#especially when that work is inherently problematic

[neon-danger]

To be less rude about that anon, I have said quite a few times now that I will not be writing a milk fic

For one thing, it’s against my rules and I expect you as readers to respect that, but also the original creator of the milk fic is just all around Bad.

While I don’t think the actual contents of the milk fic are bad or problematic, I do not want my name associated with the milk fic, the writer, or their reputation.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying that sort of content, and I have absolutely no judgement in that regard, but it’s kinda not cool for people to continue asking after I’ve said no A Few Times Now

Consent is a big thing in a lot of my fics, and I expect you as readers to know that No Means No, not ask again later.

[wonder-worker]

The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime.

— Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[indiaalphawhiskey]

India, I hope you don’t mind me asking this, but I’ve noticed that something you really value about Nicola is how vocal she is when it comes to different social causes, how she consistently speaks up in different ways. That’s honestly something I admire too.

So my question is: how do you personally deal with the fact that L and H aren’t very outspoken when it comes to activism or social issues, especially when that’s something that really matters to you? And even more so considering that people around them have been called out as problematic.

I’ve especially seen you talk more about Harry, and he’s often labeled a “yes-man” or called out for his privilege because of the people he calls “friends.” How do you navigate all that and still feel comfortable supporting him?

Hi, love. So, this is an extremely complex question with no simple answer, but I'm going to answer it as best I can. I don't expect people to agree with me, nor do I expect people to think what I'm doing is inherently right or enough. Conversely, I'm not here to debate these choices with strangers on the internet. This is just me, a human, coping with the realities of the world and trying my best.

I've worked in humanitarian aid for six years and it's been very humbling for my personal ethics. What do I mean by that? I mean that I've seen, first hand, titans of the sector -- and I mean people who have been on the ground for literal decades, who have done this every day of their working life until their literal dying breath (I am not exaggerating) -- constantly grapple with the very real, very tangible consequences of what I foolishly thought were "easy, obvious" questions, with "inherently right and wrong" answers. It has made me extremely aware of how little I truly understand about the hand of global politics in what should be universal human rights and what it really means to stand ten toes down and speak out when you genuinely have something to lose, both personally and professionally.

Because, the truth is, most of us do not have anything to lose. Some of us do, of course, but not all of us. Certainly not me. My livelihood was aligned with my ethics, everyone I respected, respected my ethics, everyone I worked with expected me to speak out. My life was (and is) very easy in that regard. And therefore, it's very easy for me to look like a "good person", because I'm doing the right thing with nothing at stake. But who would I be if I truly had to sacrifice something for my ethics? What if my career, my safety, the safety of my loved ones, my relationship with people who I have loved my whole life, were threatened? Would I be brave? Would I speak out? Would I stand ten toes down? I truly don't know.

Every day I break bread with people whose political and ethical views don't necessarily align with mine, because the truth of my life is that I can't sanitize it so that I only have relationships with the people who agree with me. That's not pragmatic, and more than that, I don't know that I'm personally brave enough to do that.

What I learned about Nicola on the Bridgerton world tour is that she's an exceptionally brave person, because she can do all of these things in the midst of the biggest break of her career, which she has worked towards since she was nine years old, even in the face very real consequences to her personal and professional life. I love her for it. I aspire to it. It makes her so, so, so wildly beautiful to me.

But, what I also learned is that not a lot of people are brave, never mind exceptionally so -- not her co-stars, not Harry, not Louis, not any of the boys, and not me. And, if you have decided you can only stan/love people who are because that's how you choose to utilize your support, then that is a decision you've made and you're welcome to it. But, I don't know that I could personally live up to that standard, so holding celebrities to it -- even celebrities I truly love -- feels hypocritical. This is not me excusing their silence. I'm acutely aware that they've been silent, and it's top of mind when I think about them, all the time. I won't ever forget it.

That means that I'm never going to stop wanting them to do good. I'm never going to stop hoping that they do speak out (all of them, because I hold all the boys to the same standard). I'm never going to stop hoping that they distance themselves from people with questionable reputations. But, until I can hold myself to my own moral standards without a shadow of a doubt, I can only assume that others are doing the same within their personal and professional limitations.

I understand if that's not enough for people, but everyone has to decide that red line for themselves. I'm not here to convince you to support people who aren't living up to your moral standards. I've just learned through my work that I don't know anything. I'm not as smart, or as kind, or inherently as good as I think I am. I'm just currently in circumstances that allow for me to be.

[souryogurt64]

I feel like a big part of tumblr’s issue with riot grrrl is that they heard a rumor a band did something problematic once (probably in like 1995 fifteen years before they were born… fucking hello- also incorrect information, they were always anti racist and not transphobic) so they go “WOW this whole movement is awful and I’m so progressive and sexy and interesting for not listening to them!” While secretly they’re like “oh thank god, now I don’t have to listen to women bands and diversify my music at all” and they’re in the top .005% of Fall Out Boy Spotify listeners because you’ll get people who will defend men with their dying breath over talented women who couldn’t tackle the entire problems inherent in a subculture that got away from them/too big in the 90’s. Which is also the reason why I’m submitting this anonymously lmao

Yeah, people are able to extend the "a different time" understanding and apply nuance to their own interest in movements like punk, classic rock, emo, hardcore, etc but the same people actively work to bully riot grrrl fans out of their online spaces. I think people hear the word "girl" and immediately have an emotional reaction to it regardless of context, and also are not able to comprehend that riot grrrl was not a hivemind just like how the dead kennedys and the sex pistols both identified as punk but had different beliefs which is something people can comprehend because theyre men lol

I mean I think people are just misogynistic and uncomfortable with feminism and women in general lol which is why you will have Fall Out Boy fans accuse you of a being a bigot and get aggressive if you gently point out that the hardcore scene FOB came from had a lot of issues with abortion, homophobia, and the idealization of fascism.

But it's always the same people who scribble Lynz out of photos, tell people to delete photos of Cobra Starship that have in them Victoria, create elaborate rules as to why Bebe and Hayley aren't allowed in fanfiction, start arguments and accuse you of a bigot if you point out that this is weird as a cultural phenomenon especially if the people doing most of this are usually guys who post about misandry being a real problem in the world lol. And these people also get really aggressive if you ever point out Gerard is also friends with Jimmy Urine, not just Lynz, and Pete has done a lot of very bad things lol. And half of bandom stans Brand New and like has brand new tattoos or whatever which is fine I guess, but not when you're acting like this lol

I also had a GIANT MASSIVE HUGE brain blast last night which was that I think Tumblr Bandom ™ has become increasing more virulently misogynistic and guy dominated than it was 12 years ago because 12 years ago MCR and FOB were making like pop music and teenage pop fangirls were a large portion of the fandom, but now the primary sources of content are SMFS, Thursday, and LS Dunes, and while not certainly being super out there, I think it draws a different crowd than Danger Days and Save Rock and Roll lol.

