#evidently that is already a tag

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.

[sonicaspeed123]

If u enjoy sonic the hedgehog in any capacity and dont already know this then PLEAAASE listen to me

"Everything is canon" does NOT mean "All one continuity"

There is no one definitive "true version" here. Does Sonic have parents? Yeah sometimes. Sometimes not. Is Sonic chatty and extroverted or reserved and introverted? Well are we talking about Prime!Sonic or X!Sonic? They're very different people.

To me, this is the fun part about Sonic - seeing the same characters in different situations and seeing them grow and react differently according to their experiences. (AU fan brainrot a little, sue me)

If you see people getting annoyed or confused about others "mixing" continuities, that's why. It's been established for a loooong time, hell since the very beginning (look up sega of america's "Sonic Bible" from back in the day) that there are stories which are separate and very different utilizing the same familiar characters. "Everything is canon" means "Your favorite version of Sonic is just as valid as any other." It means multiverse theory wjdndjqbxkxn

-⚡️ & 🧭

[iwoulddieforienzo]

Something really great about the persona 2 cast is that they all individually fucking SUCK to talk to casually. Every single one of them. They are all infuriating. We have:

Tatsuya, who will stare at you blankly if you try to initiate conversation (IS) and will dip without saying a word afterward (EP)

Batsuya, who will scoff and brush you off/otherwise act dismissive

Eikichi, who might honestly be the best to talk to in the IS crew and that is not saying much, who WILL talk extremely loudly over you (probably not on purpose?) and will not be paying particularly close attention to the conversation beyond whatever he wants to say (gets points for talking about his gf. gets points taken away for constantly talking about his gf)

Lisa, who will automatically assume bad faith and will be rude to you the entire conversation unless you manage to defuse her temper (good luck)

Jun, who is uncommunicative at BEST and requires an encyclopedic knowledge of flowers, metaphor and body language just to get a HINT on what he’s thinking, and who will be extremely polite but completely unhelpful. If you tried asking him what he wants for dinner I guarantee it will be the longest 30 minutes of your life as he goes “oh I have no opinion :) whatever you want. :))” EXCEPT HE DOES HAVE OPINIONS. He has SO MANY OPINIONS. He is Expecting you to be able to pick up on his “obvious” clues. He will be passive aggressive if you don’t. (Jun babygirl you suck so bad I love u)

Maya, who is a delight but will very quickly become grating if you try to talk to her about anything serious as she hits you with the white suburban mom's "how to live a happy, healthy life" lifecoach slogans. You can’t even mention, like, stepping in a puddle or something without her hitting you with the positivity beam.

Yukino is great actually. 10/10. She’s fabulous we love her. Incredible conversationalist, chill and fun and easy to get along with. But she’s from Persona One, she doesn’t Count.

Ulala, who WILL bring up her relationship problems in every conversation within 10 minutes at least once. Any longer and she will start talking about Maya.

Do I even need to explain Baofu. Have you seen him.

And finally, Katsuya, who is a cop and a kiss ass and Very Obvious about these things. Also he can't talk to women. He can barely talk to men. Help Him.

And yet they all work wonderfully as a group. They are so annoying I love them

[dedicatedfollower467]

okay maybe a hot take but like. people going "spirk is canon now omg!!!" after that short film that just dropped - you do realize that like. it's not any more canon than it has been for like, forever, right?

they held hands and watched the sunset together. big whoop.

yes vulcans have a whole hand-holding thing, but like. kirk and spock have held hands before, this is not? any different? than any of that???

like people are out here screaming "OMG SPIRK IS CANON AFTER 57 YEARS" guys if holding hands and staring into each other eyes while the music swells is good enough to call it "canon" then spirk has been canon since the motion picture came out in 1979.

