#conservative christianity cw ?

[chelledoggo]

what conservatives say: "Judeo-Christian" what conservatives actually mean: "i really just mean Christian. i'm adding in "Judeo" to make people think i don't hate Jews when in reality i despise them unless they can provide a means to an end for my Christian beliefs and "biblical prophecies." i absolutely am not afraid to leave out Muslims, though."

[rebeccathenaturalist]

Are There Evil Animals?

Originally posted on my website at https://rebeccalexa.com/are-there-evil-animals/

There’s a great discussion over on BlueSky about animal species unfairly seen as villains. Folks are posting pictures of species that we feel get a bad rap (I chose to highlight the gray wolf and snakes.) Ironically, I also had a note in my calendar, placed there months ago, to write about whether there are good or bad animals. So–today’s theme is whether there really are “evil animals”, and what makes them separate from “good animals”.

Please keep in mind that I am coming from a western perspective as an American of European heritage, and cultural views of various animals vary from species to species and culture to culture. And, of course, individual people within a community may disagree. But let’s stick with general trends in western viewpoints. Also, I am not going to wade into the issue of invasive species and whether they are “good” or “bad” from a moral sense, though I did get into clarifying what makes a species invasive a while back.)

There are certain animals that seem to draw the ire of people more than others. Spiders and snakes are two groups that are frequently relegated to the undesirable group of “creepy crawlies”, are the subject of many people’s phobias, and are all too often killed simply for existing. I’ve seen people post pictures of their pet snakes and spiders, only to have others reply “If I saw that thing anywhere near me I’d kill it”–something I bet they’d never say about someone’s beloved pet dog or cat. Slugs are seen as gross and slimy, bats will supposedly fly into your hair, and even pet domesticated rats will get looks of revulsion.

While all large predatory animals have seen their numbers plummet in the past couple of centuries due to overhunting, gray wolves and coyotes face extra-venomous persecution. Barry Holstun Lopez’ classic work Of Wolves and Men, and Hope Ryden’s God’s Dog: A Celebration of the North American Coyote, both explore in detail how these canids are not just controlled, but gleefully slaughtered by those who proudly display “smoke a pack [of wolves] a day” on their trucks and hang rotting carcasses of coyotes they’ve shot on fences alongside roads. The reintroduction of wolves in particular has been hindered by the protests of those convinced their livestock will all be killed and their children carried off. And Ryden’s work tried to counter the sentiment of all too many people that “the only good coyote is a dead coyote.”

Lopez in particular tackled the idea that wolves were specifically evil because they had supposedly been sent by Satan himself to plague good God-fearing people. And while many wolf-haters today probably don’t recognize the roots of their hatred, they still pursue the extermination of the species with religious fervor. Snakes, similarly, were maligned not just because a few of them are venomous, but because of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. The bible is full of parables and metaphors involving animals that place them in either the “good animals” category (like sheep) or the “evil animals” category (like goats.) And while western society is becoming increasingly less Christian, the cultural influences of centuries of Christianity can still be felt.

Thankfully, advances in science have offered a much more nuanced view of animals, and nature in general. We know for sure that the Earth is much, much, MUCH older than 6000 years, and that the many species that have come and gone over the eons came to be through natural selection. At their core, every species of animal (and plant, and fungus, etc.) is a living system whose most primitive purpose is to make sure its genetic material is successfully replicated. Far from making life into a strictly mechanistic process, I feel that this just makes the many adaptations species have evolved over time that much more fascinating.

Take the gray wolf, for example. Long legs help them to run swiftly, but they have solid endurance as well and can trail prey for many miles. Broad feet keep them from sinking into snow, like snowshoes, and keen hearing, sight, and smell help them to locate prey. They can dispatch said prey with sharp teeth which also allow them to shear off pieces of meat which is then broken down by an efficient digestive system. Far from being solo predators lurking in the shadows, wolves have complex social lives, and a pack is generally composed of a primary pair with their young from various years. They work together to raise each year’s pups and find food, and they spend quite a bit of time playing with each other or sleeping off a good meal. All of these adaptations work together to make an organism that has successfully passed its DNA down through many generations. It’s pretty impressive, thinking about the complexity of all of the tissues and organs and systems that go into making one single wolf, and how DNA holds the key to its own preservation and replication in increasingly complex packages.

But these genes and adaptations do not make the wolf “evil”, any more than herbivory (other than the occasional nest of baby birds) makes a deer “good”. And that’s the thing: at its heart, nature is amoral. Not IMMORAL, mind you; amorality means being not at all concerned with right or wrong, good or evil. Wolves and deer prey on their respective foods, and deer and plants have defenses they use to try to keep from being eaten. That doesn’t make them inherently bad, and they aren’t rubbing their paws (or hooves) gleefully together like some cartoonish villain as they think about killing their next meal. It’s just the way of things, ever since the first eukaryotes evolved two billion years ago and began eating other living beings.

So why, then, do we persist in seeing wolves as evil animals and deer as good ones? Well, we’re judging them by human standards, and specifically western, Christianity-influenced standards. We’re pretty biased, because we think that any species that does things we want them to is good, but those that inconvenience us are bad. We like hunting deer and we only really get annoyed with them if they eat our crops (which can also be solved by eating them.) But while wolves may eat our livestock (and the deer we want to hunt), we can’t really eat them, and so their value to us isn’t enough to keep them in the “good” category. Although wolves gave us dogs, the wolves that remain will not bow to our demands, so dogs become the only nice and respectable wolves we will accept in our lives because they directly benefit us, whether as working animals, companions, or both.

We can see this pattern among other species, too. Those that we find beautiful or useful, and which do not significantly impact our lives in any negative way, get to be good. Any that cause us problems end up being bad. Sadly, “I saw it and it scared me” is often enough to relegate a species to being a problem. Even though spiders do a great job of keeping our homes and other environments free of flies, ants, and other insects that might, say, spoil our food, we persecute spiders because we see them as scary. In the vast majority of human-spider encounters there is no way the spider could possibly get close enough to bite, and would only do so in self-defense–yet in many of these encounters the spider loses its life just for being there.

