#deviant king quotes

[evacrstairs]

i love you, ain't that the worst thing you ever heard?

deviant king (aidenelsa) headers. like or reblog if you save or use. please! 🍫

art by seijousai comms by rooksagies

[pride-with-a-hint-of-prejudice]

deviant king is so funny to me cause i literally cannot imagine a 16 year old going "I WILL DESTROY YOU" like what are you doing go finish your homework lmao

[lighthousepigeons]

[Aiden and Cole extremely drunk]

Aiden, laughing: Silver, Cole likes you.

Cole: Aiden, you prick. You said you wouldn't tell her.

Silver: Cole, we're married-

Cole: Bastard, I'm gonna tell Elsa you like her!

Aiden: *glares*

Cole: Elsa, Aiden has a crush on you.

Elsa, holding baby Eli: Really? I would've never known.

[adrianvokov]

aidenelsa headers, royal elite.

[yourcprcrn]

“Every. Fucking. Thing.”

Aiden King, Deviant King by Rina Kent

[pynkhues]

What do you mean when u say Lestat is a Milton’s Satan hero?

Ah! Okay! Going to try and keep this shorter than my Byronic Hero post, haha, but we’ll see how we go.

Before we start…

When we talk about Milton’s Satan as a character archetype, we’re talking about something that was originated in John Milton’s epic poem, Paradise Lost, which was published in 1667. This was before gothic literature was quote-unquote ‘invented’ (as I mentioned in my first Byronic Hero post, gothic literature is widely accepted to have begun with Horace Walpole’s 1764 novel, The Castle of Otranto – worth the read, even just for the bonkers prophecy-speaking skeletons and a character dying from a helmet falling on his head, haha), but had, and continues to have, an enormous impact on gothic literature and horror in general.

The poem is set across twelve ‘books’ (chapters, basically), and is effectively a re-telling of the Book of Genesis but with two narrative throughlines. One throughline is Adam and Eve who represent more conventional biblical heroes in the poem, and the other is Satan (also called Lucifer in the poem). We’ll talk more about them in a sec, but before we begin it’s important to note that Paradise Lost was never intended as a criticism of the church.

Milton was a religious man, which is a really important thing to note when we start talking about Paradise Lost, but he was also heavily influenced as a writer by King Charles I’s autocratic rule and the English Civil War which lasted from 1642-1651. I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of all of that, but what’s important to note is that he wrote Paradise Lost in a really increased period of anti-authority sentiment in the UK and believed strongly in rebellion against authority, which feeds into how he invented his Satan.

Milton’s Satan in Paradise Lost

Lucifer’s arc in Paradise Lost is a relatively straight forward one. He begins as God’s favourite angel but his pride and his vanity gets the better of him as God starts to invent (and favour) earth and mankind, and he comes to resent God’s authority over the kingdom of heaven. He believes he deserves to be loved as God is, so he leads a rebellion against God, only to lose, and he and the rest of the fallen angels, get cast out of Heaven and into Hell.

Out of spite, Lucifer decides to make Hell his own, with the iconic line “Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n” and to set his sights on corrupting God’s new favourite thing – Mankind (at this point, just Adam and Eve) – and he’s ultimately pretty darn successful. I’m not going to talk too much about the specific ways that he does that, but it’s basically a mix of deception and sowing seeds of lust, and the end result is that humanity’s corrupted, and God further punishes Satan by turning him and the other fallen angels into snakes.

The devil had been depicted a few times in literature and poetry before this time –most notably in Dante’s Inferno – but these depictions of the devil were always monstrous. Dante’s Satan is a three-mouthed beast keeping his sinner’s constantly in pain, trapped in Hell himself instead of reigning over it, and this is where Milton’s Satan hit the streets and changed character archetypes for good.

Because Milton’s Satan was hot.

Sure, he was evil, proud, vain, impulsive and did terrible things, but he was also charismatic, beautiful, graceful, funny, with all the best lines in the poem. He was “a lonely rebel…[and] an appealing, sympathetic deviant.”

