#cause I think they have so many ideas in common?? but a different approach??

[rosesnbooks]

Taurus placements🍃

💚Sun in taurus-i believe that they have one thing in common: they have hobbies that fulfill them. you won't catch them overworking themselves to the point that they do not take a break to do something they love. they are good at different things as well and are often fast learners. no matter what other placements they have, i think they have a pretty approachable nature. i have met people with this placement who are quite intelligent. i think they are a bit impatient at times and want to do things their own way, and it's up to you whether that offends you or not lol. loving and sensitive people at their core<3

💚Moon in taurus-some of the warmest people you will ever meet. they value the people in their lives and they are often a voice of reason when you need it the most. they know how to pay attention to you and converse with you respectfully, even when you disagree on things. they have specific worldviews that are difficult to change, but if they think you're sensible and kind, they may try to change their perspective. that being said, in any other scenario, good luck changing their mind. they're pretty chill most of the time, so when you provoke a strong reaction out of them, you probably made a huge mistake (good luck). they're also soft honestly, but do not be mistaken, they are strong people. i have noticed that they are usually closer to their mums than dads, and their dads have a distant character. main love language: acts of service<3

💚Ascendant/rising in taurus- um, stunning and magnetic. this is well-known though, but they deserve to hear it every time. they are charming and the women give off girl-next-door vibes. i feel like they all share similar eyes, just google the celebs and you'll see what i mean, just a warm look overall. some may appear intense, depending on their other placements, but as soon as you talk to them it feels like you're talking to a friend. oh and the elegance some of them have? amazing. intelligent as well🙏

💚Mercury in taurus-i have to say, i did not expect them to be so talkative. they are a bit shy when talking to new people or those they do not feel that comfortable with, but as soon as they relax with someone, they are yappers lol. when they like a topic, it's possible they have given it a lot of thought so they have a lot to say. similarly to aries mercury, they have strong opinions but they can be more open-minded when they want to. they can sound too objective sometimes, and give a bit harsh advice. they also love to gossip, sometimes even too loud when they're into it. to me, they have a specific voice, it kind of stands out among others. some men with this placement are known for having a really nice voice

💚Venus in taurus-they adore the idea of love. you'll catch them watching rom-coms every once in a while so they could satisfy that part of them. if they don't show their romantic side when they're with you, you're wasting your time cause they're clearly not that into you. they want you to share some of their interests, possibly because they want to spend even more time with you and feel like you get each other. i think they can also be guilty of idealising their partners a lot and create an image of their persona that's not real. one of their main love languages is gift giving, heavy emphasis on this.

💚Mars in taurus-intimidating when you cross them. they are pretty good at going after what they want and although they experience a lot of stress until they achieve things, they still excel at it. they may hide their frustrations pretty well, and then when they're alone or with people they can be themselves with, lmao they let out so many emotions. at this point i'm even ashamed to describe them as "stubborn" because that's their middle name, everyone knows it. out of all the placements i feel like they lean the most toward conservative views? do let me know if im on the right track here. they also need to watch out for being insensitive at times

💚Jupiter in taurus-i'll have to be brief here (sorry) because i don't know anyone with this placement, but only what i've read over the years. they usually have a good eye for aesthetics and appreciate following one themselves, they know how to cook and in general provide a sense of a comfortable home. they are good with all things material, and they are quite sensual. they know how to enjoy life and use their sensibility and charm to succeed, and get far in life. i respect them tbh!

💚Saturn in taurus-it isn't easy for them to focus on the material world and focus on what's right in front of them. they're often in their daydreams and are quite capable people, but they need a push sometimes to actually start doing things (khm procrastinators) that does not mean they are irresponsible, but they experience difficulties with the worldly expectations (hope this makes sense). they are sensible and wise, but the part that requires to act on it can sometimes shut down🫂i've read this many times and can confirm it since i have this placement: scared of losing things-property/money/land, you name it. lastly, they just understand how people function and they are wise!

thank you for reading this, hun! i would love to hear your feedback💌

[snapscube]

on the name thing: i think people want to call you something different because they like you and want to feel like they're your friend by giving you their own quirky nickname. a show of affection or something. that's my good will interpretation of it because it's certaintainly something I can relate to.

also hope this is ok to say, but I miss seeing you doing facecam. you're gorgeous ^^ i respect if you don't feel comfy with it tho, it ain't easy and it's probably much comfier to not bother with it at all lol

have a great day, Penny!

(i know i literally just said im moving on from this but i felt like this idea was worth responding to, AFTER THIS i am moving on guaranteed) i get that! and thats why i stress that i feel this way regardless of intent because the last thing i want to do is cause guilt or demonize people for something that's ultimately pretty common. but even considering your example, with that notion comes a couple problems:

i am not your friend! i do think that there has been a bit of an OVER-correction when it comes to how people think about parasocial relationships and personally relating to people they admire, and generally i like to push back against the notion that having any parasocial relationship is a bad thing cause personally i think parasocial relationships are unavoidable and it's more about your expectations towards that one-sided relationship that become the issue. but two things remain true in either case: i know you so much less than you know me, AND you know me infinitely less than you think you do. so at the end of the day, it is not my responsibility to walk on eggshells about behavior that assumes an intimacy from me i am incapable of and especially uninterested in retaliating.

i have to stress that i am extremely aware it would be insane of me to expect to control peoples actions regarding this on such a large scale, and im also well aware many people come in who are new who get this info for the first time. i repeat the conversation in the interest of introducing those boundaries to people who are new and in general just reinforcing them. i try not to be such a stick in the mud about most things but this is something I REALLY care about, and so i give it the no-nonsense approach i think it deserves. on that note: understanding that there are going to be gaps where people either just do not know about my preferences or simply do not care doesn't mean i have to pretend like i also don't care about it. people can say whatever they want about me in their own spaces, you can call me whatever the fuck you want amongst friends. i do not care cause i do not have the capability to care, it's never going to reach me! but that does not mean i have to pretend to enjoy it if/when it DOES reach me, especially if it's presented as an option for me to respond to. if someone just calls me something weird in a chatroom it's like, i literally do not have the energy or overall scope of vision to react to every one of those instances specifically. there absolutely are things u just gotta let roll off of u sometimes. BUT, the reason we often get into this conversation repeatedly on my tumblr is because given the ask format i get a lot of people who go out of their way to approach me with name jokes or loopholes to an actively established preference as if they are looking for my approval on it. that is where it becomes a little more unpalatable for me.

and to respond to your second question: i appreciate the kind words on that! i sure would like to reintroduce facecam again someday somehow but right now my desk setup is not great for it haha

[howtofightwrite]

What is the difference between fencing and actual sword fighting, exactly? If I were to throw an olympic fencer against a master swordsperson, what would the most likely outcome of such a fight be?

The first and most obvious answer is that only one of these individuals is trained for combat.

The second answer is that only one of them uses (and trains with intent to use) a real weapon.

I’m going to assume this question revolves around an Olympic fencer dueling with a master swordsman with a live weapon and not in accordance with Olympic fencing rules. An Olympic fencer’s best chance at winning is a bout with a modern epee/saber under Olympic fencing rules and it’s also the case where (probably) no one dies or is gravely injured.

Olympic fencing is a sport. As a result of its evolution, it’s pretty much unrecognizable as even a martial form today and, in pursuit of the new requirements for winning, has divested itself of the weapon aspect. While much of the terminology remains the same, the key difference to grasp about Olympic fencers is that they’re not trained to fence around the idea that the sword in their hand is a dangerous weapon (because it isn’t.) In fact, the ultimate goal of winning in their sport (score points) is hindered by that mentality. To the Olympic fencer, it doesn’t matter if they get hit so long as they score first and have right of way when they do. If those at the top of the sport were handed a real historical epee, told to fence, and changed nothing in their approach, the end result would be a double suicide. (Which is ironic because that’s one of the reasons why the epee was restricted historically. When it came to dueling, it was a little too efficient.)

There is no caution here because there doesn’t need to be. Tactics and techniques which will cause a fencer to commit suicide against an opponent with a live blade work exceptionally well once the risk of death is off the table.

This isn’t just restricted to Olympic fencing. If you take any martial art that has transitioned to a sport and put the practitioner up against someone who kills people for a living, even if they are one of the best in their field, they will be at an inherent disadvantage. The requirements for winning according to the sport’s rules are vastly different from the requirements for winning in a life or death situation.

And that’s just the first hurdle.

The next hurdle is the weapon itself.

Duels are specifically between weapons of the same type. This rule is meant to level the playing field and ensure the duel is decided on “skill” rather than weapon advantage. Depending on their point of origin (for the purpose of this question, I’m assuming European) a master swordsman would have been familiar with and likely trained in several different sword styles, depending on era would be a master of their own school or in the employ of a noble house. If you need a comparable profession for a master duelist, think of them like lawyers. Except, the victory was decided by skill with a blade rather than a compelling argument. (We could say that skill with a blade is a compelling argument, but I digress.) One doesn’t get to be a master swordsman until after many years of study with the blade and victories under their belt. Depending on the era of history, the duel requirements of the duel could be anywhere between armored or unarmored, to first blood or to the death, and cover a variety of different swords, each with their own developed styles (and that is styles plural.)

Our Olympic fencer will be fucked by varying degrees depending on the live blade in question but, make no mistake, they’ll be pretty much fucked by any option picked. Running counter to their ubiquitous nature in popular culture, swords are not one size fits all. Outside of common principles there’s almost no training crossover. Every sword handles differently. These variations include length of the blade, length of the hilt, location of the crossguard, the weapon’s weight, the weapon’s weight distribution, the location of its balance point, whether it is primarily used with one hand or two, whether it is primarily a weapon for thrusting (the rapier) or cutting (the saber,) etc. Their grip would be off, and  probably wouldn’t be able to hold the sword properly.

