#but its a really cool and useful tool to not see posts from someone

[punkiio]

I think the problem you are having with all the replies, is you're using the ship name (g h 0 u I c y, i'm censoring it as well, because tumblr search also searches anon question content) and your posts are literally showing up in the tag for shippers who are just minding their own business trying to look for content, only to be met with some really heavy accusations of condoning abuse/racism. Obviously this upsets them. If you don't want to get replies from Those People, you should be mindful that you're not using the space that they use to look at the ship.

I never said that I was accusing these people of CONDONING abuse or racism?? I said the ship was abusive and that there could be underlying/subconscious racism. Black love interests have always been seen as less desirable by fans and get pushed aside for a white character. Idrc if me saying that offends people. And what other way is there to describe the ship other than abusive? That's what it is

But I've already said this before, I don't want to talk about this ship anymore. I'm tired of talking about and thinking about it. I don't like it. It makes me really uncomfortable, please stop sending me asks about it

And can you guys stop going to my friends and mutuals and start sending THEM anons asking them for their opinions on me because I don't like the ship??? Thanks

[verosikastrikerstellaexcuser]

So I am honestly stupidly heated at this whole pride thing.

I don't like that 2 of the only het characters are Striker and Stella all because they are mean to the wrong main character (Stolas). Like, its so transparent. Mammon despite abusing Fizz gets to be there. Chaz is a dead villain but gets to be there. Wally doesn't appear to be LGBT from what I can see?? But, yk, as a pet fave he gets to be there still even if straight.

"[Do you think Stella] would come anywhere near a pride parade" Well, yeah because her pointless misogynist fuckass brothers gay and from what we've seen she still works with him quite willingly? Like huh? And don't even get me started on Striker, I made a separate post ranting but how in the hell was this scene heterosexual in any way. Striker specifically is the one to initiate this scene as well.

Andrealphus is also here too. Instead of us getting say Lesbian Stella, bi Stella, aro Stella, no, we get him. It feels more and more like an excuse to replace and erase Stella's place in the story; Viv didn't like that people liked Stella too much because Stella is one of her non favorites and supposed to be a mean-to-Stolas Stolitz drama plot device, so she made a totally cooler better gay male bird instead. He's gay and cunty~ so hes better because female homosexuality is so less interesting and fun. Andrealphus gay male bird is still a piece of shit morally but he gets to be there and be LGBT. He also gets to be the brains behind the whole operation to fuck Stolas over, hes the actual fun antagonist being evil with style and swagger. While Stella went from in S1 being a ruthless hyper aggressive woman pushed to her breaking point working to kill her husband to now in S2 a tool controlled by Andrealphus while being demeaned and told her only use is her looks. And ykw else? I saw someone twitter point out something interesting.

The HB store has sold an awful lot of sexualized merch of Stella, all the pinups etc. And... man. Yeah, it begins to paint a horrible picture. I know they do a lot of sexualized merch of other characters, but those characters have also gotten to be characters and not just plot devices for men. While Stella has been sidelined for another male attracted male character instead of explored. All the men in her life have used her for her body, her looks, her being female, as a baby factory and a wife, shes been unpersoned by them. And then, the merch fucking reinforces this by heavily sexualizing her. They'll sell sexualized merch to Stella fans. But they won't flesh out her character, they won't make her lesbian or ace fans happy by making her rep, nah, none of that.

I'm sorry but this is just not how you write a victim of an arranged marriage made to have a baby with a man who couldn't stand to look at her as she did it by her parents and brother!? And before anyone comes at me, again, if Mammon and Andrelphus get to be a celebrated LGBT character why the fuck does Stella not? If Wally gets to be here despite not being LGBT why doesn't Stella? Why did Stella never get to have her childhood and past explored, her relationship with Octavia explored, anything? Why is her interest in others/sexuality never really shown outside of not being into Stolas? Why do we never even get maybe a fun arc in which she realizes shes so angry because shes aro and romance repulsed? Or shes a lesbian and craves a relationship with a woman? Or loves another man but didn't cheat then Stolas did so she lost it? Something? Anything? Anything at fucking all? Oh. Right. No. Shes just a token straight woman who exists to be a body to be used and drama for Stolas and Stolitz's story. Why would they give her an LGBT identity? Those only exist to be tacked onto nice or cool female characters that bully characters its ok to bully like Blitz and Moxxie - all of these pan female characters consistently only ever really show male attraction anyway, to boot. Because gay is only fun and cool when its male!!!!111

[19catsncounting]

I Got Really Into Anti/Proship Discourse And Read +30 Academic Studies - My Findings

(It’s a Yapfest but the whole post is a very long essay and study on morality and fiction and children’s safety and rape culture with a fuckton of freely accessible academic articles and resources on the subject, and I want to talk to other people about it. For a shorter abstract with all the articles and more easily ignored yapping, see my shiny new Carrd:)

It’s been a little shocking lately to have certain discussions with some parts of fandom. I spoke about shipping/harassment and how that contributes to the death of fandom on TikTok assuming that younger folks are just really, really intense about preventing sexual violence, but the more I saw the words “morally wrong” and “disgusting” and “addiction,” the more I thought about this guy-

That’s Jerry Falwell, and I fucking hate this dead guy. You see, Jerry Falwell was a preacher who hated porn, feminism, and homosexuality. And I'm seeing his rhetoric and reworked quotes a lot.

Jerry would say stuff like:

“Pornography hurts anyone who reads it - garbage in, garbage out.”

“Someone must not be afraid to say ‘moral perversion is wrong.’ If we do not act now, homosexuals will ‘own’ America!”

Jerry wanted people to believe that it’s possible to see so much sexual content that it warps your sexuality, because he was gay and wanted to think that was due to thinking about gay sex too much. Jerry did not have a lot of evidence to prove that homosexuality was harmful, so he relied heavily on how “morally distasteful” it seemed to be to suburban Americans.

I spent the majority of my teen years arguing against Jerry’s rhetoric for the right to live as a lesbian online, and I never thought I’d see morality rhetoric in people I’m otherwise very politically aligned with. And I definitely never thought fandom of all things, in all its beautiful subversive glory, would seriously start advocating for censorship, anti-porn, and to consume fanwork with moral purity.

So, I’d like to have a deeper discussion on it, both here on Tumblr and on TikTok, but that does mean checking a few things at the door:

Personal feelings decide your personal life. What you feel is valid for you, not anyone else.

In general, things that do not cause direct and undeniable harm should not be broadly prohibited just because they’re weird or distasteful to the majority of folks. Ex. Loitering does not cause harm and is a tool of systemic oppression.

The discussion of “fictional CSEM” is the most inflammatory fork of this and it is often used to derail these kinds of conversations. This is all I will say on it - the legal status of explicit visual depictions of minors is muddy. In the US, there is just one dude in Utah who pled guilty for possessing explicit lolicon he bought by mail order without also possessing CSEM with real children, and explicit writing about fictional minors has been settled as protected free speech. Dedicated organizations from the NCMEC to Chris Hansen have asked that fictional content is not reported as CSAM as it is not actionable and clogs up finite resources. 90% of NCMEC reports were not actionable last year. There are studies suggesting that virtual CSEM or other non-victim alternatives could reduce actual child harm, but there is need for further research.

We’re all in agreement that untagged NSFW is not cool, and kids deserve kid-only sections of the internet. People who are triggered by or dislike problematic content deserve to be able to not see it. 👍

 (I’ve seen the argument that blocking tags/people should not be required - sorry, PTSD still requires that you manage your triggers, up to and including swearing off platforms just as I have sworn off bars/soap brands/etc to avoid my triggers.)

I have found a lot of accessible and free articles and studies that I will link throughout so that we can discuss the fact-based reasoning, in an effort to have a civil conversation.

(Also because we are not flat earthers, we are Fandom, and if we’re going to be annoying little shitheels in an “Um Actually” contest, we’re going to have the sources to back it up.)

Minors and Explicit Material

I’m not supporting minors engaging with explicit material. I have such little interest in the subject that I’m not even going to bring in articles, but you can feel free to. I personally engaged with explicit material as a preteen of my own free will and did not find it to be harmful, and the majority of people throughout human history have been exposed to explicit material at an early age with varying degrees of harm. There are undeniable legal and harm-driven differences between a 12 year old girl looking at Hustler on her own, a 14 year old boy being sent nudes from a grown woman, and a 6 year old viewing PornHub. (And I think the guardians of that 6 year old should be charged with grooming just like the woman, tbh.)

Personal Disclaimer

I’m an adult survivor of CSA and incest. I’m a happily married adult. I don’t personally like lolicon/shotacon/kodocon. I don’t like kids. I don’t like teens. I’m personally not attracted to underage fictional characters. I have family, the idea of fucking any of them makes me want to throw up and die, so I don’t write or read RPF of my family.

I am really, really fucking intense about preventing sexual violence, supporting survivors, and fandom, which is where this all comes from.

I read and love problematic fiction - my favorites are ASOIAF, Lolita, and VC Andrews. The most “problematic” thing I’ve personally written are Lucifer/Michael fics from Supernatural back in 2012. They are “brothers” in CW Christ, not blood. They do not have any blood.

Gen Z and Online Grooming

In 2002, a survey of 1500 minors from 10-17 found that 4% had been solicited for sexual purposes by an adult online.

In 2023, that number increased to 20%.

While the linked 2023 Thorn report suggests that the vast majority of these inappropriate interactions happened on platforms that allow for interpersonal communication, which by and large minors were greatly discouraged from and had less access to in the early 2000’s, a trauma-informed approach does not allow for blame to fall on the children. The guardians of those children have monumentally failed to restrict and educate before giving children the means to access those platforms.

It is my uncited but personal opinion that the increased rate of grooming, as well as an increased interest in combating rape culture, has led to well-intentioned individuals to become digital vigilantes attacking those who they hold responsible for their traumatic experiences in a search for catharsis and justice denied for themselves as well as a desire to make the internet safer for other children, whom they are increasingly aware are entering online spaces unsupervised at distressingly young ages.

Is harassment and bullying bad for perpetrators of it?

Before we get into how ship-related hate campaigns do not affect predation or combat rape culture, we should acknowledge that it’s actually pretty harmful for the people who cyberbully. Not just in the legal/social consequences, but people who participate in cyberbullying and cyberhate campaigns have higher rates of depression, estrangement from their parents, self-effacing habits, social anxiety, lower empathy, and so forth.

One study suggests that the treatment and prohibitive for cyberbullying, which contributes to a culture of cyberhate and a lower likelihood to report or confront other incidents of harassment or toxicity online, can be combatted with media competency to increase empathy along with other important life skills.

Some Common Pro-Censorship Myths

“Pornography is Addictive/Consumption of Pornography Leads to Increasingly Hardcore Imagery And Ultimately Real-World Violence” - The American Psychological Association does not recognize Porn Addiction as real and the DSM-5 does not classify it as an addiction. Additionally, many methods used in articles claiming that porn is addictive or causes users to seek out more hardcore material were flawed or biased. There is actually some evidence that compulsive porn use, the closest you can get to a porn addiction diagnosis, is associated with shame and the user’s belief that pornography is morally wrong, which sex-negative attitudes encourage.