[palamedespoetry]

I WENT TO CHECK AND THE TOXIC ODYMEDES PROMPT BLOG GOT DELETED? they only had like one post that i have memorized by heart but it hurts. like now i look crazy on their ship tag

[asurrogateblog]

alright so wait a minute. according to the official record the last time paul saw john in person was in 1976, and the last time they talked over the phone was a few weeks before his death (about bread). we also know, of course, that the last words john said to paul was "think about me every now and then, old friend." now.... given the presented timeline, that must have been over the phone, BUT, carl perkins said in his interview about...that whole situation, that linda told him "the last words that John Lennon said to Paul in the hallway of the Dakota building were… he patted him on the shoulder, and said, [quote]." do you see the problem with these two narratives? do you see it? now you could say that john said that in 1976, but then why would paul have such a strong emotional reaction to carl when he said it? clearly those were john's last words to paul ever. so they must have been meeting in person much later than he's admitted. WHATS THE TRUTH PAUL

[kagoutiss]

suddenly feel the need to post that one official pre-botw early concept comic from when nintendo was thinking about theming the next loz game around some sort of alien invasion, in a more ‘modern’ setting, and. anyway the point is that ganondorf is in it and he is wearing a metallica t shirt

[llyfrenfys]

"Rule Britannia is out of bounds" - How England invented Great Britain

("Rule Britannia is out of bounds"- Life on Mars, David Bowie, 1971)

As promised, here is a more in-depth exploration of Wales' relationship to indigeneity or colonised status. And how England created the (political) concept of Great Britain when it formally annexed Wales in 1542. This is a long post but I will try and be brief where possible to do so. I graduated with a degree in Celtic Studies last year from Aberystwyth University so it's time to put that to use.

In my last post, I went over the groundwork for this conversation - so if you haven't read that one yet I strongly suggest you read that one first then come back to this one. In that first post, I establish the stickiness in claiming or applying the status of colonised onto the modern nation and people of Wales. I also explore how claims of indigeneity (intended to legitimise Welsh nativism through dubious claims of descent from the Iron Age Britons) are weaponised in modern political contexts.

With all that said - how does one categorise the suffering of Wales/its culture and language without straying into the language of the colonised?

Early Medieval English Imperial desire for Wales:

Very often, you will hear people make the claim that Wales was 'England's first colony' and that the other nations bordering England were guinea pigs for Britain's later colonial empire. My previous writing on this topic has established the difficulty in applying colonised as a term to Wales and its context. Which leads to the question of what do we describe it as instead?

For this, we need to make a distinction between colonialism and imperialism.

The two concepts are very similar (and do overlap slightly) but they have crucial differences which allow us to be more precise and succinct with our wording which aids both communication of the subject and quells misunderstanding through language which doesn't fit the situation.

Put simply, Imperialism is when one country, people or nation desires to extend power over another (usually a close-by or neighbouring territory) - especially (but not solely) through the means of expansionism.

Colonialism is also when a country, people or nation wants to extend power over another - but primarily through invasion and typically (but not always) against territories that are further afield and not immediate neighbours).

A lot of the way in which we view early British history in Wales is tinged with a kind of exceptionalism for what happened between England and Wales. Very often, what was done is framed as uniquely terrible for the time and held up as a poster child for the unique evil of England's expansionist desires. Yet all over Europe at the same time this was happening - other European nations and peoples were engaging in the same subjugator-subjugatee relationship. The exceptionalism present in framing Wales as uniquely suffering in this period is, unfortunately, borne out of the same British imperial culture which was thrust upon it and has become irrevocably entwined with culturally. It is a kind of British arrogance (which ironically crops up in anti-British arguments in Welsh independence activism) which presupposes nobody could have suffered the same or worse than they have, which demands the active ignorance of other, contemporary examples of that which they claim to oppose.

Wales was the first victim of English (later British) Imperialism - not its first colonial victim.

The build-up to and annexation of Wales by England:

Wales was annexed twice - once before the age of states and once shortly before that age dawned. The concept of states (as in, sovereign countries) didn't really exist until after the Treaties of Westphalia (1648). In which the concept of non-interference in the religious affairs of other countries (and other domestic affairs) was established and international relations was born. This is relevant to Wales' situation - as what England did to Wales happened long before the age of states began.

There was the Conquest of Wales by Edward I between 1277 and 1283. (Before that, the Norman Conquest of Wales by 1081). (However, the latter being conducted by the Normans is not necessarily equatable to the actions of England the country, which itself had only just been invaded by the Normans). And then the Laws in Wales Acts which formally incorporated Wales into the realm of the Kingdom of England in 1542.