Like people always argue with you in bad faith when you post about a band guy being sexist and one time I made a vent post about how i like get catcalled if i dress femininely/revealing on the train vs wearing a sweater and jeans (very real thing that happens even though you can get catcalled either way) and someone started arguing with me on anon like "why would that happen, thats not real, youre crazy" and it was like. for all its cringe and flaws this NEVER would have happened in 2013 "i love cats pizza feminism and fall out boy" tumblr lol

Also, I'm not even like a big riot grrrl fan I just interviewed a lot of very small local bands when I was younger (like over 100 i think) and half the time without fail they would have meltdowns about riot grrrl fully unprompted like "im a girl but my bassist is a boy this isnt fair im not problematic either" and it was like okay, are you offended by this for legitimate reasons or did you hear girls were mean to boys and that's bad on Twitter and believed it without realizing that guys were often in "riot grrrl" bands because riot grrrl was a genre and not a gender

[inthehouseoffinwe]

I saw your cool post about the Sindar's treatment of the silmaril. I think the strange logic behind Luthien/Dior/Elwing's claim to the silmarils is likely a consequence of Tolkein's Catholicism and "turn-of-the-century" worldview leaking into the work (which can be seen in multiple other examples, particularly Miriel being portrayed as a "bad mother" who doesn't obey her husband and ruined her son's life by refusing to come back to life ASAP and Indis is the "good woman" who steps up to serve Finwe, whose descendants are favored by the Valar). He thinks that an important/beautiful item ought not to truly belong to its creator, but to the "public benefit" and therefore under the Valar's true possession (although I personally wonder what benefits the silmarils ever brought to anyone, other than pathological addiction to their light). Ultimately, handing over the silmaril is a sign of absolute obediance to the Valar and the only reason they fight Morgoth. So it appears that they value obediance more highly than their duty to protect the children of Eru from Morgoth, which is in line with Catholic principles of the supreme will of divine beings.

Furthermore, Tolkein builds Arda on the very notion that certain races (elves, and above them, Maiar and Valar except Sauron and Morgoth) are just ontologically pure and superior (biologically/racially divine) to all others. So even if they do something wrong (commit theft), they are somehow still right if it is not against Eru's will. The support for this is in Letter 183, he says "...So even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right." This notion is obviously highly problematic under modern standards of morality and equal rights for all. Nonetheless that is probably how Tolken legitimized Luthien and her descendant's theft of the silmaril -- they are part-Maia, superior by nature to all other elves, especially those that have kinslayed. It would explain why Dior wasn't burned by the jewel when he killed dwarves for it, and why Elwing justifies her claim to the jewel as "my grandma wore it and my dad died for it" without actual legal entitlement to it. Granted, trauma is also an explanation, but the explicit reason given in the text appears to be based on an assumption of innate superiority through part-Maia heritage (as Luthien was only able to retrieve the silmarils through Maiar powers and love for Beren, when no full elves could).

So all of these premises are very objectionable by secular standards of equality, governance, and property law. But Tolkein was a devout Catholic who grew up and fought for the British Empire, which also espoused a racial heirarchy. And all of this bled into the Silmarillion and created certain incongruencies in the treatment of various characters.

Hi Anon, thanks for sending this!

I'm going to break this reply down into points for the sake of coherency, but there is something I want to address first:

I am not Christian and whilst I’ve grown up around several, cannot speak for all their beliefs in detail. However, having had my own faith completely warped to make points which are the opposite of what I believe, I avoid using religion as a base for discourse unless I am certain of what I am saying, and have made sure it won't be interpreted the wrong way.

In general, there's a disturbing trend of painting people who follow a religion as inherently backwards or oppressive. No time is taken to understand their beliefs, the complexities behind them, and if these beliefs are even being understood and applied within the right context.

Tolkien using his faith as a base for his fictional world is not inherently bad nor should it be seen that way.

With this in mind, let's dive into things!

1. Breaking the Miriel/Indis narrative into simple good and bad does a disservice to the characters and the author. We simply don’t get enough time with the characters or this part of the story to make a clear cut statement.

I don’t see Miriel portrayed negatively at all. When Tolkien speaks of the effects of Miriel's death, he writes them in the shadow of what actions Fëanor and Finwë took because they could not let her go, rather than blaming Miriel for leaving. Fëanor is what he is because of what he (and Finwë) chose to do with his mother's memory and absence.

Miriel herself is treated gently, her exhaustion deemed reason enough for her departure, and her death written in ambiguous terms:

‘She went then to the gardens of Lórien and lay down to sleep; but though she seemed to sleep, her spirit indeed departed from her body, and passed in silence to the Halls of Mandos.’

She is not blamed for leaving, rather the opposite. It seems she had no choice in the end. Other elves blame Finwë for his decision to marry again, not Miriel for leaving:

'...many saw the effect of the breach... judging that if Finwë had endured his loss and been content with the fathering of his mighty son, the courses of Fëanor would have been otherwise...'

Later on when Tolkien writes of Finwë’s preference for his eldest, Finwë is put in the spotlight for making a bad decision/reacting the wrong way to his loss. Miriel remains innocent.

'But the shadow of Miriel did not depart... from his heart; and of all whom he loved Fëanor had ever the chief share of his thought.'

Miriel being a 'bad mother' seems to stem from fanon interpretation.

Indis is also interesting because we see little to nothing of her as her own character. I would argue if she really was the 'good woman' she would have stayed with Finarfin and supported him in maintaining her husband's legacy rather than returning to the Vanyar.

Regarding her children, Fingolfin is written as someone as guilty as Fëanor in the initial instigation: another prince who let his pride and arrogance blind him to the point where he was picking fights and vying for leadership as much as his half-brother. His later decisions may have been better, but I don't see corrolation between Indis marrying Finwë and him becoming a great (but guilty) king. Finarfin too is left to his own merit, and we don't hear much about her daughters.

(I’d add that under this argument, Elwing should be punished for abandoning her children. Instead we see her descendants rise to become great kings and wise elves. We could say not being allowed back to ME is a punishment, but that’s a different discussion.)

But in essence, I think the early 20th Century ideas of a good/bad mother/wife aren't seen here.

2. I agree that Tolkien has a 'public benefit' approach to things. Interestingly, the Valar's apparent right to the silmarils only occurs after the Trees go out, as they are supposedly a way to restore them.

There is a strange relationship here regarding the Treelight. The light was supposedly for everyone, and Fëanor’s creation is seen as his even by the Valar. Then the trees go out and suddenly everyone has a right to the stones. Now morally you can argue Fëanor should have given the silmarils, but in terms of ownership, they are his. The light was for everyone. He took what was for everyone and made something his own from it that everyone acknowledged belonged to him.

I also agree that the Valar demanded obediance over their duty to protect to children of Illuvatar, however disagree on the allignment with Catholic principles which leads me to the next point.

3. Tolkien has stated in his letters that the Valar made a mistake and essentially went against Eru when they raised the Pelóri (I can't remember the letter number) to fence off Valinor, and left the men and Elves in Middle Earth to suffer.

He makes it clear that the only truely divine and supreme being is Eru, and the Valar, though emmiseries or angels of a sort, can and do mess up. They should not have been silent and left Beleriand to Morgoth and Middle Earth to Sauron. Manwë especially fell into pride and arrogance.

4. Regarding letter 183 ‘the West’ referred to are people within Middle Earth specifically, such as those of Gondor and Rohan. The point Tolkien’s making is regarding larger causes vs the good and evil people are capable of.

People can do bad things, but these actions do not necessarily mean their ultimate Cause is wrong. There is a difference between an action and the reason for it, one does not necessarily negate the other.

In this case, he says if the West (Gondor, Numenor, etc) bred orcs to attack men working under or around Sauron, the action would be wrong. But this doesn’t automatically make their ultimate goal of defeating Sauron wrong - Sauron is still a very real threat and must be defeated for everyone's sake. What happens regarding people who use brutal means of achieving this goal is separate to this goal.

This is something I think we can still agree with.

5. We can trouble Maia = inherent goodness/supremacy considering Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrogs, but I see what you mean.