We don’t even think twice about squashing a spider or other “bug” that made the mistake of being visible. Demonizing animals as evil means that we don’t have to feel any responsibility toward their preservation. And, in fact, you can extend that whole idea of “evilness” to nature in general. Nature, until recently, was mainly seen in the west as something to be tamed and tied down, turned to agriculture, industry, and other good human-benefiting pursuits. Preserving wild ecosystems is seen as wasteful by the sort of person who only sees dollar signs. Why should we reintroduce wolves if they get in the way of our raising livestock? Why should we protect old growth forests instead of cutting them down for profit? Why should we restrict fishing to help fish populations recover from generations of overfishing, when it might mean a drop in seafood revenue?

In the end, the whole good/evil dichotomy as applied to animals is just a symptom of our selfishness. Those of us who understand the complexity of ecology also grok the concept of existence value, which I just wrote about in my last article. This concept allows us to get out of our self-centered viewpoints, showing how a species (or ecosystem) is important simply for existing, regardless of whether we can use it for something or not. I also think it’s important to drop that idea that a species can be inherently good or evil, and instead take Henry Beston’s view that they are “other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.” Like them, we humans are also the product of billions of years of adaptations and evolution, no more or less amazing than any other species. We’ve spent too long trying to make the whole world dance to our tune alone; we need to give the other beings space for their music, too, and appreciate its beauty as much as our own.

Did you enjoy this post? Consider taking one of my online foraging and natural history classes or hiring me for a guided nature tour, checking out my other articles, or picking up a paperback or ebook I’ve written! You can even buy me a coffee here!

[liskantope]

Half a year ago, I got myself involved in a thread which compared trans rights to gay rights and tried to make a case that, in terms of arguments for each, the issues are not as directly comparable as a lot of people seem to think. A lot of my perspective comes from a sort of an empathy I feel with the non- religiously conservative, non- radical feminist motivations for doubting some of what this social movement is pushing for, particularly with regard to its disconnect with how more traditional people view identity categories.

This portion of a recent interview on the YouTube channel Nonzero (see until 47:43) is a stunningly crystal-clear illustration of the attitude and motivation I was trying to describe at the time, so much so that I think it's instructive and kind of fascinating to watch, even if it's almost so extreme and ridiculous as to come across as parody. (Warning: a certain kind of non-conservative, non-TERFy transphobia, which I'll quote bits of below.)

The interviewee, Norman Finkelstein, feels violently averse to using "they/them" pronouns purely because it would be implicitly affirming what in his mind is an untruth. (Presumably he would not want to refer to a male-presenting student as "she" or a female-presenting student as "he", for a similar reason, but this doesn't directly come up.) He appears to have no other motive, but the motive of not liking to "play along" with someone else's factual untruth is plenty for him. There is no particular social conservatism evident in him; he states plainly that he's fine with androgyny, of people dressing/presenting any way they wish, and that stuff doesn't bother him in the slightest, because that doesn't involve saying things that are untrue. Politically and philosophically he is obviously left-leaning, pro-science, and non/anti-religious in most areas: he repeatedly likens affirming someone's gender identity to affirming that the world is flat or that climate change isn't real or "all the craziness you attribute to the Trump base". Not pronouncing things that imply a factual untruth or deny objective reality is sacred to him as a professor and an intellectual, is what he is saying.

Also, this:

I'm not insulting anyone. If I'm calling you a "he", it's not like I'm calling you the N word or I'm calling you a c*** or something. It's just a relatively stable identifier.

Notice how completely uncomprehending Finkelstein is of the notion that not affirming someone's claimed identity (on the basis of what he believes to be objective reality or established definitions of words) could possibly be an insult or convey lack of respect or qualify as dehumanizing treatment of someone else. That a refusal to affirm someone's claimed identity (on the basis that it denies objective reality) is somehow a form of dehumanization is a completely unfathomable concept to many.

Now I find Finkelstein's perspective flawed on at least half a dozen counts, and fallacious on a particular fundamental level in conflating different types of "objective facts" (something that Robert Wright, who takes a much more reasonable, kind, and open-minded agnostic view on all of this, gently tried to push back on him about). I do think Finkelstein had some good points later in the excerpt about not forcing jarring changes in language down everyone's throats -- this is how I feel about artificial and ugly terms like Latinx, for instance, and I would have had some issues with xie/xir and the like becoming widespread nonbinary pronouns -- but in my opinion these points can't be applied well to using singular "they" for nonbinary people. Moreover, Finkelstein comes across as hardly more than a crusty, curmudgeonly jackass throughout, one who proudly and stubbornly adheres to a disagreeable absolutist view and refuses to open his mind to where his defense of that view might be flawed.

(More minor point: in arguing that mispronouning someone isn't a form of insult, he compares it to factually saying someone's hair is white or that their muscular dystrophy will prevent them from running a 4-minute mile. But, while maybe "insult" or "dehumanization" wouldn't be the best way to describe these things, they are certainly rude in certain contexts: you probably shouldn't call attention to someone's hair being white if they are sensitive about aging, for instance. Similarly, calling a nonbinary but male-presenting person "he" is pretty unkind if they don't want to present as male and are sensitive about it. But Finkelstein clearly isn't the kind of person to prioritize others' feelings over his duty towards "objective reality" in this way.)

But I contend that this is simply an extreme and rather dickish version of how tons and tons of people think, because in terms of the history of social justice and civil rights movements, it is brand new for a movement to be so heavily based in the objective truth of internally-felt identities and accusing people of fundamental dehumanization when they refuse to affirm them. And yet, activist rhetoric sounds as if this is simply part of how identities always worked and what dehumanization always meant, rather than something that appeared on the scene just yesterday.

There is certainly still a major constituency of conservatively religious people who believe that everyone should only do with their bodies what their bodies were "created to do" or whatever, but conservative Christianity is very weakened in our culture since it lost the last major culture war, and I think a lot of people in that camp still also fall into the category of finding it incomprehensible nonsense to say that an identity category is whatever each of us says it is and that it's dehumanizing ever to imply otherwise. I believe it's simply a misconception to assume that the pushback against trans activism is comprised mainly of fundamentalists and TERFs. Norman Finkelstein is an (albeit extreme) example of someone who appears to be neither, and my perception at least in the US is that most people are neither, but that a great many Americans, if not a majority, don't really get the "identity is whatever you say it is" concept and at best are bemusedly humoring it as long as it doesn't get too much into their faces.

(On each day of this past weekend, I was in a different public place -- a bar restaurant and a coffee shop -- and overheard part of a conversation about how "the people in such-and-such social group over there all ask about and share pronouns and a bunch of them go by 'they'", and in context this wasn't being attacked in any way, but it was being treated as bemusing and only semi-comprehensible.)