The modern version of a fencing “sword” is not equivalent to any of these. Their closest stylistic match up in terms of inherited movement is the 19th century epee, but we’re still miles apart.

Then there’s the mentality issue.

The Olympic fencer hasn’t trained around the idea that death or major injury are accidental. Possible, yes, a risk, yes, but in the same way they are for any other sport. These are surprise, tragic occurrences and not part of regular bouts. For reference, in terms of the dangers of physical contact, a modern fencer faces less risk than a football player. For the master swordsman, the opposite is true. There is no variant of historical dueling which doesn’t risk death in some capacity, whether that’s a confirmed death on the dueling field itself or from an injury or infection later. Those historical circumstances where you see individuals dueling topless is (ironically) for practical reasons and not titillation. Many duelists, victorious or not, died from infection after cloth or other detritus got into their wounds. In this way, our modern Olympic fencer is less prepared than a duelist of average skill, much less a master.

Is the Olympic fencer ready to put their life and body on the line? To risk death, permanent injury, a potential blinding in one eye, in a bout that, at best, involves zero physical protection? I’m not sure. Probably not off the cuff. It requires a different mindset.

Are they ready to inflict damage on another person? Are they ready to kill another person? And even if they’re ready, are they willing to? Are they resolved to? Are they ready to risk their own life in pursuit of it?

The Olympic fencer is on the starting line with these questions.

The Master Swordsman has already answered them.

One of the difficult aspects about writing violence and characters who practice martial disciplines with intent to exercise those skills is internalizing the risks involved and ensuring their a natural part of your character’s mindset and their approach to combat.

Fiction is an illusion. Your narrative’s world is as real as you, the author, choose to make it. Characters are immortal, have infinite stamina, possess skill with every weapon, are unbeatable unless you choose otherwise. Regardless of reality, if you choose to make an Olympic fencer and a Master Swordsman fight exactly the same way with the same skill set, that’s how it is.

I’ve seen plenty of published authors treat swords as universal and modern Olympic fencing like it lends their character any real martial skills. (I mean, beyond excellent conditioning.) You can do it and get away with it if that’s what you want. Personally, I find it less interesting because it cheats the character out of their growth. Also, you don’t need to lean into that approach for “Girls Can Fight” or as a way for a female character to gain combat skills because there were female fencers who trained on the blade.

Ways for the Olympic fencer to win:

Dumb luck.

Yeah. That’s it.

The Master Swordsman should knock the blade out of their hand, take the Olympic fencer under their wing as their apprentice, and wander the world together solving crimes.

10/10.

-Michi

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[velvetvexations]

TW for brief mention of abuse in the last paragraph (nothing detailed, just, a mention of stats) I'm dumping this here because I'm scared to have my name attached to it, but I quite firmly believe that you cannot actually be an ally to all trans people while also hating cis men. Obviously there is something to be said about how it harms trans women, but I don't fully understand the experience that comes with that, and I'll mostly be speaking about AFAB transmascs here because I'm AFAB transmasc. I'm also disabled and using my last spoons to understand and type this, so apologies.

I find that people take two routes as to how to approach trans men, when they hold hatred for cis men, in that they either divorce the idea of us from the idea of "man", or they decide that because of our manhood, we are both privileged, and they must hate us too.

When it comes to separating us from manhood, a lot of people will talk about "men" and "trans men" as separate categories, and you see it in things like "not you though, I didn't mean trans men", but you also see it in the way that people have completely different expectations of how trans men and cus men should interact with the world, particularly with women. I don't really have the energy to think about how to put it into words, so if anyone else can pick up what I'm putting down, feel free to add on, or I might come back and elaborate later. But I find that it completely alienates us from the concept of manhood.

I've also had similar from my own mother, who told me that it was hard to see me as a man, because I had such "feminine traits", like, being helpful. Kind. Thoughtful. Things like that, because she found it hard to reconcile the fact that I was apparently all of those things, while also being a man, which is apparently the bad gender. Because evil is stored in the gender, obviously. (/s)

The other way I mentioned is the way that transradfems most often take, in the idea that men always oppress women, and there is no situational factor to it, and therefore trans men are included in that, and are therefore privileged and so it is fine to hate us, because we're men, and therefore it is okay to hate us, and this will never cause us any harm. For example, being denied access to shelters for being men. For many transandrophobes, us complaining about this is us being whiny and privileged, or weaponizing our AGAB, whereas, to myself certainly, I can't speak for others, male victims are more common than most people dare to think, but there is a lack of shelters that provide for men, which is an even bigger problem for trans men, because we have extremely high rates of abuse, but nowhere to turn to without having to detransition.

I also maintain it'll always be a major threat to trans women as well. If you call yourself a trans ally but hate cis men, as far as I'm concerned you're one step away from turning on me because there's no basis on which you can logically claim cis men are categorically worse that doesn't also apply to trans women - like, is it because of how they're raised, how society teaches them to be? Because that sure sounds a lot like you're expressing a belief in male socialization! TERFs are wrong about trans women, but if you accept their worldview you can't take it halfway and expect it to make sense.

[elysiansparadise]

Hello my sunshine!

I noticed your ask box was open! I'm so happy!

Could you please do an interpretation of Mars in 11H. I have this placement. Thank you.

Have a fantastic day and a wonderful week.

Stay warm and cozy. ❤️

Hello my love, hope you're doing wonderfully. ❤️

Mars in the 11th house

Here we have natives who are more likely to rationalize when something happens that bothers them, they are not usually so impulsive when it comes to reacting and they may want to see things from different perspectives. They are very ambitious people who, once they have a plan or project that they are passionate about, dedicate themselves fully to it and not only think about it, but do something to achieve it. This placement favors those who want to start their own business, as it indicates that they can earn a lot of money working on something of their own or being their own boss. Since I mention bosses, even if they do not like to command, they have leadership skills and ensure what is fair both for themselves and for members of their group or other members of society. They are the voice of those who are marginalized or ignored and many people can feel taken into account by them. They have no problem approaching and talking to other people, in fact some tend to give the impression of being extroverted, but they highly value their time alone and doing things on their own. This is an ambivert placement.

Now talking about friendship, these natives tend to be funny, motivating and supportive friends, they have a curious way of taking care of their friends and they are not initially emotional, but rather take care of them in more practical ways. They may feel more energetic after spending time with friends or a group of people and are sometimes the person they turn to when a difficulty or problem occurs. These natives are those who tell you the truth no matter how painful it is, and honesty is something they value above all things in their friendships. They may attract more friendships with people with masculine energy, protective people, strong temperaments, or people who motivate them in some way. There may be some drama in your circles, arguments, or just having somewhat boisterous friendships. It is very likely that they prefer friends with similar ideas or perspectives in order to maintain a harmonious environment, as they stand out for defending their ideals tooth and nail. They like to defend causes linked to freedom, whether identity or expression, which is why it is a common placement for activists, feminists, people who fight for equal rights or justice for marginalized sectors of society. They have a healthy empathy in which they do not put others above them, but instead seek to understand and support them.

Although these people are open-minded when it comes to meeting many people, it is somewhat difficult for them to open up emotionally, they tend to be really defensive with their emotional world and may feel that they have to appear strong, if accompanied by other aspects of style, it can make them feel difficulty expressing their most vulnerable side. One of the good things about this placement is that they are very firm with their boundaries and do not stay in places where they are crossed or ignored. They would much rather be alone than in bad company and they have no problem with being alone at times. They seek to form friendships with more practical parameters without getting carried away by just feeling happy with the other person. They need friendships in which they feel they can trust and with whom honesty and loyalty is guaranteed, so even if they appear friendly, they remain alert and observant. In the sexual area, these natives are very open and experimental with their partner, they really like to surprise and be surprised in intimacy, and they always make sure not to fall into monotony. They don't just care about their pleasure, for them it is important that their partner also feels pleasure and feels satisfied.

[sweettjrose]

Quick question for you cuz you seem to know very well the little guy

Do you think Mickey has any bad sides? Bad qualities/Habits

Ooh! I was hoping someone would ask this question. It was sitting in my mind for a while. I love sharing my thoughts on this little guy.

I do think it is important to remember that when it comes to characters like Mickey it can be challenging to ascribe specific traits to him since there are so many interpretations with differing personalities. Mickey in the black and white shorts is different from Mickey in the Gottfredson comics who is different from Mickey in the Paul Rudish shorts and etc. So some traits may fit better for some versions than others.

I don't know if I can say I am the Mickey expert. But I do think about him a lot and if I came up a list of what I think are bad habits or flaws that he has, based on how is generally portrayed and my own personal interpretation, I would say:

Stubborn - To start off, I feel like a common flaw for Mickey is his stubbornness. Once he sets his mind on a certain idea or situation, he has a hard time being convinced of anything else. It can be really difficult to change his mind, though not impossible. I don't think it comes from a place of seeing himself as better than anyone though, but rather from his desire to hold fast to what he believes in. And in some cases, it can have beneficial results. Such as when he is investigating some kind of mystery he tends to drop everything else, unable to change focus until he finally solves it. This usually gives him the push to solve problems most people give up on. But unfortunately, it tends to result in him ignoring the world around him which can be frustrating at times, especially for Minnie. Sometimes I think Mickey even uses these situations as an excuse to push aside things he doesn't want to do and focus on something he would much rather do.