However, I think the problem lies with how Tolkien percieves the Fëanorians more than the Sindar and Melian's line. Tolkien believes the light within the Silmarils ultimately belongs to the Valar, and everything that happened because Fëanor didn't means the Noldor have no claim to the gems. Going back to letter 183, the Cause of the Fëanorians is Wrong. They can do good things like fighting Morgoth, but remain ultimately 'bad.'

With this thinking, basically anyone has more of a right to the Silmarils than the Fëanorians. Luthien is superior to other elves because she hasn't hurt anyone or been the aggressor more than because she is part Maia. That's just a bonus and gives the impression she is less inclined to evil.

Furthermore her Cause is good. And her actions, driven by love, are portrayed as good. For Tolkien, she fulfils every need to take the claim of the silmaril.

Regarding Dior, I think here is when we see some of that Empire mindset rather than a religious one. Killing the dwarves for something they actually have more of a claim to screams colonial violence the British Empire was well known for.

I don't think the Maia heritage actually matters. It's Luthien who is generally referenced when they speak of her descendants, and I think that's because of her actions more than her mother.

6. Now all this in mind, we have to remember Tolkien uses a named narrator, and to keep within that he says he is merely translating writings into modern english. As such we can pull literally anything and everything written into question, to the point of taking something he believes about the writing and completely flipping it around.

Final Thoughts:

Arda was no doubt shaped by Tolkien's personal beliefs in empire and religion. But in reading the text only through this there is a danger in broadsweeping whole ideas into binary right and wrong when the points he is making are much more complex. Ultimately he deals with the human, and keeps to a loose style to evoke thoughts and discussion. It's important to remember that in any discussion of his work, we can hold opposing opinions and still be right. We don't have to follow his singular narrative.

~ Sorry this got so long, but you raised some very interesting points and ideas and I wanted to spend time on them. I know I haven't spoken much on the silmaril itself so if I missed something, please feel free to send another ask :)

[ghostkingirl]

An analysis/rant about Alexis Ness and fear of abandonment

Seeing all the Ness hate (mainly on TikTok) is genuinely making me feel like his trauma and fears of abandonment aren’t being acknowledged enough so here’s my analysis rant about Ness because I am a Ness glazer and I feel like he has the potential to have the saddest or most important arc in NEL.

Obviously Ness is extremely insecure and sees himself as having no inherent value as a person. Especially for kids coming from toxic households, it can be hard for them to see that they are important and valuable as individuals.

Ness believed his only value was in soccer, and Kaiser was the first person who believed in him whenever he was at his lowest point. Kaiser (in a sense) acknowledged his value and helped him develop it further. Even after that, Kaiser opened up to Ness and developed a level of trust in him.

For someone like Ness, who was abandoned by the people closest to him, it’s understandable why he would attach himself to Kaiser. He saw his only value as being something for Kaiser to use to achieve his dream, and Ness probably got absorbed into that. I can see how Ness probably got so involved in Kaiser’s dream that he lost his own sense of identity, and I don’t think he realized that until after Kaiser broke things off with him. He wasn’t inherently trying to suck up to Kaiser, he was probably trying to reach that level of closeness he felt when him and Kaiser first started playing together, and he genuinely never thought about himself as an individual. When you hate every aspect of yourself because of what others have told you, having someone acknowledge even the smallest part of you means the world. You keep searching for more of that validation that they gave you, but in searching for that validation you neglect other parts of yourself and lose part of your identity until you only put value in that part that was validated in the first place. It’s honestly a tragic cycle of dependency and reinforcing toxic behaviors that I think is really well developed.

The complaint I see a lot is that Ness just hates Isagi, when i think it’s more complex than that. I don’t think Ness originally hated Isagi, he just went with what Kaiser said because (as I mentioned before) I don’t think Ness sees himself as a full individual. His attempts to only be what Kaiser wants/needs are what drives what he says and does for the first part of his involvement in NEL. I think Ness only hated Isagi when Kaiser “chose” Isagi. Not only did Ness only hate on Isagi at the beginning because it’s what he thought Kaiser wanted, when Kaiser chose Isagi I can see how Ness felt threatened by that. Until then, Kaiser had never tried to truly connect with anyone except Ness (that we know of), and Ness probably felt like his relationship with Kaiser would be sacrificed if Kaiser started working with Isagi.

I don’t think Ness is just a “Kaiser glazer” I think Ness is a deeply complex character whose abandonment issues and trauma are driving his every thought and decision making. He went from feeling totally worthless to having any part of himself validated and acknowledged. It makes sense that he put all of his self worth into that one part of himself so that Kaiser would keep him around. It also makes sense that he would be angry at Isagi considering the fact that Ness probably sees Isagi as being the one to affect his relationship with Kaiser. Ness just hasn’t realized how severely dependent he is on Kaiser’s attention and validation, and even if he has I don’t think he’s acknowledged it as problematic (yet). This is not to say Ness is perfect, he is a DEEPLY problematic character who is reinforcing his own downfall by constantly seeking validation from Kaiser (who in turn keeps pushing him away which only makes Ness try and seek MORE validation).

My hope for Ness is that like all us kids who have been abandoned and found our self worth in another person only to be abandoned again, that we find love and value for ourselves as individuals and not side characters in someone else’s world.

Anyways your local Ness apologist, out :3

[yunamedkostobot]

Jedi stans do not know Tolkien lore

It's so funny, cause... it's literally what Tolkien actually wrote in his opus magnum Silmarillion! It happened when Valar, despite having almost angelic powers, practically abandoned Middlearth and Beleriand and allowed Morgoth and his cronies to kill and enslave Elves and Dwarves and lead part of Humans away from them(enslaving others too). They allowed everything built and created by Elves to be destroyed, for a huge part of Noldor elves to die in horrible ways, for Eru's children to suffer. No matter how narrative attempts to frame this, Valar are accompliced by their inaction. Even before the First Kinslaying, they had practically forgotten about Sindar and Nandor Elves living under Morgoth's feet, about Dwarves and yet-to-be-awakened-Humans.

Their inaction was not deemed as something inherently good in any piece of Tolkien's works except the Myths Transformed. In The Book of Lost Tales(which i consider really good for analysis and explaining some plotholes of published Silmarillion and presenting Valar in more or less sympathetic light) the majority of both Maiar and Ainur are so afraid of Morgoth that they practically force Manwe(who is their king) to hide Valinor from the world! It happens despite both Manwe and Ulmo pleas for Noldor's sake and Manwe telling all secrets about Elves and Humans Eru entrusted him! Myths Transformed, on the contrary, present Valar as ultimately morally right no matter what happened - and it is the reason why they seem so unlikable and problematic for many(and may be the reason Christopher never used this concept). Even in the published Silmarillion Valar are presented as misguided and not totally right in the end.

Also, let's adress Tolkien himself. He never considred Lord of the Rings the major book he had written in his life and the book what tells about his views most is actually Silmarillion! And this book actually has more complex take on "good and evil", explaining, why Tolkien viewed his charactres as they are.

What in Tolkien's mind separates morally grey character(like Feanor, his sons, Turin) from the villain(like Morgoth, Sauron, Eol, Saruman)? As it can be seen through the text, it is an ability to love and care about someone while seeing them as persons and loyalty to another person or their people or devotion to a large-scale goal character has. The reasons that his characters are "good" are not because of their service to some institutions or fighting evil, but because they are productive, creative and their major goal is making the world a better place. They are something except the fighters and destroyers and it what made them good. It's evil who reacts on "good characters" doing something, like it was with Sauron's deeds during the Second Age(founding Mordor in response to Numenor's victorious wars against him, falsely giving up to Ar-Pharazon in response to latter nearly destroying his kingdom, attacking Gondor and causing War of the Last Alliance of fear it will take root) and Morgoth's before the First Age(creating Dissonance in responce to the Eru calling him out, manipulating Noldor princes out of envy for their artificial gems, especially the Simarils).

