#but in the rare instance that someones compliments me on my ability to speak 3 languages

[aboutiroh]

Being multilingual is constantly being confronted with the fact that you don’t know a basic word in one of the languages you speak.

Yesterday, while returning from the store, I realized I couldn’t remember the English word for the object I had just bought. This object may have been one of the first English words I learned in school and yet I couldn’t remember it no matter how hard I tried. The best I came up with was ‘tubular adhesive’. I had bought a glue stick.

[lesserfandomappreciation]

Hello! I saw you wrote for Toriko and nearly went wild. Can I request headcanons for Coco dating a blind, semi-feral chef who’s just not scared of him? Kinda like the “extrovert adopts introvert” thing. SFW and NSFW please! (Coco is a bottom and no one can convince me otherwise)

“Kinda”? This is absolutely an extrovert adopting an introvert. Always glad for Toriko!

Also this wound up being a partial scenario - the feral chef demanded a short story.

Coco and the blind, feral chef with 0 self-preservation skills (Toriko)

The 4 Heavenly Kings. Throughout the world of gourmet, there are no finer Gourmet Hunters to partner with. For years Chefs from around the world have been unable to do so. The walls around the 4 Heavenly Kings were tall and strong - those that didn’t live in self-imposed isolation were in jail. It was a tragedy Chefs had to accept - some partnering with lesser Gourmet Hunters in an attempt to cover the wound, others refusing partnership in it’s entirety. 

Then. Toriko, one of the Heavenly Kings, Gourmet Hunter Extraordinaire, self-isolated due to boredom. Befriends a chef. 

A world of opportunities opened. 

“There’s a thousand things I want to cook. Everyone wants to cook safe, little things - who the hell wants that?! We live in a world where there’s a mountain giant made of sugar rocks - why would you settle for some fruit when that’s right there?!” S/o threw hands up in the air, aggravation etched onto their face. “But there’s a problem - I’m a chef. Not a Hunter. Half the stuff I wanna cook is too dangerous to hunt on my own! Sure, it’s not done much to stop me so far but the very nice Government agent was pretty firm about me attempting to break in again instead of hiring a Gourmet Hunter would mean getting arrested, and like, there’s nothing in prison worth cooking?! Ya’ know?!”

Coco nodded along at their explanation with a blank look on his face, not getting any of this. At all. They’re going to spill the tea he poured for them if they keep gesturing so wildly. Should he stop them?

Frankly he had no idea how they got up here. Well, he does but he has no idea what logic was driving them. The sun usually woke him up first thing in the morning. A cheery chef grinning ear to ear, dirt under their nails from scaling up his mountain, demanding to speak to him about ‘a hell of a deal that you’re lucky to be getting’ was a new alarm clock he wasn’t aiming at getting. Especially one that went around knocking on self-imposed hermits minding their own business’ doors at 4:00 AM in the gods-damned morning. 

S/o slammed down more tea before clacking the cup against the table. “That got me to thinkin’ - every sissy Gourmet Hunters run for the damn hills when I mention some of the weaker stuff I wanna cook. The Government Agents insist I get one every time they send me a notice-” Coco closed his eyes, quietly offering a prayer of patience for those poor souls. “-everybody says they’re not strong enough. SO! Why not go for a Gourmet Hunter who is known for being stupid strong? It only makes sense! I got a ticket, got directions, realized you had no stairs -very rude by the way, at least make in handicap accessible you ass - and here I am! What do you think?”

“I think you certainly are a very determined spirit.” He smiled at them grinning at the compliment. Their passion was to be commended. As... strangely as it manifested in their actions. “You want to hire me as a Gourmet Hunter then?”

“As my Gourmet Hunter.”

He chuckled. “Ah. Of course. Your Gourmet Hunter.” He drummed his fingers against his cup. He let out a pensive hum. “Certainly a tempting offer. I imagine my brothers have received a similar offer?”

“Fuck no.” Coco caught his dropped cup. “Why the fuck would I ask for their help?”

Coco coughed to keep the tea inside. “Forg- guh, -forgive me, I choked on my tea,” why the ...what they said.. wouldn’t they ask for their help?! “Why would you not? They are equally talented hunters.” If not more so - said his inner voice. A poison Gourmet Hunter was not exactly popular - though he did have his fair share of requests, Coco’s abilities made him a difficult Gourmet Hunter to request. And the others (two of the others, anyways) were more amiable to the idea of requests from such a unique character as the one in front of him. “They would certainly be able to do the same as myself-”

“But they’re not YOU!” S/o’s hands slammed against the table, their face dangerously close when they leaned forward. “...I know I look like a mess of a chef. People act like I’m either too wild or too unable to take me seriously. I’ve never met anyone able to keep up with me. BUT!” They stuck out their hand, pointing at his chest. “You can! You’re amazing - you do amazing shit as if it was nothing, you’re humble, you understand how tough it is out here. And I know you can be more amazing when we work together.”

