#but like...you're allowed to disagree with it

[tousey-mousey]

To be clear, I'm about to disagree with this post, but I also do not want to trigger anyone including OP who may be working through some shit. Please do not read below the cut if that would upset you or if right now you're just working through some shit and need to express yourself.

The emotional timbre of your post is valid, even if I wanna disagree with some points. You are allowed to feel hurt, to feel ignored, or to feel isolated. You are allowed to feel pain. I hope that working through that brings you peace.

It is so fucking sinister that the only form of child abuse that society really cares about is sexual in nature.

So. I understand your point? But I simply do not agree. Society recognises an enormous number of things as child abuse that do not, at all, include sexual abuse. However, sexual abuse is unique because it can never FAIL to be abusive. There is no amount of sexualising or sexual contact with a child that can be seen as acceptable by the overwhelming majority of our society. This means that, unlike the other ways that society recognises children can be abused, nobody can raise even a shadow of a doubt that a parent having sexual contact with their child is not abusive. It is ALWAYS abusive.

On the other hand... restricting a child's choices of foods, for example, can be non-abusive. If a 10-year-old wants to drink wine with daddy, then that kid's dad is considered to be abusive if he DOES NOT restrict that choice.

Restricting clothing choices can be the less abusive of two option: if a boy wants to go to school wearing shorts and T-shirt and won't take no for an answer even though it's snowing outside, his parents would be considered neglectful for NOT restricting that choice.

A 9-year-old girl who wants to take up gymnastics needs to be carefully monitored, and both her parents and her coach could be considered neglectful or abusive for driving her too hard when it could and sometimes does permanently damage bone structure. Australia has recently had a massive scandal over the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) being alleged to have covered up cases of parents and coaches allowing children to make dangerous choices, or even encouraging or forcing children to make dangerous choices, regarding gymnastics. While sexual assault allegations are in there, the majority of the scandal is around parents and coaches who were physically and, importantly, emotionally abusing their children with respect to gymnastics at a young age, knowing that it would harm the children but allowing or encouraging it anyway. This is going to result in and has ALREADY resulted in criminal charges and even convictions for abuse. It is taken seriously.

Children can make bad choices in all sorts of ways. A parent is given wide latitude to control things like whether a child goes to a specific church in part because of organisations like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who a few years ago were sued for predatory conduct regarding children at a children's hospital here. They were banned from the hospital grounds or from being within line-of-sight of the hospital while preaching, and part of the issue was that they were predating children and using them to try to wedge their way into families at a young age during a time of strife and fear. Similarly, when a parent DOES go too far the other way, at least here in Australia the courts DO recognise that as abusive. Again using the Witnesses as an example, a Witness family took the government to court because a hospital wanted to force a blood transfusion on a 17-year-old boy with leukaemia and both he and the parents refused. The courts found that the boy had, essentially, been abused into his faith by his parents and that it wasn't a free and fair choice, so he was forced to get the transfusion until he turned 18 at which point he could make the call himself again - by which time, notably, he would be most likely cured. The family were found by the court to have been, basically, abusive, and their rights were removed as a result.

The problem is that kids are fucking idiots. That's by design: they're born knowing nothing and need to be taught everything. They have no understanding of how to make good choices and everything they are and have needs to be given to them over time. However, they do not learn it instantly: it is a process, and one that takes multiple decades to really get good at doing. Children are, therefore, going to attempt to make choices long before they are able to make GOOD choices, and so their carers NEED to be able to control those choices and deny them certain choices in order to keep them safe from themselves.

Kids will see a person claim to make caramel in the microwave by putting sugar and water in a bowl and leaving it on high for 15 minutes. This will, without a doubt, end badly. However, the child does not know that. They do not have the ABILITY to know that. Their parent NEEDS to be able to keep them safe from that.

However, in the process, they are restricting their child's free action, their child's food, their child's behaviours and movements, and may need to punish a child who repeatedly refuses to understand WHY they're being restricted and keeps trying to do it anyway. All those things that you see as abusive are, in this case, VITALLY important to keeping that kid alive and unburnt.