“Jaws caused shark culling” - That's unfortunately a simplification that ignores a LOT of surrounding context. WW2’s modern naval battles with an increase of ship sinkings and thus contact with sharks prompted the invention and use of shark repellant by aviators and sailors in the 1940’s. The most deadly and famous shark attack of all time was the USS Indianapolis sinking in 1945, which led to 12-150 deaths. The 1974 book Jaws by Peter Benchley, which was the entire basis of the movie, was inspired by One Fucking Dude who started shark hunting tours and overall seemed to have a really immaculate vibe. The interstate highways that finished in the 1950’s increased beach tourism in the 60’s and onwards, inspiring the American surf culture, further increasing the cultural desire to purge sharks for the new swath of beachgoers and their fondness for using surfboards which make them look like seals to sharks. Additionally, 1975’s Jaws inspired a huge desire for education about sharks, and the relationship between problematic media and education will be the core of this yapperoni pizza.

“The Slendermen Killings/Other Fiction Inspired Crimes” - The ACLU states that “There is no evidence that fiction has ever driven a sane person to violence.” Inspired crimes are indeed no less tragic, and thankfully rare, but people who suffer from inability to discern reality and fiction do not necessarily need fiction to commit violence. The “Son of Sam” murder spree was not inspired by a book or movie, but instead Berkowitz’ auditory hallucinations.

“Violent videogames DO cause violence” - After a great deal of funding and study, the American Psychological Association has concluded that teens and younger may have increased feelings of aggression and not necessarily physically violent outbursts as a direct effect, but older teens and young adults do not encounter statistically meaningful rates of aggression.

“Your brain can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality” - Factually incorrect. Children as young as 5 years old can tell the difference, and they can even be more suspicious about “facts” that come from sources they know also host fiction, such as TV shows.

“This stuff shouldn’t be online because it can be used to groom a child” - While I could not find specific statistics on how often pornography is used to desensitize child victims, nor how often that is specifically used in online grooming, and especially not how much of that pornography is made from fictional characters - out of a mixed group of convicted offenders with adult and child victims, 55% of offenders used pornography to manipulate their victim. I would never refute that explicit fanart or fanfic could be used to desensitize a child, but that is by far not the only tool (asking about sexual experiences/identity, making jokes, etc is extremely common grooming behavior), and there is no evidence to suggest that it is used to a statistically significant degree. In my own anecdotal experience, normal vanilla legal pornography is used with far greater prevalence, and there isn’t a similar movement to shame its production for that possibility. Nor should the creators of any material, pornographic or otherwise, share blame in the actions of a predator.

The Fiction Affects Reality Carrd

(No hate to the person who made it, in fact I give props to them for trying to find unbiased sources, I just want to point out that their interpretations of their articles are kinda flawed and one of their studies is a kind of a perfect example on small and culturally biased samples.)

Reading Fiction Impacts Aggressive Behavior - (I cannot access the full study but this article is the primary source used in the Carrd and it goes into detail) - A study showed that 67 university students were more annoyed with a loud buzzer after reading a short story about a physical fight between roommates compared to a story with nonviolent revenge. However, this study was conducted at Brigham Young University, the same campus where we got a whole video series of hot ethical takes like “I’d rather shoot a kitten than drink coffee,” so uh. Yeah. Kind of a prime example on why it’s important to have large and culturally varied sampling. (Another BYU study with 137 BYU students being odd about moral ambiguity in fiction, just because I’m starting to add Dr. Sarah M. Coyne to my list of “Sarah’s That I Dislike.”)

Your Brain on Fiction - a NYT article that describes Theory of the Mind and how fMRIs captured how readers’ minds would light up centers of muscle control when reading sentences like “Peter kicked.” The quote “The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated” is speaking of motor functions. Emotional centers of the brain were not included in the study.

How Fiction Changes Your World - a Boston Globe article that actually describes how people who read more fiction are more empathetic and tend to believe in a just world. It does not state that the empathy a reader feels for fictional characters extends to corrupting their moral compass. In fact, there’s such a thing as a “fictive license” to explore taboo themes more thoroughly because it is not real - 123 participants were interviewed after watching two actors play the part of detective and murderer being interviewed, and participants who were told it was fake had more varied and inquisitive responses.

The Social Impact of Books - Actually reuses the previous study about the just world, so point remains. Empathy is understanding, not mirroring.

Is Problematic Fiction Good for Survivors of Trauma?

It absolutely depends on the individual.

Writing expressively about traumatic experiences has been shown to be effective to reduce depression, or more effective in reducing dysphoria and anxiety than talking to fellow survivors, and Written Exposure Therapy is broadly prescribed to survivors of trauma, with one study centering on car crash survivors finding that WET resolved their PTSD symptoms and continued to be effective after a year.

In this study, which sadly is not available online but it is too important to leave out completely, survivors of CSA were given fictional novels about CSA and in closely reading and analyzing those stories, were able to understand their own experiences and were indeed drawn to write about their own experiences as well.

Engaging in problematic fiction, like all fiction, allows for consent as well as control. If at any point a survivor does not feel in control or wishes to stop, they can at that instant. They can even rewrite their narratives and take control of their story in fictionalizing and changing the account. They can even try to understand what their abuser felt through fiction, which is helpful considering that the vast majority of survivors had a relationship that had been positive and even loving with their abusers at times.

Is Problematic Fiction Good for Everyone Else?

It again depends on the individual.

Antis might be a little right that most people don't want to read problematic stories. In a study exploring whether fiction can corrode morals, 83% of study participants stated that they would prefer not to read a short story justifying baby murder if they had the choice, even if that exploration isn’t inherently harmful.

This very small sample study of 13 participants discussed how young women interpreted sexual themes in writing, including explicit fanfiction, and how that was beneficial and informative to explore sexual desire and examine healthy and unhealthy relationships in a safe and controlled environment.

This meta-analysis further discusses how problematic and sexual themes in YA literature are useful to illustrate what sexual violence looks like, and begin educational conversations through those depictions to break down harmful myths such as “if she didn’t scream, she wanted it.”

Empowered by the “Fictive License” previously cited, problematic fiction can be beneficial for anyone who desires and is capable of consuming and analyzing it.

This study analyzing abusive aspects of three films - Beauty and the Beast, Twilight, and 50 Shades of Gray - concluded that these abusive themes should be discussed to increase recognition and awareness, not censored based on those problematic themes.

This study of 53 women were asked to read different versions of fictional intimate partner violence flags, or “toxic behavior” like surveillance, control, etc. In every version of the story, whether the female or male had those behaviors either courting or committed, the women recognized the behavior as wrong.

Another study that reading allows for the moral laboratory to explore morality in fiction without decisive impact to corroding moral permissibility.

Is There Ever Any Point Where Fictional Interests Definitively Speak On Someone’s Morality?

In short - not really. Loving Jason Vorhees does not put you at risk of murdering campers as long as you know he’s not real. Writing Wincest does not mean you look forward to family reunions, as long as you know incest isn’t okay in the real world. The real world, where real people are harmed, is where you find the measure of someone’s character.

This Psychology Today article is the best source I could find for quotes from a fantastic book ‘Who's Been Sleeping in Your Head? The Secret World of Sexual Fantasies’ by Brett Kahr regarding taboo sexual fantasies and how they are not only common, but not inherently harmful.

There are people who enjoy problematic media in an entirely nonsexual sense, of course. I myself don’t get off on problematic media - I think it’s just interesting to explore different experiences, and I think that can be revolutionary.

Additionally, fantasies in general have almost always been in the vein of “things you don’t want to really happen in reality.” In a study of 351 asexuals, more than half reported that they fantasize about having sex, but that doesn’t mean that they actually want to. You can fantasize about dating Billie Eilish - it doesn’t mean that you’d be happy dealing with celebrity culture.

(I personally fantasize about the internet being just for adults, but in practice I think that would be incredibly harmful and isolating for at-risk youth and LGBTQ teens) Fantasies always pluck out only the bits of reality that you want to engage with.

If You Get Off On Fictional Kids, You’re Attracted to Something About Them Being Kids

Not inherently, surprisingly. Wearing a schoolgirl uniform is a pretty common roleplay, and it’s not meant to “fool” the participants into thinking they’re indulging in pedophilia. There’s a wealth of emotional and sexual nuance in that specific kink - innocence and virginity play, tilted power dynamics in ‘scolding’ the uniform wearer for dress code violations, even the concept of a sexually provocative “teenager” can be played with without shame, because the world of fetish and fantasy is separated from condonable actions for the vast, vast majority of adults. (The only study I could find on this is this small study of 100 white guys found on Facebook, which itself states it is not definitive, found that while there might be correlation between attraction to children and interest in schoolgirl uniforms, there is no proof of causation. AKA, the rectangular pedophile might indeed like square schoolgirl uniforms, but not everyone - in fact, the majority at nearly 60% in this very survey - that likes square schoolgirl uniforms is a rectangular pedophile.)

Even sexual age play between adults is not indicative of pedophilia because it exists in a setting between two adults who fully understand that the mechanics are completely fake, allowing the power dynamics that would be abusive between an adult and child to be ethically explored.

I don’t have an official-looking study to cite, but I have asked people who like content about underage fictional characters why they do so. Overwhelmingly, a lot of the ones who like underage age gaps like the fantasy of an older and more experienced character taking a younger one under their wing, to have the opportunity to commit violent and blatantly objectifying harm and yet try to create what inevitably does not truly pass as consent, but seems near enough to the characters. Some think that the characters themselves have an interesting chemistry. Some read underage fic and still imagine the characters as adults. Some like to explore the feelings of shame that the older character must feel and how they mentally compartmentalize to go forward with the relationship, and how the younger character found themself in that vulnerable position - which is exploring a harmful situation through fiction to understand how it could play out in real life.

People who like fictional incest like exploring the shameful components of that taboo relationship - and I have seen a lot of works that compare how bad incest could be to other harms, like the Gravecest route in a game with parental cannibalism. And then there are folks who like analyzing the codependency of having one person fulfill every social need - family, friend, lover, AKA Wincest.

What makes a predator if it’s not just sexual attraction?

90% of CSA survivors know their abuser, discrediting the still-entirely-too-popular Stranger Danger myth. And shockingly, only 50% of abusers are pedophiles.

That means 50% of child molesters do not have sexual interest in children because they are children, but they victimized children because they are more accessible in lieu of adult partners, with increased rates of incest.

While I could not find a specific study on the relation between dehumanization/objectification of child victims and child molesters (and if you find one, please send it to me!), this study speaks on dehumanization as a precursor to adult sexual violence.

This study, conducted on convicted child molesters in prison, showed that child molesters tend to fantasize about children while in a negative mood, further contributing to the theory that child victims are dehumanized prior to abuse.

This very small sample study found that in a mixed sample of internet only/contact crime/mixed offenders, offenders who had contact with children had lower rates of fantasizing about children.

In short, half the time a child predator is someone who wants to offend against a child regardless of attraction to the fact they are a child.

Resources To Recognize Grooming/Abuse Victims/Predators

I would absolutely be remiss to not share my collection of resources to help detect signs of abuse/grooming as well as warning signs of a predator who may be targeting elders/women/teens/children:

Darkness 2 Light is a fantastic resource overall, this page details stages and signs of grooming.

