dildo to adjust to some stretch beforehand. When she is ready, she will stretch out her tight pussy that is begging for more and slide over the wide end. As with Vic, the sudden pressure makes her cum right away, and she groans to herself as the pleasure washes over her. Leaving it in for a few moments, she will feel around her pussy to appreciate how it fills her before slowly pulling it out. As the knot is slipping out, Rumple will cum again at the final stretch, rubbing at her throbbing clit.

Rumple would absolutely try a (smaller) horse dildo, but it would still end up being too big for her to do too much. Not that she would give up easily by any means though. Standing it up on the floor, and forcing her pussy against it as she squats, she will push her body in an attempt to take some of it. Once the flared head slides in and she bottoms out from just a fraction of its total length, she is convulsing at the pleasure shooting through her as she cums while barely being able to stand up to support herself. Slumping forward to free herself, she is careful to adjust her legs so that she does not stretch her tight heat more than she needs, with the dildo sliding out to undignified squeals from the queen.

Tanto, no matter how much others may tell her otherwise or of the potential pleasure that is out there, refuses to use toys or dildos. Aside from rare caveats with strap-ons, where someone is actually putting the effort in to fuck her, or times when she will hump pillows, or get off using water, she is purely a paws and mouth kind of queen. Plus, she does find the idea of animal shaped toys to be too much hedonism and hubris of whoever makes them to emulate nature. Also, the idea of pushing her body to take more than it was created for kills her interest very quickly.

Cass is not keen on the dog dildo. The shape and connotations just do not do it for her. Though, she will try out the horse dildo while it is mounted to a wall, fucking it like crazy while on all fours. Going hard and fast immediately, the way it fills her and stretches her walls slightly is dizzying. Reserving it for rare occasions, she gets immense pleasure from pushing (or meeting) her physical limits and fucking herself raw. Not only that, she gets so wet, with her creamy grool coating the dildo and running down her thighs as her perfect puffy pussy swells until she cannot take it anymore. One final push over the dildo after she cums makes her see stars from overstimulation, her body shaking at how much she is fucked out.

Bomba is the most purely 'normal' size queen in the junkyard. She loves being so completely filled up while in her lust, but would not go for more extreme sizing. Either way, she would try both of the mentioned dildos, enjoying how they differ and how they feel to her. Although, without someone else involved, it falls a bit flat and is not nearly as fulfilling (emphasis on filling) as when Tugger fucks her good or when she is DP'ed. For her the idea is greater than the result with toys.

For Deme, it is a no. Between experiences with two (or more) well endowed toms, she just does not see the appeal. Munk is big enough to get her off no problem any day anyway. Although, maybe if she was able to find a dildo that matches Macavity's (an animal of sorts) size and shape, she would be less coy. She would cum like crazy if it could hit all the spots in the same way as he once did. If it was possible, she would choose to roughly fuck herself with it when the cravings for him get too much too ignore. The results are huge and powerful squirts that quell any burning until the yearnings inevitably return.

Jenny could take either of them, and realistically any toy for that matter. A size queen in the more extreme sense of the term, she can stretch her pussy out more than any other queen. However, the desire is not really there. Something about knowing she could take big toys lessens the appeal. Though, she would be keen to feel what it would be like to take on both at same time, either with a DP or both in her gaped pussy.

Jelly, maybe surprisingly, would welcome a bit of stretch. She likes being fisted, so it is another thing to push her limits. Although, she would get the most out of it from a degradation mixed with pet play standpoint. Roleplaying as a Pollicle, she would get fucked with the dog dildo from behind by a partner while they lay on the dirty talk on how she is a bad girl. Jelly loves that type of shit, and the taking the knot makes her feel like such a dirty slut.

[ellmaii]

I’d like to make something very clear. I do NOT have a problem with Byler. You might disagree and that’s fine but I think the ship is one sided attraction. That’s MY opinion.

My problem is with everyone who is trying to manipulate and twist events in the show to feed their own Byler fancies. It’s not only annoying and ignorant but sometimes harmful.

Tumblr is a place that seems to attract people who have difficulties in their personal lives. That doesn’t apply to everyone but for a lot of people it does.

-people throwing accusations of homophobia. I don’t need to explain this one, It doesn’t go amiss

-People being ebleist (not always intentionally). Eleven has disability. You can say she’s ‘just’ traumatised and uneducated but it’s clearly had a profound impact on many areas in life. Trauma itself can cause that. ‘A disability is any condition of the body or mind (impairment) that makes it more difficult for the person with the condition to do certain activities (activity limitation) and interact with the world around them (participation restrictions).’

-Disregarding and invalidating trauma and grief. “She lies to him because she doesn’t feel like she can be herself around him” “he can’t say he loves her because he actually loves Will” “she didn’t look happy when he confessed his feeling to her because she realised she didn’t love him like that” “Mike didn’t look happy when she said I love you too” Not everything is related directly to their relationships, Im sorry but it’s not. How people behave and respond to situations often goes deeper than what they’re actually arguing over that minute and these characters and their past go wayyy deeper than that. You can disagree but you don’t have to twist everything and anything to make it about Byler.

-No platforming. It’s dangerous. Don’t refuse to engage in a balanced debate because it crushes your Byler fantasies (same goes for Mileven). Sharing opinions and debating them is how we learn, but do them in a way that is respectful and sticks to facts. Not made up facts, if it’s not confirmed then ‘I think’ or ‘from my opinion’ are appropriate to use before sharing. Those are opinions, fell free to share opinions but don’t state them as fact.

-Open lack of compassion. Some of you love to criticise Eleven because she gets in the way of Byler. You can dislike her but at least try to understand her feelings and behaviour. Again, stop invalidating. She’s been severely abused and neglected her entire life, Im sorry if you find her “annoying” or “a bad girlfriend” but grow up

If you haven’t realised by now this post itself goes deeper than Byler and Mileven. It’s about respect. People like to use their fandoms as an escape and a coping strategy. Don’t call people homophobic for sharing an opposing opinion. How do you think child abuse victims or people with autism or learning difficulty or dealing with grief feel when coming across anti-Mileven post that invalidate Elevens issues or use them against her to further their own ideology. The lack of compassion and understanding then the refusal to educate themselves. All for what, to promote a freaking Tv show couple??

We grow attachments to fictional characters often because we can relate to them on a personal level. What you say about a fictional character can make someone feel bad about themselves. It can cause offence to people who love somebody who they think are similar to the fictional character.

We all have different opinions and fell free to share them, it’s how we learn and grow as people, but be considerate and educate yourselves first instead of spreading ignorance. And most importantly, STOP using these things for the purpose of promoting a freaking relationship between fictional characters. For example, saying El can’t understand romantic relationships and isn’t ready for one. If you believe that that’s fine and I respect it. However, it is completely irrelevant to Byler so don’t use it and point it out solely to feed your own fancies.

[bookishfeylin]

r.hys being forced into a “good guy that does bad things” role made him, as a character, so confusing and inconsistent. i feel like all the good things he does (which are few and far between) don’t fit his personality. or maybe it feels wrong because it feels performative? almost like his mask *is* the “good guy” role and he only wears it around feyre. it would’ve been more interesting to kick the f.eysand mate bond and fully lean into the “bad guy who sometimes does good things” role. i would love to hear your opinion on this, if it’s not something you’ve discussed before <3

Hello nonny!

I actually have a lot of thoughts about this. Rhysand definitely does read much more like a bad guy who occasionally does good things rather than the other way around, which is interesting because in ACOMAF Feyre begins to think she's the same as him when she's really... not. Feyre is very much a good guy who occasionally does bad things to survive, at least until ACOWAR and beyond where Rhysand's influence has her actually doing heinous things like displace millions of innocent people to punish her ex and lock up her sister. But again, she explicitly is encouraged to do those things and is deterred from criticizing those actions, even when she feels guilt and acknowledges how she may have harmed others, by Rhysand, and as I've said before it reeks of him grooming her to act like he does.