Unfortunately, the ways in which children can be incalculably stupid are similarly incalculable. As a result, parents need very wide latitude to control their children's behaviours and so the wiggle room needed to keep a kid safe is also enough to allow bad parents to abuse children. This does not mean abuse is "built into the system". It just means that there is no good system that can be designed that doesn't make abuse possible. It is not intentional and it is not "built in" - there's just no way to safely "build it out".

It is so fucking sinister that the only form of child abuse that society really cares about is sexual in nature. parents are free to control everything about their child's movement, presentation, eating, faith traditions, information exposure, socialization, and can restrict all of these things to an extreme degree as a form of punishment or in order to shape the child into whatever they want that child to be. and that's all considered completely normal, the parent's right! people don't even see the fact that a parent has the power to control so much about a child's life for damn near 20 years to be a problem. The only time they become concerned about child abuse is when the prospect of an outside stranger behaving in a sexual way toward a child is raised. and yeah a lot of really horrific sexual abuses are enacted unto children, but that's because they have zero control over their own lives and bodies in any other way as well. It is all about power and control. and typically the ones who are abusing children the most frequently are the ones who have the most control over them, the parents.

[dallonwrites]

bestie how the fuck do you start writing again when you haven't written in years bc you're so paralyzed with Fear of Writing Badly mixed with How Do I Get Started and also WHAT do I write about HELP

I WANT to write but every part of it is. so. DAUNTING

Ohhh bestie I have BEEN there. Whenever I take breaks from writing I find myself scared that I'll have just….forgotten to write?? I think the fear of "bad writing" is amplified when you don't write for a while, however long, because you have to like hype yourself up to go back to writing and it's like what if I do all that and then I just can't do it? Returning to writing, especially after a long time, for me has taken a lot of mental work, trying to understand what will make writing fun and healthy for me. A lot of it, honestly, is easier said than done, but also it's mental work you'll keep doing after you start writing again and as you write, and for me it's easier to process my relationship with writing when I am actually writing.

A big part of that mental work for me, and something I think is so valuable, is to reconsider what "bad" writing is and give yourself permission to write it. Sometimes you will think your writing sucks, happens to all of us, but that isn't all it has to be. Like yeah, I'll think something I wrote sucks, but I still wrote it. I can revisit it and work on it and maybe I'll turn it into something I'm happy with. And even if I don't, I still wrote it, I learned from it. Writing does not need to be "good" by whatever standard we're holding it up to for it to have value. And you can delete it! Nobody has to see it! Also you can have fun writing something and still think it's not your best. I've written a lot of "bad" scenes that I had fun with because the scene was entertaining to me! I love when writing turns out how I like it, or I write a banger prose line, but equally I found it helpful to give myself permission to not worry about that all the time and just focus on my interest/enjoyment in what I'm writing, regardless of the "quality". Again, easier said than done, but something I've found easier the more I write, because you'll have bad writing days but you'll also have writing days that are so good

I know a lot of people see writing as a skill that they want to improve, and like I agree it feels really good to see your writing grow, but writing is so much more than the skill and the craft and the theory. There is no objective "perfection" to reach with writing like we are not Sims with levelled skills LOL. Writing is art and creativity and it should be fun and fulfilling. And IMO, the more you focus on what makes writing fun, you will grow and "improve" as a writer a lot quicker and in a way that is a lot more enjoyable than if you treat writing like some icy quest for perfection. You also get to decide what "good" writing is for you/your story. Some of my stories are more prose focused and I'll play more with language, imagery etc. Others are more about the plot and just having fun imagining this scene. Sometimes it's a mix of both. What is "good" writing depends on the writer, story, genre, etc. There is no one way to write.