As Tumblr user Bambamramfan once said, people (particularly scientific-minded, non-faith-y people) really don't like to assert things they don't actually believe (don't have time to look up the post right now; the way they phrased it was something like "Americans don't like to lie about what they believe" and it was in the context of lesser-of-two-evils voting, a topic on which I emphatically disagreed with Bambambramfan, but I consider that particular point to be wise). I wish this were more recognized in social justice activism communities in general, and both that more rhetoric were crafted and ideological assumptions were more carefully examined with it in mind.

I'll end by saying, as I've probably said before, that I'm not claiming just because certain ideological assumptions in trans right activism are fundamentally brand new, that they are wrong or shouldn't become adopted by the wider community. Lots of fundamental ideological assumptions that we are obviously better off for making the default, such as "people owning other people is a gross moral evil", were once brand new at least on a society-wide scale. What I complain about is activists completely refusing to acknowledge or even be aware of this novelty, and so refusing to critically examine it, to defend it on its own merits, or to meet others where they're at.

[mallgothchloe97]

project 2025 is definitely a Christian nationalist movement trying to turn the US into a fascist Christian theocracy. it's another Doctrine of Discovery 1452 & 1493

[writerofweird]

This post made me want to try to sing one of my poems to the tune of O Little Town of Bethlehem (UK version), and so I chose The Happy Christian as I felt it would be most appropriate.

Lyrics are below:

This poem contains references to conservative Christianity, homophobia and transphobia.

There’s a very happy Christian, Who is always grinning, He claims he will bring salvation, To everyone who’s sinning,

When you see him, he’ll clap his hands, And sings a song that will not end, Until he feels he has convinced you, That Jesus is your friend,

That nothing else in this world matters, That you should hear him well, For if you do not heed his words, Then you belong in Hell,

He’ll also sing and claps his hands, About who he says should be gone, Anyone who’s gay or trans, He says don’t belong,

In the world God created, So as he laughs and beams, He’ll demand those he hates should die, And giggles at the screams,

This is a very happy Christian, Who sings of Heaven’s gates, But there’s nothing that makes him happier, Than bigotry and hate.

[zeawesomebirdie]

I take back every negative thing I said about The Heart of Christianity it's actually a great book (at least as far as ive read so far)

[scretladyspider]

^^^^ this. Conservatives don’t accept asexuality because it directly defies their idea of what sexuality should be — cisgender, heterosexual, heteroromantic, allosexual, alloromantic, man and woman, husband and wife, to make babies (or her to “please” him so he doesn’t cheat/leave her). Sex is extremely important to conservatives, and anything that defies it is seen as a threat. And this absolutely includes the idea of little to no sexual attraction that asexuality encompasses.

Asexuality isn’t anti-sexuality or sex negative. Evangelical conservative Christianity is very sex negative. One includes the right to say “no thanks, not for me” forever. The other demands you say no until marriage, then that you say yes only to a specific type of sex.

Which is part of why the conflation of acceptance of asexuality and asexual education being conflated for conservative purity culture is so harmful to the queer community, especially aces. People accepting asexuality in all its complexities in the face of compulsory heterosexuality, and increase of asexual awareness and education, isn’t the same as the rising demand from conservative Evangelicalism that the world be queer sex and sexuality free. And that difference? That’s everything.

So within two days of each other, Fox News writes an article comparing aromanticism and asexuality to pedophilia, and then Matt Walsh releases a video saying asexuality is a mental illness and asexuals are tricking teenagers into having depression.

Not sure what’s going on right now over in Conservative World, but it’s a hell of wild U-turn for them to suddenly switch from “Oh no! The left is sexualizing our children!” to “Oh no! The left is asexualizing our children!”

[chelledoggo]

the fundies are mad at the "He Gets Us" superbowl ad, not knowing that He Gets Us is a conservative psyop lmao 🥴

[cinellieroll]

☆ random obey me headcanons!

lucifer, mammon and simeon ♡

part two (asmodeus, levi, barbatos)

part three (beelzebub, belphegor, solomon)

part four (satan and diavolo)

cw: a few spoilers ahead from the main story! also one SLIGHT nsfw on simeons part???

small note: i only started writing on tumblr now so idk much on how ppl do those line thingies on the words and then it teleports to a diff post so if anyone knows how to do it please teach me! thank you :3

☆ lucifer:

- generally has a thing for turtlenecks. if you open his closet you'll see a bunch of turtlenecks in there. lucifer is a very conservative man after all.

- speaking of closet, he definetely has a color code for his clothing. blacks, reds, navy blues, anything dark

- you'll never catch him wearing anything revealing. especially his legs. man keeps em hidden.

- has a very sensitive nose. he always scolds mammon and asmo for wearing such strong cologne. he has great sense of smell in general (the bitch can smell anything) and automatically knows when trouble is near.

- EXTREMELY petty when he doesn't get his morning coffee. if he misses a day without it an extra line will appear on his forehead.

- gifts you souvenirs when he enters the human world. claims he's here for business because diavolo told him but we all know that's not the only reason why he came up there.

- he doesn't like writing with modern pens and only settles with quills. he still has his old quill from the celestial realm and keeps it hidden somewhere.

- almost gave head pats to luke once.

- his nose is FUCKING BEAUTIFUL and his side profile too. he has a nose bump for sure and i will die on this hill.

- he's not a big fan of creamy foods like carbonara or anything with cream in general. if he's eating sweets he prefers the icing to be less flavorful. what do you expect? he's a black coffee lover after all.

☆ mammon:

- room is always a fucking mess, but he cleans when he procrastinates so if you ever enter his room and he's all quiet and cleaning just don't disturb him for a while.

- buys bootleg merch for levi for no reason. one time he found this cheap ruri chan stuffy on sale for like 150 grimm and decided to buy it.

- has fucking shit hand writing bro. sometimes it's small, sometimes it's big but most of the time it's ass balls. like why does your k and h look the same?

- he cracks his knuckles and joints often and can't go without a day doing it atleast once. it's kinda hot tbh lol

- when he's in a happy mood he'll sing in like a high pitched way. idk how to explain it but i just see him doing that especially when he's on cooking duty

- sleeps really late he could almost rival levi on it. surprisingly his eyebags aren't that visible though.