Meanwhile, Jedi are purely the reactive force at the time of Prequels. They do nothing, they create nothing, they only serve a corrupt goverment doing whatever it asks and ignoring it sliding more and more into the autoritarism. They ignore literal and corporal slavery in Canon, and crime syndicats(like Findian syndicat), long-time civil wars, dark cults(like Bando Gora), planets getting attacked and suffering from epidemics and starvation in Legends. They do even less than IRL Templars and Hospitallers did(guarding the piligrims and giving them shelter, which was the primary goal of such institutions except fighting Muslims). We have never seen the Jedi travelling from one planet to another to build or create something(or heal somebody), they does not harbor any global project involving something potentially useful for all of Republic citizens.

In comparison, many Tolkien's favourite characters and nations are something except the warriors and fighters. If we will take hobbits, they are wonderful farmers. Teleri Elves are the shipbuilders and saliors. Noldor Elves and Dwarves are blacksmiths, inventors, artificial gem and jewelry makers. Sindar Elves are singers. Numenorians and Gondor people are scholars, explorers of the world, alchemists and inventors too. Even Rohan people are not only the fighters, they are wonderful horse breeders. I won't even start with master inventor Feanor with his belief that Eru's children's mind can overcome Ainur and Celebrimbor with desire to heal Middlearth from wasting away. Do Jedi present something of themselves except the enforcing and partly dimplomatic organisation?

None. And there is the reason Jedi could not and should not be compared to Tolkien characters. They grew complacent and distant from the people. They only react - while Tolkien heroes act. We never see Jedi "bravely going where no people had gone before" or moving to some planet in order to create a medicine for some illiness, even if they are stated have their own special Service Corps divisions for this. Ironically, that is actually makes them having a lot in commin with Ainur, whom Jedi Stans tend to compare their faves with. Complacency, which in the end lead to the tragedy.

They compare Ainur to the angels, ignoring the textual evidence that their complacency lead to the practical genocide of Elves. And ironically, an actual Tolkien fandom - and the Professor himself - tends to see these "Angels" in more or less critical light.

[pink-slay]

arcane Viktor and likely spoilers for both seasons

I keep thinking about Viktor from arcane all the time and I've written poems and had lengthy conversations about it but decided that I need to state it in prose to on an account that I barely update because this account is full of things that mean something to me

I constantly think about the lengths Viktor went to to be well. The writers lured me in thinking maybe hextech or the arcane or shimmer would help Viktor's vision of running on a purple arcane body become a reality. However in the end viktor became equally if not more disabled than before. He lived, yes, but at what cost, killing Sky?

And I'm a believer in the mutual JayVik love and understanding, but Sky still mattered. She was brilliant and wonderful and kept Viktor grounded. Took his head out of his work and into the clouds (eventually literally).

Often, as disabled people, we are told that if we worked harder our problems could go away and it is a prominent belief in our culture, even if unconsciously so. I remember years ago Imani Barbarin made a video on how able bodied people want to believe they could work their way out of any disability by trying harder. They then project this onto disabled people to shield themselves from their inevitable fate (disability or death). This myth is pervasive and as much as I and many people want the betterment of all, perpetuating this myth, even in a fantasy story, is at best unrealistic and at worst problematic.

However, Arcane subverts this expectation because Viktor lives, but he lives a disabled life. He tried harder, and it tore him apart. To me this is a more powerful story than overcoming. Most can try, and most don't overcome not due to personal shortcoming but because trying harder ≠ getting better (at least inherently and especially with disability).

It reminded me of how in my freshman year of college, I dropped my math minor. It was upsetting and annoying because it was an attempt to hold onto the pieces of my first analytical love, math. However I didn't have the right wheelchair then and I didn't know it yet but I was becoming progressively more paralyzed. I just couldn't make it to the classroom they assigned me and they refused to change it.

I told my mother that at a certain point it felt more impactful that my disability made a noticeable impact in limiting me instead of trying to torture myself into narrative of overcoming. Not taking that first class was one of many times Calc II would get in my way, each time related to disability.

Viktor, like me, had a progressive disability that would've continued to progress until it killed him without drastic action. For me the drastic action was a surgery that made me be on constant opioids all summer and destroyed my relationship with my mother and the scraps of independence I still had. For Viktor it was taking shimmer and bearing the almighty power of the hex core.

I guess I write all this to say that my love of math and my disability parallel viktor. We have scientific loves and would work ourselves to death. We can be romantic when we get our heads out of our work. And we are disabled. Sick and disabled. So sick we put our lives at risk for health. Even a glimmer of health.

I know Jayce's speech is controversial among disabled people. I respect the opinions of others but I think many people don't get the experience of severe disability when interpreting it. In real life with the wide variety of disabilities, Viktor may not fall into that category but he surely does in Piltover. For me, my disability is severe. So severe I questioned if, as much as I looked up to Viktor, II could ever be respected like him. However disabled people don't become more respected by shunning nonambulatory powerchair users like me. They just isolate those that make up their community.

From a severely disabled person, understand that yes, I understand you want to fix yourself, but when you have a disability that at any point threatens your life, there is a certain ubiquitous self destruction in everything you do. That's why Viktor needed Jayce's speech. It wasn't because Jayce didn't see Viktor or his pain. Jayce knew Viktor was in pain. Jayce knew Viktor better than he knew anyone. And Jayce knew Viktor needed to be shown his value that was independent of effort--- his value as a person.

To be loved is to hear things that you can't fully wrap your head around. I believe (when I think really hard about it) that I can be who am both because of and despite my disability. I say to my closest friends that it feels like all I ever was was a miracle sick child who lived and a smart person. And I break off each quality about myself and my friend says that she'd still find value in me. Because there are people in our lives like Jayce or my friend who will give speeches to you, not to gain anything but to show you your worth even if it kills them. Because in every universe, sometimes there's only one person who can show you that-- who can stop you from ending the world even if it means succumbing to life and it's inevitable partner, death. Because the people we love don't want to see our sinews as we tear apart ourselves to breathe. They want to see us. They don't want us to suffer as much as we do. But for us there is a desire to be well. And that desire drives suffering it doesn't fix it.

Viktor meant a lot to me as someone whose life keeps changing especially in regards to their disability. Hesitancy toward drugs and spinal hardware and leg braces. And so did the way he almost destroyed the world craving something.

I have longed to be normal, to be well for most of my life. But life doesn't work that way. In fixing ourselvea and the things we view as flaws, we lose beautiful parts in the crossfire. Our friends beg us to see ourselves and if we're lucky our friends do. But so do we. I don't succeed but maybe Arcane has pushed me to see the beauty of being kind to myself because working myself into the ground isn't worth the pain especially with such a bleak unsuccessful outcome. We'll be told to fix ourselves forever but at least for once, in this one show, we can be valued despite our ardor for work. Yes, it isn't inherently wrong to want to be better. But we have lifetimes for that. Just this once maybe we can sit in the beauty of being loved both because

and despite.

