#but.........there was this idea that anyone who abused is subhuman and should be killed

[wild-at-mind]

TW abuse talk

Hey, remember that era of tumblr when it was completely acceptable and social justice-y to say: let us describe our perfect gay trans nonbinary world which we were going to build, our utopia. What would we do about rapists and abusers you ask? Well we will just kill them! Easy solution!!

[linkspooky]

TOJI AND MAKI

The parallels between the two outcasts of the zenin clan have already been pointed out plenty of times in canon, for example they're both incredibly buff. However, I thought I would take a deeer look at both characters, as they share both a role as the abused child that destroys the system that created them, and the same fatal flaw.

1. The Child Who is Not Embraced by the Village Will Burn it Down to Feel its Warmth

"The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas" is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction, about a summer festival in the utopian ity of OMelas, whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child. The idea is written around the idea of the scapegoat, a reoccurring trope in stories where someone innocent is blamed, or outcast for the mistakes of other characters.

All of this to say that both Maki and Toji represent the archetype of the scapegoats of their generation. Just like the child of Omelas, all of the problems in the Zenin household are blamed on one child.

This is something Ogi does to Maki directly, and also Naoya recognizes that the other members of the clan did to Toji. They were unable to face their own inferiority, so they blamed it on a scapegoat. Ogi blames his failure to become the head of the clan on his children. The entire clan is unable to recognize Toji's strength, because it would make them question their traditionally held notions of strength, Toji requires the use of weapons and can fight without cursed techniques, which means the cursed techniques they were born with don't make them inherently better with other people.

This is also related to Gojo's criticisms of Jujutsu Society at large, of which the Zenin Household is a very toxic microcosm of. Gojo's critique is that the previous generation will sacrifice the lives of the younger generation, to maintain their power, and in the name of pointless tradition. In the Zenin family "tradition" is the idea that inherited curse technique determines a person's worth.

Their entire system is built around one, keeping cursed techniques in the clan, and two, passing down inherited curse techniques from father to child. Which would go farther to explain the treatment of women by the clan, but we're not getting into that this time. Basically, the "peace" and the "superiority" of the household are built on the idea of marking and scapegoating an outsider, that is anyone who doesn't fit in with the clan's traditions. "If you are not of the Zenin Clan you are not a sorcerer, and if you are not a sorcerer then you are not even Human". That quote alone should explain how Maki and Toji were both treated as subhuman 'monkeys' by everyone around them.

However, the story shows us by both Toji and Maki snapping how terrible these abusive power structures are. One person cannot handle all of that alone, so they snap. Of course they snap. It's not a sign of who Toji and Maki are as people, but rather how no one deserves to be treated that way. A major reocurring theme in Jujutsu Kaisen is no one person alone, can take responsibility for everything, not even Gojo who is the strongest can save everyone he wants to save or be responsible for all of society he needs allies too. Toji, and Maki without allies, they snap and lash out against the same abusive power structure that created them. They are so thoroughly othered by everyone around them, that they embrace their own inhumanity, Maki becomes a weapon bent on killing her family even murdering her own mother, and Toji outright calls himself a monkey.

This is also why Toji is referred to as the "destroyer of destinies" there are two reasons for this. One, Gege is making a thematic point here. The abusive system built on othering and excluding children among other things doesn't actually provide the stability it promises. The center does not hold. The abuse of the system perpetuates and only leads to more destruction. Toji's outcasting isn't something that just hurt Toji alone, everyone felt the consequences of it because the abusive system proliferates and only causes further destruction. The second reason is a Jungian idea on which the story is based on. Toji himself is much like a curse created by the actions of his entire family. If Mahito is created from the fear humans have for each other and acts as the shadow of humanity representing their dark side, Toji metaphorically represents the combined shadow and dark side of the zenin clan. In Watch Man, Rorsarch monologues about how the accumulated filth of all of the abuses that happen in the city will one day rise up and affect everyone.

"This city is afraid of me, I have seen it's true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will form up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout save us and I'll look down and whisper no."

This is expressing the same Jungian idea, a society that ignores these problems will only cause the muck to rise up further and further until it affects everyone. The Zenin clan was a microcosm for the abuses of Jujutsu Society as a whole, they weren't the only ones affected by their abuse because abuse perpetuates. They endured it until they snapped and then acted out that abuse. The Jungian idea put forth is that this sort of reckoning was always going to happen, as long as the Zenin clan continues to create these outcasts in order to hold themselves up as superior, another Toji will happen.

2. Love is the Worst Curse of Them All

Toji and Maki also share the same flaw as people. Their abuse revolved around the idea of outcasting them from the rest of the family, othering them, continually putting them down and also most likely not even doing the job of raising them as children or providing them with the help they needed. We don't see much of it, but in the databook apparently Toji regularly had cursed spirits sicked on him to mock him, and Maki was locked in the cursed spirit room as punishment.

This taught them not only do they need to be strong on their own, but also in order to prove themselves they both thought they needed to be stronger than anyone else in the clan. Toji left Jujutsu Society as a whole, whereas Maki just left the house, both of them with the motivation of proving themselves stronger than the people who looked down on them.

This strong sense of individualism is their greatest strength, and also their weakness, as the situation is more complicated than being stronger than a bully. Maki and Toji are made to feel alone because of their abuse, however, neither Maki nor Toji suffer their abuse alone.

Mai was abused right alongside Maki, they were both outcasts due to being twins. There's no point in arguing which one of them had it worse, because Ogi was perfectly willing to kill both daughters right alongside each other. Maki does and doesn't remember that Mai is right alongside her in her abuse, it's... a bit complicated.

I mention this because Makiaated reason why is that she would have hated herself if she stayed inside that household with Maki. She put pursuit of becoming a stronger sorcerer above her relationship with her sister.

Maki later states "I can't create a place where Mai would feel like she belongs". I don't believe that was always her intention from the start that she secretly left the household for Mai's sake, and wanted to get stronger to create a place where Mai belongs, because Maki's always been really clear she was doing it for her own sake. I think rather after the loss she suffered in Shibuya, and also the fight she had with her sister in the school met, that she came to change her mind and realized she wasn't just in this alone. She changed her mind, that she wanted to be together with Mai, but she didn't change it in time and tragedy struck.

I mention this because Maki and Toji both share the same tragic flaw. Both of them have no idea how to be close even to the people they love, so they end up pushing away the ones they love the most. Maki continually shows behavior of pushing away Mai, and in Toji's case he does everything he can to try to show himself he doesn't love his son.

Maki continually pushes away her sister Mai. Mai reacts to getting pushed away in a not-so-healthy way. Toji full on deadbeats his son. He doesn't raise him or participate in his life to the point where Megumi can't remember his face or name at all. Toji did everything he could to try to give Megumi to someone else, anyone else other than him and avoided his responsibility as a father.

