#however if there are concerns about boundaries I will be willing to clarify if asked

[one-hell-of-a-url]

ah, my old friend, Crippling Fear of Being Perceived

[lily-orchard-gossip-blog]

I don’t feel comfortable sharing my account on this blog, so I’ll be staying anonymous. Let me ask something;

How am I meant to detach myself from Lily’s content and general account without causing an outrage with her fans?

Me and a few of her fans are on good terms, I’d even say we’re friends. But they’re the FIRM fans of hers. The kind that’ll go down with her and don’t bother to look at the evidence of her actions.

And I’m starting to believe all of the gossip. With all of this evidence and these stories, I’m pretty much convinced. Sure, there’s a tiny part of me that feels bad and thinks maybe it’s all somehow, SOMEHOW a coincidence but the rational and SANE portion of myself that hasn’t been influenced by Lily tells me otherwise.

I want to move on from Lily’s work, videos, and basically everything she’s made/says. But I have no idea how to do that without removing myself from the friends I’ve made, some of which are friends of hers. They’re all good people and treat others kindly, but I have no idea how to move on from Lily without moving on from them.

Let me clarify, it’s okay if you give any advice that might be hurtful. Or if you don’t answer this ask whatsoever. After all, you do not owe me, a stranger, anything. I’m just looking around for advice and I was hoping I could get some. Thank you if you read this ask.

Well, this is definitely a pickle.

I think it depends on how quickly you want to extract yourself from Lily's content, but I would recommend starting off by blocking her.

Block her youtube, her tumblr and her twitter. If you were never close to Lily, then she won't really notice/care, and your friends aren't going to be keeping tabs on how present you are in her fandom. (At least, I hope not.)

As for your friends... Before you try cutting them off, I would recommend setting firm boundaries. Tell them you don't want to talk about Lily, or her content. You don't need to give them a full explanation for why; you can just say the content is no longer for you, and that you just don't want to hear about it.

If your friends are as nice as you say, they should be willing to accommodate your boundary.

If they don't respect your boundary, or continue to stomp over it; Then I would recommend cutting them off. People who can't respect other people's boundaries, no matter how small, aren't worth keeping around in my books. (Of course, mistakes happen, and that's alright, it's only if it's repeated regardless of your protests that it's bad.)

However, keep in mind that your friends will be heavily influenced by Lily and her idea's/opinions.

If you want to completely, 100% separate yourself from Lily's ideology, then you will have to cut your friends off.

It's up to you to figure out what lines you want to make concerning your friends, and how closely you think they follow Lily's logic.

But I definitely recommend just blocking Lily on everything, and setting boundaries with your friends.

I hope this advice helps!

[aita-lying-anon]

Hey, I realized I might have made a few things unclear so let me add more context:

-I am well aware I am not trained to provide professional help. I do my best to redirect my friend to professionals, and they are more open than they were before (especially since they now have one person/regular therapy, before they did not). Let me make one thing clear: my original boundary was that I did not want to talk about suicide/their suicidal thoughts at all. I have had to talk other people in my life down before when I was a young teen, and it was incredibly traumatizing. One of my long-running issues is that they break this boundary, apologize, say they won't do it, then do it again if no one else is answering them. They know and agree this is an issue, but it is hard for them to remember this in the middle of a breakdown. So I just wanted to clarify that I do not want to be doing this, this is more something that I am doing because they are my friend and regardless of how mad I am at them, I don't have the heart to abandon them in the middle of a breakdown, even if it means I need to spend the next few hours calming down myself.

-Emergency services was and always will be a last resort. My calling them came after 5 full days of my friend breaking down/being very clear to me that things had never been this bad, and they didn't want to hold on any more. I really, really hope I will never fucking have to do it. I was prepared to lose them as a friend the first time I called, but I was so desperate to actually have a way to make sure they were physically safe. It got to the point where my friend was not planning to live for more than a month, and I was severely concerned they would just say "fuck it" and act on their urges. They weren't able to pay for therapy on their own, the family members who help support them refused to help get them in; if I had someone else to call I would have. So yeah, I am not taking it lightly at all, I won't be doing it if they just have some thoughts. But the escalation was too much for me.

-There is currently (at least) one person I can call before calling emergency services. It is one of their close friends, I have the friend's contact info. I tried to contact this friend first, but they did not respond and over the next couple of days things got worse and worse. That is when I (again, after talking to my own therapist, who said she would have already contacted emergency services) finally knew that I wasn't able to handle this on my own, and my friend needed to get support another way.

-Part of the reason that I am hesitant to bring this up again is because while my friend is still having some health struggles (physical/unrelated), their mental health seems much better. They have not come to me during a breakdown in over a month. I don't want to be the one causing chaos/havoc when they are finally in a good place.

However, a lot of people raised very good points about shoring up a crisis plan. I will be messaging them to ask about that, and then I will ask them if they remember that conversation. Hopefully, I can lead into being frank about some of my fears/what I can and can not promise.

Finally, I am willing to accept being an asshole, but I would also like to point out that this conversation where I sort-of promised to not call emergency services again happened many months ago, when my friend was just starting therapy. I knew they were not in a stable place, and I was concerned that if they stopped talking to me, they would have no one to confide in (many of our other friends were having personal issues, at least one was so depressed they were maybe checking messages once a week). I understand if y'all still think it is scummy, but at the time I just wanted to be able to keep an eye on them because I do actually love my friend. I want them to be safe and taken care of.

So yeah, sorry for the ramble, hope it helps clear things up. I can give another update later if y'all want.

TW: suicide, mental health struggles No ages and gender neutral language for privacy reasons AITA for lying to my friend about what I will do? I have been friends with a person for a number of years. I would say they are one of my closest friends. They also have several mental health disorders which lead them to have suicidal thoughts. I am not comfortable with discussing these things, but I have broken my boundaries to help comfort them. Some time ago, things escalated to a dangerous level (I discussed it with my therapist and they straight up said they would have already called an ambulance for my friend if they were a client). I was fully prepared to lose my friend over this, I thought they would be so mad. But I called emergency services. They were sent to a crisis clinic. I ultimately opted not to tell them anything beforehand because I was worried of what they might do or that they might deny everything. Well, that crisis passed. They ended up getting into a treatment program and getting real help. Things have improved a lot. They told me they are not mad at me for what I did, and they benefited from it in the end. But they also told me to never, ever call like that again. I promised them I would not call emergency services again, but I lied. If it comes down to it, I think I will probably call emergency services again (not for just anything, but if somehow things get that bad again). AITA for lying to them? Should I respect their autonomy over a decision like that? Is there some way I can come forward and tell the truth without them cutting me off?

What are these acronyms?

[mbti-notes]

INFJ. Processing past Fe failures. Want to get better at socializing / having deeper relationships/friendships. Muddling through Ti development - desiring to get better at self-awareness + communication. A lot in my brain and it'd be a lot to share the entirety of recent exchanges that have ended up in failed relationships, so I'll try asking this and hope it's enough to get critical thinking help from you, thank you much in advance. (1/2)

[con't: I notice a pattern of me trying to communicate and express myself to be understand by, or be emotionally met by Fi users, and them responding by saying things like "I don't know what you want from me", "I don't know how to help you," "I'm sorry you feel that way" or them even saying variations of "Maybe you're not used to my communication style" (ENTJ) if I express that I feel dismissed, uncomfortable, or disrespected.

This isn't ALL Fi users thank God & I'm in therapy now to address my downplaying of my emotional needs, being willing to work through anything even though the romantic relationships I'm attracting are woefully incompatible or unhealthy. But I want to get better at doing my part to increase the chance of relationships building. What am I doing/expecting/judging in my communication with Fi users so they respond that way or has me feeling being unseen/misunderstood? Is it the basic INFJ recs?]

You point to Fi specifically. Fi doesn't require outside validation, so perhaps what you're encountering is their lack of concept of outside validation, in the manner that you're seeking it with Fe.

All of those example statements sound like they could be taken sincerely. "I don't know what you want from me" could be an opportunity for you to better explain what you need/want. "I don't know how to help you" could be an opportunity for you to provide better instructions. "I'm sorry you feel that way" could be a helpless admission that the two of you don't see things the same way. "Maybe you're not used to my communication style" could be an indication that there is a need to investigate the big gap between what was perceived and what was actually intended.

Not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye with you, not everyone is going to agree with your version of events, not everyone is going to care about your needs and feelings enough to address them kindly and patiently. This should all be okay with you unless you were walking around expecting everyone out there to have the capacity to meet you emotionally or validate your emotions (unhealthy Fe)? That's simply not gonna happen, so it's an unreasonable expectation. That's why it's so important that YOU be the first to take care of yourself and own your emotions, set proper personal boundaries, and navigate interpersonal boundaries more gracefully.

If you feel someone has violated your boundary (i.e. you feel hurt by them), the answer isn't to violate theirs in return. You're trying to fix a problem in the relationship, so further damaging the relationship isn't going to help. Whether you are right to feel hurt is not the main issue. Feelings themselves are always true and tell you something true about you. However, what you DO about the feelings isn't always right. There are two main ways people deal with negative feelings: 1) bottle them up, which amounts to self-harm, or 2) express them, which opens up the possibility of doing harm to others, if they don't have the means to process your feelings. Neither way is ideal.

If your main approach is to expect people to change (when they can't or don't want to), expect them to give you more than they are capable of giving (due to not having the means or resources), expect them to understand something that they are not really capable of understanding (when they just don't think in the same way as you), etc, your expectations are easily perceived as "demands". You're essentially pressuring people to be what you want them to be, which amounts to dishonoring them and violating their boundary. This approach is usually met with submission or resistance. If they submit to you (because they care for you), they will be unhappy for having allowed you to violate their boundary, and the problem will recur because it was only swept under the rug. If they resist you, conflict ensues, and the relationship bond will be tested and possibly threatened, especially if the conflict recurs without resolution.

There is a way to honor your feelings while also honoring others' feelings. It requires you to have good emotional intelligence and be a good communicator. Good emotional intelligence means respecting your feelings and taking full responsibility for them. Instead of seeing yourself as the victim (i.e. "you made me feel this way"), you see yourself as an agent with the power to decide what is best (i.e. "I feel this way and this is what I should do about it"). Positioning yourself as a passive or helpless victim means that you cast blame and eventually demand reparations. Positioning yourself as an active and influential agent means that you survey the situation objectively and then try to act in the best interests of everyone involved. This is what healthy and confident Fe should look like.

For example, when you feel dismissed, maybe you bottle it up for awhile, until you can't take it anymore (because the problem remains unaddressed). Then you confront people and say, "I feel dismissed". This implies that the other person has done something bad to you. You are the victim, which puts them on the spot, feeling like the bad guy, and then they can't hear you, due to becoming too preoccupied with not wanting to be the bad guy. Communication is likely to stall there, unless they have the wherewithal (emotional intelligence) to keep their focus on you and your concerns.

Instead, you could say to yourself, "I feel dismissed". You take full responsibility for your feelings and validate them for yourself. When you are good at validating your own feelings and emotions (something you admit you really struggle with), you'll eventually find that you won't need to rely on others to do it for you.

What does it mean to feel dismissed? It means that you believe you're not being taken seriously, or something to that effect. Not very difficult to understand. What to do about it? The feeling of disharmony is a message to you that you have to do more to advocate for yourself and make space for yourself within the relationship/group (it is good Fe advice). There are many ways to advocate for yourself without stepping on others. If you choose the right way, in terms of honoring everyone involved, the feeling of being dismissed will dissipate naturally. If you choose the wrong way, in terms of honoring yourself but dishonoring others, you'll encounter the problem again, because you haven't addressed the underlying problem of you positioning yourself as the victim in every relationship conflict. Chronic victim mentality is often an indication that you depend too much on outside validation of your self-worth.

Unless you are stuck in a very toxic social environment, the majority of people are not malicious for no reason. Before accusing or blaming, are you absolutely certain that they INTENDED to dismiss you? If not, wouldn't it be wise to gather more info? For instance, you could ask something like, "Have you had the time to give my idea serious consideration?" No blaming, no battling, no victim-victimizer dynamic. Do you understand how communicating without blame, through genuine inquiry, avoids trapping the both of you in a vicious cycle of seeking emotional reparations? You give people the benefit of the doubt. You give people the chance to clarify or explain. You give yourself the chance to grasp the FULL picture so that you can make a more informed decision about what to do (based on their response to your question). But this presence of mind isn't possible when you can't accept your feelings/emotions and they run wild as a result.