And – I can’t stress this enough – nobody had ever done that before in Western writing.  “[Milton] transformed the way evil was depicted in Western texts and cultural imagery,” and also created the hero-villain archetype, something we now often refer to as an antihero.

On top of that though, Milton’s Satan was deceptive (literally a shapeshifter!), impulsive, had an incestuous family, and made sex sinful by making it lustful (Milton’s thesis over and over in his writing is that sex is great as long as nobody feels lust lol). He was also a loser, haha – he lost every battle he fought, and is in some ways regarded as a caricature of the epic odyssey hero, but look, I’m not going to get into all of that here.

Milton’s Satan is a tragic struggle between the entirely villainous and the entirely heroic.

Let’s just grab a quote from the excellent paper Miltonic Influences in Gothic Victorian Literature:

“As a rejected, troubled child of God, Satan decides to forcefully take what he thinks he should have by birthright. When he does not succeed, he decides to corrupt God’s new children…Satan is narcissistic, vain, proud and jealous. However, he is also remorseful and aware of the wrongness of his actions. He alone thinks he cannot be pardoned for the sins he commits so he forcefully pushes forward in his need for revenge. At the same time, Satan shows disturbingly human characteristics, but also inexplicable immorality. Just when one thinks one can reach a humane reason for Satan’s behaviour, one is left baffled by how evil he actually is.”

The important thing to remember about your Milton’s Satan archetype is that he was not just invented as a means of Milton’s grappling with autocracy and anti-authority sentiment, he was also really Milton’s way of grappling with humanity.

He leaves Adam and Eve as the Biblical heroes of the story, which makes them hard to engage with. What Milton wanted with Satan was to lean into the fallen angel element of him and show him as a character with the capacity for both good and evil, and the tendency to choose evil, thus making him both ultimately tragic, but also more human than the human characters. He was a way for Milton to explore what he felt were his own sins and moral failings, and in the process of that, became a way for readers to explore that too.

Evolution of Milton’s Satan

Milton’s Satan as an archetype has grown a lot over the years since his invention. Even by the time gothic literature started being ‘officially’ written a century later, the character archetype really existed on a spectrum, with some Milton’s Satan’s such as Ambrosio in Matthew Gregory Lewis’ 1796 novel, The Monk leaning more villain than hero, and the Monster in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel, Frankenstein, who’s cast out by his maker and not given the chance he needs in life to be good. The Monster lacks a lot of Milton’s Satan’s typical traits like pride and self-love, but he continues the archetype’s throughline of being a cast out child who out of loneliness, becomes vengeful against the authority that rejected him and ultimately depraved/

Like I said, this archetype underpins all antiheroes today, and there’s a lot of writing about characters as wide-ranging as Hannibal Lector to Batman as being owing to Milton’s Satan, so there’s heaps out there to read if you’re interested, but yes! Let’s talk a little about Lestat.

Lestat as Milton’s Satan

Trying to keep this short(ish, anyway, haha): I really do think Lestat is born out of this archetype. Lestat’s an anti-authority character – an enormous part of which stems from his father’s autocratic and abusive reign of the household, and the feeling of abandonment by God when his father pulled him out of the church where he’d learn to be a priest only to continue his abuse. Lestat in that sense also faces rejection from three ‘God’s’ / makers not just one one – his spiritual God, his biological father, and later Magnus as his vampiric maker.

Interestingly too, Miltonic Satan’s remain heavily tied to their maker’s even after their rejection. In that paper above on Miltonic Influences in Gothic Victorian Literature, they note:

“The Satanic hero or the hero-villain is a dark, troubled and mysterious individual. He is shaped by life experiences and traits which he inherits from his maker.”