It doesn't come from malice on Toji and Maki's part, but rather it's a less savory aspect of their abuse. Both Toji and Maki believe themselves to be worthless, and that they can't be accepted or loved. They've internalized the way the clan has treated them. They are so isolated that this comes out in how they treated their closest loved ones, their response is to always push them away and isolate themselves further. Toji narrates this, he chose to throw his son aside because he wanted to affirm himself and prove that he was better than Jujutsu Society. Maki says to Mai that she left the house and left Mai because staying would have meant hating herself.

They are both trying desperately to prove themselves as individually strong, to the point where loving anyone else, or even requiring that love from someone is a weakness. They prove they are strong by avoiding the vulnerability of loving someone else. Toji and Maki both try to separate themselves from their heart in order to become even more physically stronger. For Toji his heart was his son Megumi who he did everything to distance himself, forgetting his name, selling him to the Zenin clan, while at the same time paradoxically believing that he was somehow protecting Megumi and arranging for things that would have been better than Toji just stepping up as a father and taking care of him.

At the same time Maki pushes Mai away when Mai does not want that, and believes that also she can return to the clan and make it a safe place for her sister by being individually stronger than everyone else.

They both approach their loved ones this way, because they were taught that one, they are unworthy of love, and they choose to try to get stronger by throwing away anything that might make them vulnerable.

TWhich is why Maki breaks so hard, and lashes out at everyone when Mai is gone, because Maki believed that keeping Mai separate from herself and protecting her was her way of showing love.

However, Mai and Megumi are like... people. They're people entirely separate from Maki and Toji and also affected by their actions. Megumi was neglected his entire lives, whereas Mai didn't get to have a relationship with her sister and felt like she was worthless and only holding her sister back. This is the central idea of Toji and Maki's abuse narrative, that abuse is complicated, and abuse proliferates and hurts people you don't even intend for it to hurt. It has consequences. Megumi suffers the consequences of the Zenin family's abuse because it turned Toji into such an unfit and emotionally immature father. Mai was being abused alongside Maki, and even ended up dying from her abuser's hand as her father Ogi beat her half to death and locked her in a room. Now, as a consequence Maki is lashing out at everything around her. That's also why the connection between Toji and Maki is drawn, to show that as long as the abusive institution still stands, it's just going to keep creating more outcasts like Toji and Maki.

[sugarstarlights]

14 22. 39 50 57 68

100 Random Character Development Questions

Detail one secret shame your character feels. 

Dozens of times, in varying situations, Madison’s upset his friends in the normal way, that friends do, when just by being themselves they rub the wrong way with someone who isn’t exactly like them. The problem is that he takes these mistakes extremely seriously, blames himself for not knowing exactly what they wanted and acting accordingly, and feels a need to fix himself in order to never upset the given person again in the future. Whether his friends are actually upset and about what is a grey area that he’s constantly drawing assumptions from, and said friends might disagree with his assessment, but in every instance, willing to do anything to keep them all from giving up on him or hurting him to make him go away, as he believes he deserves, Madison promises to do and be better in the future.In his own eyes, he’s broken this promise dozens of times over. All the things he promises to change or stop are neutral elements of his personality and mental illness twisted into unforgivable flaws inside his own head, or inherent urges written into his angel programming that he blames himself for not being good enough to bypass. The fact that he repeatedly makes these “horrible mistakes” and then is incapable of successfully changing or erasing the part of himself that “caused the problem” is seen as a huge flaw in its own right, inherently selfish that he “refuses” to alter his thought processes to make someone he cares about happier. His friends like him the way he is, of course, and rarely seem to take that promise seriously, but Madison knows that he lied to everyone at some point, and the self-hatred and shame from being built of flaws that he seemingly doesn’t care enough to get rid of, even when they hurt those he loves, has eaten him for a long time. The unkeepable promises just add to that; though he’d never remind anyone he made them.

What is the most beautiful thing they’ve ever seen?

Mads hasn’t seen a lot of things, and would call a few different unrelated events equally “the most beautiful thing”, including his first sunset, his wife, his ward’s birth, the storm he flew into, most of his friends and their neat abilities, he thinks lots of things are beautiful, stuff like that. But one thing always stuck with him, and though he wouldn’t admit it since it seems self-absorbed and arrogant, witnessing his soul’s healing ability activate for the first time, in the context it did, would rank at the top. He didn’t know it existed at all before the power was urgently needed to save Seculus, but the clouds of colorful buzzing light that surrounded them, combined with Sec’s visible improvement and the knowledge that Madison was the one doing this, that he was finally capable of helping his friend (and finally good for something); that stuck with him. Though, he would say that Sec’s look of joy and relief was the most beautiful thing in this situation.

What do they think is the worst thing that can be done to a person?

Oof! Oof!! In Madison’s professional opinion, robbing a person of their free will and ability to choose is bad enough, but the worst thing is going further, taking their memories, and identity, planting desired patterns of thought and mental blocks and traps to keep them from so much as thinking about specific inconvenient things without pain, conditioning them to have certain feelings toward certain things or maybe none at all, punishing them with temporary nonexistence and reinforcement of this programming for every hint of rebellion, pressing and shaping them into the preferred shape until they’re incapable of functioning whatsoever without being controlled and directed. Until they’re something completely different, empty but conscious, molded into a subhuman tool by whoever thought they had the right. Essentially, the worst thing he believes can be done to a person is to make them not a person anymore, without killing them. He gets very strong feelings whenever he sees a situation resembling this, and if it sounds familiar, it should; it’s a thorough description of brainwashing, and word for word what happened, and is still happening, to Madison himself. Of course, he doesn’t see this as ‘the worst thing’ in his own case; he’s not a person, after all! (The depressing irony is lost on him.)

How does your character feel about their own mortality?

Now this is an interesting one, because technically, Madison can’t die again; voices don’t age or get sick, and Madison’s healing ability prevents him from being killed violently unless every spark of his soul were destroyed at once. Even when voices do die, their soul lingers without form as a highly functional but extremely lonely ghost, for the eternity they would’ve had otherwise. However, a recent discovery revealed that if a voice goes for a little longer than a month without visiting the astral plane, they begin to disappear entirely, without the energy of their home plane to sustain them. Without intervention they’ll simply vanish like they were never there. Madison’s been thinking about this latter scenario a lot. The concept of forever, potentially spent alone, scares him, especially with the knowledge that his family is in an afterlife he’ll never have access to, and with each wave of overwhelming hopelessness, the idea of doing absolutely nothing until he completely disappears has tempted him more and more. The hateful growth taking up residence in his head until recently has made matters much worse. He used to have an intense fear of anyone choosing to kill him at any time, and though that was irrational in the first place for several reasons, that anxiety’s gone now. If Madison were mortal, he’d have probably left a long time ago; he’s died before, what does he have to fear from doing it again?

Has your character ever killed anyone?