RAINN personally helped me through my PTSD journey, and this article detailing the signs of sexual trauma in teenagers is thorough and non-judgemental

Signs of abuse as well as warning signs of predation that does not use gendered language nor play into the Stranger Danger myth.

Education, not Censorship

I think a lot of the energy against taboo content among young people still has a lot to do with the desire to end rape culture. The tools that we Millennial Tumblrinas gave you Gen Z kids were snatches of leftist theory, deplatforming, and voting with your dollar, so it’s reasonable to think that removing taboo content like pedophilia, incest, rape fights rape culture.

It doesn’t.

Rape culture is fought by education. Comprehensive sex education, education about consent. Talking about what consent looks like, what sex can look like, what rape can look like.

There should be more taboo content to talk about these things, to show all the shades it can look like. From a violent noncon to fics that aren’t even tagged as dubcon yet still are in shades that are hard to suss out, we should talk about it.

A Non-Empirical Example Of Good Media Analysis and Education to Combat Rape Culture

Let’s use the example of Daemon and Rhaenyra Targaryen’s relationship in House of the Dragon. Canonically, in both the book and the show, they have a romantic relationship that appears for the most part to be positive (the show being more contentious but I dedicated an aside to Sarah Hess and our beef at the bottom of my Carrd, but feel free to ask how I feel about writing producers with any variation of the name ‘Sarah’) despite an age gap, a sexual relationship that began while Rhaenyra was a minor, and incest - the problematic hat trick if you will.

I have seen anti-Daemyra shippers condemn Daemyra shippers for “Condoning grooming, age gaps, pedophilia, and incest.” Which is not just a broad, inaccurate, and harmful statement, it’s not at all constructive or educational analysis.

It would actually be beneficial to say “Daemon is grooming Rhaenyra as a teenager with gifts, devoted attention that takes advantage of her isolation and vulnerability, frequent nonsexual touches, the extreme desensitization to sexuality in the brothel visit,” etc etc. And even so, it is not useful to say that people cannot still ship the relationship and acknowledge those aspects. They might want to further explore the issues of consent in their dynamic in fiction, they may want to strip away some of them with narrative reimagining. Some might want to ignore the taboos completely and indulge in the fantasy entirely, and some might find the actors hot as hell - AKA, anyone who watches the show.

It’s honestly a little similar to me in how Jerry Falwell would tell his followers not to watch or read or take in any media that dealt with homosexuality unless it was condemning it - even Will & Grace was on Jerry’s shitlist. And so, Jerry’s followers missed out on a lot of media that could have educated them about queerness, could have humanized queer people for them - and that did not make queers go away. Just like ignoring or shutting out media about incest, rape, and other forms of sexual violence doesn’t make those things go away - it just tends to make you less informed, and little less capable of empathy towards people affected by those subjects.

So let’s stop shaming those that ship a complicated dynamic - you get less fanworks exploring those taboos, and less of a discussion overall. You shut down the morality lab of fiction, and to be honest, it’s wet sock behavior.

Some FanFiction Specific Studies

How dubcon fanfiction can flesh out the intricacies and messiness of realistic consent

A review of darkfic written about Harry Potter in 2005 (which, I will personally attest has never been outdone in how profoundly taboo those works were)

Interviews with 11 Self Insert writers who wrote on themes of rape, abuse, control, yandere, etc, and how that was beneficial to some who had experienced sexual violence themselves

Conclusion:

H…holy shit, you actually read all of that?? Congrats dude! That is a lot of time and brain power to dedicate to any one thing!

By the way, I am not really gifted at writing articles or any of that junk, and I tried to make my hyperlexic ass a little more accessible instead of bringing out all the $5 words. I am literally just an autistic who took a couple technical writing classes over a decade ago and really wanted to sort out my thoughts and try to have a platform for discussion. Also, I am really fucking bad at math. I failed two different college level statistics classes twice each. Gun to my head, I could not tell you what a standard deviation is, which is why I worked entirely with the percentages.

And I do want to have a discussion! I would in fact like to not report anyone for sending me gore or death threats or any of that stuff! I don’t think everyone will agree with me, in fact I’m certain that you could find studies that contradict some of mine, and I’d love to discuss them!

I’m sure it will still be tempting to throw around accusations of pedophilia because sometimes, confronting your previously held beliefs is incredibly uncomfortable. If you could not do that, that would be great? I don’t like being compared to someone who profoundly abused me just because I have a different opinion on how to combat rape culture and empower survivors. If you can do that, I’ll do my absolute best to be cheerful and welcoming and respectful as well. 😁

PS - I’m also not really going to be phased if you call me weird or cringe - I am. Always have been. Cringe, weirdness, and autism have made me do and capable of doing some fantastically neat and impressive stuff. But if you try to say something like “proshippers are too yucky and weird to be in fandom” - I’m going to have to refer you to your similarity to Kate Sanders of Lizzy McGuire fame, you “prEpz >:(“ - [My Immortal, legendary author unknown]

[taffywabbit]

"why not just make your own website?"

with the announcement of cohost's death and amidst all the other tumultuous shit currently going on with social media as a concept (i am AMAZED twitter has survived this long given the circumstances), one suggestion that i've been hearing a lot is "we should just go back to the good old days of personal websites. let's all just make neocities pages!!"

(this is gonna be a long one sorry)

and like. idk! it's certainly something i've considered, i think it would be a fun thing to have, but it also feels like the equivalent of "capitalism sucks so let's all just run off into the woods and live in a cabin outside of society" to me. like it would be nice, it would be fun, but it doesn't ultimately solve the actual problems that are present with the modern internet, it just evades them. more importantly in my case and many others, it does not really help people who rely on the modern internet and the connections they're able to make there for their income. sure i can make a website and host my art and blog posts there, but who's going to see it? i can't build a consistent audience and make a living off of random passersby who peek at my website once, say "huh, neat!" and MAYBE add it to an RSS feed or whatever if they really like it. there's minimal potential for meeting and impressing new people outside my existing circles if i don't ALSO still have some manner of social media platform to promote the website on.

a lot of the "solutions" i see people proposing for the slow, painful decline of social media as a user experience keep coming back to old-fashioned, more isolated/insular systems. we miss forums, we miss personal webpages, we miss newsletters, etc etc. but like... those things were ideal in the "old web" because the old web was more about sharing hobbies and interests with whoever happened to pass by and check them out, and even just USING the internet was a niche hobby in and of itself for a lot of people. if you wanna be kinda cynical about it (and not unjustifiably so), web 2.0 is much more blatantly business-oriented, and its algorithms and carefully crafted UX's are primarily meant to funnel you towards viewing ads and spending money on products. looking at it that way, it sure does suck and Everything Was Better Before! but the modern web is ALSO more powerful than anything before it for just like. connecting people. spreading information and news. showing your art/music/writing/thoughts/etc to strangers who never knew you existed an hour ago. putting the tools to reach out to someone and tell them you think they're cool right there on the same website where their art is hosted, just a comment or a message away.

if you're able to avoid patterns of engagement-bait and obsessing over follower counts as a measure of self-worth (a big "if", i realize, but i view it like installing an adblocker - it's just kind of a basic prerequisite for modern internet safety and survival), a lot of these systems can genuinely be really positive and life-changing in ways that were simply not possible 20 years ago! almost all of my current closest friends are people I met through sharing our art on platforms like Twitter who were complete strangers at the time. all of the art clients that regularly pay my bills and support my work came from places like that too! the "social" part of "social media" is really what makes it ultimately worth keeping around in any form, and makes the pursuit of a Good social media platform still valuable.

there's a lot to love about the old web - its aesthetics, simplicity and freedom for personal expression - but every time someone says "just delete your socials and make a personal website" i am forced to confront the fact that i could never do what i currently do or be the person i am on the old web. if i was stuck hanging out in my own little space and only ever interacting with people who openly and loudly share my interests, i couldn't support myself with art full-time, i probably would never have met the kind and quiet strangers who are now my best friends and have made me who i am, and i'd just generally get a lot less insight into the vast range of experiences and perspectives that exist outside of my own. my life would be on a fundamentally different trajectory in countless ways without the advent of web 2.0.

and that's not to say "well twitter and facebook and tumblr all suck but you kinda still have to hand it to them" cuz you don't, obviously. they're corporations, and their job is to take the personalities and thoughts and art of the people who use their products and try to scrunch it all into something uninform and marketable that generates profit and pleases their shareholders. but like, you CAN still make a good thing out of them! these websites are tools just as much as geocities or myspace or IRC used to be. and the one thing these newer tools are pretty much all REALLY good at is discoverability. if you're just a hobbyist at the things you wanna share on the internet, then you likely don't have a lot of use for those tools, and perhaps you WOULD genuinely be happier just keeping a personal blog site or hanging out in private groupchats or sticking to specialized federated Mastodon instances or whatever. it just isn't feasible for me, and there are a LOT of people in my same situation. my entire industry of online freelance artists barely existed 20 years ago, and the web culture of that era is largely incompatible with my continued survival in the mid-2020s. i would LOVE to run off and live in the woods in concept, but all my survival skills are adapted for city living and i would just eat the wrong berry and die out there. i want- i NEED people to try and improve the spaces we're in, and support better forms of social media (like what cohost was trying and largely succeeding to do!) instead of just complaining that it all sucks, everything was better when we were kids, and digging ourselves little holes to hide in. much like all the other problems and frustrations and systemic issues of the world we live in, the modern web isn't going to go away if you just ignore it, so we may as well try to make it better for everyone.

anyways tl;dr i probably WILL make a neocities at some point. it could be fun, even if it doesn't help my career stability or whatever. but i do also need ALL THE SOCIAL PLATFORMS I USE FOR MY JOB TO STOP EXPLODING PRETTY PLEASE, and failing that, some actual half-decent alternatives that aren't going to fizzle out in a month would also be great thanks ✌

[felassan]

Snippets. 🐺💜

User: "Trick on a scale from 0 to ironically, spiders.... how bad are the spiders in this game????" Trick: "Spiders you should be more okay on than in DAI. Like we don't literally have a big main-game mission dedicated to "What if a magical big bad was a giant honkin' spider and all its minions were ALSO spiders?"" [source]

User: "Are player specs like shapeshifter, bard, blood mage unlikely to return to the series? I know they're not in DAV, but I also know they're prob too resource intensive anyway? Zither the mage bard in DAI was cool!" Trick: "Never say never. Blood magic is unlikely because we've shifted it from a power boost to really being the key to a lot of nasty stuff we aren't interested in having heroes do. The other stuff just needs the right game." [source]

[following on from the above] User: "This is interesting because that means that a Blood Mage Warden and/or Hawke are really really subdued blood mages. And that Solas was both right and wrong on it being "not inherently evil" and "just a tool."" Trick: "I think it can be ethically neutral if you only use your own blood, but after seeing it used as a required part of mind control and demon binding in DA2 and DAI, it's just not a road we want the hero to walk right now." [source]

[following on from the above] User: "Yeah, I wouldn't want a "hero," even a nominal one, that would do stuff like that." Trick: "Which is a shame, because "use your health to cast more spells" is a fun gameplay twist for folks who like that kind of risk/reward playstyle. We might find other ways to get that. Just not blood magic for the hero for now." [source]

Trick: "Exaggerated favoritism aside, I think we have a great range in our list of companions, and some of the best character arcs I've seen. We pushed our characters in a lot of different directions. Nobody will be everyone's favorite, but everyone will be someone's favorite." [source]

Trick on Taash: "I have not been surreptitiously liking posts and saving fan pieces since Taash was an unnamed bit of concept art in 2020 just to listen to this slander now." [source] "I literally have a Gdrive folder full of things people drew back then, just to tide me over until we started announcing names and stuff. 😂" [source]

[nevesmose]

Nostraman Nature Sucks: An Attempted Lore Post

Ave dominus nox Night Lords fans. I thought I'd take some time to go through the various NL stories I have to hand and see what I could find out about the animals that lived on Nostramo. Might come in useful for something, who knows?