The Conquest of Wales by Edward I overran the territories of the last Prince of Wales (from the Welsh monarchic tradition), Llywelyn the Last and divided the territories into Welsh Principalities and Marcher Lordships. This setup remained until 1542, when Henry VIII passed the Laws in Wales Acts and formally annexed Wales and made it (in all the legal senses) a part of England.

By the time international relations was in its infancy (i.e. shortly after the Peace of Westphalia) Wales had been absorbed into England for just over 100 years. The relevancy of this is that Westphalia had been about religious liberty - Henry VIII's incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England was partly informed by religion. Henry VIII had just broken away from Rome and established the Protestant Church of England, whereas Wales was still largely Catholic. The Laws in Wales Acts also replaced the language of the courts in Wales with English, cutting off monolingual Welsh speakers from legal representation. The language of worship became English instead of Latin. Wales was culturally assimilated into England over a long period of time. And that meant ensuring Wales followed the 'correct' religion and spoke the 'correct' language. After the Peace of Westphalia, these actions by Henry VIII to bend Wales to his new religion and to assimilate Wales into England would have been in poor taste or decried in light of the new Westphalian system that was developing in Europe. Alas, these events took place before then and temporally speaking, Wales was locked out of this recourse.

By contrast, Scotland was unified with England into the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 (after the Peace of Westphalia). England committed numerous acts of cultural erosion and destruction against Wales and Scotland at this time - but its Union with Scotland differs to that with Wales. Wales was incorporated into England, whereas Scotland was 'invited' to join a union between England (which then included Wales) and itself. Simplifying it greatly - like a marriage proposal in which the two spouses are *supposed* to be equals. After the Act of Union with Scotland, the whole island of Great Britain was 'unified' and thus the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed from two states - England (inc. Wales) and Scotland into one state.

Welsh Nationalism and Nationhood as separate from Statehood:

Wales and Scotland were the victims of English imperialism in many similar, but also many different ways.

Wales, having never been a 'state' was unable to acquire this status since it had long been incorporated into England by the time the concept of states had developed. Wales was unlucky in this way, because other nations on this island such as Scotland had managed to establish themselves long enough to survive into the age of states and thus became one. Because of this, Welsh nationalism cannot look to an era in which it was a free state because that did not happen. Instead, Welsh nationalism very often looks back with rose-tinted spectacles to Wales prior to Edward I's conquest and/or prior to Henry VIII's Laws in Wales Acts.

But nationhood and statehood are not the same thing - and it is the conflation of these two concepts (like the conflation of colonialism and imperialism) which has led to much of the confusion on these topics. Nationhood is acquired by a group of people who share several of these things: a common language, history, culture and (usually) territory. Not all of these things are required, but most nations have all or almost all of these qualities. Wales has a language (Welsh), a common history, culture and territory (Wales). Statehood is acquired by an association of people who have most or all of these things: formal institutions of government, laws, permanent territorial boundaries and sovereignty. Wales before 1283 very loosely had government and laws (monarchy and Laws of Hywel Dda) but had no permanent territory due to the conquest and lost some sovereignty in 1283 and total sovereignty in 1542.

Even if Wales had met all the criteria for a state in 1283, it would not have been eligible to become one - no nation in the world was able to do that yet because the concept (or proto-concept) for it would only be invented in 1648. Even England did not qualify for state status yet. Put simply, Wales got very unlucky with history and geography in such a way which prevented it from having a historical statehood post-1648 like neighbouring England and Scotland.