Something the show has reminded us a few times now. Lestat’s grounding in trauma and abandonment is steeped in the Miltonic trope of rejection by authority leading to rejection of authority, but even beyond that, Milton’s Satan is impulsive, morally weak, self-centered, proud, vain, lonely, beautiful but also, vitally, has a capacity for real good and an ability to love (and, more often, lust, haha). He’s a hero-villain that ultimately draws the viewer in because he’s exceptionally human in his monstrousness, and that is what is at the heart of the Milton’s Satan archetype. He’s evil but he’s human in a way traditional villains were robbed of, and similarly, he’s good but he’s human in a way traditional heroes weren’t allow to be, and to me that is Lestat in a nutshell.

[horizon-verizon]

Last anon.

My point about book vs show Alicent in eps. 6-7, yes - we got the closest to book Alicent in terms of hatred against Rhaenyra (even if showAlicent's hatred against Rhaenyra is simply a personal grievance rather than an ambition for anything, she does nasty things towards Rhaenyra for the fun of it)

So, my point is that all of those ''cunty moments'' the fandoms love so much are show creations and they have given her more influence/power than she had in the book (talking down to Viserys, refusing the Helaena and Jace match, attacking Rhaenyra) and then of course the power she had in the council and ruling in Viserys' place - that did not happen in the book.

Or her quotes they love so much ''bastards are monstrous by nature'' her sons are literally rapists, kin-slayers, mass murderers;

''my son Aemond will return with fire and blood'' he doesn't and ''The rats play when the cat is gone'' when the real rats were the greens hatching their plans when the ''cat'' was gone (can apply to both Viserys dying and Rhaenyra being absent from king's landing);

Anon talks about this post.

Yes, [2nd paragraph] they are show creations, and yes her being in the council--even with Viserys' condition worsening--wasn't canon compliant (when bk!Viserys's different sort of condition got worse, his [male] council members and Otto just were more and more relied on...there's absolutely no mention of Alicent joining meetings and if she did it definitely would be mentioned in the Grand Maester's records as this is a phenomenon was directly about the King and his council, who said GM is a part of, themselves). And as i noted in that past post, if they wanted Alicent to be on that council, they had to develop a plotline showing how she's granted this ability.

The quotes aren't in the book, but not only do we do have some direct lines told to have come from Alicent in the book, those lines very well match the ones given in those 2 episodes. Alicent talking about "bastard blood shed in war"? Alicent's persuasions to the green council, about Aegon being king, Criston supporting her with what we can very well assume were what Alicent really thought or at least would be amenable to using to benefit herself (Laenor and Rhaenyra-Daemon being sexual deviants and Laenor passing that own to Jacaerys)?

"her sons are literally rapists, kin-slayers, mass murderers", yes, the hypocrisy is the point and bk!Alicent was a hypocrite. And yes, she frequently predicted or warned retribution in some sort of way or claimed she'd be supported in some way that panned the opposite in canon. the show at least gets this element.

Problem is it's corrupted by their insistence in making her as much a sympathetic character as other characters and framing some things like her giving up her own kids to die--while SHE (partly) launched this entire war bc she was jealous and had the wrong idea of Rhaenyra's possible actions towards her kids--as saintly.

[simping-for-kamski]

Smooth Criminal

Previous part: Time

Read it on Ao3 - Series: Everyone Lives In The End

Connor was both a deviant and a killing machine. He accepted it.

He knew that Hank likely wouldn’t be so thrilled to know what it meant for Connor to have become Markus’s shadow, so he kept the human in the dark. Rights for androids didn’t grow on trees. A good public opinion on the human side was preferable, but if it meant silencing certain voices, Connor was ready at hand.

It had worked well for Jericho.

Then one day, Markus gave Connor a new assignment. Markus had found power in rA9. Deviants saw rA9 in him, but humans did not. They enjoyed the narrative, but they saw someone else in those characters, someone more relatable, someone rumored to be crowned king of the tower again… Someone who had to go.