No he hasn’t! Not even on accident. Madison’s had a pacifistic mindset since he was with his ward, it’s one of his core principles to never resort to violence when angered or upset, even in small amounts. That said, he’s not exactly capable of murder even if he wanted to, with his poor fighting abilities and anxiety around blood, not that he’s had a chance or desire in the past. Even now that he’s learning to use a proper weapon, he’s intent on only using it in defense of himself and others, and though he’s wished death on several people’s abusers at this point, there’s been no need for it yet. Mads believes that it’s his fault directly that the people in his place of work when he died were killed along with him, however, though there isn’t solid proof of that, and if there were, it would have been unintentional and impossible to predict the outcome when it happened.

How strong is your character’s sense of responsibility? What kinds of things trigger it?

Stronger than any other sense he has, that’s for sure; too strong, in fact. Between what he was built to do as an angel in supporting and helping a person with his whole being, his own intense instincts as a parent and friend, and the extremely high standards he holds himself to, Madison takes responsibility for everyone else’s problems and then some. It’s a consistent, unshakable mindset that when he sees someone struggling, he has to help in whatever way he can, or sometimes ways he can’t, which he then puts responsibility on himself for not being capable of. 

Madison when first introduced to the world was wildly inconsiderate of anyone’s wants, feelings, or concerns outside of his ward; he learned how to care about people from Seculus, another angel with a really bad self-sacrifice problem, and he saw her as such a kind person that aer unhealthy tendencies were taken as law. It took so much effort to get to the level of decency Mads has reached now that any sort of dismissal of others’ pain is interpreted as a huge step backwards into the cruel person he was before, that he needs to immediately make up for. His feelings may differ, but whether it’s familial, romantic, ward-esque or empathetic, he offers up everything when someone has a problem of any sort, especially emotional, and if there’s no fixing it, takes responsibility for its very existence, taking on their pain like this makes anything better. This in itself is ironically self-absorbed, though at the same time the only responsibility he takes for his own issues is to claim that he doesn’t matter enough for them to be a concern to himself or others. It’s irresponsible to worry others with his own problems, when they can’t easily be solved and don’t directly impact those besides himself. Obviously this gets frustrating sometimes.

There is also a gripping need to protect others, especially those he cares about. Witnessing someone in danger sets off his angel dad instincts, the first of which is to throw himself between them and the threat, either figuratively or literally. When they won’t let him, he gets panicked, as it feels like he’s forced to stand there and just watch; there are only a couple of people he trusts enough to let them protect him in return. Putting others in harm’s way for his own sake seems irresponsible. (Also ironic!) This is most of the reason he’s learning swordplay, so that he’s more effective in defending others, as opposed to just being a fragile obstacle.

On a lighter note, he feels the same intense responsibility for most living things, and having a pet in his life has helped his own self-care routines somewhat. His dog is relying on him for food, care, and shelter, and if he allows himself to stop functioning entirely or disappear, Madison will be causing him to suffer; thus, he continues to exist, on his worst days, just so Bo won’t have to be in pain. Being told by people, as well, the pain this would cause them, also forces Madison to stick around, but it’s out of guilt, not reassurance at being cared for.

[asinfulpagan]

Do I Exist?

Do I Exist???

*This is a work of fiction, yet it’s also a work of truth.*

Do I Really Exist?

Being gay at any age I would imagine is a hard thing to do. From as far back as I can remember, I remember my older cousins, uncles and even my dad talking about “homos” and “fags” I wished so much I could scream into their ears, QUIT HURTING ME! Instead I listened, and then lost. I lost my spirit of living; then lost myself. Now, I have lost my soul. I remember during a cub scouts trip when I was about 10, another kid called this black boy a “nigger” I don’t know why I did it, but I beat the hell out of the kid who called him that. I guess somewhere; somehow, I too had already grown too familiar with hatred. But that’s for later anyways. I am writing this short story too simply try and inspire others. To save those like myself before they too must ask, Do I Really Exist?

Can this life be reality?

I went to church most of my childhood, until the preacher man told me God didn't want me. I see kids today and wonder if I was ever really that innocent. Now I sit, beaten down by pain. I always thought life was wonderful and miraculous experience. As a kid I dreamed of being a doctor. I wanted to go to Africa and cure AIDS. I wanted to be the man who a difference in the lives of everyone he touched. I wanted to be respected, I wanted to be loved, and I wanted to be accepted. Now I know none of these are possible. Not for someone like myself. Can this life be reality?

Of course it is, but why?

Obviously this reality is true. I know that the preacher man says God allows suffering because he allows freewill. God, what I wouldn’t give to have the freewill to stand up and declare “I EXIST! QUIT HURTING ME!” Yet I cannot. I cannot hurt my family by telling them. I couldn’t stand the idea of my own dad telling me I am not his. The preacher man already told me that my spiritual father disowned me. I could not handle my flesh father disowning me too. A boy needs at least one dad don’t he? Someone famous said once, “We suffer to learn” I should be a college professor on loneliness. So, can this life be reality? Of course it is, but why?

Why must I pay for sins uncommitted?

I have probably known I was gay since I was about six years old. I remember just a simple and innocent acknowledgement. It was never in words or thoughts, just in action. Where boys were running from the girls with cooties I was chasing the girls to play. Where the boys played sports, I was talking to the girls. Maybe people thought I would be a ladies man. Rock Hudson again I guess. My being gay has so little to do with a physical desire, and so much more to do with an emotional necessity. It is not from downstairs that I think, but from behind my heart. Yet, God has already abandoned me. My family has spent years making sure I know what they think. I have no guy friends, because they seem to think I will turn them gay somehow. I wish it where that easy to show others what pain my broken heart shields. Gay for a day, maybe then some of this world of pain would subside. Maybe then even God would reconsider me. Why must I pay for sins uncommitted?

How did I get infected with homosexuality?

Throughout my short life I have tried time and again to figure out what made me gay. As an early tween I thought it was something I was over-eating or maybe the old joke is true, it’s in the water. Yet, why am I the only one affected by this disease? I know others on the planet exist with this same condition, yet it seems they weren’t coming to help me. I was on my own in a world that wanted me to go away.

As an early teenager I tried to remember if anyone had ever hurt me. I read somewhere that sexual abuse is why people are gay. No such luck, I was perhaps psychologically and spiritually tortured, but none of this could be the cause of my infection. Now I fear the worst, it’s not a disease, which means there is no cure.

With the lack of a specific event, thought or emotional deficiency in which I made the choice of being Gay, I can only assume that I was born this way.

If God does not make mistakes, how can I be gay?

I always thought babies where pure and innocent. Yet this baby grew into a kid who was not wanted. Then a tween that was too scared to find himself. So I became a teen with only so many options. I know I was born this way. I know I was taught not to be who I am. I know I tried to change from being this evil entity to what the world wanted of me. Oh how I tried so desperately, but now I know I was born this way. Yet If God does not make mistakes, how can I be gay?