Naturally, when Welsh nationalism attempts to recall a past in which it was a 'state' - it is always an imagined and romanticised history. A fantasied history which generates ideas of the persecuted 'indigenous' Cymro where it shouldn't really be (in all seriousness, the injustices inflicted upon Wales by England are enough - extra additional injustices reliant upon a claim to to 'nativeness' do not need to be invented in order to be taken seriously). In the modern world, claims of nativeness in a European context are fraught, misguided, in poor taste and often copy the homework of the indigenous peoples those same European powers marginalised or colonised. In the modern world, a white Welshman claiming indigeneity is doing so in a postcolonial world and there really is no escaping that. Succinctly - the Welsh nationalist who relies upon a created sense of nativeness can only do so by drawing upon the work of marginalised native peoples living in parts of the world formerly colonised by Great Britain. To claim native status as a Welshman is to misunderstand and misappropriate history while wielding the language of the genuinely colonised while contributing nothing to it. It is purely extractive and a slap in the face of non-European native peoples everywhere. The pining for this return* to a prior point in Wales' history where it was a fully functional, sovereign nation populated only by 'native' or 'indigenous' Cymry is an alarming and ahistorical fantasy that all too easily slides into ethnonationalism and nativism -ancient or modern.

(*the choice of the word 'return' here is no accident - the desire to 'return' is inextricably linked to the alt-right dogwhistle 'retvrn' and it it is frighteningly common to see elements of that subculture crop up in Welsh nationalist calls to return to a point in Wales' history where it was 'sovreign'.)

Welsh nationalism which isn't vigilant to this kind of thinking very often will find itself arguing blatant untruths. For example, on the milder side of fake history, I've come across Welsh nationalist groups claiming symbolism from Owain ap Gruffydd's coat of arms - despite the fact he lived before the age of heraldry and he never used these arms because they were attributed to him later.

What next for Wales after 1542?:

Since Wales was fully and formally incorporated into the Kingdom of England by 1542, English colonisation of the Americas prior to 1707 naturally included Welsh colonists as well as English colonists. After 1707 Scots joined in with the now British colonisation of the Americas (both as/for/on the side of the Brits and as Scots fleeing Scotland after the Act of Union decimated Scottish Gaelic traditional culture). The Welsh, on the other hand, were more intimately involved with the colonisation of the Americas before that.

Though England spearheaded its colonisation of the Americas, Wales was not an unwilling participant dragged along by its association with and incorporation into England - Welsh colonisation, like Scottish colonisation, was often motivated by religious or cultural persecution - of which colonisation of another land was a possible solution to cultural loss in their home countries. Pennsylvania was settled by many Welsh Quakers and the idea of a Welsh Tract was floated to the Welsh settlers in 1684. The idea was to create a county which would operate in the Welsh language and serve as a vehicle for the preservation of the Welsh language. This attempt was not as successful as Wales' colony in Patagonia, Argentina in which native populations there were displaced at the behest of the Argentinian government - who needed the land settled and cleared. Welsh colonists took up this mantle and created Y Wladfa colony there in 1865.

Returning to the 17th Century - Welsh people were active colonists in the Americas during this time - motivated by saving the Welsh language and freedom of religion (especially the developing Nonconformist denominations of Protestant Christianity developing at this time). It was not so much that England was forcing Wales to participate in its colonialism, but that Wales has its own wants and ends for colonialism and was motivated entirely on its own grounds.

Back at home, Wales was still hard-done-by due to England - but two things can be true at once. Wales was a victim of English imperialism, but was also a perpetrator itself of colonial violence against Native Americans. England was no such victim of imperialism of any kind and the power dynamic for England had always been one rooted in absolute expansionism.

Summary and Conclusion:

With all of that said - if you were to ask point blank if I feel it is appropriate or okay for Wales to claim it was colonised by England and that Welsh people are in some way, more indigenous to the island than any other people living here - my answer would be no, I don't think it's okay.

I can't stop people from thinking otherwise, but I can reason that perhaps we shouldn't appropriate the struggles of people marginalised by the very nation we are talking about in order to craft a victimhood which is entirely unnecessary. Wales was a victim of English imperialism - but Wales was also an active colonising European nation. In the modern world, people are thankfully more willing to listen to the wants and needs of victims of colonialism - particularly victims of British colonialism in the Americas, Oceania and Asia. But I would warn against Welsh nationalism which seeks to capitalise on that increase in indigenous visibility in order to add legitimacy to itself (necessitating the crafting of an 'indigenous' narrative which did not exist there before). We live in the modern world where indigenous peoples are being taken more seriously than in centuries past - but that does not mean the only peoples hard-done by being taken seriously are colonised indigenous populations.