Untamed Curiosity - I feel like this is actually an offshoot of his earlier personality. He was much more mischievous in his earlier appearances, but that was somewhat tamed over the years. However, I do think one element that has remained is this mouse's curiosity for the unknown. It seems like Mickey can't help himself but stick his nose into things he probably shouldn't. Whether it is listening to a conversation, checking a locked room, testing out a weird machine, or even following an odd feeling. I also feel like his stubbornness doesn't really help as it seems like once a curiosity is in his focus, he can't let it go. Mickey rarely likes to cause problems, but if his curiosity overtakes him, he usually ends up being a troublemaker. Sometimes this usually leads to him catching a crook. But other times it results in a big mess that he would have to clean up. I do think though that his mischievousness isn't entirely gone and does pop up every once in a while. Especially when trying to get out of things he finds boring or doesn't want to be in. And sometimes he just wants to be a prankster and have fun with his friends and family. Which is funny until things get out of hand.

Overthinks - Mickey is very intelligent and can come up with pretty clever plans when trying to solve problems. Unfortunately, this comes with the side effect of him overcomplicating even simple situations. This is usually why Goofy is such a vital friend for Mickey. Mickey tends to come up with complex solutions while Goofy tends to show the easier option Mickey tends to overlook. I think part of this does come from Mickey being afraid of being wrong and making mistakes, so he tries his best to be as thorough as he can be, which unfortunately can lead to more mistakes.

Lack of Self-Protection - One positive about Mickey is that he cares about others and would stand up to protect them. But unfortunately, this doesn't always extend to himself. He is not a doormat but tends to lean more "Turn the other Cheek" approach when he is the only one getting bullied (unless things go too far or if others get involved). To be fair, it is important to know when to pick your battles, but this tends to lead into other areas as I feel like he doesn't really share his problems and tends to keep personal issues to himself. I personally see him as the kind of guy you really have to pry to get him to talk about what he is feeling as he would much rather bottle it up to not cause any trouble. I also feel like he rarely is one to ask for help and tends to try and solve it all on his own, especially if he is worried that others may get hurt. The issue is, he doesn't seem to worry about whether he would get hurt.

Takes on Too Much - I also feel like this connects to another flaw as he tends to take on too much and constantly puts himself in risky situations. Whenever a life-threatening situation comes up that could help everyone but is extremely dangerous, he is usually the first in line to do it. It feels like Mickey doesn't even consider his own safety or limitations at all. Sometimes it feels like he is overconfident in his abilities and just believes that he will be okay, which works until it doesn't. It also doesn't help that Mickey has a hard time saying "No", so even if he didn't want to do something or knows he is not capable of doing it, he would probably still do it, not wanting to disappoint anyone. He rarely thinks of himself. And seldom considers what would be best for him. Usually, his friends are the ones to think about his safety and needs.

Need to be Perfect - Though I feel like part of the reason Mickey takes on so much is his need to be the hero. He feels like he has to be a perfect, selfless, and brave role model who does everything without a single complaint. I feel like he overexerts himself because he is afraid of what happens if he doesn't. He is afraid of not being needed or wanted. He is usually the underdog, a small mouse in a world with characters twice his size, and if he isn't constantly proving himself people will leave him behind. I also feel like he has a hard time admitting to mistakes (which connects to his stubbornness) because he feels like he can't make mistakes, or that would show that he isn't as capable as people think. I also think this explains why he has more of a heated rivalry with Mortimer. Mortimer somehow taps into his insecurities in the ways others don't. I feel like Mickey is kind of jealous of Mortimer because he tends to be taken seriously (at first) while Mickey usually needs to earn it. I also kind of wonder if he is worried that if he starts messing up, Minnie and the others will leave him for someone like Mortimer, so he feels like he can't mess up. Ever.

Lack of Self Worth - Unfortunately this means that he is very reliant on others for his self-worth. Luckily Mickey is really good at making friends. But he tends to rely on the existence of his friends for his worth. I can imagine that if for some reason they all stopped existing, I don't think he would even know what to do with himself. While he doesn't need everyone to like him. He does need at least one person to like him to help ground him or I can see him going into a deep depression. I feel like he would really struggle with being alone for too long unless there was some hope of being able to be with his loved ones soon.

But yeah these are the bad qualities that I feel like Mickey generally has. There are probably more, especially ones more specific to certain interpretations, but these are the ones I was able to come up with. As nice as Mickey is, he isn't perfect and his insecurities, overthinking, stubbornness, and curious nature tend to get him in trouble. But fortunately, he is also just as capable of getting out of trouble.

I would honestly love to see other people thoughts on this as well.

[yandereducktales]

Hi hope you're doing well, I was wondering if you could do hcs about romantic yandere H, D, L, and Webby. And like the rest of the McDuck/Dick family supports them? Srry if that's too much. But I love your work😊

Oh ?

Dewey Duck

Oh, he's so in love

He's dazzled by you. You're just- wow

Every time he looks at you, it's like he has stars in his eyes

You met on one of the McDuck many adventures

The boys had noticed you with your uncle- Flintheart Glomgold

Ahh, forbidden love <3 [He loved Romeo & Juliet]

He can't approach you with Scrooge and Glomgold around, so he waits until you're by yourself

"Um... Hi-" He awkwardly calls, causing you to look at him confused. You instantly recognize him as one of Scrooge's nephews

"Oh, uh- Hi?" You tilt your head, a little confused on why he was talking to you.

He tries to speak, but it's like his tongue is tied. God, he feels like an idiot

Before you can ask him what's wrong, your uncle appears and reprehends the young boy

You don't see him until a few weeks later- At the arcade

He was with Launchpad, but he ditched him when seeing you on the dance game

He joins you and you recognize him

"Oh, hi again. Uh, Huey right?"

"Actually it's Dewey." He's a little disappointed that you don't know his name, but then he remembers he didn't give it to you, so you probably asked about him and that thought made him happy.

"Oh, sorry Dewey. My name's Y/n."

"Well, Y/n, it's nice to meet you."

"You, too." You chuckle

And that's how your friendship starts

You both like to sneak off when your uncles are fighting

He tells you about trying to find his mother and you try and help him

Whenever you come across something that could help him, you give it to him

When his mother comes back, he wants to introduce her to you

"You have to meet them, Mom. You'll love each other. Y/n's great!"

He wants you two to get along so bad

Dewey knows you two are meant to be and sometimes he can't get you out of his mind

Or his mouth. He's always talking about

Everyone's kind of sick of it

They think when you both start dating, maybe it'll stop- Oh, how wrong they are

Huey Duck

You were at a woodchuck meeting and you were new, so Huey clocked you fast

He wanted to help you, but he gets entangled with you

You share a lot of the same interests, hobbies, and ideas

He feels like someone finally understands him

And you feel the same

You two are like two puzzle pieces that fit together perfectly

You even finish each other sentences

His brothers [Louie] think you're both losers, but you don't care, because you have each other

He didn't even realize he had a crush on you until someone else pointed it out

"Yeah, they're cool. Yeah, I think about them a lot. Yeah, they're amazing- No, I don't have a crush on them, I just think they're perfect in every way possible"

You'd have to confess first, because it doesn't look like he's going to be confessing anytime soon. He's heavy in denial

He's flabbergasted when you admit you have a crush on him

"Me? You like me?"

You're a little scared at first, but he's over the moon

Louie Duck

You've met on multiple occasions, but nothing that ever stood out to either of you

You have nothing in common- Well, that's not entirely true, but the more defining personality features are vastly different

When you first meet him, you think he's selfish, lazy, mean, underhanded, manipulative- you get it

He thinks you're different than him. He's never really met someone like you, but he doesn't really give most people a second thought

You're nice and helpful. You want to make life easier and for everyone to be happy

You weren't selfish- You cared about other people

He found that not only annoying, but he thought it was a facade

There was no way that you cared about other people above yourself

People like that didn't exist

Everyone was always looking out for themselves. You must have been faking it

Though, after he stalked you learned more about you, he realize this truly was who you were

You really did want a Utopia and you believing in 'You have to take the first step to change'

He wants to impress you, but you see right through is lies

He wants to change for you- Be nicer- which makes him sick

Though, he really does start to try. The more time he spends around you and the people, he realizes that these people are just like him- Just not rich

You're impressed when realizing he has changed. Maybe not by a lot, but a little is a good start

You become friends and he's glad that he's made you happy

He likes you being happy

Oh my god, he has a crush on you-

He tries learning more about you so that he can come off as someone you should date

Knows your favorite color, parents' names, favorite food, favorite number, your ideologies etc

His family notices he's changed- He's like a completely different person

They have mixed reactions

"Where is my brother and what have you done to him!?!?!!" Dewey shakes his brother when seeing his brother give money to someone

"I think it's great," Huey comments, "Whatever's happened, it's a good thing."

Dewey thinks Louie's an alien or shape-shifter... That is until he meets you

"Oooh! Louie has a cru-"

Louie quickly elbows his brother, his face a bright red

"Shut up-"

You invite Louie to hang out at the movies after working and he's quick to pick up your offer

As you're both leaving, you share a moment and a kiss

Louie's eyes are wide and his face is a deep red

"Wow."

You blush, before waving him off, "Bye Louie. I'll see you tomorrow?"

"Yeah.... Tomorrow."

Webby Vanderquack

You think she's rather strange

But she's super fun

You met while she was checking out the city

She had accidentally bumped into you

You meet on several occasions and each time she approaches you

She always starts a friendly conversation with you

She really likes you and tries to impress you a lot

She's very outspoken and tries flirting but it never goes well, even when you start dating

You find her charming though

You asked her out and she was thrilled. She couldn't believe that you liked her back

You always have a fun time with her, no matter what you do

[lordmushroomkat]

《The strong association of PCOS with cis womanhood, the defining of it as a disorder or syndrome, and its framing as a “women’s health issue” obscures the fact that PCOS is a natural hormonal variation, an endocrine difference that is illustrated through secondary sex characteristics. 