By the time I was 13 I had experienced others hatred.

Besides protecting the dignity of that little boy in cub scouts, I have had hundreds of run-ins within my short life. As a kid I would hear other boys calling anyone they didn’t like a “fag” I was grateful it wasn’t me they were talking about, yet I was ashamed I wasn’t the gay super-hero I had always dreamed would come and rescue me. I guess the gay super-hero doesn’t exist. I wonder if heroes exist at all. How could they with the pain we all suffer? Whose soul is strong enough to really fight this kind of a battle? Not mine, that’s for sure.

Even today I cannot understand the pain that people afflict onto each other. All I scream and cry out for is love. Maybe that’s what we all cry out for. Maybe the lack of a response to our cries is where the pain comes from. I still believe in God, even if he doesn’t want me too. Today I prayed that someone would answer the next kids cry.

I remember as a kid, I was sitting with my parents in the living room. They were watching the news, while I played with a deck of cards. Then the news story broke; the story that forever changed me; the story that made me afraid to go to sleep, yet afraid to wake up. Mathew Shepard had been beaten then crucified. I guess the preacher man wasn’t lying after all. Jesus died for your sins but not mine. For mine, we must all be crucified physically, spiritually or emotionally. For sins like mine, we must atone ourselves for no church will offer a God that allowed his son to die for me.

By the time I was 13 I had experienced others hatred. Now, at 16, I must atone for my sins. I have suffered two of the three punishments I must in order for God to forgive me. The only one left is physical. I hope God finds I have paid enough for this unnatural sin. Now that I think about it, it has been other people’s hatred that has allowed me to even experience my own self-hatred. Turns out I can beat myself up better than ten gay bashers ever could.

By 15 I had already lost three teeth because of hatred.

Around the age of 13 I also made another mistake. I told the one guy friend I had, that I was gay. The next day after school, two of his friends hit me in the face with a big board until a tooth fell out and blood covered my face. That was when my crucifixion began. I only wish it wasn’t as slow as it has been. Over the next two years I lost a couple more teeth to rumors. Each time I lost a tooth, I thought of Mathew Shepard. I would wonder if this was it. If this time it wouldn’t be just some blood and teeth, but that I too could stop suffering. My face hurt a lot, my mouth looked like I had been hit by a car, and my soul had already died. Where once a soul lived now only the darkness of self-hatred can thrive.

Now, at 16, I am beaten down.

My mouth still isn’t completely healed. I don’t know if that one tooth will ever come back, and the signs of a tortured life show all over my body. Old broken bones that never healed right show their distress. I never told my parents about my fights, so they assumed I was a clumsy kid. How could I ask for a doctor when I would have to explain why I needed one? Besides allowing me to pay for my sins, the physical pain also allowed me to remember that I am subhuman. It is best to remember that when being a deviant like myself. God demands I remember that. I will never gain his forgiveness if I think my sins are as natural as everyone else’s. I have been beaten down in so many painful ways. I have paid for my sin for as long as I can. Now, at 16, I am beaten down.

So, I shall pay my final price.

A life that once held so much potential has been traded for a life of sacrifices. Even sitting here, I still haven’t the courage to tell anyone else that I am gay. It was never the physical pain or death that I feared. It was always the loss of my family’s love that scared me into a slow and silent death. I wish the old tale were true and love could be blind. Then my family and God wouldn’t hate what I am so much. Life though, has proved that love is not blind. The world has taught me what suffering is, and God taught me that all sins are not forgiven. The bible says “if a man also lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Mathew Shepard was the reality of this message from God. My life has been spent living the message of God it seems. I will not fail him; I will fulfill his desires for me. Then, maybe, he will at least allow me to sleep outside the gates of Heaven.

My life.

My life has so very little meaning left in it. It really isn’t a life as much as it’s a purgatory. An event that was designed just for me to pay back to God what I had cheated him of. He created me to be a good person and to help those in need. Instead I threw it all away by being gay. For this one sin, no amount of retribution will save my soul. That’s OK though, my soul left me a long time ago anyways. As if it too where ashamed of me. My life hasn’t been a life since I was a toddler. All the time since then has been my suffering. How I wish I could have been given a chance to do something with My life.

Do I exist?

To a world that wishes people like myself didn’t exist I say have patience. You are slowly killing us without even having to use a weapon. You go to our schools and lecture the next generation on the abomination of homosexuality. You get laws written to ensure gays will never be anything but subhuman. You even manage to make sure the Boy Scouts will eliminate any kid that walks my path. You have ensured no compassion for an entire minority.

Do I Exist?

Yes!

Do you care?

I wish someone would have or even could now; then I wouldn’t be writing my on suicide letter. As in life, this too is done alone. They say in your final moments you will experience the love of God as your beacon of light to go towards. I still don’t feel the presence of God.

***********

Robert

*This is a work of fiction designed to help open the hearts and minds of those who desire it. Every year more and more gay or lesbian teenagers feel the suffering offered in this story.

don’t be afraid that your life will end, be afraid that it will never begin.

(c) Copyright 2007-20011 www.Facebook.com/commanderchase

*** I want to thank whoever pointed out to me that every reason given in this letter has been fixed in our society

this was an old piece of mine written more than 15 years ago I'm glad to see that change comes pretty quick.

[vivithefolle]

Why I headcanon Hermione as white, an essay by me

I’ve been told to post this as an individual post since apparently I was making good points - so here ya go. Please don’t bake me into Dementor cookies.

Okay, so I never thought of Hermione as being anything but white, because in the books there are a few lines that describe her has having pale skin; however “going pale” is also a euphemism for being afraid. Same as “going green” is a euphemism for sickness.

However, I never thought of Hermione as anything but a British white girl because of her lack of reaction to the word “Mudblood”.

Okay so now I’m gonna dig myself a grave because people will accuse me of racism, but hear me out on this one. To be clear: I don’t mind fanarts of Hermione or Harry with varied skin colors. Hell, draw and interpret canon in any way you want, buddy, it’s your interpretation and it’s awesome! But when I write about Hermione and Harry, in my mind’s eye, I envision them as your average caucasian kid.

Below are my explanations for it. You’re free to disagree or call me out, but please read them first before you condemn me to twelve years in Azkaban.

When Hermione is being called a Mudblood, she doesn’t react. She understands that it’s an insult but she doesn’t seem to grasp its actual meaning, even after she’s learned what it’s for, and as the series progresses, she still doesn’t react to it. She mostly tries to keep Ron from beating Malfoy into a pulp over it.

Now, this behaviour doesn’t strike me as that of a socially inept, extremely opinionated and argumentative, very bossy young woman.

I mean. Would Hermione be the sort to let herself be insulted without doing anything about it? She replies to Pansy Parkinson’s cruel barbs by comments of her own. She defends herself when she’s being called out by her friends. She has no problem insulting Ron when she thinks he’s being insensitive. Rita Skeeter talks shit about her and she ends up locked in a jar for a week!! But have Malfoy call her “Mudblood” and she remains silent, at least until the sixth book.