I believe it comes from a deep seated insecurity within Wales in which it is not uncommon to feel like Wales is being left behind because of all of this advancement. And this insecurity manifests as rejection of anything not obviously Welsh or demonstrably 'home-grown'. It's the national equivalent of a survival mechanism - but this is detrimental not only to the cause of Welsh nationalism, but to Wales itself. I've had people say to me (and I have read in historical sources from the last 100 years in Welsh) that the LGBTQ+ movement is actually an English invention created to erode Welsh traditional culture. Or variations on that rhetoric in which it is immigrants or other minorities which are made into this boogeyman come to destroy Wales and all Welsh ways of life. And it is so demonstrably not true but also bitter to see from the hearts and minds of my fellow Welsh speakers/Welsh people. Who have been hurt so much by the historical erosion of their culture that they confuse non-threats for threats and can only resolve to obtain some more legitimacy by appropriating the language of nativeness and colonisation in this ever changing world which, right now, is listening to native peoples for once.

It's difficult to put into words, even with all of the background knowledge above - but Wales is valuable and legitimate all on its own and doesn't need to rely upon things which isn't serving it - like ethnonationalism and nativism.

I want to live in a Wales which is uncompromising not only in its own fight for recognition and respect - but for other nations and peoples' fights for the same as well. I want to live in an independent Wales which is an ally to all those who share Wales' struggle and a Wales which rights the wrongs of its past without hesitation or compromise.

Would you rather a Wales for the few or a Wales for all who call it home?

[breadbartz]

need to convince myself this is who im being mean to when im at my lowest

[thatswhatsushesaid]

haha

it is SO rich for the jgy critical crowd to insist that it's the jgy stans who are being weird and defensive given /gestures @ all of this. like what's the opposite of defensive 🧐 because that's what this is.

as i said to someone else earlier tonight, i'm manifesting the capability to climb through these anons' phone screens so i can chase them through their houses with a nerf gun. every little foam projectile will include a relevant printed out page from the EXR translation. probably with highlights and notes in the margins. maybe some frowny faces for emphasis.

anyway this is why i'm insane

[helielune]

powder keg (full under the cut)

[snowe-zolynn-rogers]

Also, I'm not scratching off 'we find out who made Eclipse by April 7th' on my second bingo card until this cockamamie bullshit gets somehow confirmed.

[melverie]

wait now im intrigued whats your crack theory

Oh, you mean my crack theory on Nightbringer's identity?

Hehehe >:)

Why, Nightbringer is L-- *gets shot*

[gerardwaygirlmoments]

The End by MCR / Edmund Temper by Amigo the Devil / Different Anymore by Amigo the Devil / Mama by MCR / Edmund Temper by Amigo the Devil / The End by MCR / The Recluse by Amigo the Devil

[js337]

i'm feeling very nostalgic in a very bittersweet way

[reindeer-writer]

I may be a tad hyperfixated

Ok so like, Starline has 100% become my defacto comfort series and because of that I’m thinking about it nonstop, all the time, every day, so I have a lot of things that I have to share about it

The two listener characters in either entry, Skipper in SL2 and Breckett’s spouse in SL1 (who I’ll be calling Hops because I’m a comedic genius) are left pretty blank character and backstory wise for obvious reasons, but there are still a few things we can deduce about them (us?) that I wanna write down so I don’t forget

I’ll be putting down things we know about Breckett and Hakir as well just for the sake of having it all in one place (and also because they’ve pretty firmly made themselves at home in my mind palace)

I’m splitting this up into two parts because I need to relisten to Starline 1 before I finish that part of this, so this post will only cover Hakir and Skipper

Hakir:

-Hakir’s full name:

Hakir’s full name is Hakir Ven Krolist.

Not exactly groundbreaking information, but it’s only brought up like once or twice in the whole series so I’m putting it here anyway

-Hakir was a sentinel during or before Starline 1

This is mostly just a timeline thing.

Hakir was a sentinel at some point which means he had to have signed up before the war.

However he’s a red diamond, meaning he was dishonourably discharged and fought against them during the war.