But at any rate, I definitely agree that Rhysand is the bad guy who does good things on occasion. Now, I am not going to name names, but many of the worst people in world history all throughout time have had a handful of people, or even a city or a country, they cared about or even loved. Does loving a handful of people mean that you're secretly a good person despite being a mass murderer or whatever? No. So I don't get why ACOMAF tries to make us think he is. It's ok! Rhysand is the bad guy! Commit to it! He molested Feyre for months while she was drunk and sexually assaulted her to "hide her paint smudges." He mind-rapes Feyre. He's killed an innumerable amount of people as Amarantha's right hand man. "He was just following orders" now where have I heard that excuse before in real life. hmmmmm He opts to employ a torturer to gain information rather than simply... read people's minds??? He refuses to enforce his "progressive" laws so bigotry runs unchecked in his court. He brings Morrigan's abusers into Velaris without checking with her first. He grooms his wife into being a carbon copy of him, influencing her to displace millions of innocents and lock up her sister. And his secrecy almost gets her killed in childbirth! Rhysand is a BAD PERSON who happens to occasionally do good things for the people he likes. And that is fine! Because it's fiction! If Sarah could just let this be a dark fantasy romance series instead of attempting to comment on real world issues like domestic violence please

[lutawolf]

I need to address this because it bothers me that much. I'm not going to call out anyone. I'm just going to give my opinion.

"If you see someone justifying THOSE shows that claim to be part of the BDSM community, I call BS. The BDSM community knows consent, they have to.... torture/kidnappings/etc. From my experience, most in that community are FIERCELY against SA" We'll give them credit for at least not using triggering words.

I am part of the kink community. If you doubt me. That's fine, that's your right. So, for those with an open mind here is some info on me. I joined the community when I was 19, my mentor is a mutual on here. To which people have seen her collaborate my story. I've been in a lifestyle D/s relationship for over 17 years. I'm not only into D/s but S&M.

Kinksters motto is absolutely Safe, Sane, And Consensual. As an SA myself, you bet your ass I'm against it. I am not against Kinnporsche, LITA, or others. Why? Because it's fucking fiction. It's art and I can recognize that. People have the right to express their feelings through art or live vicariously through art. You can not like it. That's fine but you don't get to dictate because you don't like something. Let me ask you, who is it harming? Don't tell me the queer community because this same type of art is shown in straight media all the time. If you are going to hold queer media to a higher standard, than you are part of the problem. You are perpetuating a system that would have us treated differently.

Now, it would be an issue if any of this was not recognized as problematic behavior. That's not what is going on here. We all know that we wouldn't want to meet Vegas in real life and what he did was fucked up. We all admit that Pai slides into unacceptable in real life. No one is denying the problems. In some cases we don't give a fuck and maybe some are living vicariously through art. In others maybe it's stimulating critical thinking skills in order for us to see the grey outside of black and white.

"They've dealt with the stereotypes of wanting to abduct some stranger to sexually torture them"

That's actually a kink dude. There are kinksters who are into role play of non-consent or abduction and even torture. I personally don't cause that isn't for me and wow would I flash back. However, I know individuals who have them. They don't hurt people. Some have a difficult time explaining why they have them and they feel guilty enough without someone saying they're a problem. True people of the community and allies don't put down other kinksters. Even if it's not our flavor, we strive to understand. BDSM isn't where you work out your problems but no one can deny that there is a psychological connection to what we do. I say bravo to the individuals who do this in the SAFEST, SANE, AND CONSENSUAL manner in which they can. Which is to live vicariously through fantasy.

"No, those individuals probably just enjoy fluffy handcuffs and think THAT'S kinky"

I know that I personally made comments about fluffy handcuffs and I'm sorry. I apologize to anyone offended by my comments. I was up in my feels because it felt this person was saying I wasn't community that I let it blind me. It's unacceptable to judge another kinkster. Light play is still kink. I know plenty of people who have fluffy handcuffs and a paddle. You are still kinkster and I'm truly sorry for being inconsiderate.

Okay, so there is my opinion. Take it or leave it.

[volperion-moved]

when you guilt trip people for saying no you’re creating a space where they feel unsafe saying no. if chat noir had been serious when he’d said ‘your friendship is the most important thing to me��� and not brought his feelings up to ladybug again this would be a whole nother story. instead he is constantly passive aggressive toward her. he feels sad he’s rejected, he feels sad he’s being left out/isn’t as important to her as the other heroes, etc. that’s fine but there’s a right and wrong way to share those feelings. adrien doesn’t share his feelings in a way that shows he wants help overcoming them. he does it in a way that is trying to make ladybug feel as miserable as he does so he can get some kind of vindication

and i totally get that when you’re 14 you might not exactly know how to express your feelings in a healthy way. and that having honest conversations about improving is hard, being confronted w/ the possibility that you’re responsible for some of your own shitty feelings is hard to deal with esp. when you feel wronged. but the problem isn’t that adrien acts this way it’s that the narrative barely criticises it and instead often rewards him for being the way he is. him bottling up his feelings is showing how ‘nice’/’perfect’ he is for not wanting to burden his friends. ladybug should have the emotional maturity he lacks and be able to see his passive aggression as a cry for help.

i am saying this as someone who used to have the mentality adrien does which is why i understand it as harmful and despise how it’s being promoted as a good thing by this show/fandom. i constantly struggled with feeling like people didn’t believe me or want to take me seriously when i talked about my mum’s abuse. people often gaslit me into thinking i was the problem and it was a struggle understanding both that i wasn’t, but i do also have responsibility for my own behaviour/feelings, i can’t just act like i’m beyond help bc of what i’ve been through.

hell yes it took me way longer to get to this point than 14. but adrien is a fictional character the thing holding him back is actually the writing, not his age. shows for kids often have young characters taking on big responsibilities that you wouldn’t trust a kid in real life with, because they’re meant to be power fantasies for the kids watching. & because adrien is a role model/power fantasy to the young audience we criticise him and how his behaviour is treated. is it clear when he’s in the wrong, and does he as a hero strive to do better, or is his behaviour excused? if you’re a kid in adrien’s situation of an abusive household, or if you’re someone dealing with someone who treats you the way chat noir treats ladybug, what messages are you going to internalise?

[tanadrin]

Dev Patel and the Green Knight

I finally got around to seeing The Green Knight. Overall, I enjoyed it--David Lowery does a good job capturing the essential weirdness of the tale, which is very much about taking a mundane circumstance (a Christmas feast) and suddenly catapulting the reader into a mythic otherworld through the intrusion of the alien and monstrous, and the fantastical costumes, dramatic lighting, and dissonant score all contribute very well to a sense of otherness that permeates the original story.

But I find it interesting--and, I'll admit, a little frustrating--that no modern film adaptation of medieval literature is really capable of taking the story it's adapting on its own merits. This isn't an objection to modifying the source text, or taking it in new, non-literal direction. I can think of plenty of adaptations of work that play with the source material in interesting ways, and are better for it. Even very faithful adaptations like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings are inevitably going to alter the source based on the need to adapt it for the screen and the whims of the director. But when it comes to medieval classics, texts like Beowulf or Gawain and the Green Knight are always held at arm's length. An ironic layer is always interpolated into the original story, and even in modified form the story is never allowed to stand on its own.

Contrast, for instance, modern retellings of Arthurian legend; or Wagner's Nibelungenleid; or something like Neil Gaiman's book of Norse mythology. These are all adaptations of much older stories, all medieval; and the authors typically happy to let the stories operate on their own terms. In fact, that is often a selling point: dipping into these tales is a way of sampling an alien culture, one that is remote from us in time rather than space, and part of the sense of heightened drama is the understanding that these stories do not necessarily depict the world in the same way that modern realist prose does. They are fairy-stories, in the Tolkienian sense, and something not quite even like "high fantasy," which, although it is a genre which owes much to the mythic tradition, is usually *told* in the same manner as other realist fiction. And you could take these stories and re-cast them in a realist mold--that's definitely been done with Arthurian legend, either via anachronism or trying to place them in an era-appropriate historical context, and even that yields something quite like the original in tenor, even if the language used to relate the story is often very different.