What if it wasn’t because she’s used to racism, but on the contrary because she doesn’t know how to handle it, because she’s never experienced it?

I mean, had Hermione ever gotten grief over her skin colour, she’d be outraged and disappointed that this ideal, magical new world, that she would consider an outlet from the racist bullies back home, had actually its own form of racism, right?

Seeing her reactions to being called a racial slur, Hermione doesn’t strike me as a person who experienced racism - it’s because she’s not used to it, because to her it’s isn’t someone insulting her heritage; rather, it’s just some bully calling her an insult that feels distant and faraway to her.

For example. I once got called a whore. I’m asexual, I’ve never dated anyone, and never once dressed in anything that could be considered as remotely risqué. Still I got called a whore. And it mostly left me a bit confused rather than offended, because I knew that if there was a word to use to qualify me, “whore” would definitely not be one. (For the curious ones, the guy called me a whore because of my lifelong obsession with Pokémon. Yes, I fail to see the logic as well.)

So when Hermione hears someone call her a Mudblood, she doesn’t really registers the word as being a racist comment, instead she considers it some trivial, playground-level insult. It’s exactly why Ron gets so angry and protective on her behalf: because she should be offended by such a slur, and she isn’t. Anyway, that’s always how I’ve read it.

Also, her comment on horses when she talks about Firenze. Now I know that people of color can be racist as well, but she says it so… casually, so flippantly. It’d strike me as odd that someone so sensitive to the plight of creatures seen as “subhuman” would be able to say something like that without understanding the implications… Unless she has no idea that referring to centaurs as “horses” is an extremely offensive thing to do, because she doesn’t realize how racist it sounds, because she herself has never heard someone, say, call her “a monkey” for being black.

And you know, I think that having Hermione as a white girl isn’t so bad, come to think of it. My opinion is probably going to come off as controversial but I really, really want to voice it.

We have Harry, Ron and Hermione, a set of three characters, all from different backgrounds, and all privileged in different ways.

For Harry, it’s fame and fortune. Being the Boy-Who-Lived, no matter how much he may complain about it, is something that puts him ‘above the rest’. It allows him to get away with ballooning up Aunt Marge because Fudge won’t have the Saviour of Wizarding Britain in prison over something as minuscule as one tiny breach of the Statute of Secrecy - yes, it’s sarcasm. The point is: Harry’s status as Boy-Who-Lived may cause him grief, but it certainly comes with a few perks.

Ron’s privilege is, of course, his blood status. Being a pureblood is valued among the magical community and could even make some Death Eaters think twice before killing you. I think Voldemort would want to preserve as much of the Sacred Twenty-Eight’s bloodlines, considering how few there are left. (and yes, I have my own headcanon for how exactly he’d keep them alive. Wait for it…)

Hermione’s privilege is, quite simply, her normal, comfortable life in the Muggle world. A life where nobody looks down on her origins; a life where she never had to experience a war and its aftermaths; a life where she might feel a bit the outcast due to her brains and accidental magic, but would you rather be an outcast and live, or be considered “impure” and be killed without a second thought?

So, each member of the trio has some form of privilege, and it’s counterbalanced by a lack of privilege somewhere else. The ironic thing is that it’s usually the privilege of another one of them!

Harry’s, we all know: not everyone can be raised in a loving, accepting home like Hermione and Ron do, and it hits him full force with the Dursleys. For all his money and fame, Harry lacks a true, warm family (luckily Ron is quick to offer him one). And even if he can see the Weasleys every summer, he still has to return to Privet Drive and be reminded for a few weeks that yes, these arseholes he’s forced to live with are his only still living relatives.

The Weasleys’ poverty is evidently one of the ways Ron lacks privilege, but the very thing that is considered a privilege in the magical community turns out to be a double-edged sword; being a blood traitor, in dear Bella’s own words, is “right next to being a Mudblood”. Now, I mentioned I had a headcanon for how Voldemort might try to keep the old bloodlines running? Well, even though they’re blood traitors, the blood’s still pure, right? You’d just need them to stop supporting these pesky Muggleborns… you could have one of them conceive an heir, a perfect blank slate whom you’d teach all about blood purity… Now wouldn’t that be convenient? (I am aware that this headcanon is absolutely horrifying and I’m sorry I ever came up with it. I was just thinking of what Molly might have said to try and stop Ron from going on the run in DH, and suddenly this popped into my head and I was like “oh this is so awful!… it’s perfect”.)

And finally, Hermione’s lack of privilege solely resides in the Wizarding World she loves so much, and is probably what she considers the only downside to her being a witch: the fact that she’s looked down upon by blood supremacists who hold on to archaic views, and sadly these guys are from rich families and have influence over several important people… since they can bribe the less morally sound, it makes them much more dangerous than a couple of penniless drunkards shouting abuse in the street.

Making Hermione into someone who’s been dealing with racism her whole life instead of giving her this comfortable, safe home to return to - it breaks the delicate balance of privilege / lack of privilege in the trio.

I personally think that Hermione’s character is much more interesting if you make her come into the Wizarding World as this wide-eyed little kid who’s already persuaded she knows everything and that she’ll be hailed as a prodigy, only to have her understand that, just as respect is not something you’re entitled to, but something you have to earn - that’s the first lesson she’ll learn from Ron - there are also people who just won’t respect you because they’re prejudiced little buggers - and that’s where Malfoy comes in (and sorry but he’s just here to be a disgusting bigot, not to be redeemed by Hermione’s luuuuurve).

I get it, the the whole “Hermione is discriminated in both worlds” theme makes her a very tragic character… But that’s exactly the problem. If you take away Hermione’s privilege, it ends up being “the terrible, tragic, angsty tale of Hermione Granger, woe is her”, and she ends up in a position where people will just throw her a gigantic pity-party.

The trio’s characters are carefully balanced, and making Hermione a victim of racism in both Muggle and magical worlds ends up screwing over the remaining two by putting more woes on Hermione’s shoulders. Making Harry a victim of racism as well does the exact same thing - and I’d argue it makes it worse, because Ron-bashers are already very eager to scream “omg so wha t if he doezn’t hav moneys he complain for nuthing what a t erribl e freind” and to completely disregard Ron’s struggles… so add discriminated, rejected-by-both-worlds Harry and Hermione into this mix and Ron’s issues would be downright ignored in favour of Harry’s and Hermione’s, who would seem to have “more misery” on their plates compared to him, at least in a purely mathematical sense (the argument being that “more issues to deal with = more misery”).