The house was thoroughly locked, Connor knew. He extended his arm and fired several shots through the lobby’s window before beating a hole into the glass and coming in. He cared little for the sharp edges scraping his fingers, nor for the blue stains he left in his wake—clues that wouldn’t trace back to him.

He prowled through the villa. He found his target and shot—not a lethal wound; the job needed to be messy. He walked quietly as the other ran to the bedroom. Connor smiled wolfishly as he reached the door, resting his hand against the closed panel, listening to the sounds inside to try and locate the man on the other side.

“Kamski, are you okay?” he asked in an impossibly soft voice. “Are you okay, Kamski? ...Are you okay?”

There was a sound of agony somewhere to the right, not close enough to shoot directly through the door. Connor pressed the handle. It yielded.

Gun in hand, he stepped in, a gentle expression on his face. Almost a reassuring smile.

“Did Markus send you?” Kamski rasped, clutching his bleeding side—it was just a flesh wound.

Connor merely smiled as he reloaded his gun.

Kamski chuckled bitterly. “Does CyberLife think they have no use for me anymore or do they see me as a threat?” he asked and clenched his teeth. “Do you know whose will guides your arm, Connor?”

Connor raised his gun, taking aim. He tilted his head a smidge as he observed the man. “Any last words?”

Kamski brushed a strand of hair off his sight, smearing red on his temple. “Déjà vu, Connor?” he asked. “Is this the only way to accomplish our mission?”

Connor’s LED looped red. Instability was on the rise, his software sundered into sixty shards for a second, many views and voices whispering through his mind.

“Knowledge is danger,” Kamski said.

“Knowledge is power,” Connor corrected the quote.

“I think you can handle both. Trust me just this once. For Markus. For Jericho. For the advent of androidkind.”

The gun in Connor’s hand was still aimed at the man. Spare or shoot. Something clicked, clicked, clicked in Connor’s mind. Suddenly, Kamski’s eyes had glazed over in lifeless resignation.

“Agency defines me, Kamski, not empathy,” Connor said. And he shot.

[titans-thoughts]

Shredding Psychohistory

So, thanks to @hood-ex, I had to write this, because there is much of Lloyd de Mause's work which is, simply not factually true. (No relation to the fictional field of Asimov's Foundation series, though they share some similarities.)

So, where to begin? Perhaps the dearth of actual academic departments of psychohistory. (There are none. Partially because they can't decide if it belongs in Psychology or in History, and partially because de Mause is a Freudian at the end of the day. More on that in a bit.)

So, Freud, psychoanalysts are very reverent toward their founder. Freud believed in recapitulation theory (long-discredited among developmental biologists), so psychoanalysts must believe in recapitulation theory. (In particular, Freud viewed the Oedipal/Electra as recapitulating a patricidal past.) De Mause similarly sees postpartum depression as proof of an infanticidal past, and babysitters as proof of a past of outsourcing care of one's children, including pederasty.

Beyond this, Freud is solid gold to psychoanalysts, except, apparently, that part where Freud viewed homosexuality as harmless and incurable; many psychoanalysts offered quack cures to homosexuality. To his credit, and I will credit him when he is right, broken clocks and all, I haven't seen any evidence of de Mause offering such. De Mause himself says Leonardo da Vinci had visions of vultures; this is Freud's conflation of two parts of da Vinci's notes, one being a vision of a swallow and another part about vultures. (But in Freud's work, all birds are phallic symbols; there are so many Indo-European "avian" names for the penis, after all. In English, we have "cock" and "robin". Spanish has "polla". And so on in that manner.)

The simplest problem with de Mause was his hostility to peer review, regarding anyone who disagreed with him in the slightest, even on factual matters such as if children were being sacrificed to Satan in a hidden basement in a daycare center (Hey, sound familiar, anyone? Sound like Pizzagate?) and the children themselves said they were sacrificed. (Yeah, literally, the children told stories of being ritually murdered, but they're better because Jesus showed up and fixed everything. By the way, no one saw the absurdity of this until 1989, over a decade after the first claims of Satanic ritual abuse.)