Watching this movie, I was *strongly* reminded of Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf, in that this did not feel like an attempt to adapt Gawain and the Green Knight for the screen. It felt like an attempt to tell a story *about* Gawain and the Green Knight (the text), a story which does not stand on its own. You don't have to have read the text to understand the movie (although I think some directorial decisions would be a bit mystifying if you hadn't), but the movie definitely situates itself *as a response* to the text. Which is an odd choice! Actually, another good point of comparison is Spike Jonze's Adaptation. It started life as an adaptation of Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief, but Charlie Kaufman sort of gave up writing that halfway through and wrote a movie about the difficulty he was having writing *that* movie, and the result is something very weird (and very good) that is full of metafictional elements that depend on the existence of this other work, in a way that a straight retelling of The Orchid Thief for the screen obviously would not. And while The Green Knight isn't that extreme, it is definitely playing on the structure of the medieval poem, and replying to it.

The core of the movie (as I understood it) is a tension between young Gawain's aspiration to knightliness, his ambition which is born at least in part from his mother's encouragement, and his own failure to live up to the heroic ideal of greatness. Not chivalric--this is a movie in which the ethos of chivalry makes not even the briefest of appearance, which is weird given that it's nominally an Arthurian romance, and that the chivalric ethos is extremely important to the original text. Instead we have a generic greatness being described, one which is associated with renown, with taking part in mythic events, and with achieving high rank and honor. In the service of seeing her son obtain all this, Gawain's mother seems to cast some kind of spell, whereupon the titular Green Knight appears at Arthur's Christmas-feast; and as in the poem, a game of beheadings is proffered. Gawain accepts the challenge, beheads the knight, and the knight rides away, promising he'll meet Gawain a year and a day hence at the Green Chapel. So far so straightforward. When Gawain sets off a year later to meet the knight, his mother gives him an enchanted belt to keep him safe from harm. Gawain goes on to have a couple of side-of-the-road adventures and mishaps, the kind of thing that's par for the course when you're telling an Arthurian romance, until he arrives at the house of a mysterious benefactor, just about a day away from the Chapel, who grants him hospitality until the day of his challenge.

Now, in the original story, this is where Gawain gets the magic belt, and it's hugely important: Gawain and his host promise to exchange anything they might receive at the end of each day, when the host has been out hunting all day and Gawain has been in the house recuperating from his travels. During this time, the host's wife repeatedly tries to seduce Gawain; and Gawain is trapped between the imperative not to sleep with his host's wife (a major violation of the rules of good chivalric conduct!) and the imperative not to offend the woman (also a violation of those rules). He succeeds, for the most part; he is forced at one point to give his host a kiss at the end of the day, since the wife kissed him; this is shown as him holding nothing back and acting in good faith on the vow he made to his host. When Gawain finally rebuffs the wife for good, she insists that, even if he won't sleep with her, he should at least take a magic belt she has woven that will keep him from harm. He does; but he does *not* give this to his host. When he finally goes to the Green Chapel, the Knight returns the original blow as promised--but only nicks Gawain lightly. He reveals himself to be none other than the host who was sheltering him; the nick was his reprimand for withholding that final gift, but because of his good conduct he is otherwise left unharmed. The whole thing was a test of sorts, one which Gawain passed. Despite flinching at first from the blow, and keeping the belt secret, he shows himself ultimately to be a man of good (albeit not perfect) conduct, and *that* is why he wins honor from the whole affair.

The movie takes this basic narrative and alters it in key places, completely changing the valence of the whole thing. First, Gawain gets the belt at the beginning of his quest, as mentioned; he loses it on the way, but when he reaches the castle, the wife of his host (who succeeds in seducing him with a handjob) presents it to him as if she had woven it herself. He does not actually engage in the game of exchanged with his host, who is *also* not the Green Knight. And we're treated to a monologue about the color green from the wife that feels beat for beat like it's been ripped off from someone's undergraduate essay about Gawain and the Green Knight, which is a little weird even in the context of the rest of the movie. Finally when Gawain reaches the chapel, the knight goes to return the blow--and Gawain completely chickens out and flees. We are then treated to an extended sequence of Gawain returning home; being feted as a hero; earning his knighthood (presumably by lying about what happened); succeeding Arthur as king; him abandoning his low-class beau once she bears him a son, and marrying a princess; going to war; his son dying in a war; and finally, as an old man, being trapped in his throne room as a besieging army breaks its way inside. Just before they do, he removes the magic belt from around his waist, his head fall off, and bam--we're shown this has been an Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge thing this whole time, and the Green Knight has not yet landed his blow.

Gawain finally takes off the belt, throws it aside, and tells the knight to go ahead--and the knight bends down and congratulates him. In context, the reading seems to be this: the belt is a talisman of Gawain's mother's influence, of external expectations for what kind of man he is. The Knight is Arthur or perhaps an agent of his, and the test in *this* case is whether Gawain can be his own person. All the events leading up to this point are perhaps a part of the original magic Gawain's mother cast, an effort to Lilith Weatherwax her kid to greatness by putting him into an epic story. Implicitly, then, the Gawain and the Green Knight we all know is the false version of the tale, the tale as Gawain's mother would have it told.

This is all very clever. But I'm afraid it's so clever it falls apart in the end. Because the structure of the original story that this depends on is dependent in turn on taking the whole notion of chivalric virtue seriously, which this movie plainly does not. Gawain is shown as irreverent and lustful and a bit of a party animal--lovable and good hearted fundamentally, but definitely not an Arthurian hero. That's fine, but that's a very modern sort of character, one that feels out of place in a movie that is trying very hard also to be tonally unmodern, firmly embedded in a mythic otherwhen of Arthurian legend. Moments of slice-of-life mundaneness, while charming, strain mightily against the epic tone the movie tries to take in other places, and strange events like a ghost seeking her lost head or immense giants striding the landscape. We are jostled: are we in the land of myth? Or are we in historical Britain? We cannot be in both!

And this is a movie that was definitely made by people who had read the original text; not just the original text, but also a great deal of criticism *about* the original text. The movie namechecks the theme of fivefold symmetry that's incredibly important to the structure of the poem; there's the aforementioned undergrad essay about colors about 3/4th of the way through; and there's the fact that the structure of the original plot (down to Morgan LeFay in disguise as an old woman in the host's castle) is present in altered form in every detail. But none of these details add up to much. There's a weird homoerotic kiss with the host that implies that in fact *he* wanted to sleep with Gawain, in addition to his wife; the ghost Gawain encounters early on tells him the Green Knight is in fact someone he knows (and therefore *can't* be the host; I think it's implied to be Arthur, like I said, but this is never quite confirmed), and while all these things *about* the original poem are shown, none of them ever get integrated thematically into the plot.

I think as a result, whatever Lowery was going for, the whole movie kind of falls apart in the end. And that's a pity, because somewhere in there is just a really weird, visually striking, really gripping, embellished-and-polished-for-modern-sensibilities-but-also-thematically-true-to-the-source retelling of Gawain and the Green Knight. And that would have been a much better movie! What are we to make of this, a movie that purports to be telling a story-behind-the-story, but one that leaves no room or context for the original? After all, Gawain in the end does *not* flee, does not return home a coward and a liar; presumably, he earns his honor, and can be honest about what happened. But if he is honest, none of the rest of what we have been shown makes a lick of sense, or has any point.

One feels a bit as if modern directors, when confronted with medieval texts being a bit weird, a bit alien in their worldview, instead of realizing that's actually something people like some of from time to time, feel like they have to construct an artificial bridge between the Middle Ages and the present day. But because it is invariably metafictional and self-referential, as if to say "don't worry, we know nobody REALLY wants to watch a bunch of boring medieval shit played straight," it comes off as cringing and ashamed of its source material. This isn't a plea for historicity! Gawain and the Green Knight is not history. But one does occasionally want to see an adaptation of one's favorite works without directors being ashamed of the text they are adapting! And since most people will not have read the original, I am rather confused about what the director intends for the audience to get out of all these references that are dependent on it, but don't stand on their own merits within the narrative of the movie itself.