Okay, you’re still with me, you haven’t unfollowed me, and you’re not completely outraged at my reasoning? Then let me tell you again: I don’t care about the characters’ skin color, and you can interpret them any way you want. Make Harry have Asian ancestry or have Hermione be a black woman, be creative, have fun. This is the way I see the characters and the way I interpret them, and my own reasoning for doing so. A trio is a balancing act and must be carefully constructed so there is equilibrium on every side. Add or substract something and it all tips over. It’s the main reason why the trio is so unrecognizable in the movies, with a Harry as bland as canned soup, a Ron turned into both a joke and dead weight, and a Hermione as realistic as a turtle dancing the boogie on ice-skates.

The triangle is the most stable geometric figure. Without Harry, Ron and Hermione have no purpose (besides falling in love and living happily ever after of course). Without Hermione, Harry and Ron manage but lose a great deal of time, and then it might be too late for them to save the day. And without Ron… Harry and Hermione are downright unable to function, kind of like a horse with a broken leg.

Why do you think Rowling had created only three different wand cores at first? Or why Harry, Ron and Hermione present some qualities from Slytherin, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff respectively? (yes, I associated Ron to Ravenclaw, because Rowena wanted “wit beyond measure” and Ron has wit in spades, and Hufflepuffs are known to be hard-working, which fits Hermione’s work ethic perfectly) Or why there are three Hallows, and why each member of the trio picks a different one? It’s all for the sake of the balancing act. A duo is made of opposites. A trio is made of complementarities.

… Well, this turned into an impromptu lecture on literature. I hope this’ll help you if you ever need to create your very own trio of heroes.

[silvokrent]

This isn’t nearly as in-depth as I’d like it to be, but here’s my reaction to firearms legislation, mass shootings, who or what’s “to blame,” and what we should be doing about it.

At this point, honestly, I don’t care what your political stance is, whether or not you think gun legislation will or won’t stop “criminals” (whatever the fuck that actually means) from still getting access to firearms illegally. At this point, all that I care about is that we do something instead of debating every single hypothetical pro and con to any degree of restrictive firearms access. Yes, gun violence is a multifaceted issue, and the motives behind each individual instance of a shooting are going to vary. So if we’re not going to talk about making it more difficult for anyone to buy firearms, let’s talk about the sociopolitical motivations behind mass shootings, and what sort of solutions we as a society are willing to commit to.

The shooter was [insert minority here] that was motivated by [vague generalization of an aspect of their culture]. Okay. So if the attack was done by a perpetrator who had biased, bigoted beliefs that they inherited from their family/immediate cultural influence at home, then maybe we should implement more effective and comprehensive policies in schools that enforce ideological acceptance. Say, for example, that the shooter held misogynistic, antisemitic, anti-black, and anti-LGBT+ beliefs. Here’s a potential solution: legally mandate that schools — colleges, universities, and K-12 private, public, and charter schools — teach their students that women, Jews, non-white Americans, and LGBT+ people have the same human rights as anyone else, and that verbally/mentally/emotionally/physically abusing them in any social environment/setting (work, school, the gym, the bus stop, etc.) is unequivocally wrong. Start teaching children as young as pre-K that these toxic beliefs are not acceptable, no matter what that child’s parents are teaching them at home. Undermine hatred that the child is inheriting from their family. Teach children earlier about privilege and the centuries’ worth of oppression that marginalized groups have experienced and continue to experience, and teach them how to be allies to marginalized groups, like non-neurotypical individuals, or people that are physically disabled. Teach students comprehensive, scientifically-accurate sex ed, that illustrates the differences between biological sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and that these differences do not get to be treated as “abnormal” or “subhuman” just because they’re not as prevalent or as widely-represented as heteronormativity or cisgendered folks. We should also take the time to educate people that just because you meet a person of a certain demographic with a hateful belief, doesn’t mean they represent their entire group. If rampant Islamophobia has taught us anything, it’s that society likes to create “the great other” to have as a relevant foil for our own values, and as a readily-identifiable enemy, while ignoring the hypocrisies and flaws we deny are a part of our own cultures.

But teaching children/students to accept people of other walks of life goes against my personal beliefs! If the government meddles too much in education, they could easily co-opt learning in the future to push certain agendas. Besides, you don’t have the right to indoctrinate my children with your radical liberal ideas! I wasn’t aware that teaching children to not be dickheads to other people was a radical liberal notion, but fine. Have it your way. And yes, I agree, too much government intervention can have its own problems, in a sense of who’s watching the watchman and making sure they don’t overstep certain boundaries. But having no standardized code that teaches students to accept people from other cultural/religious/ethnic/genetic backgrounds isn’t a solution, either. And frankly, there should be no reason why anyone would argue against teaching our kids that diversity is worthy of acceptance and celebration, not shunning and discrimination. If you’re not willing to enact a solution to fix the motivation behind mass shootings, then we need to make it harder for people with radicalized hateful beliefs to acquire firearms. Either present another plausible solution to reduce mass shootings, or pick one of the aforementioned solutions.

The shooter was a [insert person with a mental illness]. Sane people don’t commit terrorist acts! Ah, yes. The old “let’s scapegoat people with mental illnesses as the perpetrators as these attacks, rather than as the overwhelming victims, in order to avoid talking about gun control.” Very well. If we’re going to continue assigning sole culpability to individuals with anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, and other psychopathologies, then that means we need to make medical treatment easier to acquire and less stigmatized. If you have a diagnosed mental illness, then you should be able to access free — or at the very least, cheap and affordable — healthcare to treat your condition long-term, through medication, one-on-one patient-psychologist/psychiatrist therapy, and accommodations in the workplace, school, and so on. People with mental illness should have greater access to resources that protect them from housing and workplace discrimination. We must, as a collective society, learn to not ridicule or make disparaging jokes at their expense, often to the effect of exacerbating their mental illness. We need to learn to not sneer at coping mechanisms, or ridicule someone that has a service animal for emotional and otherwise support. Because if mentally ill people are responsible for these attacks, then that means we should be treating their psychopathologies in order to prevent mass shootings, right?

But I don’t want my tax dollars to go toward the mentally ill! I shouldn’t have to pay to fix their problems. Skirting around the fact that people with mental illnesses didn’t ask to have those “problems” in the first place, what you’re saying is that “here’s a potential solution that could save human lives, but I’m not willing to spend money on it.” If allocating our government tax dollars means that people suffering from mental illnesses get help, and people aren’t as likely to die in mass shootings, then isn’t that worth the expenditure? Either present another plausible solution to reduce mass shootings, or pick one of the aforementioned solutions. 

Look. Lax gun laws are not the sole culprit behind mass shootings. The United States is a petri dish of centuries’ worth of culture clash, and the subsequent internalized hatred that comes with over-representation of privileged demographics, and erasure of marginalized people that’ve been stigmatized by the media. The problem is a combination of factors: compassion fatigue, apathy, complacency, a status quo that solely benefits certain groups at others’ expense, and an unwillingness to examine or relinquish our own biases because we don’t want to change. Radicalized violence and terrorism are multifaceted issues, influenced by factors I haven’t even touched on, because it’s late, I’m tired, and frankly I’m not the best person qualified to educate others on a complex topic I’ve only just begun to unravel myself. But I do know that we need to find a solution. We needed a solution yesterday. We needed a solution months ago. We needed a solution decades ago. Every time we are bombarded by senseless bloodshed and death, we go through the ritual of “sending our thoughts and prayers,” and then patting ourselves on the back and congratulating ourselves for doing what we think counts as the bare minimum.