With a huff they leaned back, stretching out their hand to him. “I want to work with you. Got a problem with that?”

Coco blinked blankly at them. At the dirt-covered hands that had clawed their way to be there. And smiled. 

“No,” he said, clasping their hand with his own. “None at all. Where do we start?”

SFW

Coco is mostly in awe of their extroverted nature. This is a person who has likely faced extra challenges (due to both their blindness and their... unique approach to life) to get in their profession on top of the standard tests every chef must face and still, still keeps themselves entirely up-beat and unafraid of the world. They remind him a bit of a younger Toriko, only somehow more wild than him (what a frightening thought..). He can’t help but enjoy some of their crazier antics.

He does however have the foresight to pick them up by the back of the shirt in several instances. S/o is a feral kitten, and Coco is a resigned mother cat stuck getting them out of trouble.

This is a couple that talks a lot. S/o is certainly a talker just out of their very nature of being, happily ranting about new recipes, ideas, what they experienced that day, or even the must random question out there. Coco is just as much a talker, only with certain people. Once their connection is established they have a lot of long-winding conversations. Some of them get to be pretty deep! 

He does however wish they would save the deep questions for when there’s sunlight rather than 3 minutes after minutes when he wants to sleep.

���Do animals hunt Gourmet Hunters? Are there Gourmet Hunters Hunters? Hm? Coco why do I hear your sleeping bag being dragged away?”

Coco falls for them first. He already likes them from their straight-forward nature, but their continued (much-neeed) positivity in his life just cements that into romantic affection. He pines for a while about it - it’s up to s/o to figure out he likes them.

...Which granted is a little hard since he doesn’t act on it and when he talks about it he’s incredibly cryptic about his feelings. Good luck!

When they do get together, touch is something they’re going to have to be patient with. Because of his powers he is wary of letting his emotions get the best of him in the wrong time, so slowly adjusting to getting more affection is a requirement. 

Once he is used to it, any affection S/o has given him will be returned 10 fold. Not in public but they will be dragged into his lap when he’s reading something. 

NSFW

You’re not wrong about him being a bottom, though I will say he’s also a service top. He wants to please them so so so badly. 

He does however prefer for them to take the lead. Coco does not strike me as someone experienced. Makes sense, considering his abilities - I too wouldn’t be confident enough to even hold a hand, much less have sex, if my touch could wilt a mammoth. Having his partner on top of his, breathing into his ear sweet teasing words while their hands wander around his body. Gently dom him and he’s like puddy in one’s hand.

If his partner wants him on top, they can order him to please them by any means necessary - drive them crazy the way they know he can. Coco will be undone by this, and while he adores the gentleness of lovemaking, these orders will bring out a more rugged side of sexual appetite. 

Coco has a very low sex drive so it is rare he wants sex. That said, all his s/o has to do is tell him they “want something special” from him and he’s down to serve their needs. Just because he’s not hard for sex at that moment doesn’t mean his hands and tongue are unable to get the job done. 

Fingering master. His oral/blow techniques are fine, but his fingers- holy shit are they dexterous little bastards. There is no sight lovelier to Coco than his partner ordering him to keep going as his fingers make them lose their mind. 

[douglashonorscollege]

Empathy and You

essay by Therin Rose Lucas  ⌂

I wave at absolutely everyone, have for a long time. I remember my friend once asked me why I did this, and we joked that it was a secret ploy to mess with people, that I wanted people to question if they had met me before. But there is no trick, no selfish intent, and in time I came to realize why I wave: it is a show of empathy. In fact, the majority of my daily interactions with other people are related to empathy in some way: my smiles, greetings, and hugs are all underlined by a feeling of empathy. I say it is empathy because performing such acts helps me connect to other people and show them goodwill.