The acting was good, the set design and costumes were terrific, I loved the slow and measured pacing and the weird score, and the design of the Knight himself, and the landscapes and almost everything else about the movie. So I don't think it's a waste of time, especially if you have read and enjoyed Gawain and the Green Knight, in the original or in translation. But it's definitely a pity to see a movie that was, well, *almost* great, but ended up merely OK.

[postmodernmulticoloredcloak]

So I watched 10.09 recently, and it has that part where Dean tells a story about him basically being almost roofied as a teen, but somehow it ends up framed as the funny joke and yet another proof that John "did what he could", and I kind of hate this? And it's the same episode in which MoC!Dean killed guys that kidnapped and tried to rape Claire, and you'd think writers would've addressed the parallels and acknowledge that Dean could've been triggered by this situation. 1/2

2/2 But in the end, it's never addressed, and the whole situation is framed as the proof that Dean is evil now. And I'm not even sure what I am trying to say, but with that being the show's approach back in s10, I'm not surprised about the finale anymore. Guess we should've known?

That’s an excellent angle to look at the issue because the Mark of Cain arc is a clear example of how people with different experiences will see the same thing in wildly different ways. There’s this phase of season 10 where everyone is like “oh no Dean is Getting Worse” and when you look at what Dean is doing... you actually go “...good for him”.

Let’s give Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It’s not “the writers” in this case, it’s Dabb. Plenty of other writers don’t fall into this John apologism thing. Just look at how the episode before Lebanon, written by Buckner and Ross Leming, says that sometimes John would temporarily kick Dean out because he was “pissed at him” despite Dean always taking his side to mantain the peace. It almost seems like a statement to sprinkle some salt given what Dabb does in Lebanon, you know? Maybe not, but there is a tension between “John was shitty” writers and “John did his best” writers.

In hindsight, we gave Dabb too much of the benefit of the doubt. We were like, weeell, that’s supposed to be way the characters perceive the truth, which is distorted by the trauma... But now it’s obvious that he truly believed in the John-did-his-best version. He brought him back and got Mary back with him. No matter what happened to the finale, the network didn’t print those pictures of John and Mary to hang on Sam’s wall. He never took Dean’s abuse seriously and it shows.

The “anedocte” of Dean getting drugged and “saved” by John from being raped is obviously there to parallel him with Claire. Which works! It’s so weird because it’s like. You are soooo close to getting the point. Younger Dean was assaulted just like this teenage girl is assaulted and Dean saves her... but apparently John yelling at those people is a good way of dealing with the issue, while murdering child traffickers is an overraction thus bad.

That’s the problem, isn’t it? That Dean’s murder spree is framed as an overreaction. Sam is like “tell me you had to do this! tell me it was you or them!” - the answer to which (by the narrative) is obviously no, it wasn’t self defense, he just killed them because he could. He just murdered those men for no reason except he felt like being murdery. And the audience is supposed to be like “oh no! Dean is murdery for no reason except for murderiness! That’s bad!”.

But it’s a power fantasy, isn’t it? Going on a murder spree on rapists and traffickers. I bet any people who’s been violated like that has fantasized of doing the exact thing Dean does here. Killing them all.

Dean had the physical strength and skill to kill them all, why shouldn’t he kill them? (I mean, in real life I’m against private justice because I’m a fan of the state of law, but the Supernatural universe obviously works on different principles than the state of law. Again, it’s a fictional narrative that plays out as a fantasy for the audience, so.)

So what was Dabb’s intention? I’m afraid it’s the worst one. “John Winchester’s not going to win any Number One Dad awards, you know? But, you know, damn if he wasn’t there when we needed him”. What the fuck, Dabb? It’s been established since season 1 that John WASN’T there when they needed him. Which... I’m afraid... leads us to the Cas-Claire plot in the episode. Cas has fucked off with Jimmy’s body leaving Claire on her own. Parallels how John wasn’t going to win wny Number One Dad awards. But! Cas is there when Claire Really Needs Him i.e. when she’s about to be raped by older men. Parallels how John was there when Dean Really Needed Him i.e. when he was about to be raped by older men.

I think the point is to say, Cas kinda sucked because he took Claire’s dad away but hey! He’s actually a good figure for Claire because he gets there in time to prevent her from being raped. Just like (ew) John kinda sucked as a father because hunting and stuff, but hey! He’s actually a good figure for Dean because he got there in time to prevent him from being raped.

It’s pretty yucky. Literally NOBODY wanted a parallel between Cas and John. But he made one. And he made one to absolve Cas from the guilt he carried for what he did to Claire (Claire’s mother is a mother so who fucking cares about her. She’s basically a Blurry Wife(TM), she’s only a tool for Claire’s arc, Cas apparently only cares about the harm he did the child, not the wife, for some reason.) and to absolve Cas from his guilt it absolves John too. Don’t worry, being a parent is hard. You often screw up. But you can *looks at smudged writing on hand* prevent the kid from being raped by predatory adults and everything’s fine now.

It’s not really important if the child suffered hunger or whatever, the only important thing is that they don’t get raped, because that’s bad, everything else is just a little detail.

All Dabb got with that scene was to paint Sam as extremely unsympathetic because he’s no longer a child, he’s a full adult now and still thinks of that episode at the CBGB as a funny story. That’s not a good look. It almost makes you think that the writer himself saw it as a funny story. Lol teenage boy biting more than he can chew. But then why the Claire parallel? The Claire scene onviously is not supposed to be anything but horrific. I'll give Dabb the benefit of the doubt on this specific thing.

It’s weird, yes, because Dabb wrote Dark Side of the Moon where he establishes that John was a bad husband/father even before tragedy hit the family. But apparently that’s the “not going to win any Number One Dad awards” part, I suppose? I guess he intended to write John as this flawed, ~complex~ figure who was imperfect but still brave and whatever blah blah did his best blah blah. I’m all for flawed complicated characters but a horrible father is a horrible father. A rose by any other name... parental abuse is still parental abuse even if the poor guy was complicated and traumatized and did what he thought he had to do to prepare his sons for a violent world.

Also, the story frames Dean’s escapade as a teenager being stupid. “You know what he got for that? Me whining about how much he embarrassed me. Me telling him that I hated him. But then he stopped and turned around looked at me and said, Son, you don’t like me? That’s fine. It’s not my job to be liked.” “It’s my job to raise you right.” This seems straight from a novel about teenagers doing something stupid that they’re too young to realize that their parents are right to be against them doing. But this isn’t just... a parent walking into a bar to stop their child to drink alcohol. Dean literally describes feeling sick from something that was inside the alcohol.

Sure, it makes sense that he’d lash out to John because of the shame and shock. But the scene is... off. Are we supposed to see this as a typical teenage mistake? Are we supposed to read it as something as horrific as what happened to Claire, literally sold into rape? Or, worse, are we supposed to see what happened to Claire as a teenage mistake, ah silly teenager, blindly trusting shady people, no wonder you end up in a situation where you’d get raped if a father figure didn’t sweep in and save you. I hope that wasn’t the intent.

To get back to Dean’s Mark-of-Cain violence, the writers clearly didn’t intend it to come from the Darkness up to a certain point. It was supposed to an arc about your own inner darkness (consider the Charlie episode, a couple episodes later). Then they came up with the idea of The(TM) Darkness, the suppressed cosmic feminine. While it caused a bit of dissonance in the subtext, it doesn’t really change Dean’s narrative, because his inner darkness is the trauma, and his trauma is inherebtly tied to the “feminine” i.e. the parts of him that don’t fit seamlessly into the scheme of toxic masculinity values. That the violence that comes from the Mark of Cain comes from Dean himself and that’s it, or is connected to the Darkness, it doesn’t change what it means for Dean. Dean and Amara have parallel histories, the feminine principle locked away, the trauma the anger stems from.

In 10x09 we’re still in the Before The (TM) Darkness era, before the suppressed cosmic feminine. The Mark of Cain arc is still about... well, Cain. But the shift is the signal that someone looked at Dean’s arc and said... you know what? “Lucifer gave me this curse so now I’m demonic and murdery” is meh. “Toxic masculinity suppresses the feminine and it creates trauma which rage and violence comes from” is more interesting. I don’t know whose idea it was, but it was a good idea, and surely the idea came from seeing how Dean’s MoC narrative was unfolding.