It’s not enough. It’s never been enough.

Whenever someone tries to foster a discussion on gun violence and the underlying issues, the loudest voices in the room (typically our elected politicians) default to the cliché red herrings of “mental illness” and “[person of a certain minority group] committed the act, therefore [their demographic] as a whole is to blame.” And while there have been instances in the past of shootings being linked to specific groups, these generalizations are correlation, not causation. Clearly, pinning blame to any one group — a tactic we’ve been using for years — hasn’t fixed the issue, so we need to come up with a different answer. Revising our education and healthcare systems have the potential to fix so many issues in our country, but arguments are always made for why “it can’t be done.”

“Can’t” means “won’t.” Meaning that people have the capacity to try, but aren’t willing to.

Which brings us back to firearms. Because until we, as a country, are willing to sit down and find a solution for hate crimes and mental illness (the alleged culprits), then we need to make it harder for people to buy military-grade firearms and go on killing sprees at schools, nightclubs, and concerts. Our “right” to buy and stockpile thirty fucking assault rifles without a comprehensive system to account for the whereabouts of those weapons, and the identity of the wielder does not supersede a person’s right to not be shot and killed.

People are dying nearly every other day in our country at a rate not seen in other nations. At the very least, we should at least be willing to ask other countries for help, and try implementing their tactics just to find out whether or not they’d be a viable option for our country. Not wanting people dead as a result of gun violence isn’t a fucking political opinion. It’s not even a contentious ethical debate. It’s doing the right fucking thing. And if you don’t like any of the proposed solutions, then instead of telling me why mine are inherently wrong, offer up one of your own.

[lindyhunt]

Are Sex Robots Really the Answer to the Incel Problem?

The ranks here at FASHION are not filled with men. Shocking, right? But there are one or two (there are actually, literally, two). Naturally, when a question about male/female dynamics arises it’s only fair that one of them stand in for the members of his gender and provide some insight. Our last topic of conversation was why men tend to get defensive when the #MeToo filter is applied to certain news stories, and today we’re wading into the concept of ‘the redistribution of sex’ as a response to the incel movement. Two of our staffers—from the men’s corner, Greg Hudson, and from the women’s, Pahull Bains—talk it out.

Pahull Bains: Last week, the New York Times published a whopper of an op-ed by a man named Ross Douthat in which he put forth his thoughts on how the “redistribution of sex,” much like an equitable distribution of property or money, could be the key to a future without angry, violent behaviour from men who identify as incels: “involuntary celibates” aka men who find it difficult or impossible to find sexual partners. (The op-ed is in response to the recent killing spree in Toronto at the hands of self-declared incel Alek Minassian, which left ten people dead.)

Aside from the fact that to posit this sort of argument requires one to consider women’s bodies a commodity, much like land or money, and erases entirely their agency in the ‘transaction’ of sex, there’s also the tiny matter of equating incels—men with a demonstrably violent and misogynistic worldview—as a subjugated group worthy of a paradigm shift undertaken on their behalf. To help his argument, Douthat quoted Robin Hanson, an economist who, in his estimation, is a “brilliant weirdo:” “One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.” Douthat goes on to suggest that a combination of sex workers, virtual-reality porn and sex robots might be the answer to “address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing.”

These arguments fail to consider several points. 1) Women are as likely as men to suffer from a lack of sex, yet we don’t see women shooting up frat houses or “threatening violence” as a result of it. 2) Since men are the prime “sufferers” here, a ‘right to sex’ largely translates to a ‘right to women.’ 3) If we are to go by the Reddit and 4Chan message boards where incels gather to vent and commiserate, it’s not just a ‘right to women,’ but a ‘right to attractive women.’ So mere access to sex—or in the case of sex robots, access to acquiescent partners—isn’t the solution. Incels demand that the women they fantasize about—the ‘hot, beautiful blonde girls’ that Elliot Rodger, patron saint of incels, purported to hate in the manifesto he left behind after his 2014 massacre—be truly interested in them. It is the absence of unattainable, beautiful women in their lives that they deplore, not necessarily absence of the sexual act itself. So how could something like sex robots possibly appease that burning, and likely insatiable, desire? Tell me Greg. How???

Greg Hudson: It’s like you’ve been reading my Internet history or something.

While the devil likely doesn’t need an advocate (especially now that Ty Cobb is available–HEY-O political humour!), I want to push back on a few of the things you said. Not because I believe that we should live in a world where the sexual needs of misogynistic men are at all a priority, but because I think this is at least an attempt to find some kind of solution to what is obviously a giant problem. It’s easy to feel nihilistic about this, just as it is when discussing terrorism based on other ideologies. You even alluded to that yourself when you call their problem an “insatiable desire.” There’s no hope!

But the problem is, when there aren’t many solutions offered, the few that are can seem smarter than they actually are. Because, while I admit that parts of his thinking is intriguing, it seems he maybe should have spoken to like one woman before publishing this, if only to flesh out the details of what he’s proposing.

Let’s put aside talk of incels for a moment, so that this Redistribution of Sex Idea isn’t a kind of ransom/response to incel terrorism.

You mention that there are women who suffer because they maybe don’t get the sex they wish they could have, but they don’t go out and kill anyone. That seems true! But of all the incels out there, only two have made the news for causing mass violence. Most just feel bitter and mean and make nasty comments on the internet. It’s similar to the argument silly gun fans make about gun control: that the mass shootings skew the picture. The reality is most gun deaths are suicides. (How that really works as an argument against gun control is kind of tortured). Most incels are just sad.

But what if sex was a right for both genders? What if Ross Douthat had included women in his piece? As he mentions in the piece, we often look to programs that help connect disabled people up with sex workers as progressive and important. The differently abled deserve physical affection, too! What if sex was just one aspect of holistic healthcare? Like mental healthcare, sex would be available if you want it (and maybe qualify), but not essential. Does that change the argument at all? Because you’re right, a Right to Women is gross. But, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to distill this argument down to that.

We’ll get back to why this probably wouldn’t help incels.

PB: But incels are not disabled people! (Unless you construe a lack of game as a disability, in which case, I think we’re done here.) And I don’t think we can reasonably conclude that most incels are “just sad.” Yes, only two might have committed mass violence thus far, but they are cited as heroes on these message boards and their acts are glorified. So although we could agree that the majority of the men who identify as incels don’t go out and commit murder, it’s indisputable that they harbour virulent views about women. Even the most cursory glance at some of the misogynistic message boards of the ‘manosphere’ is enough to see that. I mean, a word I saw coming up over and over was ‘femoid,’ which, it turns out, is a combination of female and humanoid, implying that women are subhuman. Another common thread was the opinion that the only thing women are good for is sex.) So I don’t think these men need to commit an act of mass terrorism to be deemed dangerous or potentially violent.