During my initial search for resources and community, I also learned that PCOS, given its characterization as a hormonal variance, falls under the intersex umbrella. This intersex umbrella covers a wide range of “individuals born with a hormonal, chromosomal, gonadal or genital variation which is considered outside of the male and female norms,” and PCOS meets that definition. 

This is not an attempt to sway every person who has PCOS to identify themselves as intersex—though it is an acknowledgment that we have the option and the right to do so if it rings true to us. Rather, this is to say that shifting my perspective on PCOS and viewing it through an intersex lens allowed me to better understand it as a natural human variation rather than an affliction causing my body to do the “wrong” thing. 

“I believe that someone with PCOS has every right to use the term intersex for themselves if they want, but I also understand it if they don’t,” said writer and intersex advocate Amanda Saenz.

“As an advocate and an intersex person, I opt to use a definition of intersex that is open ended and expansive,” Saenz explains. “The experiences that a term like ‘intersex’ hopes to define include differences in hormonal production and hormone reception, and the phenotypic effects these differences have on the body. To me, this is inclusive of things like PCOS.”

Discussing PCOS in this way is often met with indignation and resistance. Our society has a hard time separating gender from sex. This has resulted in a widespread misunderstanding of intersex identity as equivalent to transgender identity. Many who vehemently resist the idea of PCOS being under the intersex umbrella do so because they categorically link “female” with “woman,” and therefore misinterpret any acceptance of intersex identity as a denial of womanhood. Moreover, the stigma around and marginalization of intersex communities prevents many people from feeling comfortable with embracing it. 

“You can be intersex and cisgender, transgender, or nonbinary. The ‘opposite’ of intersex is endosex, not cisgender,” explained Eshe Kiama Zuri, founder of U.K. Mutual Aid. As a nonbinary intersex person, Zuri approaches these ideas with a clear understanding of how the bodies of intersex individuals as well as many people with PCOS interrupt binary thinking about both sex and gender. 

“The resistance to PCOS falling under the intersex umbrella is due to a white supremacist society’s desperation to cling to binary genders, which we know [have been] used as a colonial tool of control,” they offer. 

The same medical and surgical interventions that legislators seek to ban trans and nonbinary people from accessing—which would be gender-affirming, life-saving care for them—are often forced on intersex infants and children who are unable to consent. This is done in efforts to align intersex bodies with social expectations of female and male, man and woman; the same logic undergirds the societal and medical pressure to “feminize” the female-assigned bodies of PCOS patients. 

PCOS is “shockingly common [and] the most frequently occurring hormone-related disorder.” However, according to Medical News Today, “up to 75% of [people] with PCOS do not receive a diagnosis for their condition.” If we were to understand and accept something like PCOS as intersex, considering how “shockingly common” it is, the dominant idea of binary sex, with intersex being thought of as nothing more than a fringe occurrence, would be shattered. 

“PCOS is only one of many conditions that could fall under the intersex umbrella, and care for people with PCOS would be considerably better if it wasn’t for the forced gendering and resistance to providing actual support for people with PCOS, even if it challenges society’s ideas of gender,” says Zuri. 

Combating myths built around the gender and sex binaries would create more space to understand PCOS traits as part of normal human variation, rather than inherent problems to be fixed, symptoms to be eradicated. As Zuri so beautifully put it, “When we start to accept that this is not a body behaving ‘wrong’ and it is just a body, we stop blaming and punishing people for how their bodies work and start challenging societal expectations.”》

I was fucking right!

[serknighted]

Danse & Hancock's parallels are eating my sanity slowly so by God I will write them here

So. Usually incredibly shy about posting my feelings about characters and my interpretations of them, but I don't think I can sit idly by without addressing 1. how much I love this post about Danse and how his story ties back to the isolation and loneliness of autism, and 2. how much I need more content between Hancock & Danse to exist, because my god sometimes I forget they hate each other in-game. (I strongly suggest you read the post mentioned & linked, they do a fantastic job framing Danse in a way I don't think I could fully articulate)

Danse & Hancock both have stories filled with themes of intense loneliness. Despite their hard work, effort, and prowess in the things they love, it doesn't take good sight to realize that neither of them are very well liked. It's not that they aren't respected, but whether it's Danse's all-too-formal approach to speaking, or Hancock's combination of hard drug use & almost constant overbearing presence (on top of years of slander from bigger cities, but we'll get into that), people see them as a tool of success and a good asset to have around, but not much of a friend, so to speak. Especially in Hancock's case, many people he is overly-affectionate with are often more annoyed by his presence than anything else (even if they do like him).

For Hancock, despite how much he claims to not relate to the isolation of the common ghoul, he's likely over-exaggerating his charisma in an effort to make himself more easily approachable, mostly for his own peace of mind rather than for others. While he sounds quite passive about things many others would react strongly to, I feel it's a combination of him having replaced a layer of how he truly feels with an element of sass on top of the drug use that makes all the trauma more easily bearable (to mixed effect).

One of his lines that has always struck me as conflicting with how he portrays himself is a common generic line he has while traveling with Sole Survivor, praising them for "living out the day" when most others could not. Hancock has seen so many people die to the brutal hands of the Commonwealth; whether it be Vic and his boys gunning down innocent drifters, seeing people succumb to the elements, or, in this case, simply not surviving their travels with him, Hancock seems to have a track record of never properly establishing proper bonds with others before they either die, or decide he's too overbearing to deal with further. He's one of those characters who desperately wants to have a deeper connection with those he loves, but he has consistently lost the chance to do so before he was ever ready, and so he chooses to fill the void with meaningless sexual relationships and one-night stands- anything to make him temporarily forget how much he hates himself and his almost comical lack of social understanding. It's a train of thought that I, as an autistic person, can really understand and relate to-- the desire to know people, but always feeling like no matter how you portrayed yourself, no one seems to want to be around you if you don't provide them with what they desire. It's caused him to deeply undervalue both how much he's done for people (since he believes its expected of him to constantly bend over backwards for the needs of others), and himself, all at the same time.

I don't think Danse fully recognizes how lonely he feels, a lot. He's been so heavily indoctrinated by the Brotherhood of Steel into believing that this is how he should be treated, that his work is for the betterment of humanity, that his sacrifice is a necessary one. The way he speaks almost carelessly about late brothers and sisters in arms makes me think really hard about how rooted this idea of only existing for the "greater good" is. Individuality is questionable & almost taboo, being different is outright abominable. It's the reason why the rhetoric of "Us vs. Them" works-- the BoS as a collective believe that they are doing good for all of humanity, and any outlier to that "perfect" formula is a threat not only to the BoS, but to everything they know. Danse is expected to bend over backwards for people, and no longer questions his loneliness or isolation, as he has all but given up his sense of self for what he believes is right. Another thing that I and many of my autistic friends relate to; a sense of justice so strong that it's overpowering. Like us, Danse is willing to sacrifice anything to do what's right... including himself.

Knowing this, it's easy to understand why he hates Hancock, and that backwards mindset is the reason Hancock hates him. It's an especially vicious cycle that constantly feeds into itself if unchecked, and Hancock knows that he alone cannot convince Danse to break that cycle. Hancock knows he can't beat Danse in a fight; all he has are his words, and logic is useless against an enemy that heeds to no truths. Even after Danse discovers his true nature... you can't expect him to unravel the years of constant reassurance that what he was taught was right in a single night. "Rome wasn't built in a day," and no one gets over their trauma so quickly, either. It's traumatic to have an explanation as to why people hate you. A catch-all reason to people's fear and distaste to you, that is also something you can never, ever change. Danse would sooner hate himself for what he is than accept those he used to murder without a second thought. It's the difficult reality of anyone attempting to unlearn painful conservative narratives; the shame & guilt of hurting others that are more similar to you than you ever wanted to know is sometimes more painful than realizing what you really are.

Hancock, albeit not even close to "recovered" from his mental woes, is much further along the path of acceptance to Danse, but not far enough away that he wouldn't understand where Danse is coming from. For so long, he sat idly by and watched people get hurt, even during his time in Diamond City. The constant conditioning to accept other people's pain as long as it wasn't happening to you still eats at his consciousness; just like Danse, he knows it was wrong to accept it, but the guilt makes it harder to deal with. He, of all people, would understand what it feels like to try so, so hard to fit in, to be normal and accepted, but never quite hit the mark of understanding where he fits in society. That's the reason he is the way he is now; his signature, his "Hancock," is to be as loud and out-of-place as possible-- a constant rebellion against what people expect him to be, a rebellion of oppression and unfair treatment. Danse's sheer existence is an involuntary rebellion of all BoS values, and even if Hancock would be hesitant to become close to Danse for a long while, I think he would be impressed by him, in the end, and more importantly, understand where he's coming from.

Their combined interest in both protecting the people they care about as well as the collective societies those people come from, as well as how nerdy they both are about US history... I think, eventually, they will realize how similar their lives were, how similar they are to each other, and maybe even find some comfort in knowing that they aren't alone in all of the waves of shame, guilt, and loneliness. That there is an overarching group of people who understand them, and that they do have a place in this world. I think once they recognize that similar traumas can manifest in polar opposite conditions (ones that they used to have a narrow, black-and-white outlook on), they'll also find that there is no real reason to hate each other anymore; the world has told them that they must hate each other, but they no longer have any need to listen.

TL;DR autistic Danse & Hancock ftw

[skulls-soul]

A common head cannon that I absolutely love is Luigi and daisy being absolute best friends

And I absolutely love the idea of Luigi, telling Daisy that he’s dating Bowser (or any villain honestly as long as it’s someone that Luigi would keep as a secret) but that got me thinking, how close are daisy and Luigi for him to trust her with such a big secret?