One common misapplication of Ti is the tendency to jump to illogical conclusions or make up illogical stories about what is motivating people's negative behavior, all the while believing that you're being completely logical. It's a destructive way to deal with negative or disharmonious feelings. Once the false narrative infects your mind, you can't help but perceive the person as attacking you, even when they're not. This misuse of Ti is a major impediment to relationship building.

The problem with victim mentality is that you are hyperfocused on your perspective only, so you only have half the picture, which means making ill-informed decisions. If you are prone to Ti loop, you need to get to the bottom of why you're so quick to position yourself in the passive position of victim. A healthy relationship should be an equal partnership based on trust, which means that you should always try to 1) give people the benefit of the doubt, and 2) gather the facts of the situation before drawing a conclusion about what they intended or what kind of character they are.

If the fact of the matter is that the person really doesn't care about your feelings, then you know not to seek validation from them, and perhaps distance from them for your own good. Don't play around in toxic or abusive relationships. If the fact of the matter is that your perception of the situation doesn't match up with what they intended to say/do, then it's up to you to straighten out the situation in your mind before proceeding.

Trust your feelings, validate your feelings, but don't act blindly on them (i.e. without fully grasping what's happening with the other person). Figure out why exactly you're feeling what you're feeling, then take it up with the person in a way that addresses the root of the problem and in a way that doesn't immediately put them on the defensive. Conflict is sometimes unavoidable, but being more skilled at communicating your concerns will certainly reduce the amount of pain required to reach a resolution.

[plumrabbit]

DA Fandom and moving forward - Calling In vs. Calling Out

Hi everyone,

As a PoC member of the DA fandom, I felt I have been quiet for long enough on the issues that have been presented recently. I am not here to argue against or on behalf of any individual or group, I am only here to present some information that I hope will be helpful moving forward. This is a long post, but it’s my hope that if you read it and want to help contribute to making this place better for everyone, then you will be willing to try to put what is said here into practice.

Since I am a relatively small blog, I wanted to start with a little personal introduction that will segue into the topic at hand. My name is Liz (you can call me Jade too, that’s part of my middle name), and I am a mixed race, “ambiguously brown”, aspec person from Canada. I grew up around mostly other immigrant families, attended predominantly non-white schools that were run by mostly white admins, and completed my degrees at a very white university in a field that does not have much racial diversity. I have experienced racism first-hand many times including, but not limited to, name-calling/slurs, fetishization/exotification, being followed by staff, people second-guessing my name, jokes about hurting/killing people of my race, etc. as well as witnessing racism directed at my friends and peers. I know exactly what it’s like to be exhausted and feel unsafe or othered.  There is, however, one thing I need to point out about the multitude of instances of racism I’ve experienced - most of them were caused by ignorance, and not malice. Yes there are absolute assholes out there, but personally I can count those people I’ve encountered on one hand (I am not speaking for everyone, though). The vast majority of racism, bigotry and general harmful acts come from a place of ignorance, particularly on left-leaning tumblr (to clarify, this discussion is centered around well-meaning people and not the actual lost causes). When I say ignorance, I don’t mean a lack of education or intelligence, I mean not being able to see or understand an issue from another person’s perspective. It’s not quite the same as empathy either (where empathy means you are able to feel another person’s emotions), but fighting ignorance does require empathy. It also requires knowledge on the context of the specific situation, and that I believe is the crux of the problem.  I think the main reason why this is issue is particularly prevalent in the DA fandom is a result of the too-close-to-reality-to-ignore inspirations that have been confirmed by the devs. Yes, it’s fiction, but there are also a lot of people that see themselves (mis)represented in the themes and characters. And what one person sees as disrespectful, another person may not see at all. This can come full circle, too, for example: one person sees themselves and their trauma represented in a character, another person sees their race misrepresented in the same character. Person 1 uses the character as a comfort character or coping strategy. Person 2 thinks using that character in certain situations is disrespectful. Neither one sees the other’s perspective.  This is where intersectionality starts to come into play, and requires empathy and effort to address the intentions and emotions of the other person. Perhaps person 1 is LGBTQ+ and has been traumatized by being as such, and uses Dorian as a character to explore their trauma. Perhaps person 2 is Brown, and racism towards their people is their trigger, and thinks person 1 did not do Brown representation justice in their creative works.  Looking at this more specifically, person 1 may have put Dorian in sexual situations. Person 2 feels that the way it was conveyed was fetishist or exotified. Person 2 doesn’t know person 1′s intentions. Person 1 is not aware of certain descriptions that are racist (e.g. using food to describe a PoC’s skin tone). Perhaps person 1 was self-inserting and wanted to feel desirable on their own terms, but this gave person 2 that squick factor.  Now person 2 wants to address this issue, and I think this is where a call-in (not a call-out) would be appropriate. Here is a good infographic that compares the two: 

(Original source)

Note that there is quite a large difference in the language used. Going back to the above example, person 2 could privately message person 1 asking them why they chose to represent Dorian the way they did, with specific examples, and using call-in language (and I’m going to get back to this in a minute). 

The point of this post and infographic isn’t meant to tell marginalized groups how they should be bringing up issues (though it is a good guide if you are concerned about being polite, particularly to a first time offender), it’s intended to demonstrate to people unintentionally participating in harmful behaviour what a call-out vs. call-in looks like. For PoC and other marginalized groups, yes it does take emotional labour to use call-in language and to try to understand someone that wounded you (here is a good read that incorporates the concept of emotional labour for call-ins, and discusses asking yourself if you are ready to do so). For the people who have unintentionally hurt a marginalized individual or group, please understand that someone calling you in is not an attack, it’s a chance to explain why you expressed something the way you did. 

That being said, we may have reached another hurdle. What if you call someone in, and the person called in does not want to discuss the fact that they were inserting their personal trauma? I think this is where things start to get a bit messy, but I am of the opinion that if you’ve unintentionally triggered someone else’s trauma through ignorance present in your work, you owe it to them to at the very least mention that you were inserting your trauma, without having to bring up specifics (anyone is allowed to set boundaries). From there, the discussion can be hopefully be opened up to learning from each other, and reaching a consensus. Sometimes that consensus requires the creator to edit or remove their work. As an addendum, if you are a creator that unintentionally hurt someone with your work that didn’t have an ulterior personal motivation, it’s your responsibility to understand why what you did was wrong, apologize, remove the work and do better next time. I know some people cherish their OCs, but you are allowed to change your perspective and make adjustments to your character without erasing them entirely. Now we’ve reached another potential obstacle - what if an offender doesn’t respond to your call-in? First of all, ask yourself, did you actually call them in, or did you attack them? Here is a good opinion piece from a Black professor on this matter. I’d like to clarify that I am not trying to tone police, I am speaking as someone that used to go ham on ignorant people on Facebook and Reddit, and has since changed their tactics and has even gotten through to Trump supporters (some of this stems from my spiritual growth as well, but that is not the point here).  There is another issue to address here now as well - what if you have tried, repeatedly, to call someone in and they just don’t change their behaviour? Alright, then it’s probably time to call them out. But again, ask yourself, did you truly try to get through to them? If so, well, at the end of the day, some people are, unfortunately, lost causes. In summary, a call-in is meant to come from a place of wanting to help someone who has seemingly gone astray, because you are worried about their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours towards a marginalized group. You know that if they made a mistake it isn’t them, isn’t their heart, and you want them to be able to understand why what they did hurt others, and give them the chance to correct themselves. It comes from a place of love and acceptance, because you don’t want your friends to harbour negative beliefs.  Finally, I want to give a real example of this in action. My cousin is a photographic artist, and was recently called in to discuss the nature of one of her pieces. Her subjects are usually people, and they come from a wide variety of backgrounds. To help support BLM (she does a lot of work to help fight racism in general), she auctioned off one of her pieces. The subject of the piece happened to be a Black woman. She was called in by Black members of her art community to discuss how people bidding on an art piece that featured a person from a marginalized group perpetuated the ogling and monetization of Black people. She gave a response that acknowledged that her piece did perpetuate this issue, because she wanted to raise awareness of this historical harm, and recognized that her intention was ignorant of this perspective. The Black community also acknowledged that the piece itself was not harmful in any way, only that the surrounding issue that they were painfully aware of needed to be brought to light. The auction went ahead, and the piece sold for ~$1000, all of which was donated to BLM.  I think as a fandom we should be cognizant of when a work itself is harmful, or when the intention is harmful. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don’t. Both are talking points, and we should not be afraid to discuss them, but this requires respect from all parties. We also do need to be able to recognize what is strictly fiction, versus what has real-world impacts. My askbox is always open and my DMs are open to mutuals if you would like anything clarified or expanded upon. Or, if you’d just like to discuss a topic, vent, or have any questions about my own beliefs, you are welcome to reach out. I am happy to discuss anything, as long as there is mutual respect. 

[tenshindon]

if i think about tien fretting over chiaotzu and yamcha’s safety one more time i think i might explode so For Once i’m writing out my thoughts in the main part of the post :)))) under the cut of course :))))))

We all know that Tien’s concerned over Chiaotzu’s well-being all the time, like that’s a defining part of their relationship. Even when they’re already dead Tien’s still horrified at the prospect of Chiaotzu dying during their spar with Piccolo. However it isn’t until Resurrection F that we’re given a notice that Tien’s concerned over Yamcha as well. Whether this was a development exclusive to Super or it’s just been a background thing that’s only now manifesting in the subtlest of ways, we will never know <3 Either that or my memory of Everything Ever is very hazy <3 however I will talk about it anyways because my brain is decaying as we speak because holy shit 

Like through Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, we repeatedly see Yamcha extending his heart out to Tien: Yamcha repeatedly pleading with Tien to reconsider learning the mafuba, Yamcha granting Tien reassurance before he goes off to fight Tao and subsequently understanding Tien needs time alone after the fight, Yamcha wishing to stay with Tien and Chiaotzu in the afterlife, and so on. From these instances alone, we know that Yamcha is certainly more open about his affection and care towards his friends (which is a whole post I can make on its own, Yamcha’s incredibly emotionally intelligent and it’s so good).

However this type of care isn’t exactly reciprocated towards Yamcha- or not as obviously, anyways. Which isn’t all too surprising; pardon Chiaotzu and especially by Z, Tien’s very reserved and generally just keeps to himself and Chiaotzu. 

However, as aforementioned, Tien remarks that he left Yamcha and Chiaotzu behind away from the fight. It’s a rather innocuous line when you think of it: on the surface, Tien’s just clarifying- well, he just left Yamcha and Chiaotzu behind because he feels it’s too dangerous for them. But then you have to ask the question: since when did Tien have authority over what Yamcha did? And why was Yamcha so willing to listen? Was Yamcha just not clued in on what was happening and Tien figured he wouldn’t tell him? 

Chiaotzu is understandable; despite Chiaotzu being just five years younger than Tien and thus being in his early 40′s by Super, Tien still treats him like a younger brother and as his guardian. So when he so casually adds Yamcha to this- to just so naturally say “I left Chiaotzu and Yamcha behind. The danger seems too much for them,” it just really makes you think a bit. Because Tien made a conscious decision to leave Yamcha behind for his well-being.

In this instance Tien is putting Yamcha on the same- or at least similar level as Chiaotzu, someone we’re all very well aware that he would literally kill someone for, even if that someone is himself. The meta explanation for this could very well just be Toei didn’t want to bother giving Yamcha and Chiaotzu anything to do during the movie, and since they were already perceived as the weakest among the cast it was much easier to leave them out of it entirely (though that’s a rant for another day). The issue that arises however is that Toei accidentally (or maybe intentionally) adds a layer to Tien and Yamcha’s relationship, or at least shows us that Tien does care about Yamcha’s safety and shows some type of growth to Tien. As I talked about before, Tien is reserved and doesn’t wear his heart on his sleeve- so for an action like this to occur on his part, it demonstrates a great leap in his development as a person and opening up.