By now, many of us, myself included, are asking what empathy is. While we would all agree that it is beneficial to ourselves and society, most of us would likely be at a loss for words trying to define it. And that is not a bad thing. Scientists, philosophers, and researchers have been trying to define empathy with words for years, and its true definition is still hotly debated. Many people want the universality of language to mold empathy into a recognizable whole. That is a valid desire, as a consistent definition would allow humans to understand and develop empathy more readily. For example, S. Natale, a researcher of empathy, presents his research toward establishing a method of teaching empathy to the general public in An Experiment in Empathy. He writes that “members of the general public were found to be functioning midway between levels one and two on a five-point scale of empathy” (15). This extreme lack of empathy drives Natale to perform an experiment in developing empathy. However, before he displays his research, Natale explicitly outlines the specific definition and parameters of empathy used in the experiment. Because of the nature of science as a consistent and repeatable process, he must use a single definition. In this way, a universal empathy is much more open to proper study and debate. Ezra Stotland and his colleagues likewise base their research in measuring empathy in Empathy, Fantasy and Helping on a single definition. They also express that “[t]he meaning and measurement of emotion is crucial” (12) in regards to said definition. In other words, they must always measure and define emotions and empathy consistently throughout the experiment.

While Natale and Stotland both follow the principle of carefully keeping to one definition, their empathies are not quite the same. For instance, Natale’s first phase of empathy involves “the ability to sense the emotions of another person” (16), while Stotland’s definition includes the “observer reacting emotionally” (12) to another’s emotions.  To sense and to react, while related, are two separate actions. “Sense” does not imply that the person reacts—visibly or internally—to said sensation, while “react” does. Moreover, Natale splits empathy into three distinct phases, while Stotland relies on a single, more broad definition. It is difficult to judge the quality of both definitions, but the fact remains that despite their differences, they are both employed in important research and experiments. And both sets of research aim to expand our understanding of empathy. If their definitions were one and the same, such discrepancies would not exist.

Or would they? Natale uses his definition to learn how to teach empathy, while Stotland uses his to develop a method of quantifying empathy. Even if the definition of empathy was the same for both, their goals are a guiding factor in how they gather and interpret their data. Furthermore, Natale and Stotland are different people with different experiences, so this same definition would most certainly have a different meaning to each of them. And they would likely describe this underlying meaning with different words as well.

Many other concepts have been referred to as ‘empathy’ before. Daniel Batson, in his essay “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena,” compiles a helpful list and analyses of several of these concepts. He explains that such a comparison helps “reduce confusion by recognizing complexity” (8). Essentially, if we are to discuss empathy, we need to disentangle the various concepts we call “empathy” from each other. He also claims that the term empathy is applied to a multitude of concepts in our attempts to answer two fundamental questions: “How can one know what another person is thinking and feeling? What leads one person to respond with sensitivity and care to the suffering of another?” (Batson 3) Batson’s reasoning regarding these questions is valid, as humans have always been interesting in the inner workings of their minds and those of others. What Batson does not mention is that these questions, lingering in the back of humanity’s collective mind for decades, are a cause of our difficulty in creating a universal empathy because they have ambiguous answers. Uncertain questions are subjective; uncertain answers are subjective. And subjectivity means many interpretations, as seen in the comparison of Natale’s and Stotland’s works. But, most importantly, subjectivity inhibits the concept of a fully objective definition of empathy.

Some have embraced this subjectivity. Leslie Jamison, for example, in her book The Empathy Exams, presents several scenarios involving empathy in both her fictitious medical patient lives and her real one. But ultimately, her stories do not culminate in one overarching meaning of empathy, nor does she intend them to. Instead, she interprets empathy based on her own feelings or the backgrounds of her patient roles. It changes depending on the scenario given. Her first interpretation of empathy emphasizes this fluidity: “empathy requires inquiry as much as imagination [and] means acknowledging a horizon of context… beyond what you can see” (5). Jamison believes that empathy is not a fixed, quantifiable object of our psyche, but rather a dynamic body that relies on both context and imagination, two variable attributes of any interaction. And Jamison is right to accept empathy’s changeable nature, because context and imagination are rarely neutral variables. Context is the setting in which events present themselves to someone. While it can be objective in the sense of foundational facts or clear societal labels, context often involves the personal and internal perceptions and reactions of those involved, which are not objective. Imagination is likewise a highly individualized notion that, given no bounds, can go almost anywhere. If we are to rely on context and imagination to be empathetic, then subjectivity will invariably dominate such interactions. And if this is the case, objectively defining empathy may very well be impossible.