I'm rambling a lot because I'm just really passionate about this and I cannot express enough how easier writing got, including all the difficult and ugly and frustrating parts, when I gave space to prioritise my enjoyment and fun. People love to romanticise the idea of the "struggling" writer. I see stuff on here and I'm like you guys….writing should be fun. Like yeah sometimes it's hard and we should talk about that but like, you Need to make sure you are having fun. Anyway I'm going to try not to ramble and bullet point some things that helped me:

Make Writing Fun: Lol! Literally whatever makes writing fun. Sometimes I just write super indulgent scenes and the fun of that sets me up to work on my projects. When I work on my projects I try to find what in each scene I'm going to enjoy the most, and focus on that to help me write the rest. I make playlists, moodboards, memes, art etc for my story because it's fun, and it helps me be engaged with my story outside of writing it. Just, have fun.

On productivity: some people will benefit from setting clear goals and running towards them. Some people don't. For me it depends on my headspace. I don't think productivity is a bad thing, it can feel good, but productivity should not be the only reason you write. And the most productive writing process is whichever one makes writing enjoyable for you, because that's how you'll get words on the page

On that note, please be wary of anyone online who who treats the writing advice they share as Fact. I'm not saying every writing teacher out there does...but some of them market it that way! And creators do not have an authority on writing just because they have a platform however big. There are some AMAZING content creators out there who talk about writing, and I have found them motivating, but like just let yourself be picky about who you listen to/engage with. I say this because I consumed some very Strict writing advice when I was younger and it literally contributed to my years long slump so like...I'm picky now LOL

About goals: Personally, gentle goals are what help me get back into writing. Maybe just write for 20 minutes, or write every day for a couple days. When I do word count goals, I base them on how I feel that day, and recently I don't make a word count, I'll transfer it to the next session but smaller. So if I try to write 500 words but can't I'll say okay, lets try 250 next time. Goals can be a great motivator and way to feel achieved, and maybe bigger goals will help you, but you're also allowed to adjust them as you go to make it easier

On finding new ideas, having been there before, you don't need a fully fleshed out idea to start writing. My longest break I came back to writing with...one character and a backstory? If you have stories/characters already you can revisit them, either build on what you have or completely change it. Or if you don't have that, if there's a piece of media you like you can take that concept and play around with it in your own way, or you can even just write fanfic until you have your own idea (if you want your own idea, fanfic is cool too!) You can even just find a cool pic on pinterest and play around with describing it, writing about it, seeing if you can get anything from that. Ideas are everywhere and they can be tiny, and I think if you have that want to write you Will find your story eventually. All writers have had the Idea struggle, but I think the more you engage with writing and think about what concepts and stories interest you already, the more you'll like train yourself to get ideas

That was very long and maybe a lot but like, I am very passionate about this! I've been in writing "slumps" where I didn't know if I would write again, I've started writing again with no ideas, and in those times all I had was the fact I knew I wanted to write. There are a lot of reasons why we end up having long breaks from writing and it is totally normal, sometimes beneficial for us, and we should never give ourselves a hard time for not writing for however long. But also remember that you can always come back. Every one of us has the capacity to create, whatever that looks like, and you can make it as self indulgent and self serving as you want.

[theokusgallery]

I was reminded of that again. Okay if you think having empathy is essential to being a good person I will kill you. With warm thanks from your local zero-empathy haver

[randomnameless]

Rewatching Shez's supports with Edelgard, it kind of irritates me that Edelgard looks upset after Shez points out that the average farmer probably hates her for the war. Like, ma'am you knew this would lead to mass death and a lot of people not being fans of yours, and considering Hubert also points out the Edel's policies are meant to benefit nobles who give her money and troops and keep down the commonfolk, she shouldn't be surprised by this answer. Shez even softens the comment by saying "you must have a good reason" but it's like Edelgard can't handle hearing any kind of real criticism from people she respects (or claims to). I think it's another player-pandering thing, can't have the Lord be mad at you, but it just makes Edelgard look like a thin-skinned whiner who can't handle the harsh criticisms that her actions are going to bring her. At least when she went on about "her path of blood and death" in 3 Houses she seemed to have some sense of "yeah people will hate my guts." Idk it probably comes down to the developers being scared to have someone truly criticize Edelgard without pushback.