And the thing about this is that it’s not entirely out of Tien’s character to leave people behind to protect them- it’s completely in character, in a way. During the Saiyan Saga, Tien initially attempts to dissuade Chiaotzu from attending the Saiyan fight, forming a similar excuse as that it would be too dangerous for him. With an instance like this, it shows us that if Tien isn’t confident he can protect Chiaotzu on the battlefield, the most he can do is make sure he’s at home and assuredly safe. He does this again during the Cell Saga by leaving Chiaotzu at Roshi’s abode, once again asserting that it would be too dangerous for Chiaotzu.

During Z Tien doesn’t show this type of concern towards Yamcha, which isn’t wrong or even irrational. Amidst Z, Yamcha was more than capable of taking care of himself and looking after his own back; Tien didn’t reason it would make sense for him to look after him. Not only that, but Tien and Chiaotzu’s relationship is just seemingly more natural to him: he’s known Chiaotzu since he was a child, it makes sense for his care to be more open and at the ready. Tien knows Chiaotzu and his boundaries, and vice versa.

The important thing about Tien though, as I already mentioned right- he’s reserved. Coupled with the fact he was raised by Shen and Tao of all people, it’s probably hard for him to make deep connections with people, let alone traditionally express care. That’s why Chiaotzu is such an anchor for him: he’s really all he has at the end of the day, if not himself. And he’s already demonstrated he’d rather die than live without his brother.

Shifting to Yamcha, it’s... a topic that really should be touched on more. When Yamcha dies during the Saiyan Saga, the anime offers a particular reaction shot on Tien. It’s not much all things considered, but it does allow the viewer to be able to identify that Yamcha’s death had somewhat of a significant impact on Tien specifically, as he’s the only one with an isolated reaction shot (which is especially telling considering Krillin was friends with Yamcha longer and logically would be more devastated and more deserving of a singular shot. He gets this, however by actually checking on Yamcha’s body but I could touch on that whole topic another time). Later on in the Cell saga, Tien is subjected to watching Yamcha die (or be on the precipice of dying) again via Dr. Gero; Tien is the first of the Z Fighters to show up to the scene, thus giving us another Tien-specific reaction shot.

Obviously, Tien’s reactions to Yamcha and Chiaotzu differ severely; we’ve already gone over why Chiaotzu has a greater bond to Tien, and despite the friendship Yamcha and Tien have been able to build over the years it would be near impossible for Yamcha to ever be totally on the same level as Chiaotzu. But at the very least and looking at the Resurrection F dialogue, Yamcha’s deadly experiences have had a lasting impact on Tien.

It wouldn’t be improbable to assume Tien suffered from guilt from Chiaotzu dying during the Saiyan Saga- he even warned Chiaotzu about coming along, so being helpless to protect his brother as he watched him be bashed before he ultimately kills himself could have been certainly traumatizing. Chiaotzu’s death in the Saiyan Saga, in my opinion, is more devastating than his King Piccolo death.

Against King Piccolo Chiaotzu was killed swiftly, and he was at least able to leave a body behind. Of course, there definitely comes feelings of guilt at the fact Tien was the one who instructed Chiaotzu to get into danger in the first place- which is probably why he’s more open to the idea of letting Chiaotzu sit a fight out in the future. During the Saiyan Saga, Chiaotzu is thrashed over and over again and rammed against mountains while Tien is found in a similar position of being physically incapable of protecting him. The whole display definitely lasts much longer than the King Piccolo incident, and it’s far more agonizing as Chiaotzu telepathically communicates with Tien during this. All for it to culminate in Chiaotzu uselessly sacrificing himself, Tien even hallucinating Chiaotzu amidst delirium.

Tien best shows his care through action and protecting those he loves- he’s just incapable of verbally saying he cares and thus best does it through service. For Tien to implicitly order Yamcha to stay away from the fight with Chiaotzu, it shows us that he harbors similar feelings of fear, guilt, and care that he does towards Chiaotzu towards Yamcha as well. Tien does his best to keep Chiaotzu away from fights because he’s afraid of losing him again because he wasn’t strong enough to protect him- it’s a fair-enough bet to wager this fear extends towards losing Yamcha as well.

Which not only makes Tien’s underwhelming reaction to Earth blowing up so fuckinnnn aggravating like oh my god like fucking he actually kept his loved ones behind and they still died can you imagine the fuckin turmoil and angst jesus christ im going insane Also this is why I needed a fucking scene of these three knuckleheads talking about chiaotzu and yamcha staying behind like toei im begging you throw me a bone LMAOOOO

[ask-the-twst-girls]

Interactions with the twst!girls Part 1: Rosia Rosehearts

Quick note: I decided to start this series just to clarify how the muses in this blog in would interact with their fellow NRC students, or at least the core cast. This list will be rather long so I will be making this a series. This will be rather long, but anyway, Let's get Started!

Rosia Rosehearts

General Headcanons

Being a 2nd-year transfer from Golden Crown University (Girls version of RSA), Rosia was very off-spoken and polite when she first entered NRC.

Her concerning nature has basically caused everyone to see her as either as an older sister or a Mom-figure, so she's used to it.

In her opinion, everyone in her dorm is her family and she does her best to look out for everyone. Especially as a 3rd-year

Her Unique Magic is pretty handy and she can play therapist when she needs to. She doesn't do it all the time though and in Heartslaybul, it's basically an unspoken rule that if something is wrong, or you have a problem, you go to Rosia.

Heartslaybul Relations

We'll start with Riddle since he's practically king here (and it's his B-Day LOL).

Rosia and Riddle are blood-related as Cousins, so they are very close. Riddle doesn't like it when Rosia coddles her too much, so she knows the boundaries.

Only when they are behind closed doors is she allowed to hug him, give him treats or whatever she normally does when it's just the two of them.

Rosia is extremely protective of Riddle, since she knows first-hand how bad his side of the family is

Alright, next we'll go to Trey. Rosia knows him because he's friends with Riddle. She often plays messenger because of the "incident" that happened when Riddle and Trey were kids (i.e: getting caught by Riddle's mother)

As a result, if Trey has anything he wants to give Riddle, it's usually through Rosia.

Between the two of them, Rosia sees him as a brother, almost. She's glad that he's also worried about Riddle and that she doesn't have to bear that burden alone.

Loves it when he bakes Pear cakes, one of her favorite treats.

Alrighty, with Cater, I will warn you ahead of time that there is Canon x OC content ahead, so if you don't want to hear it, I suggest you move on.

Cater basically fell in love with Rosia at first sight. He claimed that he reminded her of Roselia, the painting mentioned in the game. Of course, it took a while for Rosia to feel the same way about Cater, as she wasn't one normally for Romance.

During her first (2nd-year) year in NRC, she treated Cater like a brother. However, when she entered her third year, it wasn't long before she started to have some feelings for him.

Despite his phone addiction, she still found a way to like him. She does encourage Cater to take a few minutes away from his phone, but it doesn't always work. It doesn't bother her though, as he's pretty open about what he does.

Doesn't mind whenever he wants to post selfies of their activities.

When they announced they were dating, it took Trey holding Riddle back to keep him from beheading Cater on the spot. I mean, this is his cousin we're talking about XD

He eventually got used to it, with some help from Rosia.

Now onto the Idiot duo. Rosia refers to Ace and Deuce as the "Dorm Brothers" as to her, they have a pretty brotherly rivalry. Ergo "Dorm Brothers".

No matter how many times Ace tried to remind her that he had an older brother, Rosia is still pretty set on it.

She seems particularly worried about the mischief they get into. Not because of the dorm's reputation, but mostly because she doesn't want Riddle to bust a vein yelling at them.

Ace is rather annoyed by Rosia and her worrying but Deuce respects her a lot. Mostly because she's an upper-classman.

Savannaclaw Relations

Alright, let's move on to Savannaclaw. In general, Rosia tends to stay away from there, due to the unsavory nature of many of the Beastmen (not saying they're perverts but what do you expect from a bunch of rowdy delinquents?)

With Leona, Rosia doesn't like how lazy he is. She has come across him napping a few times or just slacking off in general.

She will scold him whenever he is overworking Ruggie or not respecting him. She doesn't even flinch whenever he yells back at her.

Her Secret: Whenever he gets into an unreasonable mood, she always imagines him as her aunt (Riddle's mother) and is able to stay calm, as opposed to crying or running away like some of the other girls have.

Leona always calls her the "Nagging Red-Head" and claims that she's worse then Riddle, which she doesn't care about.

For her, it's on sight and she won't hesitate to remind Leona to get his ass to class or even do more to help Ruggie. She dislikes Slackers in general and no insults are enough to get through to her.

With Ruggie, Rosia will not hesitate to help him if she sees that he needs it. Especially if it has to do with Leona. After all, whenever she sees the poor guy struggling, she can't help it.

Will sometimes give Ruggie homemade donuts made by Trey to help his mood. Even when Trey doesn't bake, Rosia will buy him some from the store or just any treat to ease his mind.

Will often offer advice on how to deal with Leona (based on personal experience) or tips on a system to help keep his room neater.

Ruggie sees her as an older sister (like a lot of the other students) and appreciates her efforts to help. Even if it doesn't look very manly, at least there's donuts in it.

Rosia is the same way with Taai, as she sees them both as one and the same.

Since Taai struggled with being the only girl in Savannaclaw and Leona rejected her as a member of the Magift Club, Rosia was more then happy to play a part in the Female Team.

Since then, Rosia is happy to see Taai more confident and will help if the situation calls for it.

With Jack, Rosia heard through the grapevine that he had a past with Vil and their friendship started when she started asking him for advice (reasons will become relevant later)

Jack has heard about her from Taai and Ruggie and even saw her helping students on occasion. Seeing her also scold trouble-making students for causing disturbances, even when they retaliated also bought his respect.

He respects her as an Upper-classman, a girl and even a disciplinarian (since he saw her from the incident earlier)

Rosia in turn is secretly in love with Jack's Fluffy tail. (It's Fuzzy! What can I say!!!??) One of her secret desires is to pet it one time, but she knows Jack wouldn't like it, so she refrains. After all, you gotta respect boundaries

Octavinelle Relations

Rosia is very well aware of the rumors surrounding the Azul and the Tweels and after seeing first-hand the experience that her fellow dorm members (such as Ace and Deuce) go through when they sign a contract, then she knows better then to fall into the same trap.

Azul sees her an a potential client (like he does with a lot of the students) and does his dangdest to get Rosia to sign a contract. Thankfully, the red-head is too smart for that.

He's kinda jealous of her Unique Magic and the effect it has on People. As such, he aspires to have that ability in order to calm agitated people into signing contracts (convincing, amirite?)

Sadly, he has to bide his time. After all, some Roses have Thorns

Jade simply respects Rosia and her choice not to sign a contract. After all, it's her loss.

He admires her ability to stay calm in difficult situations that most people would be freaking out in. He wondered at first if that was the same with all girls, but later experiences proved to be a no to his answer

Rosia in turn admires how stoic Jade can be and sometimes remarks that it's almost as if he is a butler (*cough* Sebastian *cough*).

Even though Azul has asked him to use his Unique Magic to try and get his hands on Rosia's deepest, darkest secret, he refuses. After all, he only gets one shot at using his U.M. If he were to use it on her, then it has to be something good.

With Floyd, Rosia is able to navigate his mood swings. Since her Unique Magic involves emotions, then this is right up her ally.

She is often very gentle whenever Floyd is in a good mood. Afterall, she'd be doing Azul and Jade a disservice if she upset him in any way. And besides, if Floyd is happy, then Riddle is happy (LOL)

Floyd finds some of the songs that she hums at times very cheerful and asks her to teach her some of the words, which she happily obliges to.

Helps his mood a great deal when he hums them while at work in the lounge, even if it confuses the shit out of Azul and Jade.

With Scylla, Rosia treats her like a little sister. She also makes sure to heck that Azul and the Tweels don't torture her in any way. After all, she's one of the younger students.

Rosia will also scold them if Scylla complains to her about working overtime, as she's not a huge fan of child labor laws.

Scylla likes hanging out in Heartslaybul and is already good friends with Deuce, so Rosia isn't surprised whenever she comes over.

Scarabia Relations

Rosia is generally very respectful of Students form Scarabia. She can relate to their problem-solving abilities and their knack for staying calm in hard situations.