Many would argue that the act of putting empathy into words means making it objective, but I would disagree. We may speak the same language, but it is not right to say that we interpret this language rigidly or equally. English has many words that, from an objective point of view, have the same meaning but, in practice, have differing meanings because of context. Context makes words and ideas subjective because the same situation, the same words, are colored with a different coat of paint each time they are utilized, and each time they are experienced. As appealing as this diversity may seem, there are inevitable issues involved with such fluidity. Friedrich Nietzsche recognizes these problems in his essay “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense.” His essay overall concerns the underlying subjectivity of human languages, but in one paragraph he directs his criticism at “the formation of concepts” (Nietzsche 61). He claims that the terms we use for abstract concepts are supposed to “fit innumerable, more or less similar cases… in other words, a lot of unequal cases” (61). Essentially, he means that these terms are meant to characterize a whole concept, and yet are built up from wholly different and unequal examples. He further adds that such language practices undermine a concept’s true meaning because the definition of it that is given is unclear.

Empathy is much the same as the terms described by Nietzsche: a word that is required to describe many situations that ultimately have many differences. As it stands, empathy is now considered by many to be an ‘umbrella’ term. It is used to classify many smaller, more particular terms, but it itself is vague and generalized. Jamison’s example as a medical actor reflects this when she acknowledges the evaluation “checklist item 31” (3), which is “‘Voiced empathy for my situation/problem’” (3). She points out that since the item is ultimately about “say[ing] the right words” (Jamison 3), many of the students use vague and rigid phrases such as “that must be really hard” in response to what would be overwhelming and stressful circumstances. Jamison’s example shows that, in this case, the usage of the term empathy is a problem. Empathy today has become such a broad concept that when confronted with it on a test, many students are unable to decide what it means, and instead use vague phrases in the hope that they will work. This is not empathy’s fault, as its broadness is the result of the subjectivity we apply to it every day. Empathy is waving at someone; now, it is holding the door for someone; now, it is saying a greeting; now, it is buying your hungry friend food; now, it is a compliment. These may seem like similar actions, and some of them are, but they are still different actions with different contexts, connotations, and outcomes. And more than that, these same actions are performed by a multitude of unique and personalized individuals every day. Even if two actions seem in every sense identical, they are still performed by different people. As a result, subjective empathy is as hard to comprehend as objective empathy.

If empathy cannot be one or the other, what if it is both? In our need to classify empathy so precisely, we have overlooked another option: empathy as a concept both subjective and objective. And such a thing is not impossible if we consider empathy on a personal level. Something personal is unique to a person, so subjectivity is present, but opinions and preferences are not solely based on a person’s feelings. A person is free to define empathy in their own terms, but that person likely does not derive such terms solely from internal forces. These terms also come from the people around a person, commonly held assumptions in society, and, in some cases, facts. Objectivity is present as well, albeit in smaller doses.

I do not mean to say, in my consideration of personal empathy, that humans cannot have a standard concept of empathy. Without such standard, we cannot teach new generations this vital skill and quality. It would even be a great notion to agree on a loose definition; but to confine this concept to narrow-minded and overly specific terms is to push away the understanding of our fellow man, for their empathy, however different, will always be empathy. Nevertheless, a definition that is too loose will grow to mean nothing, replaced by more specific and specialized terms. A balance is most certainly needed, and personal empathy is simply one way to achieve it.

Empathy is a strange concept. Sharing in the feelings of others? Feeling how others feel? Acting on such perceptions? It is a complicated puzzle of feelings, actions, and reactions that, even as science continues to advance, has never quite been solved. It is difficult to treat empathy as a neutral concept because of the varying ways in which it is defined and expressed. But if empathy is purely individualized, then it cannot be defined at all. We have all known about empathy since we were young children, but many of us have brushed it off as something we know and recognize, despite our inability to voice its meaning. But that inability should be an advantage, as it is exactly what gives empathy its flexibility. Because we cannot utter the definition, we simply show empathy, and see it, and react on it instead. We hug, we cry, we laugh, we thank, and we wave. And that is the beauty of empathy. It is not locked behind words with no meaning, or a door that cannot be opened—we have already found it. I have found that I wave because there are so many overwhelming days where that is all I can manage. So many days where I simply have too much to think about to do anything else. That is my flexible empathy at work. I show empathy in other ways, of course, but at my core, empathy, to me, is acknowledging other people, showing that I am thinking about them somehow, even if it is only through a hand gesture. This, too, may change with time. But that is me. And you are you. Your own brand of empathy, regardless of others, deserves to be seen. The world, now more than ever, is in desperate need of empathy. Rather than debate its meaning or judge others based on it, we should be showing it instead. So, show your empathy; the world will thank you for it. 