- has really pretty features like long eyelashes, plump lips and visible collarbones. eat your heart out asmo xoxo

- convinced himself he'll never ever like or listen to human world songs until he heard you blasting some music in your room. he was singing that song in his head for days on end but refused to ask you what the title was

- he's a very clumsy guy and often drops small things especially during class like his ballpen, eraser or that pack of bubblegum lucifer ended up confiscating

- before you arrived, he liked to vape or juul when he's stressed or felt lonely but now he only spends his time thinking of you when he feels down.

☆ simeon:

- when he turned into a human he had thoughts of becoming a teacher in christian education but realized it's better if he owned a cafe instead.

- he sometimes joins luke during his baking lessons with barbatos even though he already knows all the steps

- occasionally invites you for sleepovers and buys card / board games for you guys to play with solomon and luke! either he or solomon are always end up being the winners everytime though

- always and i mean ALWAYS willing to teach you something when he knows it. baking, writing, recent lessons, etc

- once the exchange program ended he started writing more and more, especially poetry. and mostly wrote about you and how much he misses you <3.

- started making diary entries after the aftermath of the celestial war.

- during quiet nights, simeon often thinks what it'd be like if he was really close with the brothers.

- his eyes are lowkey creepy sometimes when he looks at you for too long. it's like he's trying to detect every sin you've committed.

- idk why i thought of this but his teeth are literally so pearly and perfect but he doesn't really smile with them in view.

- unintentionally moans sometimes. like when he sits down after a long day you just start hearing a soft "ah~" out of nowhere..

[liskantope]

This is a sermon given in 1741 which apparently was deliberately intended and responsible for accelerating the Great Awakening in the New England area. It is the purest form of over-the-top fire-and-brimstone, fear-based and terror-mongering preaching I ever thought imaginable (and the link and following passage should be content-warned as such), to the point of saying the following (most of the way through, right before reaching the first signs of hopeful light at the end):

There is Reason to think, that there are many in this Congregation now hearing this Discourse, that will actually be the Subjects of this very Misery to all Eternity. We know not who they are, or in what Seat they sit, or what Thoughts they now have: it may be they are now at Ease, and hear all these Things without much Disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the Persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one Person, and but one, in the whole Congregation that was to be the Subject of this Misery, what an awful Thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful Sight would it be to see such a Person! How might all the rest of the Congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter Cry over him! But alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this Discourse in Hell? And it would be a Wonder if some that are now present, should not be in Hell in a very short Time, before this Year is out. And it would be no Wonder if some Person that now sits here in some Seat at this Meeting-House in Health, and quiet & secure, should be there before to morrow Morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural Condition, that shall keep out of Hell longest, will be there in a little Time! your Damnation don’t slumber; it will come swiftly, and in all probability very suddenly upon many of you. You have Reason to wonder, that you are not already in Hell.

A few notes of observation about the 18th-century English used:

As far as I can tell, absolutely all nouns are capitalized as in German, rather than contemporary practices of capitalizing some nouns that appear to me to be less consistent.

There are many contractions used, including our familiar can't, also 'tis (which I don't think was surpassed in popularity by it's until sometime a century later), but also han't instead of haven't, while 'em for them is also used liberally.

The most puzzling convention to me is that don't is used multiple times (including in the above passage) as a 3p singular form instead of doesn't.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

here's a wild one for y'all. cw for parental death. names have been changed, it is a kinda specific situation but I think only 1 of my family members is on Tumblr so whatever. sorry it got so long, it's a complicated situation and still VERY fresh so my brain is kinda fried lol.

tldr my dad passed away without a will and we want to give his long-distance "side" gf the house he helped her buy. I'm worried she won't be able to afford the mortgage, but don't really want to give her any of the monetary payouts. WIBTA if my brothers and I kept all of the cash?

so late last week (it's Dec 19 as of submitting) my father (60s M) passed away in a sudden car accident on his way to work. I'm (late 20s ftM) his oldest child, I also have a younger brother (mid 20s M) who we'll call Phineas and an even younger half-brother (almost tween, M) who we'll call Aaron.

so I'd describe my dad as a kind and loving but stubborn and stupid man. I would also guess, based on what I know of his love life, that he was polyamorous but didn't realize it due to his conservative Christian upbringing and didn't know it was an option so instead ended up being...well, kinda an adulterer tbh. this isn't to excuse his actual actions bc they were obviously wrong, but is the way the situation reads to me, a polyamorous person.

Dad had a long distance girlfriend (50s??? maybe??? F) on the West Coast (we live near the East Coast), we'll call her Melody. I met her a few years back when he flew Phineas and I with him to visit her. she's a sweet woman from what I know of her. when I got the news of his passing, I was the one who called her to let her know what happened. (which sucked.)

well, what I Didn't know until I was trying to scrape together travel arrangements (I live 5 hours away from Phineas and my dad) was that he also had a Wife (60sF), who we'll call Patricia. (it wasn't a legal marriage, it was "in the eyes of the Lord" as they said, due to legal complications to do with her social security benefits or something. which is why the arrangements for his death fell onto Phineas and I as his adult children. but if he called her his wife then as far as I'm concerned that's what she is.) he didn't really tell me or Phineas about the full nature of their relationship. Phineas found out bc our dad was spending so much time with her that he'd practically moved in w her, put two and two together and asked her to confirm. I never even knew she existed till all this happened. he had told his parents and siblings about her, and they approved of her. we can only speculate why he kept it so quiet to us, she thinks bc of his history with Real Duds that we'd be upset somehow. idk.

so anyway Patricia knew about Melody. my dad was already seeing Melody when he started seeing Patricia. I don't know what he was thinking when he got with Patricia tbh, can't ask him now anyway, but she knew about Melody the whole time. wasn't thrilled about it, constantly told him he needed to tell her the truth and end things, but doesn't truly hold that against Melody herself bc she didn't know.

Melody, however, did not know about Patricia. he was planning to tell her at some point. kept meaning to. still loved her, didn't wanna hurt her, but was also trying to be monogamously committed to Patricia too. he never got around to actually ending things with Melody before he passed, and as far as she knew he was still planning to move out there and get married to her. he even took out a loan to help her pay for her late mother's house, both their names are on the mortgage and deed.

which brings me to my question. my dad didn't seem to have a will (not that we can find anyway), so Phineas and I are the ones in charge of distributing his various belongings and payouts and such. we both agree that we don't have any use for some house across the country, and Melody is already living in it anyway. imo she should just Have It. however, she is also Pretty Poor. I don't know the specifics of her situation (or, really, much about the complications of home ownership?) but I do worry about her ability to continue to pay the mortgage, assuming that's a thing. we're still waiting to hear about all the details and numbers and have somebody who actually knows about that stuff translate it into layman's terms for us non-homeowners (or in Phineas's case, Brand New Homeowner) so we can get a full picture of how all that is going to work legally speaking.