With Kalim, the biggest ray of sunshine in this school, Rosia gets the impression that he's too pure for this world. Heck, she's surprised that he even got into NRC to begin with.

As much as she likes Kalim, she feels he's better off in RSA, since he doesn't even seem like the type of student to attend NRC. But she doesn't say anything out loud. It's partially out of worry for him and concern for Jamil.

Other then that, she is able to tolerate his extrovert nature and is able to keep up with his eager banter.

Kalim himself likes Rosia a lot and sees her like an older sister. He enjoys being around her and always listens whenever she gives him advice. Even if he forgets it half the time.

With Jamil, Rosia is able to sympathize with his position with Kalim. In her own way, she does worry and is willing to listen to him rant about his dislike of Kalim.

You would think that this makes her interacting with Kalim, hard, but it doesn't. Rosia is able to tell that these are only emotions Jamil is feeling and that's what's leading him to think about this. She fully supports his ambition to travel the world upon graduation.

Jamil won't admit it, but he appreciates Rosia worrying and always accepts her offers to take a step back to address his emotions to her.

With Shi and Amee, they see Rosia as an Obstacle. With their own ambitions on getting closer to Jamil and Kalim, they think that Rosia is trying to one-up them.

As such, they regard her with hostility and often avoid her at all chances. Mostly because she's an upper-classman and she could get them into trouble. Plus, they aren't always in the mood to hear her scold them.

With Sahara, Rosia often checks up on her, seeing as Sahara is related to Briar, who is a member of Trad. Dance club.

Even though it's for Briar, Sahara can get easily annoyed by Rosia's probing and asking. Even so, she doesn't hesitate to admit anything she is asked about, mostly because she's afraid Briar will come after her later.

Pomefiore Relations

With Pomefiore, Rosia is well-acquainted with many female students from that dorm, as some of them are in Trad. Dancing Club, or she's worked them on some of the projects Vil has asked her assistance on.

This is where Jack's advice on dealing with Vil comes in handy, as Vil and Rosia have a very love/hate relationship. Rosia isn't too keen on dealing with famous people. Mostly because popularity isn't something she's too into.

She does admire Vil's ability to act and perform, but his strict working style kinda puts her off. With him criticizing people left and right, she doesn't know how people are still confident afterwards.

Vil in turn has heard about Rosia and her calm nature. From afar, he doesn't think she's much to look at, but he has to admit she knows how to calm a room down.

When Trad. Dancing was struggling to find a place to meet, he was the one who stepped forward to offer Pomefiore's ballroom, but on one condition: That Rosia's club would assist the Movie Appreciation club when they needed extra people. After all, you can't go wrong when you hire dancers, amirite?

With Rook, Rosia is very very very wary. With some of the tales she's heard from Pomefiore girls, she's wondering what Rook's true motives are.

Even with Rook being polite with her, Rosia does her best to be polite, though she can't help but feel secretly unsettled.

Rook in turn admires Rosia for her level-headed nature. He often vocally admires her when he sees her say or do something. Vil sometimes questions whether he has a crush on her or not.

With Epel, Rosia worries about him a lot. After all, with Vil's strict nature and Rook's stalker tendencies, how has he not gone insane?

Epel does appreciate it when Rosia stands up for Vil and scolds him for all the tough things he's put him through. After all, you can't expect a country boy like Epel to know Fancy Folk talk.

Rosia doesn't stop Epel when he runs from his duties, but she doesn't help him either. In her opinion, it's out of her hands and she's not going to get involved.

With Annabelle, Rosia has worked alongside her when Trad. Dancing volunteers for Vil's Projects in his club. She's admires Annabelle's sewing skills and is open to learn so that she can fix torn clothes in Heartslaybul.

Annabelle likes Rosia as well and respects her an an upper-classman. She also secretly asks Rosia for dance lessons, as she is very clumsy when it comes to dancing and doesn't want to embarrass herself in front of her dormmates.

Unlike her younger sister, Danielle is a different case. Haughty and dismissive, Danielle often looks down on people she deems unfit to be students of NRC and Rosia just so happens to be one of those people.

Even with someone as crude as Danielle looking down on her, Rosia is still able to hold her own against her and even put her in her place a few times.

As such, Danielle dislikes her and tends to either avoid her, or talk crap about Rosia, even when she can't come up with any truthful dirt to spread on her.

Ignihyde Relations

Rosia doesn't talk much to any of the Ignihyde students, as they are normally shut away in their dorm and dislike any social interaction. While she can understand their case of social anxiety, she does worry about their health and mental well-being.

Rosia hardly interacts with Idia, but when she does, she makes it a point to ask how he's doing. Since Idia hardly makes any public appearances, even at dorm meetings, Rosia often finds herself playing messenger, delivering important papers that Riddle would like to give Idia if he didn't have a case of Anthropophobia (which he might have. I dunno???)

Idia himself sees her as a "Normie" as he often calls many other students. He wants to get annoyed at the fact that Rosia is even trying to interact with him, but with her Unique magic on sometimes, he just can't.

All he can do is resign himself to the fact that if you're not there in person, then a messenger is gonna come. So for now, he just puts up with Rosia's efforts and carries on with life.

Ortho is the only Ignihyde student that Rosia is close with. She adores him and is very sisterly to him whenever they cross paths.

Rosia can sympathize with Ortho's frustration over Idia and his refusal to leave his room. All she can do is explain that some people just don't like social interaction and that it's hard for them to deal with it.

Unlike what she does with other students, Rosia doesn't confront Idia, because she knows that it won't do any good. To her, it works on some people, but not on others. All she can do is just be polite and carry on.

With Clotho, Rosia worries greatly for her. Since Clotho came from an abusive household, Rosia understands all too well the troubles of strict parenting.

She's glad Laechesis is around to correct Clotho on behavioral issues, but will jump in and help if the Fate of the Past isn't around to help out.

Laechesis isn't around at School much, so Rosia has barely seen her, much less interacted with her. But the one or two times they have, Rosia is pleasantly surprised to see that she's not as introverted as her dorm members.

Laechesis in turn appreciates Rosia's help on Clotho and her issues, even if she doesn't show it.

With Atropes, Rosia knows her as Briar's younger sister. Not only that, but she pities the Fate of the Future because of all that she went through in the span of 2 years in NRC.

From getting your hair turned into some weird fiery form to getting both your legs melted off, it's a wonder that Atropes is still sane. If you can even call it that.

Rosia finds herself puzzled at Atropes' trolling nature. From Rickrolling the Academy to sending weird memes to random students, she doesn't understand it.

Atropes herself likes to keep Rosia guessing. After all, what fun is it if it's not trolling?

Diasomnia Relations

Like Ignihyde, Rosia hasn't seen much of Diasomnia, even of it's leader. But she's still respectful towards them, as she knows they are a feared dorm.

When Rosia first met Malleus, she could easily tell that with his Fae Heritage and reputation, he's one of the more famous students. As such, she's polite to him at every chance meeting.

She's not scared or put off by him, but she still gives him his space, as she can tell that he's often off in his own world, something she's learned not to disturb.

But when he's up to talk, she's happy to lend an ear. Even if it's him talking about gargoyles and his Gao Gao Dragon-kun. She thinks it's sweet that he's learning what it's like to live a high-school student.

Malleus in turn is also polite and very appreciative that Rosia doesn't fear him. He enjoys her company and thinks of her as a good friend.

Rosia has heard from Trey about Lilia and his strange tendencies. She's also heard... questionable rumors about his cooking from Briar.

From the few times they've met, Rosia is taken aback by Lilia's insistence that he is way older then her, despite his young appearance. But Fae are Fae, what do you expect?

Lilia himself finds himself intrigued by Rosia and her willingness to help and understand others. He's met a lot of people in his life, some of them like her, but everyone is different, and Rosia is no exception.

He will often talk his old man Shakespearian speech, something that Rosia finds herself amused by.

Rosia is often worried about Silver and his Narcolepsy. On the off-chance she sees him dozing off, she's quick to wake him up.

The red-head sometimes is surprised by seeing the little critters that gather around Silver and as such, she finds it adorable.

Silver, though he doesn't know Rosia very well, still respects her as an upper-classman. After all, Lilia taught him to respect his seniors.

Rosia knows Briar very well, as she's a member of her club, Trad. Dancing. As a result, the two of them are good mutual friends, despite the class and age difference.

Rosia is also amazed by Briar's ability to Irish dance, especially at a high speed.

Briar respects Rosia and often learns a lot from her as an upperclassman. She often comes to Rosia with problems that she needs advice on (some of which Lilia gives terrible advice on, no offense old man).

Sebek, as loud as he is, can often startle Rosia by his boisterous attitude. Since Rosia doesn't like yelling in general, she does her best to avoid the crocodile-man.

Even asking him to be quiet is a lot for her to handle and she just steers clear of him.

Sebek himself sometimes feels insulted that Rosia doesn't like interacting with him, but doesn't complain about it directly to her. Mostly out of respect for his seniors.

On the off-hand he complains to Briar or Silver, he's either met with silence (Silver fell asleep) or Briar scolding him and telling him to maybe shut up once in his life.

Staff

Since they're all teachers, Rosia respects them all to a T. However, some of the attitudes from some teachers are off-putting and try as hard as she might to be polite, she can't help but mentally die on the inside from some cases.

As much as she respects Crowley, Rosia can't help but feel irritated at his seldom unwillingness to act like a headmaster. She won't talk crap about him, but she won't exactly say good things either.

Rosia dislikes Vargas in general, partially because he doesn't exactly treat the girls as equally as the boys and also because she's horrified that he eats raw eggs (I mean, you're gonna get Salmonella, dude!)

Rosia likes and respects Crewel and wonders at times how he manages to stay sane in the midst of all the general disorder and chaos. Even in Alchemy, she wonders how he hasn't died from insanity yet.

Rosia is friendly with Sam and the two of them can find a lot to chat about. From the weather to whatever weird goods he's selling, the two of them have a great time just chatting it out.

Rosia has seen Trien in action and she's not exactly on board with his stern nature. Just seeing him drone on in class and unintentionally put students to sleep, along with harsh punishments, Rosia can understand why Annabelle wants little to do with her father. She also regards him as a grumpy cat woman (LOL)

Well, that's all for now! Next up is Taai Onheil so be on the lookout for that! Hope you liked my general headcanons on interactions, so with that, I'll see you in the next post!

[mr-entj]

You've mentioned how you easily cut people out of your life a few times now. You are so certain of yourself and your choices whereas, after cutting many people out of my life as well, I have to ask. People make mistakes and can hurt you sometimes, but if everyone is flawed, how do you know which ones to cut out without leaving yourself alone in a lonely way? I ask because my own choices have been feeling muddled for a while when I used to be confident and with no second thought.

Related answers:

I have problems figuring out when I'm using black and white thinking ("this person is a waste of my time, cut contact immediately") and committing myself to stand my ground. i always feel like I'm being too stubborn and unreasonable. how would you face that?

What is your internal checklist for friends?

How do you deal with friends who project their personal weaknesses into your relationship? Are you willing to forgive jealousy, insecurity disguised as competition etc?

To ensure we didn’t misunderstand each other, I want to clarify that “easily cut people out of my life” doesn’t mean I cut them out for minor mistakes, it means that once they make major violations the process of removing them is swift and drama-free. I’m not cutting people out of my life because they like strawberry milk instead of chocolate milk, they don’t read my blog, or they think cats are better than dogs-- I’m cutting them out for severe breaches in my core values (infidelity, disloyalty, malicious sabotage, etc.). I’m not into public, emotional and dramatic shouting matches, scream fests, and social media meltdowns. When the time comes to cut, I explain to the person exactly what they did wrong so there’s no confusion or doubt, why I’m taking this specific action, and (depending on the person) I’ll wish them well before I move on with my life. There’s no perfect formula that if A happens, then you should react with B because anything involving relationships, friendships, and other human beings is an art and not a science. 