Works Cited Batson, C. Daniel. “These Things Called Empathy: Eight Related but Distinct Phenomena.” The Social Neuroscience of Empathy, edited by Jean Decety and William Ickes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2009 Jamison, Leslie. The Empathy Exams: Essays. Graywolf Press, 2014 Natale, S. An Experiment in Empathy. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1972. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense.” Oregon State U, oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Nietzsche/Truth_and_Lie_in_an_Extra-Moral_Sense. Stotland, Ezra, et al. Empathy, Fantasy and Helping. Sage Library of Social Research, vol. 65, Sage Publications, Inc., 1978. ∎

More on Therin Rose ~ Minerva’s Owl Homepage

[empiregalaxy]

Why Sansa would make a great Queen In The North

A huge misconception is that the supporters of 'QITN' Sansa Stark only support her due to reasons such as 'inheritance', etc. I personally think it is much more deeper and complex than that. So here I list some reasons why I'm pro-queen Sansa.

1. She's kind I have written in depth about Sansa's kindness. Her saving Dontos, telling Sandor that his brother was 'no true knight', praying for Margaery, helping Sweetrobin cross the bridge, helping the Stokeworths during the Battle Of Blackwater and even helped Lancel, who is a Lannister. I don't know about everyone else, but I would want the rulers to be kind. Although being kind doesn't necessarily guarantee a good ruler, it certainly is a start. Hence why Sansa's kindness is my first point.  

Another reason why I love Sansa’s kindness- is that she is kind when other characters fail to be. In A Game Of Thrones, there is this moment:

They all laughed then, Joffrey on his throne, and the lords standing attendance, Janos Slynt and Queen Cersei and Sandor Clegane and even the other men of the Kingsguard, the five who had been his brothers until a moment ago. Surely that must have hurt the most, Sansa thought. Her heart went out to the gallant old man as he stood shamed and red-faced, too angry to speak. Finally he drew his sword.  

Sansa’s kindness is not only just goodness, but strength. 

2. She's perceptive & (politcally minded!) There are two amazing essays on this which say it much, much better than I possibly could. Sharing them because they are superb.

The first one is by @turtle-paced and can be found here. The other is by @goodqueenaly and can be found here. Well worth a read.

Sansa is a smart person, and that is a huge thing when it comes to monarchs. I'd like to talk about George R.R Martin's comments about Aragorn, who we all know as a key character in Tolkein's Lord Of The Rings

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

As much as I love Tolkein's world, GRRM's insistence on having leaders who are precise in their methods, are good people AND good rulers is absolutely important. What does this have to do with Sansa? Well, I've made it clear I've found her wise and good. I also think she is well equipped to handle hardships the North would face, because of the following traits:

ability to show mercy (for instance, in A Clash Of Kings she shows mercy to Lancel Lannister). Forget the show rubbish of her wanting blood and punishment, Sansa does show mercy in the course of the series

atttentive to detail. She's good with banners, people's houses, statuses, etc- so she would be able to assess how an action would impact on others. I don't think Sansa is oblivious at all. She's grown alot.

willingness to learn. Not only is she engaged in what other people have to say (Sansa rarely interrupts others). Military may not have a huge role in her arc, but it could be. She could learn battle strategies and tactics. Not saying she would necessarily be on Stannis-level, but I truly believe Sansa would not shy away from learning about battles and war.

It's those three traits that are integral to Sansa's personality that she'd make a great, perceptive ruler. And she’s also has a BS detecter: once Cersei shows her true colours, Sansa figures out how she works

She heard the door open as her maids brought the hot water for her bath. They were both new to her service; Tyrion said the women who'd tended to her previously had all been Cersei's spies, just as Sansa had always suspected.

3. There are parallels with some of the strongest leaders in the series

Good Queen Alysanne Targaryen is probably my favourite parallel for Sansa. Alysanne showed generosity, kindness, good will and tactical skills. She is looked on throughout the series with love- after all, she's the 'good queen.'

Sansa also has incredible respect for her father, Eddard and her brother Robb.

I must be brave, like Robb, she told herself, as she took her lord husband stiffly by the arm.

Yes, I do admire Robb and consider a comparison between Sansa / Robb a high compliment. Robb Stark was a military prodigy, someone who whilst flawed acted with integrity and greatness. He inspired his people. The fact Sansa wants to be like Robb, she doesn't want to be like Cersei or Littlefinger does go a long way.