Sharks and Whales

As a child, on several coastal journeys with his father, he had witnessed the eyeless barrasal sharks that would group together to hunt the great whales of the open ocean. (Night Lords Trilogy)

His voice filters into something savage and predatory, as hungry as the eyeless white sharks of Nostramo’s blackest depths. (The Long Night)

Not a big surprise since they talk about them fairly often and have the Space Sharks as a successor chapter but Nostramo does have sharks. Pretty gnarly-sounding sharks if I'm honest.

I didn't know what "barrasal" meant, so I looked it up and only found one thread on r/40klore that had the same quote in it as above. Hmm.

Assuming it's not a typo or a more straightforward reference to something I'm just not getting, I'd venture a guess that barrasal, understood here to mean of or relating to "barras" like with "abyssal" could be connected to the French Revolutionary leader Paul Barras who is mostly remembered for supporting Napoleon's rise to power before being overthrown by him.

So maybe the older barrasal sharks will make use of younger ones as temporary hunting partners only to be inevitably betrayed and consumed by them. Sounds about right I think.

As for the whales, where do I even begin? I would imagine they're "whales" in name only like in Dishonored:

This does imply the possible existence of a whaling industry at some stage in Nostramo's history, though.

Crows

Jago reached into his pockets, offering a handful of breadcrumbs. Come, he said to the crows. Food for tonight. Flesh, flesh, flesh, they called back. He laughed as several of the black birds landed on his shoulders and outstretched arm. (Prince Of Crows)

‘Yes. I’ve seen them in books. Is a crow a type of bird?’ ‘Black of feather and dark of eye. It feeds on the bodies of the dead, and sings in a raw, croaking caw.’ (TLN)

Breaking news - legion that keeps referring to crows in shocking has crows on its homeworld scandal. "This is outrageous," said local Nostraman cutpurse and skin disease enthusiast Verxaglryn Quickstabber, "here we are trying to make a good name for Nostramo as a respectable hellhole, a place you'd be proud to exile your worst enemy to, and yet we're surrounded by some of the most intelligent and curious birds in existence. I was shanking someone in a back alley the other night and suddenly I saw a crow learning how to use rudimentary tools! Not on my watch, I said to the rapidly cooling body, and I threw my shiv at it. But it just flew away." At this point Mr Quickstabber was obliged to end the interview due to having been eviscerated by the Night Haunter.

I know their communication with Sevatar is happening in a dream but I really like the idea of the crows adapting to Nostramo by developing some kind of psychic hive mind that's also able to be understood by human psykers.

Crag Cougars

A beast of my home world. When next you see one of the Atramentar, look to their shoulder guards. The roaring lions on their pauldrons are what we called crag cougars on Nostramo. It was considered a mark of wealth for gang bosses to be able to leave the cities and hunt such creatures. (NLT)

Every single one of them is Scar from the Lion King, isn't it? An interesting hint about Nostramo's geography though, of which more later.

Rats

Groundcars whisked by, headlights brighter than deep-hive rats’ eyes, the occupants snug and safe behind armoured glass. (Konrad Curze: The Night Haunter)

No surprises here either. Where there's people there's rats after all.

Something with tusks?

The older Astartes grinned, wolf-like and keen, as the Atramentar either side of the Exalted’s throne growled through their tusked helms. (NLT)

This isn't that conclusive because a lot of Chaos Terminators have tusks no matter what legion they are, but Nostramo being Nostramo they probably belonged to a species of giant carnivorous mammoth that ate babies and sprayed acid from its trunk.

Cows? On My Sunless World?

‘They are still of standard human stock, and not to be mourned. What does it matter if the cattle fear the herdsman?’ hissed Krukesh the Pale. (KC:TNH)

This one's a real reach on my part as it's very likely just a turn of phrase, but I noticed it because wouldn't it be slightly more typical to use a sheep metaphor here? Plus it supports the existence of Nostraman cowboys/ranchers/vaqueros which is fun.

No bats?

His helmet bore a new, spread batwing crest in blatant imitation of Sevatar’s own. (A Safe and Shadowed Place)

A sole space was neat: a circle around an iron lectern fashioned in the form of a bat’s outflung wings, which carried a heavy book bound in human skin. (KC:TNH)

Although they appear a lot in the VIII legion's iconography and artwork, oddly enough I wasn't actually able to find a direct reference to Nostramo itself having bats. Let's cover my ass by saying this aspect might therefore have been brought in by the legion's Terran component instead.

Some Nostraman geography

The Hill Folk lived away from the cities, eking out an existence in the mountains. (NLT)

What's worse than living in a Nostraman city? Living on a Nostraman hill, apparently. This seems to just be an idea of ADB's that doesn't come up again but I've always found it quite interesting. Were the Hill Folk as scummy as the City Folk, just with more of a down-home Dukes of Hazzard vibe? Seems likely.

This also supports the idea of Nostramo not being completely urbanised like some Hive Worlds are. In my view its continents might have had a geographical layout a bit like Italy or Scotland where the cities are mainly on the flatter coasts with a more sparsely populated hilly/mountainous interior.

What else? (This part is just me making stuff up so feel free to ignore it. I'm not ADB, I'm not even ADB's hat.)

If the rest of Nostramo's marine life is anything like the sharks and whales then it's fucking terrifying. I would imagine, because it's funny, that a lot of Nostraman food features disgusting industrially-processed fish in some way or another. Like the food in Dishonored but even worse.

Is something wrong, dearest offworld husband? You haven't touched your stale bread, whalemeat and jellied eels.

Since all life on Nostramo seems to be comically carnivorous and aggressive, it would make sense in a 40K kind of way for there to be giant predatory penguins living at one or both of its poles. A bit like the monstrous blind albino penguins HP Lovecraft wrote about.

Last known infrared pict-capture of an early Nostraman settler attempting communication with a juvenile specimen of the native penguin species. There were no survivors.

[bonefall]

How do you feel about "character joins bloodclan" aus? Im curious about ur thoughts since youre really in tune with the themes of the series but personally i just hate them bc its ALWAYS aimed at 'unfortunate' characters and always ALWAYS ignores the fact that bloodclan is a horrible place in-canon and that they're just reflavoring the abuse and trauma the characters qent through to be more emo or goth themed.

Ravenpaw is ALWAYS a prime target for this and its like. Great. You took the character being abused by their mentor figure and is being harmed from the violent culture the clan has generated... and giving them an EMO mentor figure who will inevitably abuse them and harm them as a result of the violent culture the emo clan has generated. Sasha is another one I've noticed- you've put the woman who lost her kit and is struggling to survive with the others while being controlled and abused by someone who sees her as an outsider (aka alone and easy to isolate), and are gonna put her in a faction who specifically separates kin from one another to easily control them and who have canonically tried murdering those who stick with their family. What was gained here.

Like i know bloodclan is revamped in ur au (thank god for it) but in canon bloodclan is HORRIBLE. People ignore that in favor of putting their favs into bloodclan bc bloodclan is cool and killed tigerstar that one time bc of revenge. Ravenpaw becomes Scourge AUS are SO SO SO much worse bc of this too- sure you manage to point out how scourge and raven has roughly similar stories in their youth but you could also do something interesting and make an au where raven and scourge are FOILS and do a firestar/scourge thing, while pointing this comparison out!! Instead you just went "Ravenpaw emo now and is sad about beating up Firestar his friend" and basically kept everything the same.

Sorry im basically venting here but i just dont like how people forget that scourge in canon does NOT look out for the 'little guy', he's a murderer and abuser who wants to keep his subjects afraid and separated so that he alone has power over them. Bloodclan is not the cool strong goth group, its the group where two cats slaughter eachother over a piece of twoleg scraps, only for the survivor to die bc the food was poisonous to cats and no one knew bc theres no cohesive group that can pass that knowledge around. its a fucking horrible place to live. Im not saying that you cant do interesting "character in bloodclan" aus (a Rusty who lives in bloodclan who STILL wants to do good but is shaped by the horrid reality of bloodclan would be fun imo) but its so often used with already traumatized characters as a 'solution' or 'fix-it with some emotional issues involved' that i just foam at the mouth and howl like a rabid animal on principle at this point.

Hmm... I think for me, it doesn't tend to read that way for me when the fandom makes AUs for it. I'm coming at BloodClan from a point of really deep critique and frustration.

BloodClan's not a REAL place, and what that means is, every speck of how horrible it was is a choice the writers made to justify its treatment. It was something they actively decided, because, BloodClan was a tool to suddenly invalidate the previous 5 books of TPB so that the series could comfortably conclude there was no need to upset the status quo.

If you haven't read it before, I recommend this post I made on how Darkest Hour Is A Personal Disappointment, but anyway;

We spend a whole series on how Fireheart challenges a broken society, because he is different. Their xenophobia, how isolationism and glory get people killed, the way that Tigerstar's greatest asset is how respected he is... these are bad things. They're things that Fireheart fights for several books.

But then, in the LAST book, in the 11th inning, they introduce BloodClan. They're just evil. They have no nuance. The narrative bends over backwards to stress that this group of evil foreigners LOVES murder, hates friendship, and doesn't believe in our good god.

Suddenly, the Clan cats have to be EXTRA xenophobic and glorious to kill these filthy, murderous foreign hordes. Clan cat belief in their good god makes them stronger than the bloodthirsty barbarians. Firestar kills Scourge and we can feel happy and triumphant about it, when Tigerstar was killed a few chapters ago and given a tragic sendoff.

So, I encourage you to step back from an emotional response to how Filthy and Murderous this group was portrayed, and look at it as a writing choice.

When Tigerstar, known cat-racist and murderer of mixed-race people, is killed by Scourge in self-defense, he is grieved by Firestar and commended for his "good qualities". (and then they retconned in that it was actually secretly revenge all along, not just self defense, so this killing is extra evil)

When Scourge is killed, Firestar just thinks about how it's cool he's not going to heaven, and how all of the previously ferocious BloodClan warriors look so inferior to the forest Clans.

And so, with all that said,

I'm 100% in favor of how the fandom widely looks at this, says, "fuck that" and just makes them the Cool Goth Group. I'd argue pretty strongly that the least nuanced idea of that is still infinitely better than canon.

There was nothing there. It was literally just Xenophobia-Is-JustifiedClan. They literally hated love and friendship and banned families so that Clan cats would look good in comparison. Banned families. You don't get this level of stupid evil from anything else but an 80s cartoon.