-Hakir was about 15 during Starline 1:

In Starline 1 it’s established that a lot of people who sign up to work for the sentinels do so because they don’t have any other choice, needing to help provide for their families or just provide for themselves the moment they come of age.

Hakir was a Sentinel and it’s very likely he joined when he came of age.

In Starline 1 Breckett also says that he was only 13*[SEE END FOR CORRECTIONS] when the Sentinels ruined his life, the fact he says “only 13” means that he was either a child, a teenager, or a very young adult (we can probably remove child from that lineup purely because Breckett seems to have left home soon after that and I doubt a kid would’ve made it very far). 

From this we can deduce that it must be pretty common for intergalactic races to come of age somewhere around 15 years old, probably a bit earlier or a bit later depending on species because if they didn’t he would have clarified what stage of their life his race is in at that age.

Meaning that from now on 15 is the assumed age that a species is considered an adult at.

It can’t have been that much time since Hakir’s discharge from the sentinels because he’s still in tip-top fighting shape by Starline 2 so he obviously isn’t like 50 by then

Assuming he joined the Sentinels as soon as he could to help provide for his family, he would have joined at about 15 years old and have been discharged soon after because of his behaviour.

-Hakir is in his late 20’s to early 30’s 

In the Starline 2 trailer’s description it says it’s been 15 years since the events of Starline 1

meaning that Hakir must be around 30 years old, give or take depending on when his species is an adult.

-Hakir is not very trusting of other people:

Hakir is fairly distrustful of people and quick to close himself off, in fact it’s a fairly large part of his character.

He’s initially distrustful of Trailblazer, very quick to turn on the Director after it’s not how he imagined it. (even if the distrust toward them is justified)

Hell, he didn’t even trust Skipper, the soon-to-be love of his life before they’re put into a life or death situation, and being locked into two different rooms together (the prison in episode 1 and their shared bedroom thereafter.

Hakir is understandably very closed off, and his trust and love for Skipper just goes to show how much they love each other.

-Hakir is still close with his family:

Both when explaining the naming system of his species, and when talking about his and Skipper’s relationship moving forward it’s clear that Hakir is still very close with his family.

-Hakir wants Skipper to step on him:

Need I say more?

Skipper:

-Skipper isn’t their real name:

Ok let’s get this out of the way first

Skipper is almost 100% a nickname or a pseudonym they go by because so much of their work is illegal.

It's just like how Mindflayer's listener character gets nicknamed Rook eventually. (Also sidenote, but Lorraine, Harph, and Rook have the fucking strongest polycule vibes in all of fiction istg)

Maya calls them “Skipper” when speaking to Hakir as well, meaning it’s *definitely* what they use for work.

There’s never any sort of clarification on whether it’s their first name or last name or what the rest of their name is.

It also makes sense from a storytelling perspective to have it be a nickname rather than an actual name since it lets us better project our own traits onto Skipper.

All this to say that Skipper is definitely not their real name, and just one of those nicknames that’s so good everyone calls them that rather than their real name.

-Skipper is really skilled when it comes to combat

Both before and during the series their fights with Hakir show that their abilities are at least equal to that of someone who definitely has both training from the sentinels and combat experience from the war.

From this it’s pretty obvious that Skipper is incredibly skilled with combat and that it’s something they enjoy immensely.

-Skipper is in their 20’s:

In episode 1 Argus says that Skipper started doing smuggling work the moment they were old enough to fly a ship (almost definitely 18), he also says they’ve only been at it for a few years with Smuggling work meaning they’re, at the very youngest, 20 years old, but more likely somewhere between 20-25

A lot less deduction than Haki’s age huh? :3

-Skipper was a child during Starline 1:

Again just more timeline stuff, but Starline 1 takes place 15 years before Starline 2, meaning that Skipper was somewhere between 5-10 years old

-Skipper cares about other people's well-being a lot:

Making sure to keep Hakir off the bottle, getting him to drink water instead of coffee when he's hungover

Early on in the series Skipper begins to show a lot of concern for Hakir’s wellbeing even though up to this point they’ve been pretty bitter rivals.

Whilst there’s an argument to be made that it’s only because they’re working together now, the turnabout in behaviour is far too quick to just be in self-interest, especially if they harboured genuine resentment toward Hakir.