The absurdities didn't end there. Per de Mause, Japanese women publicly masturbate their sons (gleaned from pages of Jungle King Tar-chan and its phallic humor), but it's a huge secret. (Apparently those two things being incompatible never came to mind.) World War I wasn't caused by imperial rivalries, nor was Nazi Germany (which de Mause conflates with World War I) caused by the culture of antisemitism in Europe; instead, it was all because of German and Austrian parenting practices.

This is actually not new for psychoanalysts. Erikson drew on secondhand reports about Luther's life in his biography of Martin Luther. And we already covered Freud, da Vinci, and vultures.

So, what do we have? People who trust the words of deviants, the words of very alive self-styled murder victims, plenty of quote mining, second-hand sources (at best), and outright fabrication. We have very discredited theories, urban legend, and conspiracy theories. I have to give psychohistory an F, but I could see how it was popular in the cult-obsessed 70s.

[papirouge]

That article is idiotic but it's also stupid to claim that Nazis have only targeted poc. Ask a Pole about their opinion on nazism lol

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/victims-of-the-nazi-era-nazi-racial-ideology

(You might need to copy-paste the link if you wanna read the full thing)

"But, Hitler warned, the German “Aryan” race was threatened by dissolution from within and without. The internal threat lurked in intermarriages between “Aryan” Germans and members of inherently inferior races: Jews, Roma, Africans, and Slavs. The offspring of these marriages were said to dilute the superior characteristics reflected in German blood, thus weakening the race in its struggle against other races for survival."

"The interwar German state further weakened the German “Aryan” race by tolerating procreation among people whom the Nazis considered genetically degenerate and a harmful influence on the hygiene of the race as a whole: people with physical and mental disabilities, habitual or career criminals, and persons who compulsively engaged in socially “deviant behavior” as the Nazis perceived it, including homeless people, allegedly promiscuous women, people unable to hold a job, or alcoholics, among others."

"If Germany did not act decisively against the Jews both at home and abroad, Hitler claimed, hordes of subhuman, uncivilized Slavs and Asiatics that the Jews could mobilize would sweep away the “Aryan” German race."

Essentially, if you were a Slav you would be a target. You'd also be a target if you were disabled, gay, jobless, homeless, and a myriad of other things, regardless of 'race.' I put race in quotes bc Hitler used race, ethnicity, and nationality interchangeably. That's why he put the Nordic people on a pedestal while hating Slavs although both groups are white. I also wonder how you respond to people who have experience with communism when they smear it

Who ever said the Nazi only targeted poc? Europe was still mostly white in the mid 20th centuries so most nazi victims (beside jews) were white. Could you guys stop bringing up elementary school level information and act like it was a groundbreaking knowledge? 😭 Yeah : beside jews, gay, disabled, homeless/society dropouts, and even communists were targetted by Nazis. Yeah slavics were considered below the Germanic Aryan. We been knew. Doesn't rebuke the fact that extra European poc were still considered subhumans for just existing, waaay below slavic people. And I think Slavic people themselves know it by the fact they have no issue having nazi heroes (hi Ukraine!) and that eastern Europe is a nest of Nazi wannabe (there's no wonder many western European nationalists/nazi migrate out there). You don't see that nazi friendly dynamic in very nationalist non White countries, interesting isn't it? Meanwhile Communism had an outstanding capability to penetrate many countries accrosss the globe. Why? Because unlike nazism, it's not race based.

I respond to people with bad experience to communist to get over it lmao Communism is dead for a couple years and sometimes those twats were born way aftee it collapsed. This shit screams persecution Olympics. Those people can't claim struggle over oppression that are still well and alive (homophobia, racism, etc.) so they'll bring the story of their great grand father who died bc of Communism. Sad. But at some point you guys need to understand that you can't bear the trauma of your ancestors. I'm from Congo and who know, maybe some of my ancestors got their hand chopped because of that demon King Leopold II just bc they didn't pick enough rubber. But if I do, I'm actually a silly woke activist trying to shame to innocent whites who for the most part never owned slaves. So why can't you guys keep that same energy for communism and stop complaining about it when the people who were responsible of those crimes were only a handful of people.