That supports irks me for other reasons lol, basically the fact that Barney points out how water is wet (something Supreme Sailor Fuku apparently missed, as you noticed) but within 1 convo they completely drop that plot line and get along with her plans because, eggtivation means that someone as bland as Barney - who could represent common sense - must also be drowned under liters of Hresvelg Grey.

Imo, it's not "your lord cannot be mad at you", but again and again with the Fodlan games, "no one can be mad at Supreme Leader, not even you(r self insert character)".

FWIW, FEH got her writing right - faced with contradictions and criticism, Supreme Leader ragingly storms out of a conversation when the characters aren't from Fodlan and thus cannot be eggtivated (or when the Fodlan team isn't writing them?).

Given how her Nopes' Big B's support basically has her say "you're either with me or against me", no wonder why criticism, at least in Nopes, is something unknown for her, hell, Ferdie must behead his father to demonstrate times after times that he and House Aegir aren't her enemies - in a way, even with the twist they added (let's ally with those icky disgusting beasts to get rid of uncle, and THEN we will free Fodlan from their scaly grasp!) Nopes wrote Supreme Leader to be even more uncompromising and more bull-headed than ever, if in Houses she had a modicum of self-awareness (she's still the Adrestian Emperor though!), in Nopes it's written away.

[shewhofightswithswords]

You're acting like laying something legal suddenly makes everyone chill with it. These games have always had an MC that exists within the world, dealing with all of these issues in real time, until now. Now you have Rook, who skates across the surface of everything, regardless of your background choices. There is no actual indication that ANY of this hardship is affecting anyone; you have no say or opinion in anything and nothing you do changes anything anywhere but you're immediate circle. You get 3-5 bits of dialogue alluding to all of the things you're talking about and that's it.

If I wanted to play a game where my character hangs out and listens to what is going on in the world without any sort of measurable stake in it, I wouldn't pick a Dragon Age game. But here we are.

We haven't even talked about the issues with the Dalish in this game.

Veilguard did not allow us to explore the darkness in the world of Thedas and it didn't give us the agency to make a choice to change things and follow through. If that didn't suck for your, then I guess we can agree to disagree.

Is this a safe space to—HA. HAHAHA. (I'm well aware it isn't but I'm going to share my opinion regardless.)

I think there is a significant correlation between people who are mad at Dragon Age: The Veilguard's queer representation being "too in your face" and "not fantasy immersive enough" or whatever, and people who play Baldur's Gate 3 and other queer RPGs, pretending the queerness doesn't exist.

This is not dissing BG3; lord knows I'm in love with that game. I'm just pointing out that it is entirely possible to go through it and pretty easily ignore its queerness if you're an asshole set on doing so. You cannot do that with DATV. And I think that's why Taash especially gets the brunt of the bullshit reactions, because them being non-binary is such a core part of who they are, it is is unavoidable.

So, yeah. I like the overt queerness. As far as I'm concerned, that's one of the best things about DATV.

[crownedwille]

.

[northern-passage]

i've shared some of Alex Freed's narrative writing advice before and i recently read another article on his website that i really liked. particularly in branching/choice-based games, a lot of people often bring up the idea of the author "punishing" the player for certain choices. i agree that this is a thing that happens, but i disagree that it's always a bad thing. i think Freed makes a good case for it here.

...acting as the player’s judge (and jury, and executioner) is in some respects the primary job of a game’s developers. Moreover, surely all art emerges from the artist’s own experiences and worldview to convey a particular set of ideas. How does all that square with avoiding being judgmental?

[...]

Let’s first dispel–briefly–the idea that any game can avoid espousing a particular worldview or moral philosophy. Say we’re developing an open world action-adventure game set in a modern-day city. The player is able to engage any non-player character in combat at any time, and now we’re forced to determine what should occur if the player kills a civilian somewhere isolated and out of sight.

Most games either:

allow this heinous act and let the player character depart without further consequence, relying on the player’s own conscience to determine the morality of the situation.

immediately send police officers after the player character, despite the lack of any in-world way for the police to be aware of the crime.