Dean’s MoC narrative was unfolding in a certain way, in fact, because of a pretty simple reason. There’s a fundamental tension in Dean’s MoC arc. We want him to go murdery, but it’s also our main character, so we don’t want him to do really horrible things because he still needs to be relatable. The audience cannot hate him, so he must NOT do something entirely unforgivable. He still needs to be somewhat relatable, even when demonic or demonic-adjacent.

So he goes on a murder spree... but it’s rapists and child traffickers. He’s demon, but he kills a misogynistic dude that wanted his wife dead for cheating on him. He’s a demon, but beats up dudes that harass women. He does a slaughter, but they’re nazi. He’s off the deep end, but works a case of kidnapped and abused young women...

Speaking of which. 10x23, written by Jeremy Carver. Dean works a case where a girl was killed while dressed scantily and Dean makes some slut-shaming remarks, and we’re supposed to think “whoa Dean, that’s bad”. But later he confronts the girl’s father and what does he say?

I’m just doing my job, Mr. McKinley.

By suggesting my daughter was a slut?

I’ll admit that thought crossed my mind. Then I came here, and I smelled the deceit and the beatings and the shame that pervade this home.

You shut your face right now.

And you know what? I don’t blame Rose anymore. No wonder she put on that skank outfit and went out there looking for validation, right into the arms of the monster that killed her.

Back then the episode was super controversial and everyone hated the case because of the apparent slut-shaming but I loved it! Because it’s not about the girl. It’s about Dean. Dean doesn’t think that a girl gets killed because she dresses in a miniskirt so it’s her fault. Dean is projecting on himself and he’s not actually victim blaming the girl, he’s victim blaming himself. And when he absolves the girl by putting the blame on the father... well, subtextually he’s absolving himself by putting the blame on his father. On the deceit and the beatings and the shame that pervaded his own home. He’s textually not ready to absolve himself, of course, he summons Death to ask him to kill him later, but subtextually he’s on the right path.

Rose McKinley basically did the same mistake Dean did at the CBGB when he trusted some older people who offered him drinks and the same mistake Claire did when she trusted a man who sold her for money because he offered him a place and stability. She trusted the wrong people (in this case, vampires, which adds the whole subtext of vampires and sexuality) who took advantage of her. Except Rose had no one to save her. (Her friend, Crystal, gets rescued by Dean, even if he causes the other hunter Rudy to die in the process.)

Carver’s writing is pretty brutal. The girl made that mistake because was abused at home, so she was desperate for validation and that desperation drove her into the wrong hands. (Rose even has a brother who blames himself for bringing her sister to her future murderers, destructive sibling relationship check.) It doesn’t actually even matter if Dean guessed right about Rose’s family situation, because what matters is what it tells us about Dean. He basically relates to a dead abused girl. Actually all through the season Dean is paralleled to “skanks” “sluts” and sex workers. Obviously this happens kinda all through the show, the whole “the business is based on absent fathers” thing happened much earlier in the story, so it’s not new. But s10 draws a picture of female suffering - abuse, manipulation and death. Season 10 was difficult to go through. In hindsight, it was probably on purpose because it was supposed to be darkest hour of the feminine. Summed with some good old fashioned misogyny, but hey.

The Carver era was wonky but Carver wanted to free the feminine. (I believe that Mary’s comeback, while written by Dabb because of the showrunner shift, was planned before the showrunner shift.) We thought the Dabb era wanted the same, with Mary choosing life and Amara being independent and so on, but it evidently wasn’t the case. Not a single woman arrives at end of the story. It’s hardly ~Bucklemming or ~the network or ~covid because it starts before the very end.

I’m not saying that dead sluts are more feminist than living women, but if the women die or disappear anyway (and they did) I’d rather have an exploration of trauma than nothing. And I definitely prefer a dead slut narrative that calls out parental abuse than a narrative where women live but abuse gets the you-did-your-best treatment.

Whoops! I digressed! But feel free to ask for any clarification or send me any observation or thought.

[advocaado]

Fiction does not exist in a vacuum and absolutely can and does affect reality.

HOWEVER

Before you pin on your thought police badge and march off to start attacking people on the internet for the media they consume and create, let’s take a minute to talk about nuance and identify some actual problematic trends in media which have real life consequences.

The big question you need to ask yourself before you decry a person or piece of media is: Is that person/piece of media promoting, validating, and normalizing trends or acts that hurt real people? Or is that person/piece of media exploring a dark theme in fiction/harmlessly indulging in a kink?

Below are some examples of cases where “problematic” content in fiction is a danger to real life people, and many where it isn’t. This will not be an exhaustive list. I don’t have endless amounts of time to sit here and talk about every problem in fictional media, and even if I did, I wouldn’t, because there are many more things I’d rather do with my time.

Disclaimer: No media is 100% problem free. No human is 100% problem free. Engaging with others online to discuss problems in media is totally fine. If you don’t like something, it’s your god given right to bitch about it. Bitch to your heart’s content. Just don’t be an absolute ass cloak about it.

Example 1: Huckleberry Finn

This book famously contains racism. Is this a problem? No, not really. Listen. This book is literally about how racism is bad. The message is to not be a racist piece of shit. That’s the takeaway. If you got any other message from this book you need to work on your reading comprehension. Books that teach lessons are good things and impact society in positive ways. This book does literally the opposite of normalizing, promoting, and validating racism. It’s taught in schools for this exact reason. It’s not sugarcoated and that’s exactly what makes it powerful.

Example 2: Fairy Tail

The famous complaint about this and other works by Hiro Mashima is that the women are overly sexualized. Over sexualization of women is a big problem in media across the globe, but particularly in the media that comes out of Japan. It’s a problem that absolutely does affect real women. More on that later. But is Mashima really the big perpetuater of the kind of gross male reader voyeurism that has such a fierce grip on the anime industry? Actually, no. Not really. Yes, almost all the female characters in Fairy Tail are hot and have big boobs in a way that appeals to men. However, the lens through which Mashima tells his stories is not voyeuristic. He doesn’t go out of his way to draw panty shots or sexualize female characters nonconsensually. 9 times out of 10 the women are sexy because they want to be and do it in a way that is empowering for them. There are occasional exceptions, but by and large Fairy Tail is not the big offender of female objectification in anime. Moreover, almost all its male characters are hot and have six packs and idol hair in a way that appeals to women. Everyone is hot. There is no deeper meaning here. Enjoy this series if you like to watch hot people having fun and going on adventures together.

Example 3: Goblin Slayer

Oh, boy, Goblin Slayer. Now here’s a can of worms. Many upon many have decried GS for its inclusion of rape scenes and mentions. The goblins in GS have no females of their own species so they must impregnate human women to continue their race. This sounds utterly awful and it is. But is this finally our shining example of a dark theme in fiction that is problematic in a way that is dangerous to real people? Sorry, but no. Firstly, the concept of a fantasy creature who needs to use humans to reproduce was not invented by Kumo Kagyu and is in fact common in folklore around the world. He didn’t make it up as a way to condone rape. Could he have? Sure. But that’s not the reality of the series. The assault by goblins on human women is not treated as a good thing by Kagyu. It is shocking and horrific and has big consequences within the narrative for both the goblins and their victims. It isn’t treated lightly and does not serve to normalize, validate, or promote rape in real life. The reader/viewer is meant to be disgusted by the goblins, and these scenes, which are few and brief, serve their intended purpose. Nobody is going out and assaulting women in real life because they thought it was cool when the goblins did it in GS.