They  make sure to keep Hakir sober when possible, probably already aware of his destructive drinking habits from their shared history.

And the night after they sleep together when Hakir suggests drinking coffee to deal with their hangover Skipper tells him to drink water, he responds with a stutter and a slightly more submissive tone as well which means Skipper was firmly ordering him to drink water rather than just suggesting it.

-Skipper is very trusting of other people: 

Trailblazer and Breckett even though they were both connected to the director (there’s not even any indication given that they’re upset with the director which implies they understand and forgive it)

Skipper is very innately trusting of other people, after meeting trailblazer they’re very quick to trust him despite Hakir’s objections, and it’s only because of them that Hakir is willing to give Blazer a shot.

They also don’t seem to harbour any resentment towards The Director (at least not that’s shown) which seems to imply that they forgive him.

On top of that their relationship with Hakir is built up very quickly expressly *because* they’re willing to bury the hatchet and put their full trust in him right off the bat.

-Skipper is a smartass: 

There are a few different times when Skipper makes a snappy remark or a quick-witted joke, and in episode 8 (Hangover) Hakir straight up calls them a smartass.

On one hand this is mostly just Skipper being a funny person in general, but on the other it seems like it might partially be a bit of a persona they put on to bolster their own confidence considering the fact that in a lot of situations they’re actually rather 

-Skipper is highly intelligent:

Skipper is a very clever person, they’re an incredibly skilled hacker, have good combat awareness, quick on their feet, and being smartass requires that you actually be smart.

-Skipper is very unserious:

Skipper is pretty much constantly making jokes or acting silly, even in dangerous situations like when they were trying to dock the director's ship and make a joke about Iron-Man.

Barring scenarios where they’re in mortal peril, Skipper is always ready to make light of a situation, and this functions as a bit of a grounding force for the people around them like Hakir since he’s a lot more stable mentally and emotionally when they’re around.

-Skipper is a total nerd:

Beyond the obvious Iron-Man reference it’s made pretty clear that Skipper is a bit of a geek.

The main thing is their knowledge with computers and hacking, getting interested enough in computers and stuff to even start hacking already has the dweeb alert blaring at full volume, but beyond that, committing fully, learning how to code and then subsequently learning how to hack is massive nerd activity. 

-Skipper does smuggling work because they love the danger, freedom and adventure that comes with it:

Skipper could pretty easily land a job somewhere with their m4d hax0r sk1llz (god I'm sorry, I shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard) and there aren't exactly a lack of places to find work with the entire universe at their disposal, so it's very likely that they do smuggling work because it's fun rather than because it's profitable (though it probably is, Hakir mentions some jobs Skipper stole from him would've made him rich) and the only reason someone could find this kind of work enjoyable is if they love the danger, freedom, and/or adventure that come with it.

-Skipper is very confident in themselves and exaggerates their confidence further with faux-egotistical behaviour: 

There are 2 or 3 times in the series where Hakir tells Skipper that they shouldn't let something “go to your head”. The fact that this is repeated tells us that this is common behaviour from them. 

Skipper is either actually overconfident in themselves or they pretend to be for the sake of being funny.

The odds of them being genuinely egotistical are incredibly low for a few reasons, but what springs to mind is the night where they sleep with Hakir, because before they're willing to go through with it they voice concerns that it's just a fling rather than anything more. 

It’s obvious that at this point they've already developed feelings for Hakir, and they're concerned enough that he won't be interested in them that he'll just leave again afterward.

This kind of insecurity isn't the type of thing one would expect from someone who would be totally full of themselves.

-Skipper is actually very soft in private

In the scene where Hakir and Skipper are making out drunk and about to sleep together, Skipper needs to be reassured that Hakir is actually interested in them and that it’s not just a one night stand.

In the hangover scene they gently reassure Hakir that they enjoyed their night together even though he thought it was a bit of a disaster.

and finally

In the scene where the two of them have accepted their fate and are lying in one another’s arms ready to die together, Skipper is happy being held and comforted by Hakir about their fate rather than being the one doing the holding or comforting.