[akkpipitphattana]

i always headcanonned all fk characters as switches but now i realize we've only ever seen firsts character portrayed as top and khaotungs as bottom yknow with the famous thrusting in ofs and kantbison red room scene. even if they had different dynamic it wasn't explicitly portrayed why is that? i wish we could see a change in the bl industry

oh yeah, it's definitely a thing in the bl industry where they classify one as the top and one as the bottom with zero nuance or change from series to series, and i think that's part of why top/bottom discourse can get so aggressive in the bl fandom. it's almost always the bigger/taller/more "masc" guy that gets the top role and it pushes such a problematic notion about how gay couples "should" interact and it's deeply annoying! especially because people in fandom will then get so attached to these ideas and the way they act about it is like. straight up mean and gross. like why do you care so much that some people think that first's characters occasionally bottom? why is that such a big deal for you?

and in a way it does circle back to the issue with people insisting on bison being a sub despite the fact that he, canonically and explicitly, is a dom. again, people have these fucked up ideas about the way gay couples should be and because bison is smaller and cuter and more feminine and we have also seen him explicitly bottoming, he has to be the sub. which is just extremely reductive and just repackaged misogyny and homophobia! (which, i've actually been thinking since the pilot trailer about how the inherent misogyny that comes from those assumptions also kind of feeds into the way misogyny was replaced from taming to the heart killers and the way those dynamics manifest in the show. like there's something VERY interesting about the lucentio/bianca couple aka the more "traditional" couple having their typical "top" as the man of the couple and their typical "bottom" play the woman vs the katherine/petruchio having the "top" playing the woman! there's a commentary going on there, i think, but unfortunately i haven't gotten to really writing anything about that cause usually there's so much else going on in the show that i kind of forget about that aspect sdkjfsdf)

that all being said, i also don't think fk's characters are necessarily forced into those boxes because of the industry at large, if that makes sense? like i feel like they're one of the few branded pairs that aren't put into those roles just because first is taller/bigger/more masculine. because the thing is, with akkayan we never actually see them having sex on screen, so we can't actually know for sure the positions they use. and while we see it with kantbison and sandray, i also think context is important.

with sandray, i think ray is just meant to be a character that has his preferences, and on top of that he's spoiled and sand is always going to give him whatever he wants. those things are part of their characters even without getting into their sexual dynamics, and one thing about jojo is that sex in his shows are actually a lot deeper than people realize - so, it makes sense that with that dynamic in mind, sand would be more "the giver" and ray "the taker" when it comes to sex, so to speak. and then with kantbison, i again think it's meant to play at the fact that bison is the dom. i think bison in a lot of ways is MEANT to seem contradictory to that kind of idea, and i also think he kind of gets off on that idea. like, i was actually talking to may @deliriousblue about this earlier, but i think it's why we see bison bottom, why we see him lean into his cuteness, why we see him call kant daddy. he likes leaning into the idea of a traditional sub while actually being the one in control! it's like a power thing for him.

i also just think firstkhao have been very lucky in the fact that in all three of the series that they've been main couples for, they've worked with very progressive and very queer directors. i mean, golf, who directed the eclipse, is trans and an activist and i believe used to be a member of parliament before they were forced out, if i'm remembering that correctly? and then jojo directed both only friends and the heart killers and jojo has never been shy about making his characters as queer as possible beyond just the aspect of having sex with the same gender, yknow? he also has never been shy about making his characters switches, either, or having them talk openly about positions, so again, i don't really view fk as being necessarily stereotyped - more that jojo specifically is a director that will use those stereotypes and the way the industry perceives things to his advantage, if that makes sense. like i think about how he chose to use firstkhao and forcebook in only friends for sandray and topmew, and then had neomark, who were an unbranded pair, for the couple that didn't end up together. like people complained about it, but again, i think it was jojo using the way the industry is set up to his advantage while also challenging those norms in other aspects of the show.

this got like. aggressively long for no reason, but basically i do agree that there should be a change in the way the industry puts their branded pairs in boxes, but i honestly feel like fk are one of the few that aren't ACTUALLY in that box, if that makes sense sdkjfhskf

[annabelle--cane]

I got into tma in 2022 on a road trip with no internet and then only tangentially interacted with the fandom (light hcs, fanart) and I am. so compelled to understand what the fandom was like in 2020. what were the takes. why was it so awful. does it explain why every time I try to look into protocol I get a rancid Vibe and jump back 5 feet.

to preface: on scale, it really wasn't any worse than your average fandom, it just A) got Very popular over a short period and B) that period was during a time of particularly high stress where many people suddenly could only experience a social life online. tma is also a fairly political and progressive work, which inevitably leads to certain kinds of Takes. it also got Very popular right at the point where the episodes were reaching their peak of explicit social commentary and sustained morbid tone, which, especially combined with point B from above, drew out some really visceral reactions from a lot of people. nothing was actually inherently rancid about 2020-2021 tma fandom, there was just a bit of a perfect storm of factors.

having said that. some common discourse themes:

the perennial shipping discourse. georgie is the only one of our leads to have never killed a person, but really, I pinky promise that your ship between two unrepentant serial killers is 100x more problematic than my ship between two unrepentant serial killers.

asexuality: how dangerous is it? on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being "mostly" to 5 being "completely," how humiliating is it to be asexual? what is the singular true asexual experience that is unproblematic to write about?

wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this episode, what gives him the right to--oh he said it's directly based on personal experiences? so sorry, my bad, I'll learn for next time. wow, jonny was so out of line for writing this epi--

I did not like this episode. this is obviously a direct act of violence against me. why would an episode be Not Good when there is, in the world, Sadness?

hello, I have sorted all of the characters into a simple chart that clearly delineates which of them are completely irredeemable monsters with no interiority or motives and which of them are perfect angel victims who have only ever been nice and never hurt anyone, ever (and if they did hurt someone then that person deserved it). if I see you adding nuance to any of my rulings, I will kill you. this also extends to the podcast writers. #ilovebinaries.

the characters... are queer... and maybe even other marginalized identities as well... and yet, they do bad things? there's not even a single completely morally innocent character? by god, did they not think about the implications this might have!

web!martin. lol people are so stupid for thinking that the theory is at all plausible, media comprehension much? that would lichrally imply that a queer, poor, mentally ill character might be capable of badness. what do you mean we are currently listening to an arc where he's an accomplice to serial murder.

[zuzuelectricbugaloo]

I don’t get why some fans of Yugo get mad or annoyed at him for disliking his own Sans. He’s been dealing with nonstop fans for years who only focus on the memes surrounding Epic!Sans. Yugo has even expressed regret over making his Sans just a walking meme in the past, and of course, that would take a toll on his mental state and how he feels about the character. When people say he should stop talking about it, they don’t seem to understand that others constantly bring it up to him. It’s his character, and he has every right to vent about it however he wants.

You’re absolutely right, Epic is Yugo’s character, and he has every right to do as he pleases in how he uses said character and feels about it. I don’t condone harassment, and am firmly against attacking a creator simply because you passionately dislike or like a character of theirs.

One of my qualms with Yugo about Epic is how they blamed all of their mistakes and “cringe” of Epictale as a whole and projected it onto Epic and claimed the character’s death and celebration of his end meant that Yugo was absolved of any discomforting behaviors or jokes.

When he still continues to do so, even with characters from Epictale he likes.

Silly and goofy memes, might not be everyone’s preferred taste but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Memes are supposed to be silly and fun.

But then Yugo having to be convinced by their fans not to do NSFW commissions involving minors?

No no sorry, that’s not fair. Of course anyone who is broke would be desperate, and they’re just fictional characters, right? Whats the harm? No way does fiction impact reality in anyway.

Doesn’t that reasoning sound familiar?

And anyway, Yugo rejected it in the end. Of course that should be ignored then and any criticism of it is unwarranted.

My mistake. It’s still not fair. At least with Epic dead and gone, Epictale is free from anymore cringe and problematic anime tropes!