Oh, but Goblin Slayer, I’m not done with you just yet. Because while it would be a huge stretch to label the inclusion of rape in the series a danger to real life people, there’s something else that you don’t need to stretch nearly so much to identify as such. Remember when I talked about the voyeuristic male gaze being a concerning trend in anime? Well, GS has that in spades. The normalization of sexually objectifying women in non sexual situations is very much present in the series. Describing in loving detail the chest size/shape of every female character often and with gusto is a big part of the light novels. Kagyu loves to describe what a girl’s boobs are doing while she’s sitting at a table eating or doing any other mundane thing for no reason other than to sexualize her for the reader. He made the intentional decision to make Sword Maiden, a rape victim, very overtly sexual for the male gaze without the character having any agency in it. Sword maiden isn’t trying to be sexy. She doesn’t own her sexuality. Hell, she’s blind. Being sexy doesn’t empower her. She’s just fap fodder for the male reader. These things normalize objectifying women and are part of a longtime trend in anime which have real world consequences for both women and men. The sexualization of nonconsenting women is a huge problem in Japan and very much promoted through their media. Anime and light novels continue to send and perpetuate the message that objectifying women is okay and natural for boys to do, and while Kagyu certainly isn’t the worst offender, he’s happily hopped aboard that trolly because he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. And he can’t, because it’s been SO normalized.

Example 4: The Birth of a Nation.

This movie, while entirely fictional, is straight up anti-black propaganda intentionally made to spread hate and fear of black people. Obviously this is incredibly problematic and harmful to real black people. This movie was designed to be that way. The message is very clear. It’s a movie meant to rally whites against blacks, and it did. Horrifically so. Typically media containing hateful messages is less overt about it today, but abusing stereotypes and caricatures of real groups of people and otherwise intentionally perpetuating harmful ideas through fiction is a shitty thing to do and should be wholeheartedly condemned. (Note the keyword “intentionally”. If an author does this out of ignorance, which is all too common, rather than condemn we should seek to educate. People are capable of learning and growing and canceling them for mistakes made in ignorance is every bit as shitty as the mistake they made in the first place.)

Example 5: Fanfiction and shipping

At last, we come to fan media. This is where “don’t like don’t read” becomes the golden rule. Indulging in a kink or exploring dark themes in fanfiction is harmless 99.9% of the time. Fanfiction simply doesn’t have the reach, and thereby the influence, that mainstream media has. If someone wants to write something really fucked up, that’s their choice and nobody is making you read it. Unless the author is outright condoning harming real people, it’s really not your business what they choose to write about. Furthermore, deciding to read fucked up fanfiction does NOT make you a bad person. As stated before, the human psyche is messy and the world is not squeaky clean or a safe place. People are drawn to dark things and there’s really nothing wrong with that so long as real people aren’t being harmed. If something makes you uncomfortable, don’t engage. Protect yourself. You’re not making the world a better place by harassing people online. You’re just being a jerk and honestly doing far more harm to real ass people than that 20 year old writer on AO3 who wanted to write a story about Sasuke having sex with Naruto’s son because of 10 years of repressed sexual impulses toward Naruto.

I could say more but I’m tired and ready to celebrate my Friday by getting drunk. Feel free to interact if you want, just do everyone a favor and don’t be a dick.

TLDR

Things that make you a bad person:

Murdering people

Sexually assaulting/harassing people

Having sex with children

Creating or indulging in porn of real minors

Harassing and sending death threats to real people over the fictional media they create and consume

Espousing, condoning, or perpetuating hate toward marginalized peoples

Espousing, condoning, or perpetuating hate toward anyone tbh

Using fiction as a vehicle to promote, validate, and normalize causing harm to real people

Generally being an ass cloak

Things that DON’T make you a bad person

Consuming media that contains problematic elements

Creating media that contains problematic elements so long as you aren’t promoting, validating, and normalizing harmful acts toward real people

Writing fanfiction

Reading fanfiction

Shipping whatever you goddamn want to ship

[freedfromthegalactichivemind]

It’s a Small World After All

She-Ra Fanfiction

Entrapdak General Audiences Fluff Entrapdak Positivity Week Re-Post due to a blog-move. Day 6 Prompt:  Family Game Night Summary:  Entrapta, Kadroh, Imp and Hordak play a game of ultimate conquest! The world is not big enough for them all!  Note: The game mentioned can be found here. 

It’s a Small World After All  

“I set my current civilization in decline.”  Hordak turned his tokens over on the board spread out before him, Entrapta, Kadroh and Imp. He contemplated the selection of fantasy races and powers laid out at the side of the board, contemplating which to choose next now that his Elves were too overextended to take over any of the other territories.   Entrapta had already replaced her Ghouls with Dwarves, but as per the special rule with Ghouls, still had a few on the board. Kadroh was doing surprisingly well with his horde of Ratmen.  Imp was going strong with his Forest-empowered Amazons.   It was Family Game Night – a bonding activity that Entrapta had set up as a way of taking a break from all of their work and as a way to blow off steam.  Tonight, they had chosen a game called Smallworld, a strategy game of conquest featuring cartoon-style fantasy-species of people that Entrapta found adorable.  She’d discovered it at a game-shop in her own kingdom and thought that, perhaps, Hordak, at least, would enjoy conquering a small continent without any actual people coming to harm or any current real-world treaties being broken. “Bah!” Hordak grunted when Imp took his turn and immediately bumped one of his freshly-laid Sorcerer tokens off a space of the map.  Imp issued a little chirping laugh and grinned mischievously.   “You’re doing fine, Hordak!  Imp’s ahead of us all.  I think it’s going to come down to you and him!”   “This is much more fun than the real thing,” Kadroh said with a nod and a wink. “Don’t you think so, Brother?  We are making our own decisions!  Prime is not in command, we are!”  

 “You never tried conquering a planet on your own,” Hordak grumbled.  

Kadroh held up a finger.  “There is far less bloodshed!”  

“I actually tried shedding as little as possible,” Hordak said stoically.  “I believed it my mission to bring as many resources to Prime as possible.”  

“I am just having fun imagining these rats biting his ankles, Brother!”  

Entrapta laughed.  Emily issued a long beep. She was resting next to the game-table, disinclined to play, herself.  Last week’s game of Pictionar had been rendered a disaster because she had played.  Instead of using the marker, she’d opted to try to etch her drawings onto the dry-erase board with her laser.   The fire was epic and a crew of construction-bots was still patching up the destroyed walls of one family-room and two guest-bedrooms.  

“And it looks like I take this part of the map” Entrapta proclaimed.  

“Gah!”  Hordak moaned.  He dipped his ears.  

“Don’t give me that look!  It’s the rules of the game!”  

Imp opened up his mouth to let loose a recording of Entrapta talking about the game of Monopoly they’d had two weeks ago (which ended when Hordak had flipped the board in frustration over being Sent to Jail one too many times).   “Spoilsport! Spoilsport!” Imp said. After this, Imp gave out a smug chuckle.

Hordak’s shoulders sagged and he sighed. “I could not conquer the planet. I cannot even conquer a fictional planet.”  

Entrapta gently wound a lock of her hair around one of his arms.  “Hey, don’t worry about it! You had an early lead!  And you might whip us, yet!  Actually, I think we all need to get used to the rules.  This is the first time any of us have had playing this thing!  You just need to get the hang of the structure!”  

At the end of the night, Imp had collected the largest amount of tokens for his multi-generational conquests and was the definitive winner.  Hordak came in second.  Kadroh was third and Entrapta was dead-last.  

Second place came with the prize of an Entrapta-kiss on the lips.  When Imp screeched, demanding attention, she gave him a Winner’s Prize of a peck on the forehead.  He let out a happy squeak.  Kadroh laughed and the three of them cleaned up together.  

The world, indeed, felt small – no cares for or from the outside world right now, just a small, happy, if strange, family sharing the conquest of one another’s hearts.  