4. To quote show! Varys.....

The Seven Kingdoms need someone stronger than Tommen, but gentler than Stannis. A monarch who can intimidate the high lords and inspire the people. A ruler loved by millions with a powerful army and the right family name.

I think Varys is being unfair on Tommen (he is young), and Stannis (a very complex character who can't be reduced to not being gentle)- but these words really do fit Sansa.

Strong? I don’t think I even have to explain Sansa’s strength. She’s gone through absolute hell. She also shows ability to challenge characters- even the terrifying likes of Joffrey

"It does not please me," Joffrey said. "Mother says I'm still to marry you, so you'll stay here, and you'll obey." "I don't want to marry you," Sansa wailed. "You chopped off my father's head!" "He was a traitor. I never promised to spare him, only that I'd be merciful, and I was. If he hadn't been your father, I would have had him torn or flayed, but I gave him a clean death." Sansa stared at him, seeing him for the first time. He was wearing a padded crimson doublet patterned with lions and a cloth-of-gold cape with a high collar that framed his face. She wondered how she could ever have thought him handsome. His lips were as soft and red as the worms you found after a rain, and his eyes were vain and cruel. "I hate you," she whispered.

Intimidate the high lords?

"Ah, and what a castle it is. Cavernous halls and ruined towers, ghosts and draughts, ruinous to heat, impossible to garrison . . . and there's that small matter of a curse."

"Curses are only in songs and stories."

That seemed to amuse him. "Has someone made a song about Gregor Clegane dying of a poisoned spear thrust? Or about the sellsword before him, whose limbs Ser Gregor removed a joint at a time? That one took the castle from Ser Amory Lorch, who received it from Lord Tywin. A bear killed one, your dwarf the other. Lady Whent's died as well, I hear. Lothstons, Strongs, Harroways, Strongs . . . Harrenhal has withered every hand to touch it."

"Then give it to Lord Frey."

She's also gentle- see what I wrote about kindness in the first section.

Inspiring the people and being loved by millions?

“I will remember, Your Grace,” said Sansa, though she had always heard that love was a surer route to the people’s loyalty than fear. If I am ever a queen, I’ll make them love me.

Right family name? We learn in A Dance With Dragons, that people are willing to wage war for the Stark name. Sansa takes strong pride in being a Stark.

“She wondered where this courage had come from, to speak to him so frankly. From Winterfell, she thought. I am stronger within the walls of Winterfell.”

Powerful army? Of course, this is where I think the marriage between Harry The Heir and "Alayne" will come in. Remember, Houses such as Royce of Runestone (Yohn wanted an alliance with Robb). Sansa could potentially make use of the Vale / North alliance.

Here's more about the power the Vale wields. We get mention from Robb in A Storm Of Swords about their power:

"The knights of the Vale could make all the difference in this war," said Robb.

George R.R Martin is also quoted from "The Citadel" as saying (as a response to a fan):

Quick question - We have seen all of the seven kingdoms in action in one way or another except Dorne and the Vale. I am trying to get an understanding of the various strengths of the different realms. When Robb calls the Northern Banners he gathers a host of about 18 thousand men. How do Dorne and the Vale compare to this (I don't expect numbers, just general feeling)

I'd say these three kingdoms were roughly equal in the force they could assemble... but the north is much bigger, so it takes longer for an army to gather. And life is harsher there as well, so lords and smallfolk both need to think carefully before beating those plowshares into swords.

The image of a 'perfect ruler' that Varys paints does apply to Sansa. I disagree with the show on many, many things yet a ruler does need to be strong, does need an army yet have gentleness and love.

6. Concluding Thoughts

To me, Sansa being Queen used to be about continuing Ned and Robb's legacy and her being the oldest true born sibling. But now, it's more than that. To me, saying Sansa should be Queen is wanting the best for the North. My attachment to 'QITN' does not just stem from my love for Sansa, but taking into account the political atmosphere of the North, and the need for rulers who are both strong, perceptive and kind.

It also makes alot of narrative sense for Sansa to be Queen. She starts off the series with notions of what being a Queen means, only for them to be shattered by seeing the ugly realities of the likes of Cersei. For her to become Queen, would give her much needed agency.  

Wanting Sansa to be Queen is not an attack on any other character like Bran, Arya, Rickon & Jon. Otherwise, it's simply ludicrous and unfair on Sansa. Fandom really needs to stop that toxic way of thinking.

Sansa would be a fantastic queen, and I’m willing to stick by that statement.