The reason I’m confident in my decisions is rooted in how I manage the friendships in my life:

1. I have clearly defined and communicated boundaries. I’m aware of what is and isn’t acceptable to me, I’ve identified my values, and I’ve set my limits. When someone crosses my boundaries, I figure out why they did so and then I look at the entire relationship as a whole to understand patterns of behavior before I take action. Sometimes the issue is that our boundaries and standards are unrealistic, other times the issue is that our boundaries and standards are realistic but everyone around us can’t meet them. Figure out which is your issue. If it’s the first one, talk to many people and get their feedback to calibrate your expectations. If it’s the second one, change your environment. This is how I figure out the difference. 

2. I set realistic expectations based on the person I’m dealing with. There’s a quote: “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” The same thing applies to people. 

For example, I have a friend named Kevin. Kevin is a nice guy with a good heart and a brilliant mind for sociology, psychology, anthropology, pop culture, and technology. Whenever we catch up, we talk for hours about all sorts of social science topics and bounce ideas off each other. In my friendship with Kevin, I get rewarding intellectual stimulation and great insight on some of my startup ideas. However, Kevin is hopelessly unreliable and flaky, he can’t manage money to save his life, and he has long bouts of unemployment due to laziness and inaction. Based on what I know about Kevin, he’s a great conversation partner and trusted friend, but he would be a disaster roommate or colleague at work. I adjusted my expectations of Kevin based on his personality without compromising my boundaries and we’ve been good friends for over 20 years without many issues. I don’t expect everyone to be great at everything for me, I expect them to be exactly who they are and great at their own strengths.

3. I’m very selective when it comes to choosing close friends which means I don’t need to cut many people out because I don’t let many people in to begin with. I don’t want to be friends with everyone I meet and I’m not too concerned about being liked by everyone who meets me, being acquaintances is just fine, or even less than that. I’d rather keep my door tightly shut and let people into my home one by one only after meeting stringent (but realistic) standards than to swing my door wide open, let everyone off the street into my home, and then have to kick a bunch of people out. 

4. My trust takes a long time and a lot of effort to earn. Becoming friends with me is like playing an RPG video game with multiple levels. As time goes by and we cross new milestones, our friendship levels up and you unlock new perks and new buffs from me. You don’t get all the perks and all the buffs at the beginning of the game. The more I get to know you, the more I interact with you, the more you prove to me that you can be trusted, then the more you get from me such as my time, my loyalty, my knowledge, my connections, etc. The opposite is also true: the more you screw up, the more levels you lose, and the more perks and buffs are taken away. There are many steps before someone is cut out of my life so when it finally happens it’s never a surprise and always after warnings have been given.

5. I love myself. I believe that I deserve happiness and peace of mind in my life without having to compromise my deeply held values or core identity. I will keep searching for the right people to surround myself with until I find them. There’s no such thing as loneliness because I don’t believe you own people forever-- you experience them temporarily in the time you have together. When you’ve outgrown the relationship and it no longer brings happiness, I know it’s time to move on.

[thedreadvampy]

(just to clear it up, tho ik this is dumb but, the pan thing wasn’t intended to be provocatory, i just recently saw other things and lots of,, panphobia happening within the mechs fanbase and am trying to gauge how safe myself and any of my friends who are pan are within that fanbase, both online and in person. that’s all! im sorry for any weirdness or stress, I should’ve thought that through, things get weird online, not an excuse just— sorry)

I appreciate the apology/clarification. Hopefully this whole conversation has helped you make a decision about whether this is a space you feel safe. HOWEVER (and I know you know this which is why you've got back in touch) it would have been useful to have some context for that in the ask, and even with that context

I. Hm. I'm not sure how to put this without coming across as a bit of a dick? To me it feels like a lot to be, uhhh, value tested? effectively at random (I literally haven't been part of a single conversation about pan/bi IDs in the Mechs fandom that I can recall prior to this) in order to assess whether I met the standards you, somebody I do not know and may or may not have interacted with, have set (and I don't know what those standards are! there are, as I said, people from all over the Discourse Spectrum who would consider any given answer to that question hurtful/offensive!)

so while I appreciate that your intentions are good and self-protective and I am not trying to have a go at you, it's a bit chunk of emotional work to dump an extremely live, open-ended question on someone randomly (especially in an online climate where, as you say, people can be real weird and intense about stuff and giving the Wrong Answer to the wrong person can open you up to a lot of harassment). It invites a lot of anxiety (oh no have I said something to hurt someone? why has this been sent to me personally? what DO I think about this? what are the consequences if I have an answer you don't like, or an answer you might agree with but I phrase it poorly and dig myself in deeper? what effect will answering this ask have on other people following me - will they be hurt by what I say? if I don't answer will that be seen as evidence that I Can't Be Trusted?) and like...ok I DO have CPTSD and anxiety so I'm probably overthinking a bit more than you might reasonably have expected, but I do think it's a lot to put on someone to drag them into Discourse they aren't already involved in.

Also like this specific situation you're describing feels......hm...very impersonal? Like, I'm entirely willing to get drawn into Discourse about something I've Actually Done. like I didn't have FUN when I sparked White Jon Discourse but I don't resent it - it was a meaningful reaction to something I had said and not really thought about, and there was something for me to change in that. If I'd made a post that had made you think I might have an active issue with pan people, that would be one thing, but to ask me to pass a purity test because OTHER PEOPLE SOMEWHERE ELSE did something hurtful? That's not...about me? That's, not to put too fine a point on it, Not My Problem. This is where I'm concerned I come across as a dick, but honestly to me there's a really big gulf between "something I saw on your blog worried me so can you clarify your position" and "somebody somewhere is bigoted so I'm going to need you to prove you're not." Especially coming from an anonymous source with no context (and I do understand why you anonymised it! If you're worried about feeling safe then I totally get the need to do this in a way that doesn't come back to you!) there's a real responsibility gap - I am responsible for answering to you, a stranger, because of a situation I haven't (to my knowledge) been involved in? There's nothing for me to do, change, learn or gain in there, it's entirely about you testing me for reasons that have very little to do with me, and idk that sits really poorly with me. I would prefer that it had been about something careless I said that was harmful, because at least then I would have been able to do something about it. I WANT to be questioned and called up on things I assert or stuff I do. But I am NOT responsible for others' actions or opinions. I am sorry that you feel unsafe in the Mechs fandom, that's awful. But the reality is that I don't have any responsibility for your experience of The Mechs Fandom - I have responsibility for my own actions and opinions and nothing else, and if there's something in my actions or opinions, however small, pinging alarm bells then yeah, talk to me about it, ask me about it. But if it's a concern you have about the environment we're both moving through (I really don't engage much with fandom beyond what's on here) then like...we can talk about it but it's YOUR concern. I don't have any obligation to answer for it because it's not mine? Does that make sense? I don't mean to imply that you feeling safe isn't important, because it definitely is - it's just that when deciding who specifically is someone you feel safe around, the onus is on you. You're the person who knows what's harmful to you, you're the person who is being affected - asking for support, information or behaviour change is fine, but you're not entitled to demand that everyone around you actively accommodates you. When you come to somebody to change or to help support you, that's totally fair IF IT'S ABOUT THEM. If you messaged me and said "some of what you've been posting seems to tap into X ideas and there's been a lot of people in Mechs fandom throwing those ideas around lately, what's the deal there" then that would be fair enough and a lot less overwhelming than turning up in a random inbox to yell "QUICK WHAT'S YOUR STANCE ON PANSEXUALITY", you know? I still wouldn't be obligated to respond but I could reasonably be expected to connect it to things that are My Problem (how do I act in Mechs fandom? What opinions do my posts imply, and do I stand by that?) and make a decision about whether/how to respond. To me it's about working with vs imposing on.

Idk sorry this is a very long and emotional response, this kind of stuff taps into some emotional baggage for me via a vis taking on responsibility for the world and I'm working hard to establish boundaries in myself between My Problem and Other People's Problem, but really it's a bit dense and thinky so I'm sorry that this is a bit incoherent and comes across as a telling-off.

[funkymbtifiction]

My Enneagram quest: Gut fix edition

It has taken me ages to be certain of my core and tritype, but I think I am finally here. Thought of sharing my own Enneagram journey with you folks, in the hopes that it might be hopeful to someone. I am going to do this as a three parter, so I can go through my discovery process in as much detail as possible.

(Note: Hermione's core is a 1w2. Mine is just a fix, to my core.)

As an Ne dom, I could easily imagine myself as every type save for 3, 8 and 9. I have always been a passionate, opinionated person who freely embraced self expression. Therefore, self - erasure of any sort was obviously out of the question, plus sloth has never been one of my principle vices. I have had boundary issues with people all my life, which my 8 fixed mother keeps pointing out to me. She says that I am far too lenient with people and that's why I "suffer". However my readiness to anger was something which still had me on the fence between 1 and 8.

As a child, I remember getting angry because some of my classmates were kicking a dog. I was so speechless with rage; I just sat down and started crying, while throwing rocks at them. Also, 8s seemed ballsy and that's something I couldn't relate to at all. Even so, I am not a moralizing sort. I don't get off on punishing people for breaking rules or telling them off. I possess no strong internal moral framework. I was still not sure. Besides, most 1 descriptions seemed so...dull and uptight I couldn't see myself in that at all. So I pegged myself as a weak 8 fixer (even though I doubted it as I have never been an active power seeker, or concerned myself with it as long as I had my autonomy). The real breakthrough came about when I posted on PersonalityCafe aka PerC. Someone commented that I was a 3 because the presentation seemed so perfect. The words if I remember correctly were "It seems crafted, and so polished". Right down to the punctuation. So formal for even a casual post on a typology forum. After much argument, I accepted it somewhat reluctantly because of my own misconceptions regarding the types. Intuitively though, I knew that it just didn't fit right. The Misidentification between 1 and 3 article on The Enneagram Institute website was spot on. It explained all the 3-ish elements of my writing style. It helped me understand the key difference between 1 and 3, in that 3 wanted it to merely look perfect while 1 had to BE perfect in order to meet high internal standards. I remembered my work self and that was definitely very much in line with 1. I thought about how my junior told me I used to be short with her about her sloppy performance when I was angry/stressed. Throughout the earlier years, I was an over achieving, perfection seeking child/person. At my job, I was fairly good at handling details (though it stressed me out awfully because of inferior Si) every now and then. I have thrown out many pieces of writing because they seemed like cold painted corpses. Perfect, beautiful and absolutely lacking in warmth. Going to therapy helped me cement the 1 fix as well.

When I was issued the psychometric assessments, I was worried about getting it wrong. Worried about the answers, WHEN THERE WERE NO WRONG ANSWERS! I asked for an extra sheet to clarify my answers, to a freaking MCQ. I didn't want the therapists to get it wrong either. I told my therapist that I discontinued the previous one because he was incompetent and useless. She asked me if I was holding her up to a certain standard as well. I'd to admit that every word and expression was being scanned internally for signs of disinterest, lack of authenticity, competence etc. Repeatedly, the therapist wrote down *Perfectionist* and *Control* in my worksheets. Finally, when she said "It is okay to not know everything. It is okay to be wrong" it is like something within me just snapped and I looked away, to hide my tears.

Something that Richard Rohr said in one of his videos particularly hit home with me. He mentioned that Ones tend to get pissed off when someone gets something they didn't work for or deserve. He said Ones are obsessed with the idea of establishing a meritocracy. Here we were, two people from different generations and cultures. Yet... I felt like he was speaking directly to my soul. It brought to mind all the times I'd bitched about nepotism and strongly advocated in favour of establishing a meritocracy.

As for figuring out the wing to my 1 fix, it was easier. There is a heat found in an angry 1w2 which is lacking in a 1w9. 1w9 tend to be more silently critical, cool and judgmental. They don't tend to forgive easily or get involved nearly as much as a 1w2. 1w2s actively place themselves in a mentoring role. They are warm, and willing to engage with people. They see the potential in people and encourage them. My writing style tends towards warmth and engaging with the reader as opposed to the cool, precise and impersonal style adopted by the 1w9. There is a mild streak of activism in me, better explained by the 1w2 rather than 1w9. However since it is my last fix, it doesn't translate into action a lot. I prefer to fix things by critiquing existing systems, reworking it to the point of serving personal effectiveness rather than actively throwing myself into any kind of activism.

Knowing one's enneagram types is never a fun process. It can be long and tedium filled. But when you come face to face with the truth, it will be worth it. For it will knock you over. Like a gut punch, you are left doubled over and breathing hard. But you can get up, and see yourself for who you are. The good bits, and the nasty bits. Accepting and integrating the two will finally lead to growth.