All this points to the fact that in private Skipper is actually a huge softie despite their confident and jokey exterior when it comes to how they act in public.

-Skipper isn't close with their family:

Ok so this is a big one. I can't remember in which episode this is, but Hakir says that maybe when Skipper and their parents are on good terms again they could introduce Hakir to them.

This tells us a few things, namely: 

Skipper and their parents are on bad terms, the fact that they might be on better terms at some point in the future means that it's over something that can be forgiven, and the fact that they might introduce their boyfriend means they’re still close enough to care about what their parents think which means their relationship isn't totally shattered, just fractured.

In the first episode Argus mentions that Skipper “started the moment you were old enough to fly a ship” with their career in smuggling which means the second they could they left home and put as much distance between them and their parents as possible. 

From this we can then deduce that whatever caused the fallout between them and their parents was incredibly severe despite the fact they seem willing to forgive.

Which means that it’s probably that Skipper is queer in some way (which is pretty obvious looking at their character, kinda fruity)

All this to say it's pretty likely that it all played out as follows:

Skipper discovers that they're queer in some way during their teenage years.

They choose to come out to their parents

Their parents are NOT accepting, but aren't bad enough to create a permanent divide between them

Skipper leaves home the second they can and starts with their current career

The Exciting Conclusion!

From all of this information we can actually narrow down a lot of things about each of the characters into more concise profiles starting with

Hakir:

Hakir is a very closed off and cautious person, his initial reaction to just about anyone is to keep them at an arm's length unless absolutely necessary.

Once you get close enough to him to break through his hard exterior though he’s a fairly chill guy.

He has a hard time keeping himself mentally or emotionally in check alone, but Skipper helps to keep him happy, healthy and enriched.

He’s a little bit rough around the edges, but Hakir is consistent and reliable, nobody better to have on your side when the chips are down, just be sure to support him and he’ll be there to help.

Skipper:

Skipper is an incredibly trusting and caring person, they put the safety of others before their own and care deeply about anyone close to them to the point they’re willing to forgive huge mistakes or misjudgements of others. 

They put on a persona of independence and confidence both as a way to deal with the hardships that they face on a regular basis, and to ground others around them in times of need.

In more private situations like with close friends or Hakir they drop the act and show that they’re actually a lot softer and are more willing to be doted on than in public.

They’re super sharp, but never use their intelligence to degrade or diminish other people’s abilities.

Fun, caring, and calming. What more could someone want?

I'll be releasing the Starline 1 version sometime soon, so be ready for that when it drops!

*Edit: So I started my relisten of Starline 1 and uhhhhh

I may be stupid

Breckett actually says that he was only in his 30's when the Sentinels came, his use of "only" indicates that his species is still fairly young at 30 years old.

This could mean that Breckett's species might live for far longer than humans do if 30 is still young, maybe even hundreds of years, or that maybe the advancements made in modern technology have extended the lifespans of all species to the point that 30 is still very young. (I choose to believe the second one purely because it means Breckett and Hops get to grow old together, and if they don't get a happy ending then my heart wil shatter)

I also want to bring attention to the fact that the translator might have a part in this since we know it has a tendency to embezzle details a little bit. Like when Breckett makes food from his homeworld and we hear him call it squid, but he also clarifies that it's not a type of seafood.

So there's a very good chance that when Breckett says he's 30 he might not be using human years, he could be using his homeplanet as a reference for how long a year is or it could be some other intergalactic constant we aren't aware of.

Not to mention the fact that there's probably a whole slew of space terminology that doesn't have any equivalent in any human language yet.

And if the translator is meant to function off of a wide set of data from a bunch of different sources like a neural network of some kind the fact that it only has one person as reference for how all of the English language works would probably cause a few issues.

All this to say I've basically just debunked my entire argument for Hakir's age and he could be any number of years old.

I'm sticking to my guns though because I've already implanted it into my brain as canon and if they have similar lifespans then they're far more likely to die at around the same time and not need to mourn their partner's death for like another 100 years. I still think that Hakir is around 30 and no one can convince me otherwise.

Plus this all comes with the bonus headcanon that everyone in the future gets to live far longer which is always nice.