Maybe I just don't see the AUs you tend to see (I curate my Tumblr experience very well and generally hang out in more adult-oriented spaces, I can imagine a place like Amino being mostly kids who tend to be immature. Edgelord Angstpiddle is just a normal part of growing up), but every project I see that gives me a glimpse of BloodClan Ravenpaws and Sashas come with such tweaks already assumed.

Like, these are examples I've seen,

They'll have Raven be involved with the formation of BloodClan

Scourge will actually be a character with some pity and mercy, like how he was in Rise of Scourge when his abusive siblings begged him for food, and he fed them before sending them away.

no ban on love and friendship. Lol. Lmao, even.

More of the social structure will be based around acquiring food for people in a 'harsh' environment, leading to that battle, instead of just Evil Foreign Greed (which canon!scourge only had after being almost killed by tigerstar, because he said "actually, in light of new information that you are a murderer, i need to reconsider our deal.")

BloodClan will be overhauled completely. I've seen this a few ways. Connecting them to SkyClan, or the Oakstar raids on Chelford, or even as a positive entity; a surprise ally. (VERY common with BloodClan Ravenpaw AUs I've seen).

Anyways... (Shrug), I dunno dude, it doesn't bother me that much.

[tyttetardis]

Macbeth Q&A 18th Jan 2024 Part 2

Continuing where the previous post left off...

The next question basically boiled down to "How will you go on in your career from having lived this experience" - David says something funny, but I can't decipher what/ or remember it. Cush then replied "I'm quitting. I'm not doing anything else!". She then goes on to talk about how part of the fun of doing what they do, is that they develop their skillsets and toolkits - and that they are lucky to be living in a time where technology is kinda smashing into theatre. She talks about how theatre is one of the oldest forms of storytelling - and telling a story is as old as gets. So with every job they do, ideally, they want to develop or take on something new that you can then infuse into other things work on afterwards otherwise you're essentially just banging your head against a wall, doing the same thing over and over again.

Cush then said that theatre will live or die will based people coming or not coming - "You know, as much as I love everbody in here, one day we will all be dead" - so the survival of the amazing and beautiful thing that theatre is depends on younger people wanting to come as well and therefore it's important not to be afraid of fusing worlds together - experimenting and trying new things.

She goes on to say that there's been people to see the play who has never seen Shakespeare, never seen Macbeth before - and who has then told them things like "It's really cool how you changed to words to modern [language] and that's just because they understood it" and it's important to have in mind than when standing there you're not just explaining the show to one person, but to everybody.

David then continued by saying that they are not suggesting that this is now the only way they will do their projects! Every project they come into has its own way of being, its own development process and its own concept. This is just one way of telling this story - that allows you inside of some characters, who might suffer from PTSD for various reasons, which was the starting point that led to "How can we tell that story? How can we be inside someone's head in a particularly nightmarish way?"

A not production of Macbeth might approach that differently - but one version of the play isn't more valid than the other, one doesn't wipe the other out - they just have tools at their disposal and sometimes they make use of them.

The last question was in regard to the whole production (and cast) being Scottish with the exception of Lady Macbeth - and what the thinking behind that might have been.

David answers that that too was one of Max's original ideas (even though he isn't Scottish). But right from the start he wanted a Scottish cast, Scottish conditions, Gaelic singing. The idea being that Lady Macbeth not being from Scotland is part of the story in itself - she's another, she brings a different energy which allows the Macbeths to have a slightly different perspective on the world they are in.

Annie Grace then mentioned that she wondered if that idea was influenced by a production of Winter's Tale that she and Alasdair both worked on together with Max. The play was done in Edinburgh with a full Scottish cast as well and used traditional Scottish music. Craig then told her that that was indeed the influence behind the idea!

And then he ended the Q&A :(

[gohannygo]

Emerie lore speculation post?!! :O

Okay guys this is my little gift to myself for finishing my school work on time. Also like low key regardless if you agree or not, drop your Emerie predictions/thoughts in the comments— because for whatever reason my brain has attached itself to her, but she has like 5 mins of screen time and vary little discourse surrounding her :D

Okay guys I’m get real with you, I don’t think Emerie was created as an enhanced clone, or with some kind of special ability. I think she was made to be as plain and reg-like as possible.

Based on Nala Se’s reaction to Omega’s blood being sampled and tested, we can assume she knew and maybe even was responsible for Omegas ability to support an M-count. What I think happened was, Nala se was like “Oh oops it appears I have gotten emotionally attached to this child so I’m keeping her as my own, but I dont wanting any snoopers out there to trying to figure out whats so special about her,” so she created Emerie as a decoy of sorts. Essentially a female version of a reg to send out to the world to prove that theres no reason for anyone to inquire about Omega because look how regular female clones are. Like in a super heartbreaking way, my theory is that Emerie was essentially made to have no identity. To be an obedient little placeholder to take attention away from Omega’s existence.

Wow thats cool but why does it matter?

OKAY so throughout the premiere we saw that maybe there was some trouble in Tantiss paradise for Emerie. Shes been content(?) with complying and doing what is asked of her up until this point, but we saw her be willing to break rules for Omega’s sake, and we also saw how shaken she looked when Hemlock was like “Return to the lab, Dr. Karr”. She also looked like she was really pondering things at the end of episode three when she discovered Omega’s ability to support an M count transfer.

I think maybe during the rest of the season we’ll see her start to grapple with what she really wants to do here, as (I believe, in her own little way), she now has a sister she cares about and wants to protect. I think Omega, through her doll making and Batcher taming, has shown Emerie a little bit of light. That clones can have their own wants, and makes choices based off of them. But really, I don’t think a person who has presumably grown up being conditioned to follow rules and see herself as property would be able to quickly break out of that rigid structure shes used to and make a personal choice to try and keep Omega safe in a significant way.

What? Okay please just bear with me. Wording things is not my forte.

I think Nala Se will see an opportunity to further get in the head of an already torn Emerie. I think she might reveal her original purpose of essentially being made to protect omega. And emerie, who already sort of sees herself as a tool to being used for some greater purpose, will then feel almost like shes been given “permission” to disobey. Sort of like “Oh damn, not only is this something I want to do, but more importantly it was the purpose I was designed for yassssss”. I think she will continue acting as normal but will basically be a shooter on the inside for Omega and it will build up to her sabotaging further experimentation done on Omega if shes captured.

Idk if this makes sense or is dumb. But I just think it could be a cool avenue. Because we’ve seen clones grapple with what theyve done under imperial command and have seen some of them change their ways which is awesome. And, I think it could also be cool to see a character whos been so shaped by her upbrining, and doesnt have that soldier-ly sheer force of will to just defect. I think it could be cool to see someone go about a change of allegiance in a more roundabout way where they basically have to reason themselves through it because they arent equipped to do it any other way. But yeah its 2 AM now so goodnight.

Bonus: Here is an educational diagram I made of Emerie being “sent elsewhere” circa twentysomething BBY

[coldresolve]

are you a torture apologist, or are you just dumb

... said with all the due diligence this subject warrants, etc etc. i’ve written posts about this before, it’s fallen on deaf ears, people either aggressively ignore it, or they go out of their way to take me in bad faith, and when the latter doesn’t work, they fall back on ye olde reliable: tone policing. but we’ve had that conversation too, haven’t we? it’s my culturally determined value of blunt honesty versus your culturally determined value of politeness. i express my opinions in a way that’s admittedly harsh and hyperbolic, and in so doing, my intention is to treat you like someone who is mature enough to distinguish my point from its delivery, and emotionally well-adjusted enough to deal with whatever the fuck some rando on the internet has to say about what you wrote. i also do it because its more fun this way. are we still cool? ffs lol

the thing is, right, it’s fucking easy not to write torture apologia. very straight-forward and simple, in my humble little opinion. you learn what the usual arguments are, and then you try to avoid accidentally making them – a bit like how, when you learn that white supremacy is a thing, you typically then go on to try and not write some wildly racist shit. same principle.

and i genuinely don’t understand why people are so opposed to this, specifically. they don’t know they’re doing it, which is fine, but then when you try to let them know they’re doing it, on the off-chance they even acknowledge that you said anything, they’ll hit you with an “its just for entertainment,” or “it’s not that deep.” so you tell them they sure seem to spend an awful lot of time weaving torture apologia into their vapid, shallow entertainment. and they don’t like that, jesus. but what else are you supposed to say?

i figure i just havent bullied people hard enough about it, honestly. and by bullied i mean pointing out the mindless use of torture apologia as plot points in the slop everybody writes. i would happily tell all of this directly to the writers of 24’s jack bauer, but those guys aren’t here, so.

you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the majority of the myths surrounding torture are rooted in facistic, reactionary thinking. might makes right is big among people who endorse corporal punishment; the ends justify the means is in play when governments try to excuse the use of t-, ahem, enhanced interrogation tactics. allegedly.

and among a much, much longer laundry list of bullshit i’ve seen spewed – oh, not by shady governments, but by you:

torture as an interrogation method yields reliable information

some forms of torture are more sophisticated than others

torture makes people obedient

torture used as a punishment deters unwanted behavior in others

brainwashing is a thing that is possible (usually through torture)

it’s not torture unless it leaves a physical mark on the body

see to me, it’s fucking easy to rework that scene in your story where torture results in the perpetrator gaining trustworthy intel. fucking easy to reconsider that arc where a character gets rewired by torture into passive obedience. fucking easy, when writing a story, to not accidentally send the message that torture is a tool that works. but hey, allow me to really dig my teeth in.

you drumming up your torturer as “skilled” in the “art” of torture feeds real nicely into the myth that torture works as an interrogation method, here under the condition that you should at least do it properly. is that what you believe? or do just believe that there’s an extra special way to cause extreme physical or emotional destress in a person which, for vague unspecified reasons, superceeds all the other, more amateurish ways one could go about it? the former would make you an direct torture apologist – the latter, a fucking twat. ask yourself why “some torture methods are more sophisticated than others” is an idea that needs to be perpetuated. who benefits from that idea? who would feel really validated by that idea? which government on this green earth of ours, hypothetically speaking, could use this idea as a way to paint their own acts of torture as more cultured or civilized than, say, hypothetically speaking, the torture used by those other nations where the brown people live? allegedly.

alternatively, your little good boy slave fantasy seems to imply that being subjected to torture will make a person obedient. is that what you believe? is it true that might makes right? say, wouldn’t state-sanctioned corporal punishment be justified as a tool to make people obey the law, then? no? okay, hear me out then, cause this is really out there, but. could the idea that violence is a tool that makes people more compliant with the demands of their aggressors, possibly maybe perhaps, be something you only find it acceptable to greenlight as the result decades of war propaganda? naaaaah. fiction isn’t reality, and it means nothing, and victims of torture are weak and malleable and broken, and also what they say can’t be trusted cause they have no real fucking agency anyway. fuck me.