Again, I don't mean this as an attack on you or Yugo. It's a criticism, and one where my overall point is that my biggest gripe with Yugo isn't that I love his character and he doesn't. It's that Yugo seemed to absolve himself of all his shortcomings by projecting them onto Epic and therefore is free from error or criticism now.

Disliking that Red/Lara and Mettaton are in love with Papyrus who is seventeen makes you a hater. SEVENTEEN. They are literally centuries of years old, even in the remake. I know in reality, the age of consent varies per state in the USA and especially varies depending on country, with minors able to be married in some with their parents or guardians' consent, but still. It's uncomfortable. It's unnecessary. Papyrus could be shipped with Lara and Mettaton as an adult, as he is in Undertale by the fandom and in other AUs. But now with the context that Lara and Mettaton knew Papyrus since he was a child, it's disconcerting to imagine romance with any of them. Look, it's understandable for a creator to feel a certain way about their work and how it's interpreted. Especially in what they choose to do with their creations, in revamping or remaking things, and how they feel about it and choose to get rid of some things entirely.

For the most part, I enjoy Epictale and have read his brief Neutral!Frisk storyline. Yugo is a talented artist, and I adore Epictale and the characters and the great potential they all have and what can be expanded on it.

The old Epictale bore the same errs as many AUs within the UTMV fandom in its early years. Fantastic AUs with amazing concepts often had something problematic about them and this was sadly normalized. From the past Cream comics portraying SA as romantic or silly, to PJ's Daycare and the like also joking about minors/adults, SA and r*pe, SH, etc. Or it could be problematic with Frans or Fontcest, either in canon within the AU or played around with as concept. Epictale wasn't worst of them, nor was it the outlier in one of its characters joking about or portraying these problematic things.

Here's a big one: Underlust. It's not a masterpiece, and like many AUs, has so much potential. Unfortunately, there's so much that detracted from it that a remake or dismissal of most of its canon is needed if you want to find any enjoyment from it at all.

Same thing with the past Cream comics. At that point, the blog itself caused too much for its creators and they deleted it and made it non-canon entirely. I don't know what happened to the UL creator, but I assume something similar happened.

Sorry, back to Lust. I was not active in the fandom in its early years, I only witnessed glimpses of it and when I wanted to get into something, like Cream, it upset me too much and I left the fandom. In particular with Underlust, it makes me so sad because I was introduced to him through fanon first, where someone had an SA experience and used Lust as an expression of what it was like to go through something like that in his line of work. And it felt cathartic. Comforting. A character who could understand how I felt, who was was unconventional in their self-expression and yet happy and at peace with who they are, would be able to heal and find happiness regardless of what happened to them. But then I found the parts of his canon with Fontcest. And it turned out Lust had nothing like his fanon and it hurt. I could no longer enjoy the AU and ignored it entirely from then on. But Lust, today, is still so dear to me because of what he could be.

Yugo wants to move on from the past and be a better person. I think that's a noble endeavor. Anyone can be a better person and change. That doesn't make it easy, and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone will try.

And for the most part, Yugo seemed to make progress. Epictale in and out of its comics doesn't make any more jokes about sexual harassment as far as I'm aware. There are no harmful slurs used in a joking manner. For the most part, it seems Yugo made good on their word and is trying to move on from his past mistakes. Many creators of UTMV's past seem to do something similar, and I wish them all peace and commend them for trying to move on and be better. However, when Yugo crucifies Epic as the source of all his problems, and uses him as the symbol for burying the past and amending his mistakes, only to then make similar ones (far less severe than the ones he used to do, admittedly, but still concerning nonetheless) instead of using Epic's potential to make him be as Epic as his namesake, it doesn't piss me off, at Yugo or his fans. Fans won't always focus on what a creator originally wanted them to focus on. That's simply the nature of fandom. And memes are one of the most popular enjoyments of fans and is the most unifying act among them. But there would also be fans who love things besides the memes, who will work to enjoy and create what they can gleam from canon and expand on it, in art or fiction, with other characters in the story. So long as fans don't attack the creator, harass them, insult or demand they do more with their preferred character(s), I don't see anything wrong with this. It sounds like a regular community to me. No. It just makes me sad. But as you pointed out, it's Yugo's character and his right to do as he pleases. So, respectfully, Yugo wishes to have nothing to do with Epic anymore; I am all too happy to love him along with the fandom. Because to truly move on from the past, you need to accept accountability. I know Epic used to have problematic characteristics, be it in the noncanon comics or art, but it was a part of his character. I acknowledge that. And I want to move on. Remove the parts of the past that are bad, and instead of ignoring it, use it as a reference of what not to do, as a reference to be better and do better. I want to build on his potential and love him. Because Epic makes me happy, and I know he makes others happy too. Why not heal and work together to create something everyone can enjoy?

[genericpuff]

Was your Kore/Persephone portrayal inspired by dissociative disorders? I interpreted it more as her dark internal monologue that she was suppressing. Like when you have dark thoughts of know things inherently, but try to rationalize your way out of thinking them. I figured it was just a more dramatic way of portraying intrusive thoughts.

Ahh this isn't really a question I can answer with a simple "yes" or "no". Especially when considering everything you just listed are often inherently symptoms of many interlinked mental disorders like DID and BPD haha (especially when it comes to the suppressing).

As I mentioned in my previous post I've been writing these types of characters for years. Uzuki is a big one that comes to mind. I love writing conflicts of the self, mind vs. reality, identity vs. instinct, past vs. present, etc.

CW: BLOOD/GORE, GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, DEPICTION OF TRAUMATIC BREAKDOWNS AND DISSOCIATION AHEAD!!!

(note the black and grey pages are read right to left like a manga, this was from my weeb days LOL)

It wasn't until years later after I was diagnosed with ADHD and autism that I realized my love for those tropes was rooted in something far more internal. Sure, sometimes a trope is just a trope, but now I fully understand why I've found myself pulled back to that trope time and time again, because I myself have struggled with a lot of the same internal conflicts that characters like Uzuki and Kore have struggled with. It wasn't just me loving a trope, it was me finding solidarity and representation in characters who shared my experiences, even if they were largely hypothetical or for the sake of creative expression.

That realization came long before Rekindled, of course, but it hit me like a sack of bricks when it did, as any realization of an undiagnosed disorder tends to do after years of thinking you're just "broken". That said, it's allowed me to explore these topics with even more nuance and understanding, while also pointing out my own weaknesses and blind spots in the pre-conceived notions I had about myself that I was then able to challenge once I knew what was really going on. It was still challenging as it was so personal, but it ultimately made me a stronger person and a stronger writer.

Skip to the future though with Rekindled, everything I just explained is why I was so interested in LO's AoW plotline to begin with, because a lot of it played to my own interests in those sorts of characterizations - consequently, it was one of the plotlines I wanted to overhaul the most when I started coming up with the basis for Rekindled, as I was disappointed that it was forgotten about over the course of S2 and completely retconned by the trial arc. In a weird way, it almost feels like all the time I spent working with characters like Uzuki was preparing me for a character like Kore/Persephone. And conversely, writing about Kore/Persephone has helped me harness my skills more which I can take back with me when it comes time to continue Uzuki's story.

All that said, mental disorders and neurodiversity were never "inspiration" to me when I was learning how to write and/or designing these characters, but that didn't make them any less intersectional. It was more like something that just came naturally to me as someone who is neurotypical and has diagnosed mental disorders (I am my own worst inspirations LOL) and I wanted more characters like that who weren't just automatically "villains". I try to always treat them with care to ensure that I'm being kind to both the characters as well as myself as someone who heavily relates to these experiences, but I'm also not really afraid to express the more "ugly" sides of those experiences either. Especially with characters like Uzuki who are largely problematic to their core in their actions - much of those actions, as I would learn about myself in my own healing journey as well, are often spurred on by a lack of care, empathy, and understanding in their unique struggles.