- ENTP Mod./ Enneagram Mod.

[divas-k]

Dress to Oppress – Walls and Overalls

Today, we unravel the threads of time and tradition, and weave a new norm.

The dilemma of deciding what to wear is universal. But in an age where gender and sex are spectrums rather than definite lines, we must re-examine the stereotypes (‘tom-boy’, ‘slutty’, ‘sanskari’) we have woven with respect to the clothing choices of those around us. Furthermore, questions like “Who wears the pants in your relationship?” only deepen the scars of prejudice, and misguided notions of masculinity and/or power. Such erroneous judgments continue in assigning gender and/or sex to colours. While in the early 20th century, the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department, mentioned that “pink, being a more decided and stronger colour, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”, by the 1940s, the tide had turned altogether. However, regardless of this timeline, an earnest plea to the reader would be to leave the rainbow alone.

Then, there are those who advocate ideals of equality and freedom of choice, and admonish men wearing dresses (read Jaden Smith at prom), all in the same breath. Say, if a woman wore a tuxedo to her wedding, one would witness all dainty facades of acceptance and support flying off the shelves. Admittedly, open-mindedness is easier in theory than in practice, and hypocrisy a smoother path to traverse than honesty. The question is- are you willing to take the road less travelled?

Further, dear reader, recall the stunning, overexposed shots of testosterone-fueled, muscled men, armed with spears and shields, skin slick with sweat, clad in plumed helmets and fustanellas (a traditional Greek skirt) in Zack Snyder’s dramatic fictionalized retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae within the Persian Wars. Fixated as you may be on the seeming juxtaposition in the above description, of brave men wearing skirts, I shall clarify, that I speak of the box office success, ‘300’.

Moreover, consider the Scottish, who, in donning the kilt, were concerned with convenience and comfort for their male warriors and employed several practical uses of the garment- apart from shielding one’s body from nature and clothing one’s frame. The kilt could serve as a camping blanket, and was worn over a full-sleeved garment stopping below the waist (léine); loose-fitting, it enabled the wearer to make distant, long marches with agility and to wade through rivers. The upper half could be worn as a cloak over the shoulder, or brought up over the head for protection against the weather. Now, as queer (in more ways than one) as it may seem for some, to witness warriors donning an article of clothing reserved for the ‘weaker’ sex, when you come to think of it, it may be wiser and more comfortable for males to don skirts and females to wear pants, for obvious anatomical reasons.

Having said that, one should be free to clothe themselves as they see fit, regardless of the anatomy of their body. This free will is embodied in Megan Fox’s parenting style, whereby she abstains from enforcing stereotypical dress-codes for her children; in conversation with Jimmy Kimmel, she mentioned how her son, Noah, likes to wear dresses sometimes. Parents all over the world should take notes from the Transformers star, who said, “…there are no rules- you can be whatever you want to be in my house!” Moreover, skirts have made their way into men’s fashion through celebrities; Jared Leto, David Beckham, David Bowie, Jaden Smith, Kanye West and Vin Diesel have all worn skirts proudly.

Why, though, must we view these developments as achievements to be proud of, rather than commonplace occurrences that are treated with normalcy? I suppose we have, indeed, come full circle- where once, Luisa Capetillo and Katherine Hepburn went against the tide and donned trousers, the garment of revolt (the former went to jail for the supposed ‘crime’, though charges were dropped later), the dawn of the twenty first century brings with it the campaign for men to freely wear ‘feminine’ clothes. This is baffling, juxtaposed with the fact that cultures across the world started out with simple, flowy, dress-like garments meant for both the sexes - from the Roman toga, to the Indian lungi, and the Japanese kimono (to name but a few) - which were differentiated and altered into gender-specific clothes. Having said that, the response to the present hue and cry for gender-neutral clothing has not been met satisfactorily; despite the promise of equality, the unisex garment has essentially been of a ‘masculine’ style. Needless to say, we have miles to go in this area.

But clothes aren’t where it all ends; cosmetics form an integral component of fashion trends and the way one wears them (or doesn’t, depending on one’s preferences) reflects a person’s projection of themselves as much as their clothes do. Men have found their footing in the cosmetics industry, debunking the myth that makeup can’t be ‘macho’. This comes amid a larger investigation into traditional gender boundaries in fashion and beauty, alongside the growth of internet-famous beauty fanatics who have built followings via social media. Take, for instance CoverGirl’s latest face, James Charles, 17, a high school senior from Bethlehem, N.Y., with nearly 650,000 followers on Instagram and over 90,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel. Following suit, Maybelline unveiled their first ever male model, Manny Gutierrez, the 25-year-old “beauty boy”, with a whopping 3 million followers on Instagram and 2.1 million YouTube subscribers.

And then there is the eventful history of high-heels. From Medieval Persia to Carrie Bradshaw, the elevated shoe has come a long way. Initially donned by Persian noblemen as riding shoes, the heel enabled a steadier stance so that the rider could shoot his arrow more effectively while standing up in the stirrups. European royals took notice when Persian monarch, Shah Abbas went to tour European courts around the 1500s. And so the Persian style shoes were adopted by the aristocracy who felt it lent their demeanor a masculine edge, until it was eventually taken over by women.

Cut to the present, where more men are adopting the style originally meant for them, dispelling invisible boundaries and gender norms. In 2014, Yanis Marshall auditioned for the talent show Britain’s Got Talent; the part French, part British dancer combined his passion for dance and his undying love for high heels, and along with his two friends Arnaud and Mehdi, won the hearts of everyone who was watching. Sure-footed (in 6-inch heels, no less) and sassy as can be, the trio stunned the crowd and received nothing but adoration and respect from the judges, with their up-beat and bold moves on numbers by the Spice Girls and Beyoncé, among others. When asked why he dances in high heels, Yanis replied with the same answer he has always uttered, i.e.- “Why not?”

And truly, that is a question we must all ask ourselves. Why can’t men wear high heels? Why must make-up be withheld from the masculine? Why should women worry about being looked down upon for wearing a tuxedo instead of a dress? Can the walls we see around us be crossed and broken? More importantly, who built them to begin with? In part, we all are culprits, and these walls stand testament to our crime. Every naysayer has placed a brick and a dollop of mortar. It seemed a small contribution at the time- but then, no individual water drop holds itself responsible for the flood.

And while, as a general rule, things are easier to break than build- these walls are standing exceptions. We must all resolve to make a small indent, to chisel away yet another bit of prejudice, and to bury away our notions, in order to break the walls that separate us from each other, and ourselves. For, there are those amongst us who do not identify as either male or female- everything is not, after all, simply black or white. But this human tendency, an obsession almost, to put things into neat, tiny little boxes, has imprisoned some of our own; the breaking of these walls may be the first step for some of us to see ourselves in the clear light of day and do justice to who we truly are.

After all, walls are only so good as long as they protect and support us. But when they begin separating us from reality, and each other, it’s time to start considering cutting a few doors into them. And even if we don’t find the courage to cross those doors immediately, at least we’d have let in a bit of light from the other side.

[aion-rsa]

Why the GoldenEye 007 Remaster Was Cancelled

https://ift.tt/3oMuZz5

If you’ve been keeping an eye on video game social media over the last few days, you’ve probably spotted this video of a YouTuber playing a remaster of GoldenEye 007.

While many people were quick to call this remaster “fake” or merely a fan-made tribute, recent evidence strongly suggests that this is the remains of an official attempt to remaster GoldenEye 007. Naturally, that information has left many people wondering why such an incredible remaster of such a beloved game never saw the light of day despite the fact that it appears to be nearly finished.

The answer to that question is complicated, controversial, and heartbreaking for legions of GoldenEye 007 fans who have been waiting for the chance to play one of the best multiplayer experiences ever released on a Nintendo console. Ultimately, though, it’s a story you have to hear.

What is the GoldenEye 007 Remaster?

The GoldenEye 007 remaster is an updated version of the 1997 N64 classic. It appears to be the same game content-wise (aside from a few additional multiplayer maps and a couple of relatively minor features), but it has been updated to feature 60 FPS gameplay, a 16:9 ratio, and various visual improvements. It’s been said that the remaster was designed similarly to the Halo remasters, which is to say that a team essentially just swapped out a few parts of the original ROM. Like those Halo games, the Goldeneye 007 remaster even offers the ability to swap between the old and new visuals on the fly.

The reason we know so much about this remaster (and the reason it’s been in the news lately) is that a YouTuber called Graslu00 uploaded a full playthrough of the seemingly lost project. While footage of the remaster had been uploaded online before (more on that in a bit), this was the first time that most people outside of Rare had seen it played from start to finish.

The extent of that footage (as well as the quality of the remaster itself) inspired many fans to ask new questions about this canceled remaster that many people long suspected had been abandoned before it could be completed.

When Was the GoldenEye 007 Remaster Developed?

Before we go further, now is the time to clarify that some of the answers to these questions are based on loose information and more than a little speculation.

With that out of the way, the public conversation about this remaster really heated up in 2008 when EGM’s rumor mill turned out a brief mention of a GoldenEye remaster that had seemingly been canceled by Rare. A 2008 article from 1UP elaborates on this story by suggesting that the game was just a couple of months away from being released on XBLA for Xbox 360 before the plug was pulled. Uncovered files suggest that work on the remaster began as early as 2007.

However, there are a couple of details in that story that don’t gel with what we know now. For instance, the 1UP article notes that the “XBLA version would have featured the same graphics, maps, and weapons from the N64 version” and that the big selling point would have been the “crucial addition of online multiplayer over Xbox Live.” That doesn’t seem to describe the footage of the remaster that we’ve seen years later.

So far as that goes, there are two things to consider. The first is that some of the information available in 2008 was simply incorrect. This really seems like the most likely factor given how much information on this subject was known at that time.

It should also be noted that the remaster itself has been improved in some ways by modern emulators. While I won’t name drop some of the emulators and uploaders involved with this process, it’s clear that some of the visual fidelity that we see in these uploads wouldn’t have existed in 2008.

Still, the bulk of the remaster footage certainly seems to be based on the game that Rare quietly worked on sometime around 2007 and ultimately had to abandon just a few months before it could have been released.

Read more

Games

15 Best Nintendo Multiplayer Games of All-Time

By Matthew Byrd

Games

Why GoldenEye 007 James Bond Isn’t in Super Smash Bros.

By Rob Leane

Why Was the GoldenEye 007 Remaster Cancelled?

Unlike some of the details regarding the GoldenEye 007 remaster’s development, we actually know quite a bit about why it never got released simply due to the fact that Rare has talked about it a lot over the years.

For instance, in a 2008 interview with Videogamer.com, Rare engineer Nick Burton clearly stated that the game’s cancellation ultimately came down to licensing:

“I kind of wished that the differences got sorted out, but obviously there’s the licensing issue for Bond, even if it’s something that’s already come out,” said Burton. “It’s incredibly hard to solve because there are so many license holders involved. You’ve got the guys that own the license to the gaming rights now, the guys that have the license to Bond as an IP, and there are umpteen licensees. Me, just personally, I thought, ‘God, that’s a difficult problem to solve.'”

Over the years, the narrative regarding those licensing problems boiled down to the idea that Nintendo and Microsoft (who owned Rare by the time this remaster was in development) simply couldn’t agree on a deal that allowed either to re-release GoldenEye. This story is seemingly supported by a 2006 MTV interview with Reggie Fils-Aime in which the former Nintendo of America president stated that he’d “love to see [GoldenEye 007] on virtual console” but that “there are a lot of issues there.”

That quote reinforces the idea that between Rare being a Microsoft owned company, Nintendo publishing the original GoldenEye 007, and EA and Activision controlling the gaming rights to the Bond franchise in later years, there were just too many moving pieces that had to come together for the remaster or a re-release to ever happen.

What’s interesting is that many people seem to think that the reason Rare couldn’t release the GoldenEye 007 remaster on XBLA or as part of the Rare Replay collection is simply that Nintendo ultimately failed to give the port their blessing. That idea makes some sense as it would seem that Microsoft and Nintendo would be the two major players involved in a deal over that specific Bond game. On top of that, a remake of GoldenEye 007 that was published by Activision was released exclusively on Nintendo Wii in 2010. That remake reinforced the suggestion that Nintendo ultimately blocked the Goldeneye 007 remaster from being released.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Is Nintendo Really to Blame for the GoldenEye 007 Remaster Never Being Released?