“but elias,” i hear you say, “how am i supposed to write an interesting story that features torture in a way that’s in accordance with scientific consensus on its effectiveness and/or consequences? realism and compelling storytelling are diametrically opposed to one another!”

here’s my take: you just straight up lack creativity. cope and seethe.

if you’re interested in writing about torture, read up on what it is, instead of assuming everything you’ve been told by military-sponsored action movies is true and valid. we’re talking about some pretty extreme facets of human behavior and psychology here, but ones that none the less exist in reality. the bare minimun is to not buy in to the myths and propaganda surrounding it. the next step is to write what it can look like in reality. the big boy galaxy brain move is to write torture in a way that challenges the status quo on how we culturally view torture, and how all these false myths affect victims and perpetrators alike. you just have to fucking think about it.

torture for information doesn’t work – but your perpetrator might be convinced that it does. so instead of going the easy route and proving them right – explore how they're wrong. show torture failing. show your perpetrator’s desperation as they gain nothing. they conceptualize their actions as the lesser of two evils, but whoops, there is no second evil. hows that for a change?

is there such a thing as “torture lite?” does it make any real difference whether it leaves a physical mark behind or not? where do we draw the line between interrogation and torture? is that question not interesting enough for you?

is complying with demands under threat of torture the same as genuine obedience? maybe your victim is forced to pretend in certain ways, through feelings of absolute powerlessness. their survival is pitted against the guilt that comes from following the demands of their perpetrator/s. the sense that they’re betraying themselves, the hatred they feel against their aggressor for making them obey, which is otherwise completely uncharacteristic of them. they’re never reduced to a blank slate, there’s always an internal conflict. what if they reach a point where they have nothing left to lose? real torture makes people more defiant. human beings are amazing at adapting to impossible situations. how is that not a wicked fucking cool thing to explore?

brainwashing isn’t real, but your victim’s loved ones believe that it might be. this means that their attempts to talk about their complex feelings toward the more humane sides of their torturer, or recount moments of a strenuous mutual understanding, are met with vehement denial from the people who are supposed to facilitate their recovery. “don’t talk about him like that, he hurt you.” and a desperation to get people to understand that it’s just not that simple. they’re not just saying it because they’ve been brainwashed – people just aren’t black and white, torturers included. the way they feel compelled by the pressure of their loved ones to just… keep quiet about that aspect of their trauma.

here's a fun fact: not only is torture absolutely useless at everything it sets out to do, but rates of PTSD are equally high among victims and perpetrators. the latter is something called participation-induced post-traumatic stress, or perpetrator trauma. you see it in murderers, too. nobody talks about that. and i get it, it’s a touchy subject, we wouldn’t want to portray torture as something human beings do. but, and here’s my counter-argument: maybe reality is just messy and complicated. and maybe exploring that messy complicated reality in fiction can serve as something interesting and worthwhile. emotionally cathartic. no?

if you read up on torture in psychological studies, regarding the psychology of both victims and perpetrators – and possibly also read some sociological studies about how governments have used a lot of the myths i’ve mentioned about torture to excuse their own actions (allegedly) – you start to get an idea for just how comprehensibly it fucks with people, and how effective that propaganda machine has been. real life torture is not rare. torture will continue to not be rare as long as people believe in the idea that it is useful. so maybe it’s a good idea to approach the subject with a little bit of thought beforehand, you know? we could approach fictional depictions of torture with the same amount due diligence we take with the topic of rape or child abuse, instead of, you know, literally affirming all the myths that justify its use and then brushing off criticism like mine in that aggressively uncritical fiction-isnt-reality,-depiction-isn’t-endorsement,-zero-further-introspection way.

or whatever. maybe im just a big meanie, i must be fun at parties, etc

[quirkwizard]

Any ideas for expanding on Softening? I feel as if it has a lot of potential.

Unlike my other posts where I cover and expand on canon Quirks, "Softening" is a simple power that Juzo is already using pretty well. So for this, I'll only cover a couple of applications and potential equipment, but these ones have a lot more depth in comparison.

Starting with equipment, it'd be neat to see Juzo expand on his sneakier side of things, like if he carried around things like flashbangs or caltrops that he hid inside of the softened objects that still look like regular objects. He could even incorporate his softening effect into his tools. Imagine if he had these baseball-sized orbs he threw out to splash all over someone only for him to harden it to stick it to whatever he morphed it around. He could have a launcher on his arm that he dips into the mud to fire it out as people. It could take the form of fans on his hands at feet that splash his mud everywhere. What's even better is that they could double as ways to help get him around his muddy terrain even faster than before.

Since Juzo can soften anything from any point of contact on his body, it'd be interesting to see him take on smaller, more personal applications of the power. "Softening" could be really effective at disabling opponents' equipment or specific devices if he got close enough. On the flip side, seeing him more precisely manipulate the terrain could be neat as well, like using the spreading effect to basically cut out parts of the terrain as a way to get around without too much mud getting in the way or simply dropping more solid, harmful materials on top of people. It'd be neat to see him use it reactively as well, like suddenly softening a wall he's about to hit to cushion the blow or throwing off part of his equipment as mud to blind someone.

I think a really cool way for "Softening" to be used would be to have Juzo lean more into his ability to turn objects back into solids. Because whatever Juzo returns to solids doesn't return to its original shape. It simply takes on whatever shape it was in when it was mud. If Juzo simply splashed or moved some of the mud around in the right way, he could feasibly turn it solid into whatever simple shape that he wants, such as taking some nearby concrete and molding it into a hammer, putting it into a keyhole to fashion it into a key, or splashing it up a wall in order to make some hand holds. This could work even better with someone like Jutora to move massive piles of the mud around only to reharden walls or spikes, greatly expanding his control over the terrain.

[asingleshampdition]

Sympathy for Jin Shirato

In all honesty, I actually feel just as, if not worse for Jin, than I do Chidori; especially in Reload, despite Chidori being the most fleshed out of the Strega three. This character analysis will not include developments from Shadow Cry, as I'm not aware of most of its contents enough to include it. (P.S. There are no visuals because for some reason, Tumblr doesn't want to save with them.) I think the motivations of the three Strega members are very important. All of them came from the same background, as child experiments; and thus, we can draw fair conclusions from them.

Takaya wants to get back at the world for hurting him. He's a man who is very weak-willed, and wishes for death, as long as it means others come along with him. He's adopted this view in which his only purpose in life is to bring everyone down with him: as he's been granted the power to do such (in the form of Hypnos), he's under the impression that his life is meaningless otherwise. This is why he's so unwilling to give up the Dark Hour to SEES; he's unwilling to start over, because in his mind, he's built up meaning for himself. Takaya doesn't really care for anyone; everyone he comes across, to him, is either an asset he can use to achieve his goal (Jin and Chidori), or an obstacle (SEES). As much as I'd like to believe Takaya genuinely did care for Jin and Chidori, I can't see it. At the end of the game, Takaya becomes a cult leader; Strega had always had parallels to such, and cult leaders, like Takaya, don't typically care about their followers. Rather, they see them as tools, to get their way. From my point of view, Takaya is an irredeemable piece of garbage, in the games, and cannot compare to Jin or Chidori in terms of sympathizing potential. As previously stated, I'm not accounting for Shadow Cry in this post, so I don't really know how the pathetic wet cat man is portrayed there. Chidori's motivation is that she, quite literally, has no motivation. She finds no purpose in life, and therefore, doesn't really care what happens either way. In her eyes, dying just means she'll never wake up again, and the end of the Dark Hour? "Cool, more days to live until I inevitably die," is probably what she would've made of it. Either that, or, "oh no, Medea!" Chidori's motivations are so radically different than both Takaya and Jin's motivations, and I believe this is why she was able to break away from such a cynical, nihilistic line of thought, much more easily than the other two. The only reason she followed, and was loyal, to Strega, was because Jin and Takaya were similar to her. Other than that, she held no regard for them, and did not consider them friends. It did not matter, to her, who she followed. If Takaya had been a better guy, maybe with hopes of reform, she probably would've turned out better as well. The only person she really cared about, until Junpei, was herself; as selfish as that sounds. She considers Medea her only true friend, as a representation of how she isolates herself, in order to not be afraid of death. So, where does that leave Jin? I believe Jin, unlike Takaya and Chidori, possesses a trait that neither of the other two have: genuine care for the few people close to him. The reason Jin doesn't want the Dark Hour to disappear is very similar to Takaya's; however, as shown in Reload, this isn't really the case. We have to remember that Takaya, essentially being a cult leader, even before he starts such, is incredibly manipulative and charismatic. Think of Jin as a young, impressionable dude, who is at an incredibly low point in his life; someone who is emotionally vulnerable, someone who can be targeted. The perfect candidate for a potential cult member. Then comes along Takaya: someone who is kind to him. Someone who treats him with dignity, with respect; someone who is there for him when he needs it most. Someone who 'saves' him. Kind of like Chidori, I believe Jin could've fallen for anyone; it didn't have to be for Takaya, it just had to be someone who was kind to him during the darkest time of his life. Unfortunately for him, Takaya does not truly care for him, unlike the vice versa, and whatever kindness Jin experienced from Takaya may or may not have been an act of manipulation. Kind of like how cults usually target young, impressionable, emotionally vulnerable individuals. Jin was manipulated into siding with Takaya; and kind of like a cult member and a cult leader, the member would align with the leader's ideals. Therefore, I do not believe Jin's true reason for standing against the Dark Hour's absence is the same as Takaya's.

This is not to say Jin doesn't have a 'real' reason; unlike Chidori, I believe he does. His statements on 10/31, being: "If the Dark Hour disappears, we might forget everything that happened, won't we? / I'd forget you and Chidori, the things we did together, our time at the facility... All of it." I find this line an incredibly simple way of painting Jin in a sympathetic way; and yet, it's incredibly tactful. Jin values the time he's spent with Takaya and Chidori; he values them. To him, they're like family. They are what SEES is to Makoto/the protagonist: his friends, the only friends he's ever had, and he'd rather die than forget about them. The only problem is that both Takaya and Chidori hold little to no regard for him. I'm somewhat sure he knows this, and yet, he still chooses to view them in such a way; even after Chidori pays virtually no mind to him as a person, and when Takaya separates from him in the final stretch of Tartarus, knowing that Jin would probably die.

This conclusion does raise some questions, though; when Chidori sacrificed herself for Junpei, why didn't Jin say anything? Rather, why didn't he try and stop her? After all, he's mostly silent, and Takaya does most of the talking during the sequence. Strega's philosophy on death is to not fear it, as it is inevitable. Perhaps this is also why Jin does not show sadness when Chidori dies? To Jin, as well as Takaya and Chidori, they've accepted that they will all die someday, because of the suppressants, as well as their Personas. Jin doesn't view Chidori's death as sad, not because he doesn't care for her, but because Strega has already established that death is inevitable for people like them. Another potential reason for Jin supposedly not caring for Chidori's death is the presence of Takaya. As a cult member is to a cult leader, Jin is dependent on Takaya. Since Takaya only views Chidori as a pawn, perhaps Jin would take on Takaya's view on the matter; to Jin, Takaya is wiser than anyone else. I really can't think of any other reasons as to why Jin wouldn't show much emotion during Chidori's death, other than either one: Jin specifically referring to Takaya, and only adding Chidori in as an afterthought, in his quote, or two: bad writing. The first one I doubt, as I feel like Jin would be one of the last people to tell a half-truth (to Takaya, of all people, to boot); especially since his last name is Shirato (white door), referring to how he can't keep his fatass mouth shut when talking about important information with SEES. I don't really think the writers would make such an oversight; adding Jin's sympathetic statement, and then forgetting to make him sympathetic otherwise. Not saying it's not possible; it definitely was, considering the quality of the villains' writing in the older versions of Persona 3. I just find it unlikely. This all just goes to show that Jin could've ended up just like the SEES members, if not to a greater extent than Chidori. He loved the ones he was close to, and he believed in bonds, to some extent. Of course, maybe not in the way SEES does, but the point is that he did; and bonds are the entire premise of the Persona series. Takaya never believed in bonds at all, throughout the entire game; he's too focused on himself, so he's out of the question. Chidori doesn't believe in bonds until Junpei shows up, even with Jin and Takaya in the picture. Jin is the only Strega member who would go as far to die for his found family, the only member who loved his companions from the start.