There is so much I'd love to say about Kore and Persephone's characterizations and what led them to this point, but I got about a paragraph in before realizing that it would be WAY too massive of a spoiler LOL I'm really, really excited to get into it - though nervous too - but I hope that, at the very least, readers can have patience for her as she goes through everything that's on the horizon. There are times it may get ugly, even outright bleak, but that is simply one side of the coin that represents her duality as a goddess - the dreaded Bringer of Destruction, and the merciful Goddess of Spring.

[transformersconfessions]

not to add to all the megastar confessions lately, but i would like to add my perspective as someone who is a big starscream fan and also has megastar as my current favorite ship.

first of all, i think its important to mention that obviously not every fan is going to be into it in the same way. some people may choose to play with them in more comedic, light hearted scenarios while others may be more interested in darker scenarios that dig into it as an abuse dynamic. for some people it really does boil down to finding it hot in some way, and for other people it may be a combination of all of this, or some other reason entirely. i personally am open to most intepretations of the dynamic, but i do gravitate to stories where they are framed as an abusive relationship, because thats what i find most compelling.

i think its entirely fair to feel uncomfortable by certain types of content, especially when it deals with triggering subjects. but those stories still serve a purpose for the people reading them. is the same reason some people read tragedies, because it's an evocative story, and a lot of people are interested in complicated characters and relationships purely because it makes for a good story, and not because they lack the ability to tell its wrong. people are generally capable of engaging with complicated themes in fiction without wishing to advocate for them in real life. i think the only reason ships like megastar end up being so controversial is because theres this idea that shipping involves viewing something as romantic, when shipping can also just be about finding something interesting. i dont see why liking terrible characters is deemed okay, but liking terrible relationships is not. why is one more dangerous than the other inherently? people have an aversion to dark subjects when it applies to romance and sex specifically. and this is fair on a personal level but cannot be used against others with different boundaries and limits.

when it comes to people finding it hot, i think people have a very reductive view on it. power dynamics are a common aspect of kink, and some people choose to explore said power dynamics through fiction. it doesnt mean you cant acknowledge that a dynamic like that would be horrible if replicated, but fantasy is rarely meant to be 1:1 with our real life desires. most sexual fantasies are not literal. and where does the line between finding something interesting and finding it erotic begin? where does it end? most people i know who find the relationship hot are very self aware of the nature of it, and simultaneously care a lot about it on a narrative level and are very dedicated to analyzing it and giving it thought. fiction can evoke multiple feelings on a person, and its not going to make you feel the exact same as if it was a real situation. stories are not meant to be treated exactly like real life, theyre meant to be treated like, well, stories.

this isnt to say abuse apologism cant be expressed through fiction, but it honestly doesnt look like what most people think it does. fanfiction with problematic relationships in a sexual light is often meant to be read within a fetishistic context where its already understood that these relationships are an exploration of certain fantasies and not supposed to be replicated, while there are certain stories that, for example, attempt to justify the abuse or act like its not happening because the author genuinely believes it is okay, and part of reading things critically means being able to understand what message the author wants you to come across. this absolutely applies to fan works as well. its a very nuanced discussion that has more to do with being able to understand the themes of fiction works and their purpose, but people boil it down to "dark fiction is inherently bad, and using fiction to explore dark sexual fantasies is also bad and means you believe abuse is okay."

i would also add that as someone who has been abused, the reality is that for a lot of victims it does leave us with complicated feelings for our abuser that are difficult to reconcile, and fiction is an avenue to explore that. my sexual fantasies were definitely impacted by my trauma, and thats a really ugly and uncomfortable truth, we dont like to think of victims as having complex feelings on our trauma or "gross" trauma responses, but it happens, and judgement like this certainly doesnt create safe spaces for those of us with unpalatable responses.

.

[ironskyfinder]

How much of what you post represents your actual views? What is ur actual real world opinion on feminism, women outperforming men, and so on?

This is the million-dollar question, and I’m going to answer it seriously.

Honestly, up to and until the beginning of this month I wasn’t planning to answer this with any real depth, but I want to illuminate my thoughts and positions in the hopes that either I can light the path for others to comprehend these things, or at least provide a degree of clarity for those trying to understand me.

What I post is, at its most basic core, erotica, and I view it as such; I pull from my personal life and dramatize or embellish as the situation demands, but my goal is to make certain every piece of writing I put out into the world can bring someone to the height of their desire - whether that’s an edge, or an orgasm.

That being said, it’s only natural for my audience to wonder about the artist, especially when my content is so glaringly problematic - genderfuckery, questionable consent, TPE/ownership, kidnapping and dumbification and antifeminism - and while I have generally been content to let people wonder, I now feel I should be somewhat more transparent on this.

You ask about women outperforming men; there are definite physiological differences between the sexes and I think those are undeniable. Men are stronger and faster than women, on average; there's good evidence that women have the edge when it comes to endurance and tolerance events. That being said - in nearly every type of sport and olympic event, the men hold the record by a notable margin. Again, physiologically speaking, this is widely understood;  intuitively, everyone knows that men are, on average, substantially stronger and faster than women. When it comes to intelligence - the male brain is about 10% larger, with more flexibility with high working memory load and superior visuospatial skills; it’s well known that women retain stronger, more vivid memories of emotional events, as anyone who has ever argued with a woman can attest. Given these undeniable differences, the question has to be asked - is real equality between the sexes even possible?

Now, with that said - am I a raging misogynist that can’t fathom the idea of a woman possessing personhood, or am I a believer in neoliberal feminism?

Do I believe that women are people who should be respected and valued and treated  equally in society? Or, do I believe that women are inherently inferior, that being female makes them sex objects, that cunts are objects that should be owned? 

Bluntly: both. 

I think there's nothing wrong with a world that includes and celebrates women's contributions to society; I also think I should be able to pick an unowned bitch up off the street and register her as property, like adopting a stray. I want to wake up with my cock jammed down a cunt’s throat as she bruises her tonsils on me, because the shock collar training worked so well it's second nature for her now; I think it's insane that women aren't guaranteed more substantial maternity leave. I don't think women should be permitted to make their own decisions, but I do think they should be smart enough to willingly give up their rights. I hold both of these views in equal measure, and I don’t see any fundamental conflict between those viewpoints.

I do essentially believe that way that both neoliberal and radical feminism articulates on behalf of women without providing room for the nuance of individuation and without any examination of the successes of historical or traditional gendered socialization has been its own undoing; not everyone wants to have to act as a singular agent in society without the benefit of an external guiding force, and modern feminism has essentially guaranteed that nearly any other approach to interpersonal relationships beside absolute brutalist ‘equality’ is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. Fundamentally, while I believe that in theory there’s nothing wrong with empowering individuals to live in a way that deviates from the norm, that socially normative traditions began for a reason beyond the basic “men are big and muscley and scarey and rapey and mean and think girls are icky”-type assumptions that are generally prevalent within feminist circles; my philosophy is that those traditions wouldn't have  been created or been able to be maintained over the long term without it providing positive structural and social benefits, and while I again have no issue with exceptional individuals being able to function outside of those structures I do think that, statistically speaking, the socially acceptable norms are ultimately beneficial to the most of the people, most of the time. Additionally, I think that there is a growing sentiment among modern women that this state of affairs is not the outcome they were looking for; we see this with the advent of ‘girl jobs’ and the obsession around having a ‘sugar daddy’ or a ‘provider boyfriend’, and the increasingly common rejection of modern feminisms for traditionally feminine values. If the system isn’t working for most people, why continue to endorse it and prop it up against its failings?