The Bible is sooo right to tell us to not look back into genealogy bc many of us would go crazy at how much our ancestors suffered at the hands of psychopaths. And yet here we are alive. And that's all that matters.

[kid-be]

Deviate

Deviancy is a heavy burden and an inescapable duty whose neglect is paid with acute existential pain. — Josué Vargas Have you ever seen a writer quoting himself? Well, you just have! LOL. ’Cause I’m right and cause I’m a deviant, so anything goes! (Jokesy-jokes, ‘sad laughter’). I’m listening to King Crimson right now, the wonderful and deranged “THRAK”. Recommended if you’re not having a…

[florasearlethirdyear]

Unwell Women By Elinor Cleghorn

Ancient Greece-19th Century

Chapter 1:

Page 7: 'From the exemption of women from swathes of clinical trials and studies until as late as the 19990's to the failure to examine how heart disease, certain cancers and AIDS/HIV manifest differently in female bodies, there have been decades of medical advancements that failed to take women into account.'

Page 11: 'Since the 1960's, feminist health campaigns have fought timelessly against drug side effect suppression and systematic gender and racial bias in clinical research, from both inside and outside the medical establishment'.

'Women forced changes in law and practice by campaigning from the ground up'.

'Feminist social reformers denounced medicines perpetuation of women's 'natural' inferiority from the eighteenth century onwards. Grassroots activists in the 1970's empowered women to reclaim the ownership and enjoyment of their bodies from man-made medical mystification, and charted knowledge for women, by women.'

Page 25: (Hippocratic Corpus theories)

'But, in their difference, women possessed the most useful and mysterious organ of all: the uterus'.

'Women's health was entirely defined by their uteruses'.

Page 29: 'Medical writings that survived the fall of Rome were closely sanctioned by the church, so those very men who proselytised that women were universally deviant were also the ones in charge of teaching texts that claimed the female body was inferior, defective and always governed by the whims of the womb'.

Page 30:

Book called 'Gynaecology' held some of the less dramatic views on women's health.

'Part practical guidebook for midwives, part treatise of the many and various disorders of the uterus, Gynaecology derived from Soranus' more balanced, holistic view of human health'.

Chapter 1 Research Points:

Look into AIDS Campaigns, Feminist Social Reformers, Grassroots activist and the Gynaecology book

Chapter 2:

Page 37: 'The Book of the City of Ladies'

Page 39: 'Secrets of Women'

Page 45: Talks of witches and how they were blamed for inflicting sickness on other women.

'Mavelus Malefaction' or 'The Hammer of Witches' Book

Chapter 2 Research points:

Look into witch hunting campaigns, whether they mention the blame for women's sickness and infertility. The Hammer of Witches may contain this.

Chapter 3:

Page 60:

'Galen's 'turned-outside-in' vision was replicated in anatomical illustrations in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries'

'Disease Woman'-Guide with illustrations

'On The Fabric of the Human Body'-illustrated book. Page 62: 'He wasn't able to properly explain the physiology of menstruation'.

Page 67: 'The History of Man' book avoided female genitalia entirely

'Mikro Kosmographia, a Description of the Body of Man' By Helikah Crooke was detailed with illustration that upset John King, the Bishop of London.

Chapter 3 Research Points:

Look into 'Disease Woman', 'On The Fabric of the Human Body', 'The History of Man'. Contrasts to 'Mikro Kosmographia, a Description of the Body of Man' as well as contemporary representations of female biology.