Dad also had life insurance thru his employer. we are still working thru the red tape at his company to figure out who the beneficiary is, the most likely candidate being me as the eldest child. Phineas and I are agreed that we'll at least be splitting most, if not all, the money evenly between us and Aaron. Patricia is INSISTENT that she doesn't want any of it, she wants us kids to keep it bc unlike some of his exes she never cared about his money (he made GOOD money, but still ended up kinda poor due to both being generous to, and having been taken advantage of by, multiple women since my bio mom died. including having to shell out an insane amount of child support for Aaron despite already having a very active role in his life. like he paid more child support than either I or my fiancee even make at our jobs, while also frequently just straight up directly providing for him where he could). because of his income it's looking like a pretty hefty payout.

however, my brother and I are both pretty poor as well. while we don't know the exact amount we're getting, some are speculating a number that, even split 3 ways, would be Life-Changing for us. we're talking 5 figure amounts, more than I or my fiancee make in a year. like we'll still need to work for a living but, for example, it could be a down-payment on a house or a massive safety net for when I'm out of work (I have a steady job but with seasonal unpaid breaks). it could help Phineas afford expensive repairs for the trailer he now owns, which my dad was supposed to help pay for. in the right account with a decent interest rate, it could be tuition for when Aaron goes to college.

I feel like I Should probably toss some of that money Melody's way, esp since I feel so bad that she's getting the one-two punch of finding out her bf died AND also he had a wife she wasn't aware of. but my brothers and I could really use that money as well. I don't know that Phineas wants to send her any, we're saving that conversation for when we know more of the exact numbers. I don't even know how much Dad was paying towards it, or if he even was anymore. plus--and this is kinda a minor detail--but there's kind of a general vibe I'm getting from the Family (ALL 4 of my dad's siblings AND both his parents are somehow still alive) that Melody is kinda...unliked. they love Patricia and were CONSTANTLY frustrated that he was still visiting Melody and frequently sending her money; I get the feeling they viewed her the same as some of his other gold-digging exes so i think maybe sending her Even More Money would look a little weird? like she's already getting full ownership of a house out of the deal. most of them are in agreement that Phineas and I are the ones who get the final say on the bulk of these decisions but they're...a little pushy anyway.

like I said, we don't know what any of the actual numbers look like AT ALL yet, so it might actually be fine. but WIBTA if we just left her the sole homeowner when she couldn't really afford it, and not send her any money? the consensus will probably show up too late to affect our decision but hey, figured the situation would make for a wild ride anyway (or maybe I just feel like that bc it has been for me LOL).

What are these acronyms?

[imsatu]

my fav hc about the ghouls is that they were alive and then died, to then get summoned as ghouls, so here's what i imagine they were like as humans

im just going to quickly go over some of them, but i can do the others, and i'll probably go deeper in each story later too.

CW for death mentions, also the way i imagine them is not tied to the unmasked musicians in any way. these are not definitive or anything, just based on vibes

first, i think all ghouls did something related to music when they were alive, especially something related to their instruments, and that's why they got chosen also, they forget who they were when they were alive, but they can remember, like recovering from amnesia and getting your memories back

I'll start with phantom and aurora

phantom: he is the youngest ghoul in every sense, he is the last that was summoned, the youngest at his human death, and the one that spent the least time in the pit

he was a twenty something year old guy that lived in the 80's and was born somewhere in the middle of the usa in a conservative and strictly christian home. he lived his teen years feeling like an outcast, but, after learning about the rising of rock and metal music and the alternative communities in the big cities, he ran away from home to live his dream, which was of course to become a rockstar. he didn't last too long, as he died shortly after meeting a group of sketchy people and disappearing, his cause of death is still unknown

one day, searching youtube for something to fall asleep to, he stumbled on a video of his own cold case that is still open to this day

aurora: she lived during the last quarter of the 1700s in france, (the french revolution). she was born a duchess in the middle of luxury and refined fashion and arts, her favorite of course being the big, fluffy dresses and the music.

she was an extremely gifted singer and loved to perform, but due to her social status, she never got to properly enjoy as she would've wanted. she admired the entertainers at the balls, who were able to express their arts and talent, and when she started planning her escape to go and live free, her family fell prisoner during the revolution, and the rest is history

her room is decorated in a very ornate way, with hundreds of bows and ruffles, golden pillars and a small chandelier she diy'ed, and mountain gifts her fresh flowers often so she can keep them in there, even though she has no idea about her previous life, and is not interested in it

[leon-on-the-froggy-chair]

this is just a leon on the froggy chair lore post. not a vent at all, just a silly story i felt like sharing. feel free to ignore.

cw: mentions of homophobia/transphobia, that kinda stuff

So lemme set the stage, i was still in school and it was the start of the 2nd semester. And we come out of the school to old men with megaphones in our faces screaming at us calling us homphobic and transphobic slurs. Parading signs littered with radicalist religious propaganda. Essentially shaming those with mental health issues, disabilities, anyone LGBTQ+, women, non white people, "good people"??? (Idk it was on their sign that said BEWARE HELL AWAITS), and anyone not Christian. Quickly figured out they were literal cultists and their main guy was some ugly ass old man with a megaphone.

Law enforcement show up as with school security and school officials. Guess what they do? Thats right. Nothing. See technically it was public property and law permitted these people to yell in the face of minors, condemn them for their identity and threaten them with Hell. And they did nothing and anyone making attempts to counteract them was quickly shut down.

Now this just sounds awful. Because it frankly was. And what could I do about it?

Let me preface with saying this behavior was incredibly stupid esp since i live in a conservative area and I am visibly queer and bROWN. And I wouldn't encourage it. I was not in the best place mentally and frankly didnt give a shit LMAO.

So.

Naturally. With security in my face telling me off for what I was doing and a multitude of white men screaming bigoted rhetoric at me and my friends. I made a sign out of stapled papers in my bag. With a huuuuuuge PP on it. I made several small ones for those who saw and wished to accompany my effort. And I set up right across from them. Because the law that protected them technically protected me.