And for cunts that do most of their thinking with their clit, I don’t think they want or deserve rights, so why should they have any? When a cunt isn’t even halfway through a smoke sesh and she’s shifting and grinding in her seat, why would I do anything besides grope and overstimulate her more before forcing her to take another hit? Is it really disrespectful to default to giving tasks to and demanding obedience from someone who opens a conversation with a picture of their tits and face? 

All that to say - my views, or my anti-feminism, however you would prefer to imagine it, comes from a place of seeking an equitable place for those who deserve it, and the subjugation of those who search for that instead. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled kinkblogging.

[kairos-polaris]

Beloved, why do you ship jonelias? Why do they consume your waking thoughts so?

I am glad you asked :D

So! I really enjoy uneven "problematic" power dynamics and this was what originally attracted me to jonelias. I listened to mag 92 and thought "jonelias seems like something I would ship" because even then I could tell they fit my taste. I also just like protagonist/antagonist ships, complicated relationships are my favourites

mag 92 is one of my favourite episodes as a jonelias shippers for a couple of reasons. at first it was solely the conversation between Jon and Elias and how it was about Jon getting changed by Elias, because of Elias. Jon was being openly vulnerable! "Am I still human, Elias?" he asks Elias who has just confessed to murder and keeping people hostage. Jon, who had so much respect and admiration for Elias' expertise, turns to him even in that moment. It is Elias who he seeks reassurance from, he asks another monster if he is one

Another aspect of mag 92 I am obsessed with is the opening statement and the way Elias puts Jon above everyone else (telling him to discard everyone in his pursuit) while also placing Jon on the same level as him

(Side note: I am still not sure if I prefer Jon to sit on Elias' lap/have Elias clean his wound or to focus more on what they don't do, on the gaping distance between them that they both wish wasn't there but both have their own reasons to not bridge it. Both are so good)

Vampire metaphor! Jon is a walking vampire metaphor and Elias is his maker, his creator. I am so obsessed with the idea of Jon feeding on Elias, pulling fear from his mind and Elias enjoying the intrusion and the freedom the compulsion brings. He said it felt tingly! Freak (affectionate). Also, telepathy and mind meld is so delicious

What I love most about jonelias is what I love in others ships: obsession and fully knowing each other. Beholding allows to take knowing and seeing your partner to another level, Jon and Elias can know and see each other in ways other people in their lives can't

Moral corruption is inherently fascinating to me and especially Jon. He gets worse throughout the series, his only anchors to humanity are his own guilt and the people around him who more often than not just reinforce that guilt (this makes sense in the context of the story but you can't guilt yourself into being a better person and that's why it doesn't really work for Jon but I digressed). I like thinking about all the ways Jon could be worse, the ways Jonah could push Jon into following his worst impulses, into choosing to be a monster instead of drowning in guilt to not feel helpless and powerless

I love jonelias when it's about all the things they wish to do but don't because they have other priorities, because they know but don't understand each other just like their patron. I love jonelias when it's Jon giving in, letting go. Of his morals, of his guilt, letting Elias shape him into something new. I love the idea of Jonah Magnus who worships no god, not even the one he serves, adoring and worshipping Jon and especially the parts of Jon that he himself had shaped. The Pygmalion and Galatea of it

Jonah chose Jon! He saw him and knew he was right! Jonah wants the Archivist and he wants the Archivist to be Jon. Sure, Jon was marked by the Web first but Jonah picked him too and I love it. It's fascinating from both of theirs perspective, Jonah feeling proud he made the right choice and Jon having a complicated mix of feelings about it. He hates that he was chosen and he just a little happy that he was chosen and he hates himself for it

Another thing I really like is the way they say each other's name! Elias calls Jon by his name a lot and I hate when people act like he doesn't

Jon and Jonah are very similar and I find that fascinating too. They are both workaholics and nerds and losers and freaks!! And I love them for that. And and and I really do think they could have eventually been truly equal if not for Jonahs prioritising his evil plan

Also they are sexy, I don't make the rules

[kalboykiyay]

Why I'm Likely Skipping Out On The Warriors Musical

It's been awhile since I've done an in-depth post on here, hasn't it? This was inspired after reading that post by @stuckasmain. Well, I've looked at the plot of the musical on Wikipedia and looked I have a few issues with a lot of shit there. So, I'll be listing what I don't like mainly, but I will tell you what I do like as well.

The Girls Are Fighting? Let's address the most obvious thing first. The Warriors are women. Now before you call me misogynist or whatever, hear me out. I personally have made shitposts about an AU where the Warriors were girls and they were a lot of fun. Thing is, they're shitposts for a reason; they played into tropes and gave goofy ideas for the girls. This feels like cheap representation and women deserve better than that. The woke-ification of a franchise that was supposed to be inherently problematic in nature feels forced. I've talked about why a remake of this film would not work, but this wasn't something I could have expected. A lot of the things are pretty (stereotypically, I'll say) gender-specific. There's a lot of things that a remake would likely take out of the charm of the original film (which itself is already romanticising what happens in the book and that's its own problem).

The Bizzies? No. They've been running into guys all night, but now they're all infatuated with them because they... wear cardigans? Okay... Thing is, they could have still been the Lizzies and nothing would've fucking changed even if the Warriors were women. If anything, it seems like their guards would've been lowered if they were the Lizzies instead, right? Let's just make all the Warriors gay.

Ajax... Oh, sweet Problematic Ajax... Apparently she's played by Amber Gray, which is straight fire. Let's get into this. Ajax's entire character was part of the reason I said a remake doesn't work. The existence of this character serves to remind the viewer that not all members of a gang are "good" people. They have their good moments, relative to each other and what not, but it feels like when this character leaves, it's not because they were doing something triumphant and going out in a blaze of glory, it's supposed to be a comeuppance of sorts. Musical Ajax getting arrested for beating up a shitty cop doesn't feel like that. It just... it feels like you're punishing a woman for a man's shitty behaviour as opposed to because she's the problem. Just seems unsatisying to make this particular character some sort of heroic "for the girls" type of character (especially considering that the character from the original book was also supposed to be pretty problematic from what I recall).

This should have been at the top but WHERE THE FUCK ARE SNOW AND VERMIN?! You take out the two baddest bitches in the movie and leave EVERYBODY ELSE?! At least you left Cochise, but damn! What the fuck are you doing?! Now, none of the Warriors are double cheeked up on a Thursday afternoon! Also, I hate to go here, but it's pretty disrespectful to remove one of the few black Warriors from the group but leave Cowboy in, just sayin'...

Now, I DO like that Cleon was kept alive! The movie did set it up in a way that he could have been left alive, since Masai wanted the Warriors alive when they were brought to him.

I also like that there was no ambiguity for the other Warriors surrounding what happened to Fox! This plot only works when very few people have all of the information, but the Warriors knowing about Fox's death changes nothing in a negative way. Of course, there could be an argument made for them not knowning since Fox's death is supposed to be kind of abrupt. (Sure, it was because the actor who played Fox was fired in the movie, but it still works pretty well given the setting, methinks).

I also like that they gave the Hurricanes a larger role here, as they did have a large role in the game as the main antagonist for a mission.

In any case, I hope that those who enjoy continue to post about it as it is still nice to see some new faces in the fandom!