But of course neither of these results is in any way realistic. The problems in the latter example are obvious, but no less substantial than in the former case where one must wonder:

Why don’t the police investigate the murder at a later date and track down the player then?

Why doesn’t the neighborhood change, knowing there’s a vicious murderer around who’s never been caught? Why aren’t there candlelight vigils and impromptu memorials?

Why doesn’t the victim’s son grow up to become Batman?

We construct our game worlds in a way that suits the genre and moral dimensions of the story we want to tell. There’s no right answer here, but the consequences we build into a game are inherently a judgment on the player’s actions. Attempting to simulate “reality” will always fail–we must instead build a caricature of truth that suggests a broader, more realized world. Declaring “in a modern city, murderous predators can escape any and all consequences” is as bold a statement on civilization and humanity as deciding “in the long run, vengeance and justice will always be served up by the victims of crime (metaphorically by means of a bat-costumed hero).”

Knowing that, what’s the world we want to build? What are the themes and moral compass points we use to align our game?

This is a relatively easy task when working with a licensed intellectual property. In Star Trek, we know that creativity, diplomacy, and compassion are privileged above all else, and that greed and prejudice always lead to a bad end. A Star Trek story in which the protagonist freely lies, cheats, and steals without any comeuppance probably stopped being a Star Trek story somewhere along the line. Game of Thrones, on the other hand, takes a more laissez-faire approach to personal morality while emphasizing the large-scale harm done by men and women who strive for power. (No one comes away from watching Game of Thrones believing that the titular “game” is a reasonable way to run a country.)

These core ideals should affect more than your game’s storytelling–they should dovetail with your gameplay loops and systems, as well. A Star Trek farming simulator might be a fun game, but using the franchise’s key ideals to guide narrative and mechanical choices probably won’t be useful. (“Maybe we reward the player for reaching an accord with the corn?”)

Know what principles drive your game world. You’re going to need that knowledge for everything that’s coming.

[...]

Teaching the player the thematic basics of your world shouldn’t be overly difficult–low-stakes choices, examples of your world and character arcs in a microcosm, gentle words of wisdom, obviously bad advice, and so forth can all help guide the player’s expectations. You can introduce theme in a game the way you would in any medium, so we won’t dwell on that here.

You can, of course, spend a great deal of time exploring the nuances of the moral philosophy of your game world across the course of the whole game. You’ll probably want to. So why is it so important to give the player the right idea from the start?

Because you need the player to buy into the kind of story that you’re telling. To some degree, this is true even in traditional, linear narratives: if I walk into a theater expecting the romcom stylings of The Taming of the Shrew and get Romeo and Juliet instead, I’m not going to be delighted by having my expectations subverted; I’m just going to be irritated.

When you give a player a measure of control over the narrative, the player’s expectations for a certain type of story become even stronger. We’ll discuss this more in the next two points, but don’t allow your player to shoot first and ask questions later in the aforementioned Star Trek game while naively expecting the story to applaud her rogue-ish cowboy ways. Interactive narrative is a collaborative process, and the player needs to be able to make an informed decision when she chooses to drive the story in a given direction. This is the pact between player and developer: “You show me how your world works, and I’ll invest myself in it to the best of my understanding.”

[...]

In order to determine the results of any given choice, you (that is, the game you’ve designed) must judge the actor according to the dictates (intended or implicit) of the game world and story. If you’re building a game inspired by 1940s comic book Crime Does Not Pay, then in your game world, crime should probably not pay.

But if you’ve set the player’s expectations correctly and made all paths narratively satisfying, then there can be no bad choices on the part of the player–only bad choices on the part of the player character which the player has decided to explore. The player is no more complicit in the (nonexistent) crimes of the player character than an author is complicit in the crimes of her characters. Therefore, there is no reason to attempt to punish or shame the player for “bad” decisions–the player made those decisions to explore the consequences with you, the designer. (Punishing the player character is just dandy, so long as it’s an engaging experience.)

[...]