And see, thanks to my theater kid background, i have MAAAAD vocal projection. And law prohibits ceetain volumes on megaphones. So I preached very loudly, over the megaphone, about how I would clap their God's cheeks so hard they'd hear it through the thunderclaps. And then proceeded to go on about what I would commit upon their holy saints in great explicit detail for an hour. The absurdity of my behavior interrupted their script and they could not get their message out whatsoever. And I know this because when outlets and other students tried to report on what propaganda they were yelling about, no one knew. This routine proceeded for the next week. And quickly their main guy started specifically targetting me. Naturally. My response is to flame him on his clothing choices every time he tries to shame me and shout the lyrics to the big time rush theme. Until I was eventually pulled away because he showed signs of aggression to my statements but yeah. Over the course of 2 weeks and persistent trolling I had discouraged them rather noticeably. Their faces of visible annoyance upon seeing me set up right across from them with my infamous penis sign was truly a treat. And the time they spent in front of the school got shorter and shorter each time they showed up.

Was it annoying? Yeah.

Was it funny as fuck?

Yeah.

This of course. Reached the mayor. And this brings me to why I'm even typing this up. I came back across this video of my local mayor talking shit about me and remarking upon my behavior as crude LMAO. Stating: "back in my day i wasnt even a good kid but i wouldve never talked to an adult that way." In reference to police recording of me being "highly disrespectful" to the main guy when he got in my face. However our mayor made no statement of concern about his aggression or about the cultists being there in general. Only complaint about the behavior of the "kids". Or in other words. Me.

I however was not discouraged and continued until the school finally stepped in under order of the guidance counselor (whomst i was close with from another protest at our school i was involved in. Lore for another time).

I didnt know this would be the last day they showed up. But after days of figuring out the timing to the song. I got in the car with my dAd (who was quite unaware of everything) and blasted 4 big guys. Timing it so they would be subjected to the beat drop and first verse.

But yeah. Funny shit. Most memorable moment of my highschool career. Havent seen em since.

Eventually after things cleared up, a smaller christian community group made their own protest that was supportive of lgbtq+ kids and gave out free hot chocolate. So the community is not all bad.

[aspecpplarebeautiful]

tw/cw: mentions of religion (specifically Christianity).

i’m Christian and aspec. for many parts of the Christian community, i’m not Christian enough. for some parts of the LGBTQ+ community, i’m against my own community and support someone who wants us dead. i’ve met many in both communities who are supportive but i’ve mostly met people who find my existence contradictory. i’m damned if i do, damned if i don’t.

i was raised Christian, and still believe in God. my parents taught me that God loves His children, even if they’re gay, trans, etc, since i grew up in a conservative Southern town and people will be nasty to you (for better perception, if you flew an LGBTQ+ flag, someone would probably publicly shame you or even try to hurt you). so they always raised me to be me and stand my ground.

i could go in a long story and explanation but i’ll keep it short. God has helped me through a lot, even with my discovery. i used to worry, yes (thanks to Bible-banging Christians), but i have not once genuinely feared being sent to Hell for being trans & aspec. i have no doubt in my mind that God still loves me.

it’s not easy dealing with the expectations, but i’m perfectly okay within my faith and wouldn’t wish for anything else now that i’m this far into it. so, if anyone else is struggling with the same thing, i’d like for you to know that God doesn’t hate you, He loves you and wants nothing but the best for you. the weight of other people’s words can be heavy but at the end of the day, your personal relationship with God matters most.

For any Christian followers who may find this helpful to hear.

[ramona-quinn-doodles]

💚👑 Lexi (Hazbin Hotel OC) 👑💚

CW: Abuse, family vloggers

Being half-koala/half-rhino, Lexi is an autistic sinner demon that loves all things colorful. They are obsessed with scene and emo culture and have an appreciation for the arts. However, their life is not all sunshine and rainbows. Before dying with their ableist, conservative, Christian, family-vlogging parents (Jennifer and Mark) from an EF5 tornado that struck their hometown in Alabama, they were abused by them and were exploited on social media without their consent. Lexi was blamed for the deaths by Jennifer and Mark and became cursed to be in their family vlogs for Voxtube and Voxtagram. During this time, the parents slowly became overlords due to their soul-sucking popularity of their family vlogs and forced their child to sell their soul via contract.

Lexi escaped their hellhole of a home to the Hazbin Hotel in hopes of being redeemed so they could go to Heaven and no longer be trapped under their parents’ tyranny. However, their sassy, teen-like attitude and disregard for authority is holding them back. They act this way as a way to cope with the abuse they had to go through.

Voice claim: Demi Lovato

[ineffable-opinions]

Kaathal – The Core

[ Available for streaming on Amazon Prime. This is an appreciation post. A proper criticism by experts linked at the bottom of this post.

CW: heterosexism PSA: Hema Committee Report

This post is my 2nd contribution (1st can be found here) to the conversation regarding Indian queer media that started in October 2024. I recommend this post by @neuroticbookworm and this post by @nihilisticcondensedmilk as well as this compilation by @starryalpacasstuff before reading this.

Throughout this post by the term Nasrani, I mean Roman Catholic Syrian Christians.]

Love, the Core

The title of the movie is very interesting. Kaathal (കാതല്‍) in Malayalam refers to the heartwood of a tree. Hence, it can mean pith or core (as the subtitle suggests). It is homophonous with the Tamil word kaathal (காதல்) which means love. Average Malayali audience is familiar enough with the word kaathal as love to make that association faster than with heartwood. This bit of word play conveys that it is love that’s at the core of the movie. And that the queerness central to the movie is practically essential.

Catholic Background

The movie opens on a Sunday Mass and we get first glimpse of several important characters as the camera pans through the crowd to the accompaniment of the continuation of the third g’hanta prayer, the one that follows the Institution Narrative, that praises the grace bestowed upon the human kind. The order in which we get a glimpse of the characters is also important, I think, especially considering the distance from alter. While this scene is easy to forget, it establishes which community they belong to - Nasranis as indicated by the East Syriac Rite liturgy. The particular prayer choice is interesting:

Forgiving our debts, You sanctified us sinners, enlightened our minds, defeated our enemies, and glorified our frail nature by Your immense grace.