Now honestly there could be many reasons why Luigi would trust Daisy, and why Daisy would keep the secret for Luigi, but my train of thought went down a very specific road and that is what if Daisy did some thing very risky

And I mean the kind of risk that can cause tension in between kingdoms kind of risky

Like just imagine Daisy going up to Luigi one day, being like “I may, or may not have potentially fucked up. It all depends on how the rest of the events play out. Can you please help me make it play out in my favor?”

And Luigis like “what did you do this time?”

Like princess Daisy is a hot headed feisty, impulsive person so I can imagine that she runs into trouble every once in a while, and Luigi, being an absolute master at getting in and out of trouble could definitely help her…right?

I think I just love the idea of the two of them getting in and out of trouble both of them causing troubles for very different reasons

anyways, just imagine the conversation of When she finds out about who Luigi’s dating

Luigi: I have to tell you something, but you must promise that you will not tell a single soul or star in the universe

Daisy: Luigi,Bestie, my guy, come on it’s me! you know I got your back, no matter what

Luigi: OK good because I need to tell someone about what’s been going on because if I don’t, I will explode in the wrong time and place

Daisy: babe, you’re starting to concern me what is it?

Luigi:…. I’m dating (insert villain name here)

Daisy:…..IM SORRY WHAT?!?!?!

Luigi continues to tell her the play-by-play of everything that happened at some point Daisy got popcorn, and at some point they’re clothing went from casual to pajamas

Daisy. Never in 1 million years would’ve thought that this would happen, and would have never thought that said villain could cause Luigi to turn into a teenage girl at prom and yet here she was and honestly.

She’s just happy that he didn’t get into any trouble that needed a more hands-on approach. She swears any trouble that Luigi gets into is 10 times more dangerous than what she gets into but then again, she’s not about to start that debate all over again mainly because Luigi maks several good points, but that doesn’t matter but that’s besides the point!!

She’s going to squeeze each and every single detail she can out of the plumber and squeal like a fan girl with her best friend

Daisy (sighs): you were always into bad boys

Luigi: DAISY!!!

[kamomillee]

Trauma and Protectiveness in Wish and Encanto

So, I watched Wish...

I don't think Wish needed a villain. In fact, I would have liked the film to follow the approach of Encanto (which I loved very much) because they both have points in common.

Yes, I will compare Abuela and Magnífico, two characters who, despite their differences, share similar problems.

Abuela went through a deep trauma in which she lost her home and her husband and had to raise her triplets alone while guiding her community as the bearer of the candle with the miracle that saved them, which originated from the sacrifice of her husband.

This trauma left her afraid of losing everything again, her family and her home. For her, the miracle was what protected them from doom. Therefore, she saw the miracle as the most important thing of all. She also saw it as her responsibility to serve the community with the magic of the miracle.

This made her become very strict and demanding, putting a lot of pressure on her family to be perfect and to serve the community with their abilities at all times.

What they could do became more important than who they were.

This is what caused the destruction of their home and their family relationships.

Magnifico also suffered a trauma, losing absolutely everything — his home and his family. However, he decided to dedicate his life to helping others and preventing them from suffering the same as he did. So he works hard to learn magic and build a kingdom from scratch with his own hands where everyone is welcome and he was very successful at it.

(yes, this is a very good character we have here)

His trauma, like Abuela's, made him afraid that tragedy would happen again.

His way of dealing with it was to take all this responsibility and pressure of caring and protecting and put it on himself and no one else. Carrying it all on his shoulders.

He will only do what he thinks is safe. And since we have trauma involved, he has his own safety measures. He becomes overprotective. (I can talk more about this in another post haha)

He would do everything he could for them because he didn't want them to feel pain and sadness. That was his motivation.

And that's not healthy either.

He sounds a lot like a family man who lost everything when he was young, someone who grew up in need and had to work hard to create a successful life. A story of overcoming.

So he starts a family. He wants them to have a good life and not suffer the pain he suffered. He protects them. He gives them everything he can. He does everything for them. Everything he didn't have when he was younger he will give them. Because he knows the pain of lack.

But then he ends up spoiling his children and being overprotective.

There are many parents like that.

The tendency is for the children to become spoiled, ungrateful and dependent.

They will not appreciate what they receive because they do not have to work for it. Everything was handed to them on a silver platter without effort. They also start to think they deserve to have everything handed to them just because yes. So they expect to get more and more. Give me! give me!

That's exactly how the people of Rosas were.

They expected their king to give them everything and more because, well, he did.

For them, the most important thing was what the king could do for them.

I really wish they had gone the route of Encanto.

At the end of the movie, when the house falls down, Abuela acknowledges her mistakes and Mirabel shows empathy by acknowledging her pain and all her work. She says something like “Nothing is so broken that we can’t fix it, together” and they reconcile. It was beautiful. After that, everyone comes together to rebuild, with the help of the community as a gesture of gratitude for everything the family has done for them.

If the ending of Wish had been one of understanding, reconciliation and respect, it would have been so good.

And it would have achieved the production’s idea that you should work for your goals.

The people of Rosas would have learned gratitude, respect, and to work and strive for their goals alone.

Magnífico would have learned to take a step back and let his people try to achieve their goals alone. Let them succeed on their own, let them feel the sadness and pain of failure because that is part of the process and part of life. And don't carry everything on his shoulders.

Of course, he can still help, but in a different way depending on each case.

He is a wise king after all.

[potterrstar]

Hi, I saw you take fanfiction requests, may I request a marauders wolfstar hurt + comfort when remus transforms? Sorry, i know it’s overdone no pressure!

you know me ⋅˚₊‧ ୨୧ ‧₊˚ ⋅

sirius black x remus lupin, wolfstar !!

summary: remus can't stand the full moon. neither before nor after it, but fortunately, sirius is always there for him, which makes him stand it a little better.

warnings: angst!, rage attacks, violence, fights, cuts, wounds, there’s confort too don’t worry!

a/n: omg i’m sorry i didn’t really get if it was literally the exact moment when he transforms but i did before and after the moon! hope you enjoy it, i’m kinda proud of this one, it’s my first request ever i’m so excited! let me know any mistakes! english isn’t my first language! stay safe 💘

───❃•❃•❃───

It was Monday, August 12, which meant exactly one week until August 19, August 19 when there was going to be a full moon, and Remus could feel it.

He wished it was just a figure of speech, 'I feel the moon approaching' like some kind of wizard energy, but no, he really felt it. He felt it running through his entire spine, he felt it when it gave him the worst shiver in each of his limbs, he could feel them retracting even before nightfall.

He always hoped that the next time wouldn't be as painful as the previous one, that maybe next time he wouldn't have to spend over a week in the infirmary with Madam Pomfrey resetting eight different types of medications for his pains, but it never was like that. It was always as painful as the last time, and it always would be.

Remus believed that Sirius was the only medicine that could heal him, that could hold back all the hatred in his heart, that maybe, just maybe, he was the only thing he needed to heal what the moon tore apart. But the more strongly he loved him, the more he managed to push him away.

Remus detested many things about himself; he could make a list of them, but what would definitely top it was how he always managed to push away what he loved. He felt that a beast like him didn't deserve a drop of mercy.

"Hey, Moony! Where are you going after Potions class? I was thinking of heading to the Black Lake for a while. I think the girls will be going too." Sirius approached Remus, who was at the table in the Gryffindor common room.

Remus looked up at the black-haired boy, and as he did, the light in the room echoed in every corner of his head, causing him to groan and pull back.

"Bloody hell! Are you alright?" Sirius moved closer to Remus, placing a hand on his shoulder.

"Don't touch me! Don't put your filthy hands on me," Remus shouted, abruptly knocking Sirius's hand off his shoulder.

Sirius frowned; he knew the full moon was near and wanted to handle things well. "It's alright, everything's fine, I won't touch you." Sirius raised his hands, showing them to Remus.

"Get away from me, will you?" Remus growled, feeling a wave of heat sweep through his body.

"Okay, I will." Sirius took a step back. "You should sit down, yeah? I can bring you some water or something to help with your headache." He was trying to help him.

"Stop treating me like I'm a bloody child you have to take care of!" Remus felt all his anger surge through his body. "Stop pitying me!" He was too blinded by pain and rage. "Stop looking at me like that! Like I'm a bloody burden," too blinded to realize that Sirius's look wasn't one of pity, but of love, love and concern.

Sirius frowned, not liking the tone of the brunette. "Don't talk to me like that, alright? All I'm trying to do is help you, and you know it."

"No, Sirius! I don't know a damn thing! And I'm sick of all your bloody crap! You have no idea how all this feels and you come here telling me 'It's alright, everything's fine' when it's not and you know it's not."

"Well, I don't know what you expect me to do! I get that it's not easy, yeah? I get that I'm never going to feel like you do, but I'm doing what I can, you know? And it's bloody unfair for you to treat me like this when all I'm trying to do is help you." By this point, Sirius was equally angry; he didn't think anything Remus said was fair.

"Screw this, screw this," Remus grabbed his things and tried to leave the common room, passing by Sirius.

Sirius grabbed Remus's hand, preventing him from leaving. "Hey, listen to me, we don't have to do things this way—" Sirius was interrupted by the abrupt way Remus shook off his hand.

"I told you to leave me alone!" Remus turned and stormed out of the common room, leaving Sirius alone in the middle of it.

───❃•❃•❃───

Remus woke up on one of the infirmary cots, as he did every month. He felt as if every part of him was screaming for help, and he feared that if he moved, something in him would break. He didn't want to find out what.