It’s okay to explore difficult themes without offering up a “correct” answer. It’s okay to let players try out deeds and consequences and decide for themselves what it all means. But don’t forget that the game is rigged. [...]

Intentionally or not, a game judges and a game teaches. It shows, through a multiplicity of possibilities, what might happen if the player does X or Y, and the player learns the unseen rules that underlie your world. Embracing the didactic elements of your work doesn’t mean slapping the player’s wrist every time she’s wrong–it means building a game where the player can play and learn and experiment within the boundaries of the lesson.

[y3ahwhat3ver]

Been seeing this over and over and it's sort of been annoying me but. Valentino and Alastor are not even remotely comparable. Like. Look I may be a bit biased bc I like Alastor and don't like Valentino beyond the funny moments he has but like.

Okay. Alastor sucks. Like he's a violent dickhead but part of that is that he's very restrained in his violence. The only times we see him do anything outright violent are when he/the hotel are under attack and then his one moment with Husk. His relationship with Husk gets brought up a lot when people make the comparison but to me like.

Throughout the show you see Husk talk shit to Alastor, literally all of the time. He heavily dislikes him (in my opinion a major part of that is bitterness over losing his own title just to become subservient to Al) but he doesn't ever really seem scared of him, beyond the one moment. He and Alastor have known eachother for years and it's pretty clear to me that Alastor sort of just. Let's him say whatever as long as he doesn't hit A Limit. Alastor's own contract is something he's very clearly sensitive about and Husk bringing that up when he was already in a bad mood. I'm not saying the way he treats Husk in this scene is good, or right but just that it makes sense in context.

I guess what really does it for me is Niffty as well? Like it's so clear she loves Al, quite literally crawling all over him and crowning him. They have a very sweet relationship in the show. She's comfortable enough with him to freely speak about her own feelings ("I really like them Alastor. They let me put on roach puppet shows without booing")

You just get the sense that like. Alastors relationship with his contractee's is. Maybe not the most outright friendly but it's not inherently violent.

And then you compare that to Valentino. Valentino is violent, but worse he's impulsive. And also kind of an idiot. Like the first time we see him it's Velvette calling Vox to come deal with him bc the man is on a rampage and killing her models. He has to be talked down from going to the hotel and killing everyone there. (Already a bad idea image wise but like. With the literal Princess of Hell in that hotel it's like. What was your plan for after that Val. What was your plan for after you attacked the only heir to the throne, the literal daughter of the devil. Christ.)

The difference here is that the only contractee we see him interact with is Angel Dust, and their relationship is fraught with abuse. Physical, sexual, and psychological. Valentino enables his drug addiction because it makes Angel more compliant. Even when he is not being violent towards Angel himself, he's still perpetuating that violence through the work he has Angel do (literally the everything about Poison makes me kind of sick to watch. Tbh, like great song but i cannot watch the mv without getting kind of upset. And look there's a conversation in there about sex work, and specifically SAFE sex work but that's not really what this post is.)

Like. There's literally a line in the show about Angel being WATERBOARDED at work. ("You know, Val, he's into that waterboarding shit now - I don't know, it's a kink." - episode 6 welcome to heaven) And this is JUST Angel's perspective. You don't see Valentino's other contracts but from the way Angel is treated, it's kind of clear that he does shit like this to anyone under his control, and thus anyone who cannot tell him No.

Look. You get the sense that Alastor is a dick, but there's no implication that he takes Niffty and Husk out back and beats them when he's aggravated (with them or otherwise.) We literally watch Valentino assault and threaten Angel because there is someone stronger than him [Valentino] who is trying to get him out of work.

[Edit (June 2nd, 2024): I want to clarify that I do like loser, baby and also Husk as a character and this is more abt my grievances with fandom comparing the two. In series, Angel needed that discussion with Husk and even thought their situations aren't 1:1 or even really that similar, it's still clear that Husks attempt to like. Empathize with him worked for Angel. That is all, thank u and goodnight]

[the-best-of-waynes]

ending co-written with mun of @brightest-starr-girl

"Pete is... he's really funny. And really sweet. And really smart." Lenny nudges Karen. "Kinda like you. But also... very much his own person. He's not exactly golden retriever. He's more of a chocolate lab puppy. And a little less stoic than you, a little quieter. But... I think I really like him, Kare. I just don't know that he'll like me back."