Tight-knit & Rurban

 In the next scene we get a glimpse of how tight-knit their community is through a conversation about pork sharing[1]. This is followed by Femy, Mathew's daughter, hitching a ride on someone’s scooter indicating she studies out of town and is back home to spend whatever is left of the weekend. The scene between Omana and Femy foreshadows that Omana’s silence on the matter of divorce is going to be a thorn in the upcoming election campaign.

Sibin drags Mathew to try and break off an inter-class heterosexual couple whose love affair is disapproved by the woman’s family, for the man is a migrant worker. The intention is to secure Mathew four votes from the family through Mathew’s intervention. Sibin informs that the Local Committee has decided that Mathew would be their party’s candidate in the by-election in ward 3. When Mathew inquires if that’s their party's stand on love, Sibin doesn’t sugar-coat the fact that on the ground the party has to appease the conservative politics of their core vote bank (working-class folks like Rajan) in spite of their more liberal views online. Ironically, Mathew stands up for the couple and right behind him stands his own paramour, Thankan.

Less-Discussed Facets of Queer Life – The Wife*

Kaathal focuses on Omana, who was unwittingly married to an androphilic man, as much as it focuses on queerness, outing and heterosexism in general. While it's not rare for movies to have queer characters in Malayalam, it's very rare to have movies which focus on queer characters and even rarer for the focus to be on their spouses. My Life Partner (2014) and the bio-pic about the poet Kamala Das, Aami (2018) are the only other such Malayalam movies as far as I can remember and the married man in both these movies were ambiphilic (aka bisexual).

Omana struggles in their marital life for two decades and we meet her when she's trying to get a divorce from Mathew. In an unfortunate twist of events, her submission to the court which was supposed to be a private thing, becomes public knowledge and topic of discussion since Mathew is a candidate in the by-election to ward 3 of Teekoy panchayath**. Since there is no other election happening at that time, all energy and gossip is focused on this particular candidate’s scandalous divorce procedure. It becomes public knowledge way too fast and even before she could explain herself, everything basically goes out of control. While Mathew is reasonably upset with her, we learn during the court procedure that he was always reluctant to discuss divorce.

Omana is a stand-in for all the women who are married to men who are not gynephilic and therefore have to struggle in the marriage because their emotional and sexual needs are not met. Kaathal is not the only movie discussing this in the recent years. We have seen two very famous movies Dear Ex (2018) and The Blue Caftan (2022) which talks about the same topic but from very different angles.

Dear Ex is about the relationship between a woman and her husband’s paramour after her husband is dead and the insurance money goes to that male lover. The male lover has been the one who was taking care of her husband when he was very ill and she reels from the doubt whether her husband ever loved her.

In The Blue Caftan, the wife is about to die and she implicitly gives permission for her husband to pursue the young apprentice whom she did not like in the first part of the movie but later warms up to when she realise she mistook him and accused him of things that he didn't do (for which she feels guilty) as well as the support he offers when he finds out that she is ill and helps her husband take care of her despite the husband backing off when things got murky between them. The young apprentice returns to take care of her and their shop - their dreams and legacy.

In Kaathal, no-one is dying. The movie is very idyllic in an odd, tearful way despite the drama. (Probably Malayali folks are moved to tears just by seeing Mammootty cry and the effect might not be the same on non-Malayalis.) It is about the woman getting divorce and the couple moving on with their lives. This sort of happy ending which is a little too unrealistic considering overall tone leans towards realism.

Adultery Situation

While it is not okay for Omana's affidavit to have leaked and for Thankan to be outed, there are very few precedents to the legal battle she was entering. Daniel Crasto vs The State of Maharashtra (an actual case referenced in the movie) is what inspired advocate Ameera to move the court in a manner that would allow for divorce proceedings to not take a decade as it did with the case referenced (filed in 2009, final judgement in 2019). The courtroom sequences in the movie are set up to be informational and gives answers to a lot of questions that are obvious to arise. I wish the movie had mentioned the circumstances of decriminalization of adultery (Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)) in India and how that too plays into the divorce procedure.

Omana had already discussed the matter with her daughter as well as with her mother. But the men in her life are kept out of the conversation before filing the case since the previous experience are not exactly confidence inspiring. Having discussed it with her father and not getting any support or reassurance, Omana is set up to be the 21st century foil to Alice from K. G. George’s iconic movie Adaminte Vaariyellu (1984) where interestingly, Mammooty’s character was the paramour.

Malayali Christian Masculinities

While Omana’s father, Philip, is only mentioned, his presence looms large in spite of him being dead and gone. He is a reflection of the type of Nasrani hyper-masculinity that had been dissected through many Malayalam movies including RDX, Joji, Appan and Aarkkariyam in recent years. Omana’s brother, Tomy, struggles to break out of the mold he was raised in and tries to be supportive elder towards the end.

Given the kind of patriarchy she was raised under, it is not surprising Omana had kept quiet for so long, raised their child together and put in effort to hide the struggles in their marital life and to live a harmonious seeming life in front of others.

An important dimension to Omana, comes from her relationship with her father-in-law, Devassy***. The depiction of their relationship is inline with a trend in recent Malayalam cinema, where characters’ relationships with their parent(s)-in-law outwears those with their spouses and lovers. In The Teacher (2022), the woman’s mother-in-law (a local Communist leader) supports her decision to separate from her son as well as enlists the help of a thug (one of my favourite queer side characters who has the most delightful pairing with a super jealous, law-bending cop) to help her exact revenge. Meanwhile, in Ullozhukku (2024) the woman decides to leave her paramour for her mother-in-law.

Devassy represents a different type of masculinity which we also see reflected in Mathew. This form of Nasrani masculinity too is a familiar flavour in Malayalam cinema, like in the excellent Maheshinte Prathikaaram (2016). Omana finds in him a father whom she did not have but dearly wished for. They partake in the same pain ever since Femy was born and Mathew did not show up to bring Omana home as he was busy taking care of Thankan. (It is customary for women to return to their native home (Omana’s native home is in Meppara) when they are pregnant, especially during their first pregnancy, and to return to their patrilocal or neolocal residence after the baby is born.) Devassy’s political leanings, especially him abandoning centrist UDP (stand-in for the Indian National Congress-led UDF alliance) during the days of Emergency and joining CRP (stand-in for the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led LDF alliance), is also indicative of the left-leaning values he held. It is also interesting to note that Devassy had thought to take Mathew to a doctor when he learned that he is androphilic (an approach indicative of the time as it was before homosexuality was depathologized).