"It's 10 in the morning. Quite lazy to still be lying down, huh?" The curtain beside him moved, revealing the tall figure of his boyfriend, not as tall now that he sat at the foot of his bed.

Remus rolled his eyes as he tried to sit up. "Very funny."

"I know, I'm hilarious." Sirius said while preparing a cotton ball on a small table next to them.

"What are you doing?" Remus asked, watching him curiously.

Sirius didn't look at him, fully focused on what he was doing. "I'm going to clean up a few of your wounds. Don't worry, Madam Pomfrey explained it to me this morning."

Remus watched him intently, taking in every feature of his perfect and neat face. It was beautiful, unlike his own, which was full of scars that reminded him of all the nights when he couldn't recognize himself. "And why isn't she doing it?" Remus asked.

Sirius chuckled. "How rude, does it bother you that I'm doing it?”

"No, no—it's just curiosity." Remus felt a bit nervous, not in a bad way. They weren't the kind of nerves he usually felt when the full moon was near. They were nerves of... who knows, but he only felt them when Sirius was close.

"She said she was called to a very important meeting or something, so she wouldn't be able to be here when you woke up." Sirius took one of the small cotton balls and dabbed it on Remus's shoulder, where he had a small cut.

"Oh—" Remus groaned in pain. "Warn me, you son of a bitch."

Sirius laughed a little. "I forgot, sorry."

Remus analyzed the situation a bit: there he was, lying in the infirmary bed at 10 in the morning because the night before he had literally turned into a beast and inflicted severe wounds on himself, wounds that his boyfriend beside him was now treating. The boyfriend, by the way, whom he had told to go to hell a week ago for absolutely no reason.

Actually, it was for something, it was because he was an arrogant son of a bitch who didn't know how to love, who didn't know how to react to any sign that someone genuinely cared about him.

Suddenly, he felt a wave of guilt washing over him, the voices in his head telling him he didn't deserve any of what he had. He didn't deserve Sirius. How could he ever?

"Hey, Rem. Are you okay?" Sirius turned to look at him, concerned, noticing that something was wrong.

That was another small problem: Sirius knew him so well. He knew what every little expression on his face meant, he knew the exact tone of voice he used when something bothered him, he knew every scar on his body, not just the physical ones. Sirius really knew him.

"Listen—I’m sorry." Remus blurted out, as if an apology could erase the kind of person he was.

"About what?" Sirius gently took his face while dabbing cotton on one of his eyebrows.

Remus frowned, unsure if it was from the pain or because Sirius was asking what he was apologizing for.

"I—I treated you horribly last week. You didn't deserve any of that crap, it really wasn't my intention, it’s just the moon and everything else—I don’t know, and it’s not like I’m making excuses, I’m not! I just... don’t know, I’m sorry," Remus tried to explain how he felt.

"It's alright, I said things I didn't mean too," Sirius looked quite calm, and Remus wondered how the hell he did that. He didn’t waste much time and asked him.

"Why are you so calm? I was awful to you. Why do you even help me? Why do you do all this when the only thing you get in return is my shitty behavior?" Remus felt frustrated.

"That's not true. Where do you get that from?" For the first time since he started treating Remus’s wounds, Sirius looked him in the eye.

"It's the truth," Remus snapped.

"Bullshit." Sirius frowned. "Remus, you're always there for me, all the damn time. I bet you can't name a single moment when I needed you and you weren't there for me."

Remus stayed silent. The truth was, he couldn't remember ever letting Sirius down, at least Sirius had never said anything.

"Listen, I don’t know how strong the moon was this month, but don’t let it get too much into your head," Sirius rolled his eyes, laughing as he finished treating the cut on his eyebrow.

"I’ll try to control the pre-moon stuff a bit, okay?" Remus let Sirius know.

"Alright, you work on that, and I’ll handle the post-moon, okay?" Sirius left a warm kiss on the brunette's lips.

Maybe he wasn’t such a bad person after all, maybe he did deserve the love he received.

Remus had a list of things he hated about himself, many in fact, but he could bet he could make double the list of things he loved about Sirius Black.

[autistic-beshelar]

Hey! I'm very interested in what you've told me about antisocial personality disorder, neurodivergence, and empathy vs. compassion so far. I would love to hear more!

hi, sorry this has taken me a bit to get to, i've had a hectic few days, and i knew i'd end up writing a lot!

ASPD:

i'll start by saying that i don't have ASPD, so i'm just going to give the basics and hand you off to people who DO have it. it's important to bear in mind that ASPD is primarily considered traumagenic, and that, like any other disorder, it can manifest in a bunch of different ways, and people with it can behave very differently from one another.

ASPD is a cluster b personality disorder characterised by low empathy, limited range and depth of emotions, disregard for other people's feelings, disregard for societal conventions and morality, chronic anger, and chronic boredom. the common view of pwASPD is that they are violent criminals, but that is primarily because research is only ever done on the worst kinds of people, and i'm sure many of them are misdiagnosed. i'm sure i don't need to explain to you why basing a disorder solely off of people in prison is fucked as a concept, given how both the prison system and psychiatry are both incredibly flawed. (it's also for this reason that i have no scientific studies to give you, because the only ones i've come across are grossly ableist)

having ASPD comes with a lot of challenges, but having a disorder - any disorder - doesn't make you a bad person. from what i have seen, a lot of pwASPD don't so much 'not have morals' as have a deep distrust of authority and base their morality on logic or serving their own interests. in fact i've seen an awful lot of pwASPD who are very left leaning or are anarchists. of course there's also plenty who are right wing assholes, but that kind of goes to show that a disorder doesn't dictate your morality, it just might lead you to approach your sense of morality differently.

ASPD resources, from actual pwASPD:

https://shitborderlinesdo.tumblr.com/post/115096247519/the-anti-social-personality-disorder-checklist

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/your-stories/life-with-antisocial-personality-disorder-aspd/ (cw for mention of csa)

https://inanawesomewave.tumblr.com/post/177638772232/the-bones-of-it

EMPATHY:

my favourite thing to rant about. empathy is wildly misunderstood by most people, so let's start off with a proper description. there are two main types of empathy: cognitive and affective. you will also see some people say that there's a third type, 'compassionate empathy', but i have never seen a definition of it that isn't based on the idea that empathy is necessary for compassion, so i'm ignoring it, and i'll get to compassion later.

cognitive empathy: basically, thinking about feeling. cognitive empathy is the ability to recognise and understand emotions. it is involved with reading people's expressions, or understanding why a certain situation might cause a certain emotional response.

affective empathy: this is typically what people mean when they talk about empathy - the ability to feel what someone else is feeling.

it's extremely important to note that this is fucking impossible. 'feeling what someone else is feeling' is some sci-fi nonsense. it isn't real. the belief that it is causes a lot of harm.

affective empathy, properly defined, is the a person's emotional response to an emotion that they perceive someone else having. it isn't always as simple as 'i'm happy because they're happy'. affective empathy can also be involved in more complicated situations, like feeling afraid because of perceived anger (which leads to a whole conversation about hyperempathy and hypervigilance and the relationship between them, but that's a whole other post that someone who actually has feelings would be more qualified to write)

so that's empathy. it's really just a bunch of feelings that we have about or in relation to other people's feelings. there's no moral component to feelings whatsoever. morality only comes into play when action is involved. which leads me to...

compassion: being kind, not as an inherent state of being, but as a choice.

i'll talk about my own experience here, but i've heard similar from other people with low/no empathy, and i've heard similar from some pwASPD as well.

i choose to be kind because i believe it's the right thing to do. i see a lot of injustice in the world, and it makes me furious - in fact, for me, it's primarily my anger that fuels my compassion. my morals have been based partly on feeling, but also on logic, and on a lot of research. to me, being kind is logical and sensible. it's logical to want people to be happy and safe and free. it benefits me too, for starters.

i don't need to feel sad about people's suffering to want it to stop. and though i don't really feel much empathy, i do still get emotional about things - i can still be sad or angry or happy about certain things happening, it's just... less than other people.

i look at the world around me and i try to find things that i can do to make it better because i think that's my job as a human. sometimes i'm bad at it, and sometimes i'm too tired to, but at the very least i can refuse to cause harm, and when i do, inevitably, cause harm, i can make amends.

(there's also a long discussion to be had about how basing your morality on your ability to empathise with people makes it extremely easy to no longer care about people who have been dehumanised, but that's a post i don't feel qualified to make)

a book i am desperate to read on this subject is Against Empathy by Paul Bloom, but here's an article about it, which is of course not perfect, but makes a lot of interesting points: https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-morality-ethics-psychology-compassion-paul-bloom

i hope that helps explain some things. if you have - or anyone else has - more questions, feel free to ask, and i'll do my best to answer.

[cy-cyborg]

What kind of worldbuilding would you expect from a world where amputation is really common? (NOT a cyberpunk thing. The technology is somewhere between Bronze Age and Middle Ages, which I know is really broad but I’m indecisive). Also the most common cause of amputation is disease, not war or anything like that, in case it makes a difference. So far all I’ve come up with is that assistive technology isn’t limited to more urban/populated areas, and people treat amputations as commonplace. Sorry if this is too random

Ok, so my answer to this will depend of what kind of tone you want. Do you want it to be normalised in a more idealist/optimistic way, or do you want to do worldbuilding around the new problems that would likely arise and take a more pessimistic approach? Either way there's a lot you can do with a setting like that and I absolutely love world building stuff like this! I was actually working on another post kind of similar to what you're asking for, so I have a lot prepared lol. apologies for the long post in advance.

Here are some questions/suggestions I would consider:

What are the views around Amputation in this setting? Do any stereotypes or beliefs appear around it?