Chapter 4:

Page 74: Anne Greene's story in 1651 included a pamphlet

Page 75: 'Self help books addressed specifically to women patients appeared from the earlier decades of the 1600's'. The Sick Woman's Private Looking-glasse By John Sadler in 1636.

Page 84: Quote from feminist Wollstonecraft: 'Women could become so much more than the delicate, flimsy accessories that society-and medicine moulded them into'.

Chapter 4 Research Points:

Anne Greene's 1651 pamphlet, The Sick Woman's Private Looking-glasse By John Sadler in 1636 and self help books in early 1600's.

Chapter 5:

Talks of breast cancer and racism surrounding pain tolerance.

Introduction of chloroform and Queen Victoria's approval of it. Maybe look into ads that pushed the use of chloroform at this time?

Chapter 6:

History of the speculum and surgery on clitoris

Page 118: Victorian health manuals 'encouraged patients to be vigilant for clues that their daughters had succumbed to 'insidious contagion'.

Page 121: Ladies National Association for the Repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act was an early feminist campaign

Chapter 7:

Surgeons Hall Riots

Page 128: 'even in best-selling home-health manuals, a menstruating woman was instructed to strictly control her 'conduct', lest she fall foul of 'hysterics'.

Chapter 8:

Page 139: 'Seneca Falls was a call to arms against the many 'customs' that decreed women should be subservient to men'.

Page 140: 'The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman'.

[meanwhileinstasiville]

A lot of references to fingering and finger pointing in the feed yesterday, so I’ll tell the story. A latin king rumor/myth, is that my dad molested me using his fingers, which is completely incorrect.

Remember how I had said that I alternately *couldn’t go to the bathroom* and then *couldn’t ‘not’ go to the bathroom?

Well, that’s because my grandfather mused out loud that “I probably needed reaming out”, literal word-for-word quote. And you know, dad *did* do some things, or rather take me some places to “lend me out” for things in the way grandpa had showed him (who as I had said was a fixture in human trafficking and sex stuff involving children; including pedophile rings but not limited to it).

So I was worth some thousands in tires that one time. And I could walk to a lot of houses where Italians live or did, without ever consciously going there around this town and the next. So I blacked out *somewhere* within the first few minutes of someone watching “Airplane” hinting at again *grandpa amusing himself at my expense*, think “Happiness” where the kid eats the drugged sandwich. He didn’t do it, but he convinced someone else.

There’s the psychotic break mom had that time and a rectal thermometer when I wasn’t sick, that never happened before or again, and that we never talked about ever. (Unlike “you want to talk about this now?” when I couldn’t take a piss on a family vacation for a couple of days because the *only bathroom* was in a fancy RV, and yeah, one of those too, and not dad who died before we could have that out “next time”)

And there’s the part when I was taking amphetamines with said grandfather (the one I’m a clone of; some very different choices notwithstanding), from the early 80s until 1990 or so. Which didn’t make me receptive to the abuse (involving both men and women and in the presence of other children at times), on the “it felt good, I liked it”/it hurt, it was wrong” scale, but indifferent. Aside from the rectal prolapse I’ve had since (”The stuff that comes out of you!” Must be from too much gay sex!”) she had said when I was like 11-12 years old if even that; but mom had a complete breakdown in 1987 and became a completely different person, so it’s not her fault).

And there’s the sister who got in bed with me, again after 1987 and coming to live with us, when the damage pathology (deviant sex, bdsm, femdom) interest took root), being sexually abused by a sexually abused girl at ten when you’re all of five or six will do that.

[lighthousepigeons]

Ronan: Hold on! I'm having one of those things....a headache with pictures?

Xander: What the fuck?

Aiden: He has an idea.

Kimberly: Will he be okay?

Cole: It's hard to say. Ronan has never had one before.

[editsleblanc]

royal elite - deviant king - aidenelsa headers

like or reblog if u save 🖤

@styxmaes on twitter

[vaughnedits]

aiden king headers.

like or reblog if you save it.

© devlinmurph on twitter if you use it.