The more I think about it, the less I really blame Jin for who he became. Like I've mentioned before, you have to think of Jin as a cult member. A cult member who was 'indoctrinated' by Takaya, because he was naive, impressionable, and a lost soul; looking for someone to love him, respect him, stay by his side, and 'save' him. Would you fault a lost soul, someone who is incredibly emotionally vulnerable, as well as naive, for being manipulated into a cult? Sure, you could view Jin as 'stupid' for falling for Takaya, but that's the thing: people who become cult members aren't always stupid. They could be the brightest, most mature person you know; and that's not the point. Cults target people who are lonely; who want love. No matter how bright, mature, talented, well-read you are; at the end of the day, you are not immune to manipulation, if the manipulators pull the right strings. I think that's what's most scary about Jin: his story revolves around how someone so bright, so talented, someone who was one the right track, who more or less had the right mindset about relationships, was thrown off course, because he was also lonely, naive, and lost. It's very similar to many people who join cults; his character, even in Reload, can be written off as just some cynical, Takaya-obsessed bomb maniac, kind of like how a lot of people write cult members off as off-putting, evil, and sadistic. I think Reload did a terrific job at exploring this part of his character, even if it was just a few extra scenes. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing because he's my favorite character lmao, who knows?

[mrs-gauche]

If the Spirit!Solas theory happens to be true—and I’m confident it is—then it really gives you a new level of respect for how much restraint this guy has.

I’m talking specifically about his interactions with Dorian. The part where Dorian is trying to convince Solas that enslaving spirits is cool and neat and not wrong because ‘spirits aren’t people.’

Imagine having the strength of character to listen to someone tell you to your face that you are not a person and therefore undeserving of the most basic civil rights without immediately decking them in the face.

Solas puts up with tool much, man.

Oh yeah, definitely! 😂 (As much as I feel for Dorian just trying to find some common ground...) I guess that one line in Tevinter Nights does a great job of putting Solas' attitude on this matter in a nutshell.

[…] roared not in anger, but with quiet contempt. "From this moment, should you ever bind a spirit, then your life is mine."

Keep in mind, Solas has witnessed spirits suffering from the consequences of creating the Veil for at least a thousand years at this point, if only from the Fade. When he's saying "It hurts. It always does." to the Inquisitor after returning to Skyhold and Wisdom's death, he's referring to the countless times he had to watch his friends being drawn to the waking world, either forced, or to see them “wish to join the living”, only to be twisted, bound, corrupted, killed, you name it.

"How small the pain of one man seems when weighed against the endless depths of memory, of feeling, of existence. That ocean carries everyone. And those of us who learn to see its currents move through life with their fewer ripples."

Much like a lot of his banter with Sera taunting him about his grief for the past, at this point, Solas is so old and has witnessed so much history, so much pain, that Dorian's remarks couldn't possibly evoke any real anger from him. It's so insignificant compared to what he has seen. There's a reason why Weekes keeps emphasizing how friggin tired Solas truly is. This is after all the general perception of spirits in present Thedas, aside from a few cultures like the Avvar. He can't blame Dorian for Tevinter raising him to think of spirits as nothing more than "amorphous constructs", just like he can't blame the Dalish for the knowledge lost to time. Similarly to any other argument he has with the other companions, Solas' frustration/resentment is almost never aimed at them personally, but rather at the current state of the world that shaped their perspective. (As is also evident in how his banter always ends up with them eventually coming to terms and grow a mutual/respectful relationship. The only exception being a low approval Inquisitor and Iron Bull if he chose the Qun over the Chargers… In that case, the hostility was definitely personal. 😂)

(That being said, I'm SO hoping for any kind of serious emotional outbreak from Solas in DA4, since there's still like a thousand year old trauma that needs to be addressed. lol)

But yeah, I think, going by his actions in Tevinter Nights, Tevinter is definitely not ready for what's probably coming for them in DA4, now that Solas is actually able to change things. 👀 And isn't it interesting how he will now be facing the Imperium, which was essentially built on the ruins of the empire he brought down/the same slavery based system he once rebelled against, so history kinda repeats itself? lol

I think it's also very telling how Solas will immediately counter Dorian's comments on the treatment of spirits in Tevinter by directly comparing it to slavery.

Dorian: "There's no harm putting them to constructive use, and most mages back home treat them well." Solas: "And any that show any magical talent are freed, are they not?" Dorian: "What? Spirits don't have magical talent." Solas: "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about your slaves."

But the beautiful irony in this, as I've talked about in this post, is how this draws a direct parallel to how Solas, in return, doesn't recognize the people of the waking world as real either, at least not until after the Inquisitor considers Wisdom a living being worth saving. This and his admission to the Inquisitor after he returns to Skyhold is imo the turning point in his character development. Imo, this is what leads him to say "Not at first. You showed me that I was wrong." in his high approval ending in Trespasser.

And this is also why I think that the theory of Solas intending to save the spirits first and foremost would make for such an interesting story actually.

The waking world doesn't view spirits as real people. Just like Solas can't accept the people of the waking world as real. So, what will happen if he tears down the Veil, and the Fade and the waking world become one again? The Inquisitor was potentially willing to save Wisdom despite it having already turned into a Pride demon. And in doing so, the Inquisitor unintentionally put up a mirror in front of Solas' face and basically went "If I can see them as real people worth saving, why can't you?".

And if the spirit origin theory is true, then it could make for a fascinating inner conflict. Solas, living in both the waking world and the Fade, having been a spirit and a corporeal person, is now facing the question of who "his people" actually are. Where does he belong? After all, his biggest fear remains to "die alone".

While this was said in more of a joking manner, Weekes' words from 2016 really put it into perspective here. Solas sees himself in that old fisherman he saw in the Fade. He is "the one who lived". So, I picture it like this… Solas is left alone in the Fade after the creation of the Veil. Spirits are now his only company for the next thousand years. Whether or not those spirits were the remaining souls of the elves he tried to save, we don't know, but regardless, I truly believe they are his people. But he is not a spirit. At least, not anymore.

Cole: "You don't need to envy me, Solas. You can find happiness in your own way." Solas: "I apologize for disturbing you, Cole. I am not a spirit and sometimes it hard to remember such simple truths." Cole: "They are not gone so long as you remember them." Solas: "I know." Cole: "But you could let them go." Solas: "I know that as well." Cole: "You didn't do it to be right. You did it to save them." Inquisitor: "Solas, what is Cole talking about?" Solas: "A mistake. One of many by a much younger elf who was certain he knew everything."

In this banter, Cole reveals to us that Solas' mind immediately goes from "It's hard for me to accept I'm not a spirit" to "the people that were lost when Solas created the Veil". To me, this pretty much confirms that the people of Elvhenan and spirits are connected, if not one and the same. It's assumed that the Evanuris mined the Titans to somehow create bodies for spirits to inhabit, and that Mythal gave Solas a body against his will. There's also the theory about the creation of the Veil having caused the separation of body and spirit.

You know, I've written so much about this in previous posts and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but if we consider all those little clues and look at all of his dialogue in that context, it just makes so much sense to me, that what he wants to do is primarily to save the spirits/destroy the barrier for them to enter the waking world without their purpose getting corrupted. There's also still the matter of the Blights and red lyrium otherwise probably consuming the entire world. 😅 I think that's what he's referring to when saying "What I am doing will save this world" in Tevinter Nights.

And remember, "Dread Wolf" is still literally an anagram for "World" and "Fade". 😂 Both worlds colliding is quite literally in his title. lol Whatever the six eyed high dragon sized Dread Wolf actually is, as far as we know, he only seems to exist within the Fade, but how exactly is he connected to Solas and what will happen to him if he tears down the Veil (which btw is also definitely gonna happen… I mean, besides the fact that the Veil is getting weaker regardless of Solas' actions)? ANYWAY.

Sorry for rambling so much (and I feel like my English is a little rusty, too 😖), but I haven't talked about this stuff in a while and the lack of news is killing me. 😂 But your message gave me something to think about again, so thank you! :)

[nadekofannumber1]

Stupid Csm spoiler question for my current theories

I feel like the concept of pochita birth devil is fairly possible IMO, however another thing I’m wondering is if like, does pregnancy currently ‘exist’ in CSM?

Like it’s not an invalid question, chainsaws were originally a tool invented to help women give birth, so even if not currently brought up it would be something the devil hunters would have to consider right? But I can’t remember any scene mentioning the concepts of pregnancy in chainsaw man, I don’t remember any mentions of pregnant women as a victim status in dying or even its concept involved in sex. The latest chapters show concepts related persisting even if a function disappears, phones seem to in ways have existed even if ears and their function disappeared but perhaps that was only because of the shortness of the disappearance (after all characters do try to talk yet I could view that as a framing tool).

Chainsaw man’s erasing powers only seem to have fully activated when the “scarf” is out, though this somewhat of a fallacy as we’ve only recently seen the chainsaw devil use these powers in action. However given the state of the mouth devil shown when mouths disappear it could easily be seen that it’s not necessary to consume the whole devil to make a concept disappear, which is pretty decent evidence that it’s a manual power and it’s worth considering of course. When taking the scarf into consideration it’s worth questioning why it’s even there. If not a remnant of makima but a legitimate piece of the chainsaw devil’s full design it’s pretty strange that there’s like, a fleshy scarf on it right? Not only that but it comes from the chainsaw man’s stomach and wraps around his neck before trailing. If one subscribes to birth devil (or an adjacent similar concept even post natal death) theory you could easily view it as an umbilical cord, it’s hard not to view it as one if you conceive the chainsaw devil’s power as unbirth. From a linguistic standpoint, concepts are things that are in a sense born, and devils are essentially sentient concepts but death does not free them, not fully. However if those concepts were simply never born, everything changes, if something dies it existed but if it wasn’t born it never did.

It’s pretty thematically congruent given CSM’s themes on family, bodily agency, growing up, sex, death, intimacy. A birth devil who wishes to be the chainsaw devil at its core is really interesting honestly, especially with concepts of humanization and dehumanization of them.

(Side note I think that cult worshiping the birth devil is horrific implications wise imo, horrific idea that chainsaw man syndrome is related to the concept of birth itself)

If you stretch and think perhaps pochita is an a way a sort of fetus.

Of course this has its flaws as a lot of the other parts of chainsaw man’s design don’t reflect it as birth but more as a cool metal chainsaw monster, perhaps one could try and link it to other potential concepts of horrific birth like the baby centrifuge (it exists look it up, tbh a lot of these old horrific implements are interesting).

But even with all that why does nobody notice? Why doesn’t anyone say anything?