Just because a disability is common, doesn't always mean it's accepted, or accepted unconditionally, nor does it mean people won't make odd assumptions about it. Obviously, if you want something more optimistic, you'll want to go with "it's just a normal part of life, most folks don't really think about it much" but in that case, even accepted disabilities get weird assumptions, stereotypes or even religious beliefs surrounding them. The best example of this in the real world is people who wear glasses. Most folks wouldn't even consider it a disability because it's just so normalised, but it is - glasses are a type of accessibility device. But what comes to mind when you think of someone who wears glasses? Chances are, it's someone smart, maybe a nerd? Glasses have nothing to do with intelligence but we associate people who wear them with it anyway. From what I found, that association formed in the middle ages, as monks and priests wore them to read, and those were people who studied religious texts and passed that information to the public. the common folk saw these people as a source of information and wisdom, forming the idea that glasses were worn by intelligent or wise people. If amputation is common and/or accepted, this kind of thing will probably happen with it too. If amputations are more common in some lines of work than others (either because that job leads to more amputations, or because a lot of people go into that line of work after their amputation) people will start to associate qualities needed for that job with amputees. For example, If the most common reason for amputation is illness, and if that illness is contagious, you might actually end up with a similar belief, that amputation is a sign of intelligence because doctors/healers, who people view as intelligent, are more likely to catch the illness, resulting in more amputations among doctors.

On the flip side, a lot of cultures have disabilities at the heart of many of their beliefs. For example, they idea of the fey replacing children with other fey, is thought to have been people's way of explaining neurodivergence like autism, ADHD and personality disorders before we had words for those disabilities.

Likewise, some European Christians believed people born with disabilities (including limb differences) could be explained by their mothers participating in witchcraft or deals with the devil. These disabilities were pretty common at the time due to malnutrition and a general lack of understanding about how to be safe while pregnant, but they lacked the medical knowledge to be able to explain it, and so superstition took over. If your setting has a similar level of medical knowledge/understanding, something similar might occur. Not every example of this is negative btw. It's thought that early ancient Egyptians believed disabilities such as blindness, especially if it was from birth, were the result of the gods calling them to speak for them. Similar lack of understanding about where the disability came from but this time it has a much more positive outcome.

Also, consider that if it's so normalised, people are going to be much less likely to be afraid of becoming amputees. This can be a positive thing, but it could have run on effects, both in the sense that people are less likely to care to take precautions to avoid things that could result in amputation, and that people may underestimate the impact it will have. Even in the real world, as being an amputee has become less stigmatised (though we are still far from normalised), some people have started underestimating how it will impact you. My prosthetist says the hardest part of his job is watching the realisation that a prosthetic won't be a magic cure hit his patients in real-time. this isn't to say being an amputee is always a terrible and awful and all the other things people think about disability, but it is a BIG adjustment that a lot of folks are unprepared for. In a setting where it's even more common, this is even more likely. It's also more likely that non-amputees will underestimate this impact, and say things like "but I know someone with the same amputation and they're fine!" when someone tries to say they can't/struggle to do something because of their amputation - something that also already happens to me irl lol. People are going to take to being amputees differently, they'll have different limits and different capabilities, how well does your society as a whole understand this?

Finally, think about if there are certain types of amputations that are more accepted/normalised/understood than others. In the real world, leg amputees tend to be more accepted than arm amputees in my experience, and larger amputations/multi-limb amputations carry more stigma and have a lot more bizarre misinformation and stereotypes about them. Is this the same for your world?

What is the general populations view of other disabilities?

Just because one disability is more common or accepted, doesn't mean they all are. This is especially important to consider for comorbid disabilities (disabilities that are connected to, are caused by having, or are usually seen alongside being an amputee). For example, a lot of leg amputees choose wheelchairs over prosthetics, but the degree of acceptance for that in your world will depend on people's view of wheelchair users as a whole. In real life, it's an unfortunate reality that the use of a wheelchair is looked down on and there are a lot of negative stereotypes about wheelchair users which deters a lot of leg amputees from using a wheelchair, even when they really need one. When leg amputees specifically use wheelchairs, we are often said to be giving up or even lazy for not "pushing through" or "trying hard enough" - I have another post here talking about that. This has resulted in a lot of amputee-specific spaces being completely inaccessible wheelchair users. An example of this would be a camp I used to attend specifically for amputees being held in a non-wheelchair accessible location until recently, or amputee clinics (where you go to see doctors who specialise in treating/rehabilitating amputees) having equipment needed for taking measurements essential for getting quality prosthetics, being unusable to people who can't stand up. If they do accept other related disabilities though, there's more stuff to think about (which I'll come back to in the next few points)

Of course, how your world views unrelated disabilities is important to consider too, because chances are there's someone out there with both. How does the general view of disability affect those people? Are people more or less likely to accept that having this other disability means they won't be able to things other amputees can? I'm autistic for example and find it nearly impossible to wear my prosthetic when I'm in burnout, both because it's a lot of energy I don't really have, but also because when I'm in burnout, I'm very sensitive to certain textures, and the feeling of wearing my prosthetics when I'm like that is unbearably uncomfortable.

What has the acceptance/normalisation of amputees done to influence beauty standards?

You see this a lot in cyberpunk but it's worth considering for other settings too. Amputation can be a very visible disability if you want it to be, but in the real world, there is a big emphasis on "looking normal" because beauty standards. This isn't just a modern thing either, there are many stories of real-life knights who lost arms during battle and had armour made for them that hid their missing limb. They were functionally useless (except for maybe backhanding people lol) but the desire to look "normal" outweighed the need for functionality to many.

If amputation is common though, this might not be the case in your setting. This might mean people are freer to explore prosthetics that put function over aesthetics, meaning they might have more advanced prosthetics than you'd typically expect to see in that time period. Alternatively, it might go the other way and you could end up with people who still favour aesthetics over function, but they try to make it look as outlandish and unique as possible.

Beyond how it effects amputees though, if prosthetics are seen as fashionable, do non-amputees try to mimic the look of prosthetics in their outfits? Consider the first point I mentioned here too. If there are certain desirable characteristics associated with amputees, would people trying to present themselves a certain way try to make it look like they're an amputee, even when they are not? Kind of like how people wear fake glasses to look smart or just as an accessory. Alternatively, how dose being an amputee play other beauty standards and expectations? Another real-world example, is that there is a lot of fatphobia in amputee circles, to the point where most teenaged amputees I know have/had eating disorders. Part of it comes from the general fatphobia in the wider population, but its amplified by the fact that many prosthetic components have weight limits on them, and many prosthetic companies refuse to make components for bigger people, not because they can't/it's too hard, but because they say there's no demand for it. So Doctors push the importance of staying below a certain weight so their patents can have access to better tech and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are a lot more amputees though, this might be different, but it's worth considering.

How will it impact architecture?

When we think of medieval or even older structures, "accessible" isn't the word we usually think of. Most buildings had stairs, and the needs of people with different bodies was rarely, if ever considered. But if amputation is more common, this might not be the case, especially if things like wheelchair use are also common/accepted (told you I'd come back to that). Buildings will be more likely to use ramps, lifts (even in ancient times - this could be achieved via pullies or something similar, though it would need to be usable to arm amputees too) or forgo multiple levels entirely where possible. Roads would probably be paved or at least smoothed to allow for easier travel via wheels and cities would be laid out in way that would make traversing them from a wheelchair easier. This would likely have a run-on effect and lead to cities being more accessible to people with horse-drawn carts, wagons, carriages etc too. things would be made with the idea that someone lower to the ground, or someone who needs to use their feet to grab things (and therefore can't reach as high) needs to be able to access the thing too, and a lot more. Even small things, like the way doors are opened might be altered to make it easier to use for someone missing an arm/who's arms are occupied with pushing a wheelchair. Making spaces more accessible in these ways also has run-on effects. I already mentioned the carriages in cities, but it also means you might start seeing small changes to the world, like chairs being made to be more comfortable, or single-handed versions of tools/weapons being more common.

What type of illness is the most common cause? How do people view it? Is it understood?

You mentioned illness is the most common cause of amputation in this setting. In that case, consider what kind of illness is usually the cause. Is it a single disease? if so, is it contagious? How high is the mortality rate? Who does it mostly impact? I lost my own legs to an illness, one that is well-known where I live, but poorly understood - most people just know it's contagious and acts kind of like the flu. This has resulted in some very bizarre interactions with non-disabled people when they find out how I lost my legs. There was a rumour about me in school that I still had the illness, and so because of that my amputations were contagious. It wasn't just children who believed it either lmao. Now as the public has been better educated, those ideas are less common, but weird stuff still comes up occasionally, like the lady who thought my illness was a government conspiracy theory made up to control people and scare them into getting vaccinated, apparently my amputations were unnecessary and all a part of the plot lol. I don't know if I talked about that on this account yet but I think it's probably my favourite weird interaction lmao.

You can also look at how people reacted to COVID for ideas about how people react to wide-spread illnesses that have a high chance of disabling you. Diabetes is another good example too, while it's one of the most common causes for amputation in the real world, people are still very weird about it and a lot of people insist it either doesn't exist or can be treated without medicine (insulin). Does the disease in your world have a lot of untrue information about it too? are there people peddling fake "cures" to take advantage of people who are more at risk?