Another brand of Christian masculinity get a passing mention when Mathew's sister calls Devassy to complain about the loss of social capital her probably un(der)employed husband faces abroad who has to renegotiate his masculinity at every step as a migrant. Men lose their purpose when they move abroad with their bread-winner wives since they are raised with certain values and motivations that difficult to unlearn. They seek and find solace in their community gatherings. Loss of social capital gets reflected in their lives abroad too and social auditing would make their lives difficult.

Husband, Lover, Wife

Omana loves Mathew deeply. They have actually found companionship in each other. The platonic love between them is hinging on mendacity and selfishness. They have been with each other for a good chunk of their lives and Mathew is reluctant to let go of Omana. When she chooses to free herself from their entanglement, it is also to liberate Mathew from the shackles they have bound themselves with.

Thankan on the other hand is completely disempowered in this particular scenario. As his friend, Rajan Mesthiri points out Matthew has wealth that he would inherit from his father whereas he has nothing. Because of this scandal, he was losing social capital and has to survive cruel homophobia everywhere - in the junction, at his place of work and even on the wall of his yard where miscreants engrave slur (kundan). This is on top of his struggling with loneliness and deprivation of love.

 Thankan is all on his own. He is a working-class man who lives by himself before his nephew, Kuttayi, took refuge there. There isn't any other familial support system. People are willing to send their daughters for driving classes with him due to a twisted form of benevolent heterosexism.

Meanwhile, Mathew has lots of people offering him support and stand with him, denying allegations and supporting him as a queer candidate, even though Mathew doesn’t appreciate that.

Mathew doesn't hang out with Thankan in the public eye. He sticks to the story that they are just acquaintances and people would believe that since their dalliances happen in Pullikkanam (a village in ) and in Teekoy they are just acquaintance. The only visible connection between them other than longing stares and campaign notice is a framed school photo of them that hangs in their respective homes. They have been lovers since their school days and have been hiding that fact as much as they could.

It is like Thankan is being left behind. The kind of deprivation of social capital along with childlessness indicates that no one is going to take care of him in his hour of need. Mathew receives a lot of support from party members and others and lot of people come to his rescue, partly due to him having served in their service co-operative bank for more than two and half decades.

Co-operative banks, unlike commercial banks, are run locally by elected members and provide financing that the community requires. Since those involves a lot of trust and relies on social capital, the discretion exercised by bankers is crucial in risk-assessment and in securing credit to those who need it. In November, you could find co-operative societies and banks in Kerala decorated with rainbow flags (the ones with sever colour, different from the queer-pride rainbow flags).

Progressive versus Realpolitik

There is strong anti-incumbency in ward 3 as indicated by displeasure over lack of infrastructural development, a bridge in a notable case. Tomy's construction job dreams hinge on Mathew's victory. Moreover, in the challenging times (rise of Hindutva), CRP needs to strengthen itself.

The realpolitik is in how the Communist party, CRP, sides with Mathew and doesn't reach out to Thankan, one among proletariat they supposedly stand with. It is also in how they pander to the conservative views of their vote bank. It is there in choosing Mathew, a Catholic, to represent party in the election in hopes of winning over Nasrani voters in their ward. It is in asking Mathew to speak to the vicar about this matter. It is also in their attempt to demonstrate their stance on personal liberty by insisting Mathew should contest and they are making a statement by fielding ‘a candidate like him’ in the election. It is in how the party is politicizing and employing an outed man’s identity without consulting with him first while knowing that it is putting so much additional pressure on him. This can be seen as a critique of leftist political movements in Kerala from leftist creators including Jeo Baby and Mammooty.

Owning the Narrative

The movie has a member of Queerla meet with Mathew outside of the family court. (Queerla is one of Kerala’s organisations focused on the welfare of sexual and gender minorities. The others are Queerythm and Sahayathrika.) But under those circumstances, he is not in a position to welcome the help the organisation could offer him. Eventually, after reconciliation with his father, after having to confront the fact that he was losing the case and Omana, that he comes to his senses and allows himself to realise that he might not be on the right track and that he can come out, that too with Omana insisting that he should also be free for she cares and loves him. So, he lets her go, accompanies her to Meppara, to her native home and invites Thankan fully into his life. Omana and Mathew continue to support each other.

When Mathew comes out through a video that Femy shoots for him, it becomes a state-level news. The fact is that Kerala is yet to have any openly (there have been closet cases) queer candidates win elections. Maybe we will have such a candidate in the future. The actor who plays the role of Femy in the movie is openly bisexual.

Church, the non-Monolithic Presence

Teekoy vicar is presented as an open-minded person. But, he is an exception. Bishop House and the church committee do not share his opinions on the matter of divorce and non-heterosexual union. However, the bible verses and prayers place emphasis on truly open-minded and all-embracing religiosity.

Trivia

There are multiple reasons why this movie is to Little Hearts (2024) what Great Indian Kitchen is to Jaya Jaya Jaya Jaya Hey and would make for an excellent pair watching.

There has been complaints that we missed out on a chance to watch Mammooty romance with a man. So, here's the kiss scene between Mammooty and Mohanlal in Nanayam (1983).

[* Chinese use the term tongqi (同妻) to refer to a woman married to a gay man. Beard is a close enough term but doesn't convey the information asymmetry. There are no such popular terms in Malayalam.]

[** Administration in India is divided between union government, state governments/union territories and panchayat/municipalities/municipal corporations. Teekoy (and all other locations in the movie are real locations in Kerala) is an actual panchayat (a village consisting of sub-divisions called wards) in the state of Kerala. The elected representative (referred to as member) of ward 3 was Kurian (of UDP) and it is to fill his seat after his passing that the ward is facing a by-election soon.

While Kerala has multiple parties with varying ideologies, most important among them are those which form part of the two alliances that have ruled the state: Left Democratic Front and United Democratic Front. CRP and UDP are stand-ins for these two in the movie. Biggest political part in the world, BJP, although is part of the ruling collision (NDA) in the union government as well as in several state governments, is not as significant as the others in Kerala, especially in state legislature. BJP is represented by DJP in postures. In places such as Teekoy their influence is even less significant and remains so in the movie too.]

[*** Devassy is the Malayalam variant of name Sebastian.]

[1] Pig being a large enough animal to involve more than a family to finish it off.

-

I am yet to choose between Gaami (2024) and Moothon (2019) for my next appreciation post. If you decide to watch Gaami, please feel to ask about content warnings. I think it is better to watch the movie without reading about it.