While Nintendo does seem to be a factor in this story, leaker Graslu00 shut down the idea that this is all Nintendo’s fault in an extensive message that they recently reposted on Twitter.

I've updated the pinned comment on my longplay video regarding "Nintendo and the cancellation of XBLA". I'd appreciate it if you gave it a read before saying that Nintendo is the main issue and I misunderstood or simplified the problem, I did not. Thank you. pic.twitter.com/79wPyHEU8r

— Graslu00 (@Graslu00) January 31, 2021

If you can’t read that message, it basically says that even if Nintendo and Microsoft had struck a deal, they’d still have to deal with MGM and Eon Productions who had their own concerns about James Bond video games. Those concerns may have required Rare to alter the original GoldenEye in ways that would have almost certainly hurt the game in the minds of many fans. The idea of a remaster of GoldenEye with “no cheats, no use of Bond theme, and no good vs good characters in multiplayer” certainly doesn’t sound appealing.

While there is some debate regarding the exact content restrictions placed on Bond games, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard of such restrictions. In a 2020 interview with GamesIndustry.biz, Adam Foshko (Activision’s director of story development when they controlled the Bond gaming rights) explains that making Bond games requires adhering to certain ideas of the character.

“Bond is unique because the IP holders have a very particular view on Bond as a character and how he should be used,” said Foshko. “Having worked with them, it’s more about: ‘How does Bond get out of a situation?’ rather than: ‘Can Bond shoot a guy in the face?’ It comes down to the goals and things that are unique and special about Bond in particular — even though people would like to play Bond in a situation.”

Restrictions aside, the other factor that doesn’t get referenced all that much is Rare’s interest in such a project. In a 2015 interview with Polygon, Rare operations director Drew Quakenbush noted that one of the reasons GoldenEye wasn’t included in the Rare Replay collection is that the studio chose to focus on “characters and worlds that Rare made independently” when selecting the games for that collection. He says that the issue “wasn’t necessarily licensing” and that “GoldenEye doesn’t really fit tightly in with that particular boundary that we put on there.”

Even if licensing is more of an issue than Rare was willing to suggest, this idea that Rare wants to somewhat distance themselves from GoldenEye certainly isn’t new. In that 2008 interview with VideoGamer.com, Nick Burton is asked “Does GoldenEye almost haunt the studio?” Here is his response:

“No, not at all. I wouldn’t say indifference. It’s nice to see people still talk about it. But I also think, and a lot of us think this, that you look back at it and it’s still good fun to play, but if I played it now with my gaming tastes as refined as they are now, would I still have the same reaction or have I really got rose-tinted spectacles on? It’s almost impossible to separate one from the other. I still look at it and think, no, it’s got great level design for instance, but then you think I’m saying that because maybe the control feels really good, but it’s not perfect. But it’s not perfect because the frame rate wasn’t high enough. It’s very difficult to separate your memory. As someone coined at work the other week. ‘You need some brain bleach’ so you can get rid of the memory.”

From everything I’ve seen, the issue basically comes down to a combination of licensing problems, content restrictions, and willingness. The long and short of it is that many people see GoldenEye 007 as a time capsule that has proven to be especially difficult to dig up and preserve.

Can You Play the GoldenEye 007 Remaster?

Recently, outlets and players have revealed that a full, working version of the GoldenEye 007 remaster has been leaked online and is currently playable.

While the process of downloading and playing the game is complicated and almost certainly wouldn’t be approved by anyone with controlling interest in this game’s license, it’s already clear that the game files are rapidly spreading online and is generally well-received by fans so far despite its obvious rough edges.

It should also be noted that those interested in playing a more modern version of GoldenEye should absolutely check out the GoldenEye: Source fan project which remakes the N64 game using Valve’s Source engine. It’s a brilliant experiment that almost perfectly captures nearly everything that made GoldenEye 007 special while updating the game in ways that even this remaster necessarily does not.

The post Why the GoldenEye 007 Remaster Was Cancelled appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3cJEFIl

[rendezvous-ramblings]

(5) I know you don’t like giving advice about topics like this bc you don’t wanna give a guide on how to “catch a tc’s attention” bc that can quickly be a situation in which the person in power takes advantage of the other person. I’d like to clarify that my intention is to stay friends with him bc even the thought of being in a relationship with a former prof gives me anxiety bc of how difficult it would be to navigate. You don’t have to publish all these asks or even give advice if you’re not

(Part 5/5)

Hi,

I am definitely hesitant to answer asks like this for the reasons you mentioned, but also because there’s only so much context a person can provide me online. I don’t expect every single detail obviously, however, sometimes in certain instances there are people who can only see an idealized version of their tc/pc. Therefore, I’m definitely uncomfortable about providing advice that could lead to poor situations when I know little to nothing. I also don’t want that kind of authority over someone’s life whether if I am directly or indirectly influencing them. 

What I will say about your situation is I think you’re already off to a good start. You’ve recognized your weaknesses when it comes to attachment and the fact that you would want to remain friends with your pc. This might just have to become a personal mantra you tell yourself whenever/if ever your friendly interactions, once you graduate, get flirtatious. Tell yourself you value the friendship too much and try to reframe your thinking/processing of the interactions as platonic. Keep in your mind the risks if you cross personal boundaries since that could make the friendship awkward or sever it if he doesn’t reciprocate. Focus more so on getting to know him better as a person since the classroom setting has been a filter on your interactions with him along with the things that he could share with you. 

Navigating post-graduation with a tc/pc is tricky and as much as we look forward to it...when you get there you’ll feel like a nervous train wreck. I remember being super paranoid about what others in public would think, if we would bump into someone we knew, or what if E decided he didn’t want to hang out with an ex-student, and the list of worries goes on and on. You may feel just as overwhelmed and although the excitement of spending time with your crush is a great feeling, it wasn’t the main thing dominating my mind as there were other issues/worries clouding it. What I’m saying is your fear of being overly flirtatious might not become a reality as other feelings/thoughts could overpower that for the first few hangouts. 

I shared the same concerns as you but I found myself more hesitant to act or do anything as I didn’t want to jeopardize our friendship. The only reason I ended up leaning my head on E’s shoulder was because he was trying to articulate how conflicted and confused he was about how he’s been feeling about me post-graduation. Somewhere in his explanation he seemed frustrated and said something along the lines of “You must hate me now or wish you never came. This wasn’t what you signed up for and I’m sure your feelings for me would have faded over time. I really didn’t expect you to keep in touch with me over the summer and I feel like a total f-up for the things I’ve been thinking about lately.” It was my way of comforting him since I couldn’t stand hearing him talk about himself that way. We continued to discuss things back and forth before it all led to that infamous moment I’ve shared. I have zero regrets but what people don’t know is it only opened a can worms. Our relationship wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows after that point as I’ve put it in the past.

Explanation aside and going back to you, your main priority initially to get used to the settings if/when your pc decides to hang out as friends in public. Explore the things you have in common with each other in a place/time where there’s no longer professional filters/boundaries and truly get to know him. Your feelings may go away if he’s a bit different outside the classroom (not always for negative reasons) or you realize you’re more compatible as friends rather than partners. 

It’s just one of those scenarios in life where not everyone experiences it and you have to “live and learn” yourself. Don’t have any set expectations on what will happen or be in a constant state of excessive worrying. Let the new stage of the relationship develop naturally and most importantly just be your true self. Any relationship is a two-way street where both sides have to be willing to invest time/effort. If you put in your 100% and things end up working out for the both of you that’s great. In the case where it doesn’t do not beat yourself up for it if it doesn’t turn out the way you envisioned. At least you put in the effort and tried maintaining a friendship that meant something to you. I’m an overthinker myself so I know how difficult it is, but please just enjoy the time you have with your pc once you graduate. You can’t possibly predict what will happen and as long as you continue to keep yourself accountable/in check things are off to a good start in terms of a healthy friendship.

I hope that helped? Sometimes I feel like I’m stating the obvious, but levelheaded reminders from someone else help me stay grounded whenever I’m overwhelmed. Feel free to send more asks or a dm if you ever need anything else 💛

[verusalt]

OKAY SUPERCORP/KARAMEL RANT

**Please read** This all really needs to be said. However, before I go further I want you all to understand that this isn’t meant to be a hate paragraph or to purposefully put those who like Mon-El and/or Karamel down. At this point, all the disagreeing and fighting will do nothing. So I’m asking kindly that if you’re going to add something to this post- that it is filled with positive intent. 

 Anyhow, to my point:

I do watch Supergirl by the way, but I truly believe this concerns a wide variety of people. Whether you’re a fan of The 100, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Walking Dead, or just a person living your life… All I hope is that we all try to grasp the reality of what is truly going on. Now I will centralize this long rant towards Supergirl however. For those of you who don’t know what is going on there is a conflict between fans who ship this character, Mon-El, together with Supergirl/Kara and fans who ship Lena Luthor with Supergirl/Kara. Now, in my humble opinion, the big issue isn’t about straight v.s lgbt people and I will go on about that later… but the fact that she is with someone like Mon-El. Now what do I mean by ‘someone like Mon-El’… before certain people get mad I want to emphasize that I’m simply pointing out what happened in the show. 

This is long as hell just fyi.

1) The way Mon-El reacts to most things is through violence. In fact, the moment he wakes up he chokes Kara. And there’s this: 

(his words in white)

And the scene where Mon-El robs Brian; using his powers for selfish reasons.

He even calls her names. And notice how he does this the moment Kara disagrees with him. A reaction that does more harm than good. On the other hand, when Kara and Lena disagree on something (in ep. 2x03) they simply talk it out. They ask questions, explain, clarify, and come to an understanding.

Now, I’m not here to say that I have NEVER agreed with anything Mon-El has said, actually I applaud him for accepting Maggie and Alex’s relationship the way he did, but that’s just the thing. The opinions/beliefs he has don’t come from himself. Most of what he thinks is based off of what he’s seen on Daxam. He really isn’t at all mature. He isn’t by any means and it’s simply the truth. Now hear me out-

This is what I mean by he isn’t mature: How many times has Kara asked him politely and specifically not to do something but without hesitation still does it? And how many times has he had to beg for forgiveness? 

In addition, he doesn’t have knowledge of what respect truly means. What’s interesting though about this scene in particular- is how it’s supposed to be a ‘funny’ scene. Mon-El’s character is written in as ‘funny’ and ‘aloof’… but it sends a poisonous message- that Kara’s feelings aren’t to be taken seriously. And this show is literally supposed to be about her. Not a guy who thinks it’s his duty to ‘defend her honor’ and then complains about it.

Now I know that this was how people on Daxam acted and their way of life was for the most part, sexist, racist, etc. But that still doesn’t give him an excuse to act the way he does. 

2) Lena herself comes from a family with twisted values as well. She is adopted into the Luthor family and has had close to no friends most of her life. And yet she’s still capable of being a perfectly decent person. 

She does save the alien population not once, but twice. So not only is Lena proved time and time again that she’s a good person, but her relationship with Kara (btw I call it a ‘relationship’ just like the writers do)… is not even close to toxic, detrimental, or abusive. It’s the complete opposite.

“Protect yourself”

“I can take care of myself”

3) Being in a healthy relationship is about the effort between two willing people… at the same time, knowing your boundaries whilst encouraging one another.

4) Kara deserves someone who fully acknowledges her efforts and is grateful for them

5) The way Lena and Kara’s relationship/friendship grew was slow, but worthwhile

Through their relationship they’ve become stronger as individuals AND a pair.

Do I even have to talk about how this so obviously has romantic implications? Whether or not the writers knew what they were doing having Supergirl catch Lena that way (which I believe they do) it is a scene that for as long as forever- been a Superman/Lois thing, and once shown with Supergirl/Lena it’s automatically platonic? And it’s ridiculous how Mon-El ends up holding Kara this same way. Supergirl/Kara is the hero. Or is this suddenly just not that important?

6) Young girls watch this show. And it’s consequential if some end up believing that what Mon-El and Kara have is a good relationship.