"Don't know that you're worth liking, you mean." Karen raises a brow at her best friend's pointed pout. "Don't try to deflect, I know you."

Lenny huffs, picking slightly at her fingernails. "Just... after our break-up. Can I even do a relationship? I feel like- like everyone I love, just ends up hurt. I'm a curse, K. Or it feels that way. Might as well protect them if I can't do anything else." She lets out a bitter half-laugh. "I already made you cry." A sideways glance. "Is it... selfish to bring you along?"

Karen sighs. "I'm gonna level with you, Len. The whole..." She can't bring herself to say 'faking your death', "-leaving thing is more selfish than staying. You don't want to see them hurt, so the solution is... hurt them from afar? So they're in an equally bad, if not worse position, you just don't have to deal with it?"

Lenny winces. "When you put it that way..."

"So why leave?"

"I already told you. I started planning it after the whole thing went down with Deathstroke and Joker and all that. And then- Dad and Mo- Selina broke up. Dad's trying to heal and me being around reminding him of her isn't helping at all. Then you've got her and the minute they break up she ditches, picks fu- picks Stray, her beloved Tim variant, over me, which I get; one of us is like her and the other is not-"

"As far as she knows," Karen interrupts.

"As far as she knows," Lenny confirms. "Then you've got Dick dealing with everything on his plate, same with Jay and Tim-Tam and Dami and Cass and Steph and Duke, and all of them need attention that I'm stealing with Dad who's already trying to balance everything for everyone. And, well... we disagree on the value-added of my presence."

"And there's nothing else?" Karen presses.

Lenny hesitates, then adds, "Nothing I can share at the moment."

Karen allows it, knowing she won't get anything else. "No matter what happens, you know I love you, right?"

"I... try." She meets Karen's eyes. "Kay. I... see your point in the selfishness. And maybe it is. Probably, it is. But... I have tried so hard, for so long, to be everything they needed me to be."

"Then tell them that," Karen begs, pleads, desperate. "Helena." She never uses her best friend's full first name. "Helena, I mean it. Just tell them."

Lenny swallows hard. "I can't," she whispers, a confession and a defense all at once. "I don't know how."

"Let them in. You've let me in. They want to be there for you."

"No. No, I- I've worked so hard. I've hidden so much just so I can get through. They don't know me, they don't get to know me, I can't do it. I've already lost so much- Kay- I- I can't lose again-"

She's begun to devolve into a panic attack, and Karen instantly moves, grabbing Lenny's hands and exaggerating her breathing for Lenny to match. "In for four. Hold for seven. Out for eight." She repeats the words as she models, until finally Lenny is calm. "You okay?"

Lenny- Lena- Helena- Len- whoever she is right now- nods before shaking her head no and half collapsing into Karen's embrace. Tears wet the blonde's shoulder, and both are incredibly grateful for waterproof makeup as Karen holds her, allowing her to let it out. "I don't know who I am anymore, K. I think I'm too broken for all of this.

"I think you need a break," Karen returns, gentle, soothing, rubbing her hand lightly along Lenny's back as she does just that. "You've been fighting for so long. Not just with a bow--I mean since I've met you. You've been fighting since before I met you, with all that stuff with Robe-"

"Don't say his name," Helena cuts in vehemently.