Now, getting to the women. Again, not being charming or beautiful or confident enough to attract men (or women!) does not a disability make. So if we were to talk about sex as a right, regardless of whether or not you’re disabled, we’d have to first address the question: what makes something an inalienable right in the first place? And what makes sex fall into that category?

GH: Ugh. I don’t like that I’m within walking distance of defending incels. Like if incels were a highway McDonalds, and defending them was buying a Big Mac, then I’d be seeing the golden arches looming. And Big Macs always make me super sick.

Assuming sexism leads to violence isn’t really fair. All men who are violent towards women are sexist, but not all sexists are violent. In fact, I think it’s more likely–and we should just state that both of us are making assumptions that may or may not prove to be true according to the data we don’t have–that most incels don’t have the confidence, means, or strength to incite much violence. They see themselves as Good Guys. Until they don’t.

You have a very strange way of defining a right. I can’t think of any inalienable rights that are so defined. Is healthcare a right? I think most Canadians would agree that it is. What about a childhood free of fear, hunger, abuse? What about an adulthood like that? Probably. I mean, it’s a hard right to enforce, but I think we’d all prefer a society that ensures the safety and at least minimal care of its people.

There is a significant push to have employment, or a living wage, be considered a right, even though it would be just as easy to say, “why is laziness a disability?” I don’t know if I agree, but one could make the argument that sex–physical touch, affection, intimacy–affects one’s quality of life in pretty serious ways. And just as there are many reasons a person can’t work, or find a job–some visible, others not so much– there are many reasons why men and women might have trouble finding sex. But if there are people who deeply miss human intimacy, and there is an industry set up to meet those people’s needs–and if that happened to prevent some men’s loneliness from curdling into misogyny, wouldn’t that be kind of cool?

But, to your point: it’s not orgasms that incels want. It’s not dates, either. Not really. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of meeting someone truly eccentric and then meeting their partner and thinking, yup, there’s someone for everybody.

The incels don’t just want sex, they want validation and companionship and love. They want to believe they are okay, and the only evidence they’ll accept is a woman who aligns with society’s definition of beauty, wanting to be with them. That they only see these women as prizes or means to their own gratification is what turns them into monsters. Would having a regular appointment with a sex worker help them see women differently? Part of me thinks it wouldn’t, since they’d always know they were paying for sex (even though in my pretend reality, this sex therapy is subsidized by the government), which would insult their fragile sensibilities and prove that women are objects that can be bought. But, then again, a therapist is a friend you pay for and that doesn’t stop them from helping people.

I think what I didn’t like about the responses to Ross Douthat’s column was that so many of them lacked imagination. They presumed a world where the sex robots and sex workers were essentially enslaved, against their will. It’s as though we all assumed that this redistribution of sex was going to be done with all the grace and nuance of a dictatorship, rewarding only men at the expense of women. That’s partly a result of how it was written–and what it was written in response to. But if we forget that a conservative columnist wrote it, would the principle of accessible sex be dangerous?

But, seeing as how we don’t live in Greg’s Socialist Sexual Utopia, in real life incels, violent or not, don’t just want sex. They want to punish.

What’s the answer then?

PB: Quick note: I don’t believe that sexism leads to violence, nor do I think I implied that. There is a wiiide, Grand Canyon-scale expanse between sexism and violent misogyny, and I think it’s safe to say that incels fall pretty firmly in the latter camp. (Last year, the 40,000-member ‘Incel’ group on Reddit was shut down by the site following policy changes that prohibited content that “encourages, glorifies, incites or calls for violence.”)

Now, back to the sex-as-a-right thing. While I do agree that sex affects the quality of a person’s life, treating sex as a right turns our world into a minefield. What, then, would prevent husbands from arguing that marital rape isn’t rape, it’s a response to their wives denying them their basic right to sex? As Amia Srinivasan noted in her recent London Review of Books essay: “On the now defunct Reddit group, a post titled ‘It should be legal for incels to rape women’ explained that ‘No starving man should have to go to prison for stealing food, and no sexually starved man should have to go to prison for raping a woman.’” So if we did live in a world where sex was considered a universal human right, we’d have lots more ideologies like that floating around, and what’s worse—legally sound ideologies. That seems more dystopian than utopian from where I’m standing.

You ask: ‘would the principle of accessible sex be dangerous?’ No, of course not. But there’s a huge difference between access to sex, and a right to sex. Accessible sex is already a reality. (Let’s face it: the fact that prostitution is illegal isn’t really slowing anyone down.) What we both agree on, I think, is that access to sex isn’t actually going to solve the incel problem because it’s far more deep-rooted than that.

Going back to Douthat’s op-ed, what bothers me the most is that, like with most problems that involve male violence against women, the burden to fix it or to find a solution instantly falls on the women’s shoulders. It’s always ‘how do women adjust or reevaluate what they’re wearing or how much they’re drinking or whom they trust,’ instead of ‘how do men adjust or recalibrate their mindset or outlook or behaviour toward women.’ This is another manifestation of that. Rather than looking at the incel movement as a potentially violent and sadistic ideology, and trying to figure out how to address it, the solution goes immediately to how women (or robots!) can appease and satisfy it. Rather than the policing or probing of this dangerous mentality, women must find a way to live safely around the contours of it.

GH: Nuts. Man, I forget that the world is the worst. Here I am imagining this world where sad, angry, lonely people can talk to a mental health professional and get a prescription for like a date night with a sex professional, who will help them feel less alone. And once people feel less alone, all misogyny, racism, homophobia, and whatever else ails the deplorable set, will melt away and we’ll all bake birthday cakes full of rainbows and speak only in clapping emojis.

And while I don’t really see how sex as a right will lead to marital rape–just because something is a right doesn’t mean violently stealing it is justified, especially since there is already a recourse for spouses who are unhappy with their sex life. It’s called divorce.

But I realize that that is all a little idealistic. In a way, I’m doing the same thing that I said annoyed me about other people’s response to Douthat’s column: I’m judging it based on what I’m wishing it said, and not what it really encouraged.

Thus, to answer your very first question: sex robots can’t fix this. I don’t know how the incel ideology can be fixed. But, I’ll do whatever you think I should!

PB: I think the first step is accepting that incels are not “sad, angry, lonely people,” who might be easily cured with drugs or weekly sex (android or otherwise). As Harper’s Bazaar’s political editor at large noted in her recent piece: “Their existence is not about being lonely. It is about blaming women for their loneliness.” The sooner we all see the deeply violent, unstable and misogynistic ideology driving the incel movement, the better off we’ll be.