[tequiladimples]

I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I saw that you dislike when collision is branded het cause you're not het, but no one's talking about you personally? like for me, I really like collision but I can understand the criticism in a way and that isn't an attack on you (or an attack at all lol). again hope I'm not rude but idk it seems unnecessary to get upset, it's better to take it as constructive criticism

sigh i don't think ur rude but it simply isn't constructive.

look i’ll talk abt this one more time n then i Beg we can put it to rest! (this is gna be a lot of word vomit but if i'm elaborative now i hope i won't have to talk abt this ever again)

i’m deeply insecure abt many aspects of collision. i don’t really keep that a secret. i also know some ppl don't like fantasy, some ppl don't like the kinds of dynamics i like, some ppl don't vibe with my style of writing (hell, i barely vibe with my style of writing). those things are fine. i can't control that and i don't take that personally. the reason why this is the one critique i do take personally is because it genuinely presumes wrongful, harmful things about me and my values, especially when i've made deliberate efforts to avoid writing the exact flavor of fic they're accusing me of having written. just because people don’t mean for what they say to reflect back on me, doesn’t stop it from doing so.

the thing about calling something a “het fic” is that the term brings along certain connotations which i don’t stand by at all and feel deeply uncomfortable and distraught to possibly have created. i’ve gone over this godforsaken story again and again just to be absolutely sure i didn’t actually do so. when people say “het fic” they generally don’t mean “boy meets girl and they fall in love”, they mean “super rude and mean boy meets uptight virtuous girl and makes her fall in dependence with him through manipulation and treating her like shit until she behaves how he wants.” and that is straight up not the fic i wrote. i’m not stupid. i know the dynamic i went with is widely and easily misused and there’s a lot of fiction depicting really bad, uneven, unhealthy relationships through it. i knew this going in, and i’ve tried persistently to avoid making those same mistakes. 

skipping over the fact that they’re both boys (bc duh)--harry doesn't exhibit any real manipulative power over louis. collision harry is a grumpy, fruity little nerd who happened upon a really unfortunate lot in life and managed to trick himself into believing he's evil for like half a second of the story and his resolves crumble like a danish pastry the moment he receives his first hug. he's kind of aloof and arrogant, and understandably hardened from his past, but he's not bad. he's just lost. that's the basis of his character arc. now on the other hand, louis has harry wrapped around his finger starting like chapter 4. harry’s the one who opens up emotionally first, harry’s the one desperately seeking louis’ approval and caring about his opinion, harry’s the one who makes himself vulnerable continuously throughout the entire story. the only time louis makes himself vulnerable on a comparable scale is during the smut scenes, and even then, harry is gentle and attentive and puts louis first. louis is less experienced than harry in that area, but he isn't scared or intimidated by harry, and he has full reigns of the progression and nature of their relationship as a whole. that’s kind of how it needs to go with tough x soft dynamics for the power balance to not feel uneven, and i wrote the story accordingly. if you then happen to still be so blindly determined to associate soft/small with weakness (and thereby uh, womanhood ig) that you still felt like louis had an inferior position to harry solely because he is indeed soft/small, that sounds quite frankly like a you problem.

now, the whole point of louis’ character is that he’s underestimated. sure, he’s naive and self-centered and sheltered from the real world--that’s the basis of his character arc. those things all change. but louis isn’t ever weak. like idk who apparently needs to hear this but you can be small and simultaneously not be a pushover. the two aren’t mutually exclusive. there isn’t a single time louis takes shit in this story, especially not from harry; he gives back as good as he gets every time. oh! and then he literally saves the entire universe and the execution of that whole thing was his idea alone. i tried really hard to underline how strong-willed and full of grit he is to contrast what others think of him. if you think he’s portrayed as a meek and frail damsel, you missed the point. once again, i feel like we circle back to this misconception of louis being kind of naive and physically small = louis being inferior = louis being female. just do some soul searching.

(i could also get into the fact that for a bunch of people who don’t know these boys personally (no matter how much we like to think we do), this fandom is weirdly opinionated about characterization. especially regarding sexual stuff. i know creating a version for ourselves of who we think these boys are based on things we recognize in ourselves or things we find endearing is part of the comfort with loving them. but that doesn’t really equate to actually knowing them, and besides, this is fan fiction; no one’s opting to write a biography, anyway. being experimental and explorative and putting different aspects of their personalities in different lightings is what makes fic fun. if someone’s writing harmful or one-dimensional characters, that’s one thing, and preferences is again whatever floats your boat. but the “out of character” argument feels mostly really strange to me. this is a bit of a tangent, though.)

lastly, the thing is that i will and i do take it personally if someone insinuates that a character--a gay character--that i, a lesbian, construed is a secret vessel for expressing heterosexual attraction. if someone calls louis a “self-insert”, that does reflect back on me. and to elaborate on that--i don’t particularly love to bring it up, but it's quite disheartening to pour personal PTSD experiences into a character and rly put effort into doing it right and justice and underline growth and healing, just to find out people disregard all that completely in favor of declaring that my self-projection lies in the attraction to a man--which is to say, the one thing i couldn’t possibly feel more estranged from. it's so incredibly tactless. i feel thoroughly whiny at this point but how is that not supposed to make me a little sad?

anyway. none of this is to say that you can’t dislike or critique collision. you can. sometimes ppl don’t like things. but i hope i’m clear about where i’m coming from with my discomfort now. people’s preferences and dislikes are indeed not mine to be hurt by, but these things are. this definitely got unnecessarily long and i probably look like i take myself unbearably seriously (i promise i don’t), so i’m sorry. but at least i've said everything now, and if i encounter this sort of rhetoric in the future, i have something to redirect people to. also anon, none of this is directly pointed at you, i know you mean well. take care <3

[bogkeep]

hmmmmmmmmmm maybe i’ll write an Introspective Musing Post about my relationship to religion and their depiction in stories because i’ve pondering about this topic lately