"Okay," Karen easily acquiesces. "Since the stuff with J.C. and your first foster dad. I saw you fight to stay afloat when living with your adoptive family. I saw you fight for those siblings. I saw you fight to find who you were, fight to get out, fight to get to Gotham. I've seen you fight for the other kids on the street, as a civilian and as a vigilante. I've seen you fight for the world. Seen you sacrifice yourself, over and over and over again. I've seen you fight for your parents and fight for your many new siblings. And I've seen you fight yourself every step of the way. I don't know of a time I haven't seen you fighting, if not an external force, then an internal battle with yourself. And I've known you for almost a decade, Len." Karen pulls back slightly, not letting go or removing her touch, but intentional. "Look me in the eye." She waits. "The only reason I'm not telling Mr. Wayne anything is because you need to rest. And if this is what it takes for you to do that, for you to stop fighting and just sit, then I'll do whatever you need me to. Because you need to. And if it takes getting away from the family and from who you've tried to force yourself to be, then I'll support you. But Len... don't let all this pain be in vain, okay? Just... promise me that."

"I promise." It's dull, but genuine, overloaded with emotions.

"Thank you." Karen pulls her back in for a hug. "I love you. Remember that, alright?"

"I love you too, Kare." For the first time all evening, for the first time in months, the smile Helena gives is easy and real. "I'll stay in touch."

Karen laughs, a wet laugh, one telling how hard it is to hold back the sobs. "You better. Or I'm hunting you down."

"Ooh, scary," Lenny teases.

Karen flicks her. "Just shut up and let me hug you. I don't know when I'll get to again."

"Ma'am, yes ma'am."

And so, Karen embraces her best friend tighter, the both soaking in the moment. When they let go and part ways, the gala winding down, it's lingering, bittersweet, but the words have been spoken; their hearts and minds are lighter, if a little sadder.

But their relationship, all the stronger.

Martha Wayne Foundation’s Midwinter Gala

open to anyone who wants to join!

Helena takes a deep breath and a shallow sip of champagne. Her family isn't here, so it's not like they can take it away, and no one else cares, because she's not getting drunk and pretty much everyone above the age of fourteen at a gala drinks.

As much as she hates these things, she is willing to suffer through if it means her dad and brothers get a little break. Maybe it'll help with the guilt a little. After all, it's the least she can do, considering...

Nevermind. She's nauseous once more.

She spots a server unobtrusively making his way through the crowd and immediately begins weaving through to reach him. The food is the only redeemable thing about a gala, other than the dancing; it might be small in size, but the number is unlimited, the selection varied, and the taste exquisite.

So focused is she on her goal of canapes that she completely misses the person she bumps into.

"So sorry," she apologizes quickly.

[outfit under the cut]

[galactic-rhea]

.

Sometimes I remember my family is, overall, very very stupid

[cephalofrog]

noah caldwell-gervais is the only motherfucker to have ever been correct about dark souls and elden rings' difficulty. no one else understands

[gxlden-angels]

RUBY FRANKE AND JODI HILDEBRANDT SENTENCED TO 4 TO 60 YEARS IN PRISON LETS GOOOOO

[itti-the-mouse]

If you're allowed to Unironically Block people for thinking Ocarina of Time is a better choice than Majora's Mask, then i'm allowed to Unironically Block you for thinking Skyward Sword is anything other than the absolute worst the series has to offer. Bye.

[retributory]

really funny to me when people read danmei/baihe with shizun/disciple main pairing and then complain online the main pairing is shizun/disciple. what are you even doing here dude

[nerdyfangirlingbooks]

Wild how some people still don't seem to understand the basic concept of seeing posts about media with a take you disagree with, and simply.. scrolling past

[astralazuli]

So there's that D&D class quiz going around, & I took it & was so deeply offended I got Paladin.

& so I have had conversations with both Bestie & Birdfriend about this grave insult & they both were like, "Well... They have a point?" & informed me that my desire to absorb hits meant for others & deep drive to help whenever I actually can & strong convictions make me a bit Paladin-coded.

& I am just so... Idk. It's just interesting to get glimpses of yourself from other people's POVs. To be told that my defining characteristics are protecting & healing others & being incredibly fighty about the things I care about... Especially as someone whose brain specifically fixates on whether I care enough, do enough, give enough... Yeah. It's just kinda wild.

Anyway, I'm now adjusting my self-perception to include the fact that if I were a D&D character, I would be an Oath of the Ancients Paladin & not a wizard & that actually that's okay.