How has this impacted Medicine as a whole

In medicine, advancements in one field are rarely isolated. When advancements are made in one area, other areas usually follow or are at least influenced. As much as the modern medical industry structure likes to pretend otherwise, it's all connected. In the real world, amputees were a lot rarer (not unheard of mind you, but rarer) because well, bronze-age understandings of things like infection and disease in general wasn't great. people would often die from the side effects of the amputation or the surgery itself (e.g. infections, going into shock because the surgery was preformed while the person was awake, blood loss during surgery, a general lack of understanding of how important hygiene is post-op/a lack of access to proper hygiene etc). So if amputees are more common, that would imply their understanding of medicine is at least a little better than real-life bronze age folks. This won't just stop an amputees though, like i said, it's all connected. Having a better understanding of, say, how infection happens in an amputee, means they will probably have a better understanding of infection in general, which could stop a lot of deaths in other ways. Likewise, sewing a stump closed in a way that won't cause immense amounts of nerve and phantom pain implies a decent understanding of the nervous system in general, which will have run on effects in how a lot of other conditions can be viewed and maybe even treated.

Conclusion

There's a lot more you could consider, but I hope this gave you some additional stuff to think about (sorry for the long response, but like I said, I was already working on a nearly identical post so this was perfect timing lol). Let me know if you need more help, I love this kind of worldbuilding stuff! Also, just to be clear as well, as long as you aren't just ignoring the fact so much of your world is disabled or being super ableist about it, there's no right or wrong answers here. You can have more positive answers to these questions than what I've given as examples, you can go darker, you can have a mix of both, whatever you like. Depending on the tone you want, you don't even have to answer every question if you don't want to. If you have a rather light-hearted setting for example, you probably don't need to know how all your amputees are surviving infections and unmedicated amputation surgery lol, but if its a darker tone where the illness you mentioned is a central focus, then it's probably a good thing to think about at least. At the end of the day, just ensure your answers aren't based on stereotypes or misinformation and you're all good for the most part!

[thestupidhelmet]

I was just saying if it aired on fox, or any cable network, would it have longer seasons (23 episodes) And is fox different now? I haven't watched regular tv in years.

Fox Entertainment got bought by Disney a few years back.

Shows on network and cable TV haven't been guaranteed a full 23-26 episode season for a long time (streaming changed this, I believe, although cable gave shows shorter seasons before the advent of streaming).

But had T9S been given 25 or 26 eps per season, we would've likely gotten a deeper show. But not necessarily a satisfying one because of the showrunners and head writer / their creative approach to the show.

I think this is a good place to discuss ways I think Jay's character could've been organically written and developed.

In T9S canon, Jay is the product of an emotionally toxic relationship. His father is likely unfaithful to his mother, which is likely the cause of their two divorces. His father has a child, Jay's older sister, with another woman -- either during the first divorce or being the cause of the first divorce. Three years later, Jay is born.

Kelso spent three years with Brooke and Betsy, but when? During Betsy's three years of life? If so, then Jay was conceived out of wedlock, and Jackie's pregnancy with him results in her reconciliation with and remarriage to Kelso (the Fez of it all is essentially irrelevant). Another possibility is he stayed with Brooke and Betsy three years during Jackie and Kelso's divorce, but I think the first option is more likely.

Jay's mother is a Jackie who grew into an adult from her T7S season-4 characterization. That Jackie is jealous, controlling, and also has poor enough self-esteem that she believes Kelso's false equivalency between her one kiss with Todd -- which she was tricked into -- to his months of having sex with at least two other girls and that she owes him a free pass to kiss another girl so that they're even.

This faulty logic Kelso spouts and Jackie accepts directly precedes their engagement in the T9S version of Jackie/Kelso canon.

Jay is raised by a mother who is superficial, vain, controlling, equates giving and receiving material gifts with love, has low self-esteem disguised by arrogance, and is hyper-fixated on her relationship with Kelso. This is a Jackie who was never challenged or inspired to become self-reflective, to change her ideas about how love is given and received, to realize that being controlling harms a relationship, to be self-sacrificing instead of acting entitled. This is a Jackie deprived of her life-changing relationship with Hyde (real!Hyde, not the few OOC eps and the fully OOC S8).

Jay is raised by a father who is a self-entitled, selfish, narcissistic hypocrite who's a sex addict and lacks both self-control and common sense.

The Jay of T9S doesn't reflect who raised him or his tumultuous childhood. His character was created inorganically to fit an idea (i.e. a Kelso clone who finds true love with the show's protagonist).

An organically written Jay would (or could; several possibilities exist) be leery of romantic relationships because of his parents' toxic dynamic and potentially view sex as destructive (as Donna does in T7S but for different reasons).

Jackie probably is an overbearing mom while Kelso is a lax, relatively uninvolved father -- except to show up to his son's sports games, school plays, etc. so that he can take (unearned) credit and feed off his son's successes.

Jay would suffer from anxiety, be overwhelmed by his mother's warnings about infidelity and be unable to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between that messaging and her continuously forgiving his father for being unfaithful.

His parents would both push him to be popular at school but differently. Jackie would push him to make as many social connections as he can. Not friends but people he can potentially use for his own gain later in life. Kelso's own vanity would push Jay to prove the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, in order for Kelso to feel his own sexual attractiveness is validated and reconfirmed by his son's.

Jay would inherit his mother's propensity for enjoying material items because he'll have inherited her gifts equal love mentality. Unfortunately, he's unlikely to be self-aware enough to break out of this belief without help. But if he also inherits Jackie's insightfulness, he'd have the potential to grow and change with the right influences. He also might be more of a giver than a taker because he'd rebel against the selfishness he's experienced from both his parents.

Jay could very well be quite Hyde-like because of his upbringing, protecting his compassionate, vulnerable heart from being hurt the same as his parents hurt it. So he'd be withdrawn emotionally, also as a response to his parents' emotional disregulation. He'd be a loner without that one friend who shows him that his parents' world isn't the only one that exists. Nate might fit the bill, but Nate's also a (benign, more evolved) dude-bro, which Jay would not be.

Or if Jay is born without Jackie's insightfulness but Kelso's total lack of insight, he could grow up to be a narcissistic tyrant. No one would be able to get through to him because his wounding his too great and his emotional awareness is non-existent. He'd often become emotionally disregulated and even delusional like both his parents. This is not the road I'd go down as a writer. While it's a realistic possibility, it's also a very boring one.

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

OK I slept on it and I think I need to stop playing guitar at my church and probably just stop attending entirely

The reasons for this are many, but I'm going to summarize the music thing in particular by saying that playing there has been one of the most bizarrely lonely experiences of my life

I've been playing there now eighteen months and this has been an issue pretty much the whole time. Most of them have known each other for years and are brilliant friends. It's always very difficult to break into a dynamic like that. I only make it worse, to be honest. I'm not super socially aggressive, I'm not good at small talk, and nothing about my disposition advertises that I am an approachable person. My attempts to fix this both in this specific context and in my life more generally have yielded...mixed results. Furthermore, I have gathered from eighteen months of listening to these peoples' conversations that we have essentially nothing in common.

This is compounded by the way the music itself is actually done. Everyone has in-ear monitors--sound-cancelling headphones connected to a personal sound mixing board. The strength of this approach is that everyone can create for themselves a mix that emphasizes the parts they most need to hear, and it makes it much easier to run sound for the auditorium because the sound engineers don't need to try to manage stage volume and try to balance the often irrational desires of the musicians with the demands of a good mix (e.g., if your guitar player is deaf and needs the guitar blasting on the stage, it's hard to make a good mix for people listening that doesn't feature the guitar blasting from the stage).

But this has the effect of hermetically sealing every person in the band from everyone else. You can only communicate with other people if you have a microphone and they have your microphone turned on. The experience is weirdly solipsistic. As you play, you simply have no idea what everyone else in the band is hearing. They might not hear you at all. You yourself have your own mix in your ears and you have no idea how what you are playing translates into the actual mix. You could, theoretically, be wailing away at full volume while the people at the sound board have switched you off. I don't sing so I don't have a microphone, so if I want to communicate with someone I need physically to walk to them and then gesticulate to get them to take out their headphone so that I can talk. This makes the relative cost of a social interaction fairly high, and so I am only going to do it if there is a problem that I cannot fix or endure.

This does not make for an environment of social cohesion. It's actually quite dehumanizing in a way. You are a widget who is plugged in and unplugged each week, it makes no real difference who else is there, and for all you know nothing you are playing is even being heard.

These are issues I have endured basically because I feel that I ought to perform some volunteer service for the church, and because they have continued to schedule me to play. But I strongly suspect that their opinion of my ability is rather diminishing, possibly because I can't devote as much time to practice as I could in the past because of my many and multiplying obligations elsewhere. But I would never know. Nobody really talks to me. I'm not really given notes about what I'm playing, which I take as a sign of indifference rather than approval. Sometimes people have said in the past that I played well, but not lately, perhaps because it no longer needs to be said, or perhaps because it is no longer true. I have no idea who if anyone even hears what I am doing. For all I know they have a recording playing and I am just up there to make it look like someone plays guitar, though I am not an especially good looking person so I'm not sure why I would need to be doing that.

I have also endured it up to now because life has been more endurable otherwise, and I felt like some suffering in the cause of volunteering was all right. But now that my life outside of this volunteering has become much less tolerable, volunteering itself has become much less tolerable. It's not clear to me I am adding anything other than a warm body, I am not especially enjoying the playing itself, and the experience of alienation and isolation that surrounds the experience--the awkward lack of small talk during setup and tear down, the awkward silence during the many down times--is positively punishing.

Yet further complications include that the music itself is extremely stupid, the theological content of the lyrics generally nonexistent, and my feelings about this brand of Protestantism increasingly sour.

Now the grown up thing to do is just to tell them that I cannot do it because I am so busy with other things. This relieves them of my existence in a way that spares them having ever to tell me that I am not good enough to be there or that I do not belong, and maintains the illusion of good will on both sides.

But the almost irresistible temptation is to say nothing and just vanish.