Really asking any questions about what could exist in csm is like this.

It’s a devil’s proof, you can’t prove if something does or doesn’t exist in csm until you actually see it or someone mentions that it’s missing, nobody knew that the AIDs devil was destroyed until that scene with Makima towards the end of part one. We fundamentally have no idea what doesn’t exist in chainsaw man and with the reading of the chainsaw devil as the birth devil it gets you asking questions about what truth is obscured. This just happens to be the most simple answer to me. Chainsaw is a loan word in Japanese (chenso no akuma) so you can’t say it’s another thing character reading wise especially when they have the war devil (sensho no akuma) which would probably be the closest big thing someone could try to push.

I’d say the biggest hole in asking if pregnancy exists in CSM is that milk and eggs exist, however the concept based existence of devils is locked to human perspective therefor those things could still exist but in ways not comprehended as the same as pregnancy.

I’d love feedback though.

Even if there’s perfect evidence pregnancy exists in csm, it’s still very weird nobody has brought up the pregnancy argument for chainsaw man in universe lol.

———-

Update for the latest chapter as of 9/18/24 (or 18/9/24)

Given the latest chapters and the chapters since this initial post, I’d say I’m 100% certain the reason that yoru can’t control the chainsaw devil is because it is not her “child”. Chainsaws aren’t a concept born from war it was born as a method for doctors to cut pelvic cartalage open wider so a child can be born. The chainsaw devil is a product of the fear of sex and birth, just because you can use it for something else now doesn’t untie the concept from the “parent concept”

If the chainsaw devil is a sort of birth devil with a parent concept of pregnancy and sex, the chainsaw devil perhaps destroying pregnancy itself to become one’s own devil would be in line with the themes of rejection of concepts like traditional family. It would also possibly make pochita just like denji.

Honestly, “parent concepts” being canonized makes a lot of understanding how devils work a lot easier. Instead of having to split hairs about how larger concepts factor into smaller ones that are valid variations but also could just as easily factor into the main larger fear, it lets concepts exist as extensions of each other. Once more tying the concept to the horror of familial bonds. Despite being mainly a woodcutting tool, the chainsaw devil can’t stop being a product of the birth devil. Maybe pochita wished to be loved like one is supposed to love their child, or how one is supposed to have a normal childhood. Perhaps the chainsaw devil hold denji in the conceptual womb of his mind to protect him as one should protect a child. Why pochita has multiple forms could be due to the disparity of concept itself, with chainsaws as a wood cutting tool being innately less scary than chainsaws as a tool for birth. Amother way you could think on it is some devil’s abilities get underutilized because of their disposition as devils or perhaps the shifting existence of concepts, like the blood devil Power’s ability of creating a bond between blood. Thinking of the powers of the blood devil as entirely literal is probably a misnomer at this point in the story.

While eastern and western individual concepts of blood vary, its symbol as a form of bond or homogeny does culturally share at least some concepts. I’d say the big differences for Japan are that they use blood type like horoscopes and also all blood is spiritually unclean or corrupting (which is why menstruating women generally can’t go to shrines). Western perception of blood differs as many abrahamic religions are mired in the symbolism of blood from a literal to non literal level, but also many Norse, Germanic, or pagan religions took interest in the concept as well. In many abrahamic religions consumption of blood is fairly expressly forbaid as it is considered the very soul of the being, which is how kosher and halal food intersect, they both require a ritual that drains the blood. I could say more but I’ll halt for now. Really there’s a lot of what ifs, but I think the bond of blood relation or really anything ethnonationalist is likely the most relevant answer. As it’s common with many large countries, Japan isn’t an exception to concepts of blood purity being a status of cultural identity. Blood relation or blood purity is a staple to the status quo as much as traditional family is. Power has that symbolic violence engraved in her as the devil of blood but that desire for bonds is also an equally valuable property of blood. On its own blood as a bond doesn’t have to be an innately evil thing, as denji and power form a bond of blood, and even now pochita cries out for blood in the streets. Hunting for that security and bond.

However I’m willing to also understand that my theory is more a devil’s proof. I can’t prove it but I can’t not prove it.

[rock-swag-tournament]

Rock Swag Tournament Round 1: Igneous Rocks Part 12

So many of your here may know of obsidian. I haven't a clue why.

For those of you unfamiliar, obsidian is a form of volcanic glass, but it is not the only one! Tachylite is obsidian's much less well-known sibling.

Now, I'm going to go against everything I talked about in earlier posts, because while obsidian is black (or sometimes a reddish-brown) it is FELSIC! That babey has very few of those dark mafic minerals, but the little bit of iron and magnesium combined with the quick cooling (and therefore lack of individual crystals) gives obsidian this dark color.

Tachylite on the other hand is mafic! It, like obsidian is a volcanic glass that cools very quickly and lacks mineral grains, but it does contain all those dark mafic minerals at the top of Bowen's Reaction Series.

Also, I wanted to take the time to correct a small misconception in that post about obsidian weaponry. And I'm not here to spoil the fun, don't worry. I do adore that post and it makes me laugh whenever I see it. This is instead, a bit of an archaeology lesson. More under the cut.

While the geologist in question argues that an obsidian knife would make a poor weapon because it volcanic glass, I am here to say that obsidian was actually frequently used for weaponry and tools (and that ended up being a very good thing for archaeologists)!

Now, I will admit that these obsidian artifacts are often on a smaller scale: things like arrowheads and small blades and not long knives. One form of weaponry, the macuahuitl, was made by embedding small obsidian blades into a club!

The reason obsidian is actually an effective weapon is because it is easy to work with and very sharp. While it is certainly more prone to breakage than metal when banged against hard objects, it makes for an extremely sharp and effective blade when used for slicing, rather than to cause blunt force trauma. In fact, a freshly broken piece of obsidian can be sharper than a steel blade. So it certainly isn't out of the question to make an use an obsidian knife. You just might have to be a bit more careful when swinging it around near hard surfaces.

I should also note that these artifacts were made through a process called knapping, wherein someone strategically chips away at a piece of material (often flint, obsidian, or some other material that has conchoidal fracture, or fractures in a way that shows concentric lines similar to growth lines on a shell) to form a shaped tool, weapon, blade, etc.

Here's an obsidian arrowhead. It has been shaped to have notches where it could be affixed to the shaft of an arrow, a pointed tip, and sharp, thin edges that would cut through the hide of the creature being hunted.

So, obsidian was used for tools and weapons that necessitated slicing more than banging. And an obsidian sword probably wouldn't be very effective. If you bang it against the stone battlement by accident, it'll break. And I could believe that the force needed to stab someone clean through with a sword would cause an obsidian blade to break. I haven't tested this theory. But when used as a small cutting blade affixed to something like a club or an arrow, its pretty effective! If they weren't effective, people wouldn't have used them so much throughout history.

And that brings me to why obsidian artifacts are so important for archaeology! Volcanoes have their own unique geochemical signatures, which means we can trace pieces of obsidian back to the volcano from which it erupted.

This is incredibly helpful for archaeologists who want to learn about things like trade and travel between ancient peoples. If you find an obsidian arrowhead a thousand miles from the volcano from which that obsidian came, you know that a person had to travel a thousand miles to move that piece of obsidian. Volcanic rocks don't really move a thousand miles from their source without a little human intervention. A real person at some point in time had to help that rock out! It's endlessly fascinating, that least to me.

Anyway, if this rant proves anything, it is that I, too, would be prone to getting hit by a baseball bat while I rant about obsidian blades in a somewhat more archaeologically-informed way!

[lemon-wedges]

Just wanted to ask (and feel free to not answer), but how do you draw so much so quickly? I'm always impressed by how fast you doodle or paint. Also, wanted to say that I appreciate your Barok and DGS art as a whole.

and with this ask i have finally reached an artist milestone 😭

Well theres a short answer and a REALLY long answer (which ill put under cut when i get there).

short answer: practice + refs

which.....can be an annoying thing to hear. And as someone who studies art and has bought a LOT of online courses trying to figure out how industry people can just churn out work like nothing. it feels like a let down every time i find out their big secret. just practice and photo refs. Every. Single. Time.

LONG ANSWER:

its how you studying your refs. heres how i do mine

sorry if this is rambly. but ill try my best to at least be clear. BUT THIS is the EXACT way i taught myself how to be quicker.

I do not know if youve taken any art classes but essentially one of the ways to study gesture drawing is by first tracing ur photo ref to get a sense of the flow/proportions of the body. youve probably seen a billion of these tutorials floating around:

So last year around hmmmm june/july? i was NOT looking to get better at my anatomy or gesture. i was actually trying to get better at clothes. but my problem was it took me so long to draw out a figure (which i was fine with cause i liked how my people looked at the time) that i could never really just focus clothing part.

So i told myself look. ur not looking to draw in this style like this forever. so for now SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY!!!! I WANT THE BAREBONES OF A HUMAN HERE TO MAKE A MANIQUIEN FOR CLOTHES OK

but how do i do that....

Im gonna use this piece as an example from my rise and yosuke fashion palooza month. FIRST u see i got all my photo refs together. i like those poses on the right and i want to switch out the clothes for the other ones i picked out. i trace out my poses. kind of like the tutorial up top but since this is about draping i was focused the exact places their waist/arms/legs/etc would bend.

and like the tutorial u turn off the photo ref and do a drawing based off that traced piece.

then i would turn on my refs and add on my clothes

And after a month of just doing that over and over and over. i was surprised to find that figures and poses were so much easier to understand when i would break them down like this. and once u get familiar with them the faster and more confidently you'll draw them.

I and still do this btw. heres my otasune from the last week

i used photo refs for all my sketches. if i cant find anything online to match what i want i just take photos of myself. and some might say well arent u just relying on reference TOO much?

AND AGAIN take it from someone who has spend a lot of money buying classes from their fav artists in the industry. The Secret of how they churn out so much cool work so fast always turns out to be this. practice and photo refs.

Every. Single. Time.(tho this is omitting a lot. im not getting into like they way they stylize their art work. that actually the fastest and funnest thing to do once u have ur base down)

Now PAINTING

The thing is, i dont actually post up all my work on this blog. So theres a ton of stuff you havent seen me do. These are some paintings i did 2 years ago for a class.

I already know how to pick my values and set up lighting. When you see me painting my figures now. i am not focused on learning these basics im actually just honing a technique.

you might see me post readmores with these kinds of wips. I lay in all my colors and lighting with the lasso tool. ALL THE MAJOR DECSIONS ARE DONE HERE

(the little miniature i add on the side basically tells me what the overall feeling is going to be when i blend in the lineart to be cohesive with my colors) ( also if you had any questions on my prepainting process tho. feel free to ask!!!)

and if you compare this wip to my finished piece youll actually find that i dont stray that far from what i've laid in.

everything happening at THIS stage is about feeling out how i want the textures to blend with one another and getting funky with some brush strokes.

and thats it? im not sure if any of this is helpful but if anything. i hope you come away from this feeling like what ive been doing here is nothing special. "THATS IT???? THATS ALL THERE IS??? well i could have done that :T"

exactly man. you can do ALL OF THIS aND MORE!!! I BELIEVE IN U :D

but ill let this be the last thing i leave u with my friend: my barok sketch and the refs i used for his boobies