so for those who are reading this and DON’T know what’s been going on...  there’s this webcomic i fell in love with some years ago, about six years actually, that depicts a post-apocalyptic fantasy/horror adventure set in the nordic countries. it had, and has still, some very uncomfortable flaws regarding racial representation, and the creator has historically not dealt very well with criticism towards it. it’s a whole Thing. my relationship with this comic has fluctuated a lot, since there are a lot of elements in it i DO love and i still feel very nostalgic about, and like idk i felt like i trust my skills in critical thinking enough to keep reading. aaand then the creator went a teensy bit off the deep end created a whole minicomic which is like... a lukewarm social media dystopia where christians are oppressed (and also everyone is a cute bunny, including our lord and saviour jesus christ). which is already tonedeaf enough considering there are religious people who DO get prosecuted for their faith, like, that’s an actual reality for a lot of people - but as far as i can tell, usually not christians. and then there’s an afterword that’s like, “anyway i got recently converted and realized i’m a disgusting human being full of sin who doesn’t deserve redemption but jesus loves me so i’ll be fine!! remember to repent for your sins xoxo” and a bunch of other stuff and IT’S KIND OF REALLY CONCERNING i have, uh, been habitually looking at the reactions to and discussions around this, maybe it’s not very self care of me but there’s a lot of overwhelming things rn and it’s fantastically distracting, yknow? like, overall this situation is fairly reminiscent of the whole jkr thing. creator of a series that is Fairly Beloved, does something hurtful, handles backlash in a weird way, a lot of people start taking distance from Beloved Series or find ways to enjoy it on their own terms, creator later reveals to have been fully radicalized and releases a whole manifesto, and any and all criticism gets framed as harassment and proving them right. of course, one of them is a super rich person with a LOT of media power and a topic that is a lot more destructive in our current zeitgeist, and the other is an independent webcomic creator, so it’s  not the same situation. just similar vibez ya feel as a result of this, i have been Thinking. and just this feels like some sort of defeat like god dammit she got me i AM thinking about the topic she wrote about!!! i should dismiss the whole thing!!! but thinking about topics is probably a good thing so hey lets go. me, i’m agnostic. i understand that this is a ‘lazy’ position to take, but it’s what works for me. i simply do not vibe with organized religion, personally. (i had the wikipedia page for ‘chaos magic’ open in a tab for several weeks, if that helps.) i was raised by atheists in a majorly atheist culture. christian atheist, i should specify. norway has been mostly and historically lutheran, and religion has usually been a private and personal thing. it turns out the teacher i had in 7th grade was mormon, but i ONLY found out because he showed up in a tv series discussing religious groups in norway later, and he was honestly one of the best teachers i have ever had - he reignited the whole class’ interest in science, math, and dungeons and dragons. it was a real “wait WHAT” moment for my teenage self. i think i was briefly converted to christianity by my friend when i was like 7, who grew up in a christian family (i visited them a couple times and always forgot they do prayers before dinner. oops!), but like, she ALSO made me believe she was the guardian of a secret magic orb that controls the entire world and if i told anybody the world would burn down in 3 seconds. i only suspected something was off when one day the Orb ran on batteries, and another day the Orb had to be plugged in to charge. in my defense i really wanted to be part of a cool fantasy plot. i had no idea how to be a christian beyond “uuuuh believe in god i guess” so it just faded away on its own. when i met this friend several years later, she was no longer christian. i think every childhood friend of mine who grew up in a christian family, was no longer christian when they grew up. most notably my closest internet friend whose family was catholic - she had several siblings, and each of them took a wildly different path, from hippie treehugger to laveyan satanist or something in that area. (i joined them for a sermon in a church when they visited my town. my phone went off during it because i had forgotten to silence it. oops!) ((i also really liked their mother’s interpretation of purgatory. she explained it as a bath, not fire. i like that.)) i have never had any personal negative experiences with christianity, despite being openly queer/gay/trans. the only time someone has directly told me i’m going to hell was some guy who saw me wearing a hoodie on norway’s constitution day. yeah i still remember that you bastard i’ve sworn to be spiteful about it till the day i die!! i’ve actually had much more insufferable interactions with the obnoxious kind of atheists - like yes yes i agree with you on a lot but that doesn’t diminish your ability to be an absolute hypocrite, it turns out? i remember going to see the movie ‘noah’ with a friend who had recently discovered reddit atheism and it was just really exhausting to discuss it with her. one of these Obnoxious Atheists is my Own Mother. which is a little strange, honestly, because she LOVES visiting churches for the Aesthetic and Architecture. we cannot go anywhere without having to stop by a pretty church to Admire and Explore. I’VE BEEN IN SO MANY CHURCHES FOR AN ATHEIST RAISED NON-CHRISTIAN. i’ve been to the vatican TWICE (i genuinely don’t even know how much of my extended family is christian. up north in the tiny village i come from, i believe my uncle is the churchkeeper, and it’s the only building in the area that did not get burnt down by the the nazis during ww2 - mostly because soldiers needed a place to sleep. still don’t know whether or not said uncle believes or not, because hey, it’s Personal) i think my biggest personal relationship to religion, and christianity specifically, has been academic. yeah, we learned a brief synopsis of world religions at school (and i remember the class used to be called ‘christianity, religion, and ethics’ and got changed to ‘religion, beliefs, and ethics’ which is cool. it was probably a big discourse but i was a teen who didnt care), but also my bachelor degree is in art history, specifically western art history because it’s a vast sprawling topic and they had to distill it as best they could SIGHS. western art history is deeply entangled with the history of the church, and i think the most i’ve ever learnt about christianity is through these classes (one of my professors wrote an article about how jesus can be interpreted as queer which i Deeply Appreciate). i also specifically tried to diversify my academic input by picking classes such as ‘depiction of muslims and jewish people in western medieval art’ and ‘art and religion’ when i was an exchange student in canada, along with 101 classes in anthropology and archaeology. because i think human diversity and culture is very cool and i want to absorb that knowledge as best as i can. i think my exchange semester in canada was the most religiously diverse space have ever been in, to be honest. now as an adult i have more christian friends again, but friends who chose it for themselves, and who practice in ways that sound good and healthy, like a place of solace and community for them. the vast majority of my friends are queer too, yknow?? i’ve known too many people who have seen these identities as fated opposites, but they aren’t, they’re just parts of who people are. it’s like... i genuinely love people having their faiths and beliefs so much. i love people finding that space where they belong and feel safe in. i love people having communities and heritages and connections. i deeply respect and admire opening up that space for faith within any other communities, like... if i’m going to listen to a podcast about scepticism and cults, i am not going to listen to it if it’s just an excuse to bash religion. i think the search for truth needs to be compassionate, always. you can acknowledge that crystals are cool and make people happy AND that multi level marketing schemes are deeply harmful and prey on people in vulnerable situaitons. YOU KNOW???? so now’s when i bring up Apocalypse Comic again. one of the things i really did like about it was, ironically, how it handled religion. in its setting, people have returned to old gods, and their magic drew power from their religion. characters from different regions had different beliefs and sources. in the first arc, they meet the spirit of a lutheran pastor, who ends up helping them with her powers. it was treated as, in the creators own words, ‘just another mythology’. and honestly? i love that. it was one of the nicest depictions i’ve seen of christianity in fiction, and as something that could coexist with other faiths. I Vibe With That. and then, uh, then... bunny dystopia comic. it just... it just straight up tells you christianity is literally the only way to..?? be a good person??? i guess?? i’m still kind of struggling to parse what exactly it wanted to say. the evil social media overlord bird tells you the bible makes you a DANGEROUS FREETHINKER, but the comic also treats rewriting the bible or finding your own way to faith as something,, Bad. The Bible Must Remain Unsullied. Never Criticize The Bible. also, doing good things just for social media clout is bad and selfish. you should do good things so you don’t burn in hell instead. is that the message? it reads a lot like the comic creator already had the idea for the comic, but only got the urge to make it after she was converted and needed to spread the good word. you do you i guess!! i understand that she’s new to this and probably Going Through Something, and this is just a step on her journey. but the absolute self-loathing she described in her afterword... it does not sound good. i’m just some agnostic kid so what do i know, but i do not think that kind of self-flagellating is a kind faith to have for yourself. i might not ever have been properly religious, but you know what i AM familiar with? a brain wired for ocd and intrusive thoughts. for a lot of my life i’ve struggled with my own kind of purity complex. i’ve had this really strange sensitivity for things that felt ‘tainted’. i’ve experienced having to remove more and more words from my vocabulary because they were Bad and i did not want to sully my sentences. it stacked, too - if a word turned out to be an euphemism for something, i could never feel comfortable saying it again. i still struggle a bit with these things, but i have confronted these things within myself. i’ve had to make myself comfortable with imperfection and ‘tainted’ things and accept that these are just, arbitrary categories my mind made up. maybe that’s the reason i can’t do organized religion even if i found one that fit for me - just like diets can trigger disordered eating, i think it would carve some bad brainpaths for me. so yeah i’m worried i guess! i’m worried when people think it’s so good that she finally found the correct faith even if it’s causing all this self-hate. is there really not a better way? or are they just trusting she’ll find it? and yeah it’s none of my concern, it’s like, i worry for jkr too but i do not want her within miles of my trans self thANKS. so like, i DO enjoy media that explores faith and what it means for you. my favourite band is the oh hellos, which DOES draw on faith and the songwriter’s experience with it. because of my religious iliteracy most of it has flown over my head for years and i’m like “oh hey this is gay” and then only later realize it was about god all along Probably. i like what they’ve done with the place. also, stormlight archive - i had NO idea sanderson was mormon, the way he writes his characters, many of whom actively discuss religion and their relationship to it. i love that about the books, honestly. Media That Explores Religion In A Complex And Compassionate Way... we like that i’ve been thinking about my own stories too, and how i might want to explore faith in them. most of my settings are based on magic and it’s like, what role does religion have in a world where gods are real and makes u magic. in sparrow spellcaster’s story, xe creates? summons? an old god - brings them to life out of the idea of them. it’s a story about hubris, mostly. then there’s iphimery, the story where i am actively fleshing out a pantheon. there’s no doubt the gods are real in the fantasy version of iphimery, they are the source of magic and sustain themselves on slivers of humanity in exchange. but in the modern version, where they are mostly forgotten? that’s some room for me to explore, i think. especially the character of timian, who comes from a smaller town and moves to a large and diverse city. in the fantasy story, the guardian deity chooses his sister as a vessel. in the modern setting, that does not happen, and i don’t yet know what does, but i really want timian to be someone who struggles with his identity - his faith, his sexuality, the expectations cast upon him by his hometown... i’m sure it’s a cliché story retold through a million gay characters but i want to do it too okay. i want to see him carve out his own way of existing within the world because i care him and want to see him thrive!!! alrighty i THINK that’s all i wanted to write. thanks if you read all of this, and if you didn’t that’s super cool have a nice day !