It isn’t.

And it gives me a headache to think about homophobic people (not to say Karamels are) I actually have a best friend who is a Karamel shipper and accepts me as an identified lesbian. But the fact that SO MANY lesbian characters on tv have died is not to be ignored. It’s happened and there isn’t enough representation of lesbians or bisexuals on screen. Could you imagine how significant it could be for a girl to see a girl like her who’s also a SUPERHERO. Then there’s this argument about how we already have Maggie and Alex for representation and while I LOVE them and think the way they included their storyline was heartwarming… would it be so horrible to have more than one same-sex couple on a show? I’m a lesbian and know about 10 other bisexual/lesbian women in my personal life. And obviously this is what I’ve personally experienced but… it isn’t uncommon for more than two gay people to exist.

Btw just some comic book History: Poison Ivy was Kara’s first kiss

7) “You are my kryptonite.”

“You are my hero.” -Lena

“You are my kryptonite.” -Mon-El

A partner shouldn’t be the one who makes you feel pain or tells you that you’re their source of pain. End of story.

8) **KARA DESERVES TO BE HAPPY**

Kara with Mon-El:

Kara with Lena:

Also, the way Lena looks at Kara! Just look, just look.

This is while Kara opens up and reveals part of her past to her. You can just see the concern and empathy in her expression.

Here’s what Melissa has said so far-

about Mon-El/Karamel:

“I don’t– You know what, I’m a fan of Kara being happy.”

And here’s what she said about Lena:

“Lena and Kara have such an awesome relationship.”

Thank you for reading!

Kara and those who look up to her deserve better.

[peaceful-politics]

The “Pro-Life” Party Does Not Have a Monopoly on Morality- Especially the Pro-Life Party of Trump

By: Kaylee Williams

7/20/2019

Donald Trump has secured a voting base among evangelical Christians, in spite of the fact that he is antithetical to basic Christian values such as humility and compassion. This, I presume, is a result of his manipulation of the pro-life movement to galvanize socially conservative Christians. People across the political spectrum share sadness and reservation concerning a difficult issue that many Trump Republicans claim a monopoly on morality for. The fact remains, however, that illegality does not bar behaviors from occurring, and victims of abuse must reserve the right to make peace with their creator however they see fit, not be coerced into taking desperate measures as a result of government mandates. This holds especially true when considering that abortion bans will disproportionately affect poor women who don't have the financial means, backdoor channels, and legal representation of women the likes of....let me think....Stormy Daniels?

I find it difficult to contain my exasperation with a man who I believe to be so utterly God-less using a sensitive and complex issue for political utility. Let’s be honest about the hypocrisy of Donald Trump, once outspokenly pro-choice, all of a sudden championing the unborn. I implore you to ask yourself: who would be more likely to encourage their sexual partner to have an abortion- Barrack Obama or Donald Trump? Trump is two years younger than his (third) wife’s father, leaving me to question if Mr. Trump courted Melania for her impressive conversational ability or for less holy desires.  Trump has been with numerous porn stars, has children with multiple women (all of whom he is alleged to have cheated on), and is on tape bragging about grabbing women by their genitals. Now I personally don’t care about any of this; frankly, if he were a champion of universal healthcare, putting an end to the private prison system, and abolishing the Electoral College, I would likely vote for him in spite of his personal indiscretions. I simply cannot, however, fathom the cognitive dissonance required of Christian conservatives to hail Trump as the chosen one - someone fit to represent Jesus’s teachings and mobilize his agenda. Conservative Christians the likes of Pat Robertson have sanctioned a hitman. Trump is not David; he is Goliath, and he’s been contracted by wealthy televangelists who have more in common with the Pharisees Jesus opposed than Christ himself. Obama has been married to only one woman with whom he shares both of his children. There is no indication that he has ever been unfaithful to his wife, and excluding those which Fox News or Trump himself engineered, has not been linked to any major scandal. I ask again: who would be more likely to encourage their sexual partner to have an abortion? Yet who between the men publicly denounces a women’s right to choose? Who between the men has sought to address the systemic reasons for abortion, such as limited access to contraception?

One can be personally (not politically) pro-life, as I surmise Obama was, yet grasp that the architects of these newly introduced abortion bans (most of them Trump’s allies) are hypocrites. Republicans are often, after all, accused of Christian hypocrisy.  They are criticized for their support of Trump’s immigration policies, for example, which encourage the blatant mistreatment of illegal aliens who, according to one doctor, are living in “torture facilities” (Marshall, Metz, Zac, 2019). Trump Republicans respond with assertions that their indifference is a result of their desire for sovereignty, rule of law, and economic stability. When pressed on why they habitually scapegoat welfare recipients and the poor to distract attention from corporate exploitation, they respond arguing that handouts dissuade hard work and promote complacent reliance on government at the expense of working people. When confronted with rates of uninsured Americans or the monetization of human health, Republicans persistently vilify universal health care, a feature of virtually all other developed nations, as “socialized medicine” and attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Trump’s cohort of socially conservative Republicans present the following counterargument: how can you accuse us of lacking morality when you allow for the slaughter of the unborn, or in more common vernacular, infanticide?

Excuse this public service announcement, but infanticide is not legal and those who claim that it is are modern-day propaganda ministers who hardly have the interests of women or children in mind; rather they are leveraging people’s sense of morality for political gain. Yes, the Reproductive Health Act passed in New York did permit late term abortion….in cases where the life of the mother is threatened OR fetal abnormalities would ultimately end the unborn child’s life within days of birth; the fetus would have to be deemed “non-viable”. Any baby who is in fact born alive is not euthanized, but rather given post-natal care immediately. If infanticide is happening in this country, it has not been sanctioned by law and certainly is not supported by Democrats. I encourage anyone who doubts me to read Senator Liz Krueger’s responses to frequently asked questions regarding the RHA. (https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2019/liz-krueger/faqs-about-reproductive-health-act).

Furthermore, some-though not all- pro-life Republicans manipulate the issue of abortion to appear as though they are of higher moral standing. Democrats, through their reckless liberality and moral relativism masked as progressivism, are willing to slaughter the most vulnerable population among us. Leftist organizations, they charge, disseminate propaganda allowing women to believe that their choice is somehow morally permissible and establishments providing abortion, namely Planned Parenthood, are masking their nefarious agenda behind female reproductive rights. What about the rights of unborn girls they plea, or boys whose gender is no fault of their own?

To many political civilians (those not in public office or in elite roles) this appears to be the ultimate Trump card of argumentation, an atomic bomb of infallible reason dropped on liberals everywhere, causing those too stubborn to change their minds to desperately crawl into their safe spaces and mourn their defeat.

I will not pretend as though these emotionally charged arguments are of no import to me. I was raised by a religious family, attended catholic school until grade eight, and went to church weekly. At age twelve I wrote a scathing essay in defense of the pro-life movement, though in hindsight I find it rather peculiar that a class of mostly pre-pubescent kids would be prompted to not only contemplate such an issue, but have their opinions of it mechanically engineered. I am outnumbered in my family by Republicans, and while my grandmother has democratic leanings, her devotion to Catholicism and belief in protecting the unborn often preclude her from voting for liberal candidates she would otherwise support. Given my upbringing, the institutions within which I have been socialized, and my privately held feelings about having an abortion personally, one would expect me to be an ardent pro-choice advocate and a constituent of a reliable voting bloc, yet I am neither. To clarify, I personally oppose abortion, I wouldn’t encourage a loved one to have one (though I wouldn’t love them any less), and I earnestly desire for abortion to become a vestige of the past. How then does my moral compass, my decision making apparatus, permit me to hold such passionate, unwavering pro-choice sentiments?

I believe there are many ways a person can be effectively pro-life, but I remain unconvinced that legislatively interfering with a women’s right to choose is realistic or morally sound. People can call it moral relativism, but I don’t see how pragmatism and compassion should be-or can be- mutually exclusive, and I am equally unconvinced that a victim of rape or abuse should receive their reproductive directives from a legislature comprised disproportionately of white men (i.e. Alabama), the historical ruling class of America. I’m not advocating for “reverse discrimination” –if that even exists- but the optics here are hard to ignore. I don’t have a crystal ball that allows me to discern men in Alabama’s true motives, but to me the abortion bans sweeping the country reek of government intrusion, a diminishment of boundaries between church and state, and white male supremacy (I’ll elaborate on this later for all my conservative naysayers).

Like others, I remain politically pro-choice largely because I do not believe that anti-choice legislation will exponentially diminish rates of abortion. In the United States today, approximately one in four pregnancies will end in abortion according to the Guttmacher Institute (2019). While I’m sure this may dishearten even some pro-choice advocates, it is important to consider the nature and prevalence of abortion before Roe V. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure nationwide. While scholars can’t offer precise figures on abortion rates prior to 1973, given the fact that the procedure was not only illegal but often considered socially undesirable to admit, it is estimated that 20% to 25% of pregnancies ended in abortion before Roe V. Wade, as cited in a 2019 NPR interview with Karissa Haugeberg, assistant professor of history at Tulane University. According to the editors of History.com (2019), in the 1950s and 60s alone “the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.”

So what were these illegal abortions like? Karissa Haugeberg explains that about 200 woman died “officially” each year from methods of “self-inflicted induction”. In other words, women physically injured themselves or consumed dangerous chemicals in attempts to end their pregnancies and in doing so inadvertently killed themselves. Other woman turned to the undercover market, seeking out doctors who risked their livelihood and even personal imprisonment. Today in countries where abortion remains illegal, such as Chile and El Salvador, Michelle Oberman (2018) writes that “abortifacient drugs have become so readily available…. that it has become impossible to enforce abortion bans”- which leads to me to my next point.

An additional reason that I remain a reliable pro-choice voter is my belief that eliminating abortion would likely create prosecutorial loopholes which allow for poor and minorities to be disproportionately affected, as Oberman (2018) explains is the case in countries where it remains outlawed. Just weeks ago an Alabama woman, Marshae Jones, lost her unborn child as a result of being shot in the stomach. She was later indicted on charges of manslaughter for allegedly provoking her shooter, who received no charges at all (Brice-Saddler, Horton, 2019). Many perceived this to be indicative of what a post Roe V. Wade America might entail for women of lower socioeconomic standing. Unlike the poor, women of means will always have access to abortion. Sometimes, they will even receive encouragement from “pro-life” congressmen themselves. It is not my desire to smear any given member of congress, but a simple Google search will reveal the hypocrisy to which I refer

Equally concerning is the possibility that strict abortion laws could lead to patriarchal norms being reintroduced. Would rape victims now be forced to prove abuse? Would they face a statute of limitations for reporting rape? Would states even qualify rape as a legitimate reason for getting an abortion following the lead of Alabama, a state where rapists have paternal rights (Wax-Thibodeaux, 2019)? Would women whose lives are in danger be denied medical help because of zealotry permeating the medical system?  Would miscarriages be investigated? Would desperate women who pursue an illegal abortion die or be imprisoned for resorting to back ally-procedures? Would the states currently proposing these abortion bans, states with some of the highest rates of both infant and maternal mortality, namely among women of color (Panetta, 2019), revamp their healthcare standards?

As a quick interlude, I certainly don’t mean to imply that men are solely to blame here. Many woman contribute to systems of patriarchy, often under a religious pretense or because their rung on the social ladder isn’t necessarily worth risking. Heck, over half of white women voted for Donald Trump in 2016 (Ruiz, 2018). Conversely, there are numerous men who, excluding circumstances in which they are personally responsible for a pregnancy, mind their business, who are supportive of prospective mothers, and who themselves would make better caretakers than their female counterparts. It was ultimately a female governor, Kay Ivey of Alabama, who signed a bill for which twenty-two male senators voted against exemptions for rape or incest. My primary grievance, moreover, is not with men. My main concern is government involvement (government actors being both men and women) in what should be a private matter.

Finally, one must wonder if the states denying abortions will offer affordable birth control and comprehensive sexual education, or if they’ll maintain antiquated philosophies surrounding sexuality thus causing teen pregnancies to rise and/or medically unsafe abortions to skyrocket? This may sound like a false dichotomy between prudence and pragmatism, but it should be noted that Abbey Johnson, creator of the documentary “Unplanned”, opposes birth control methods which do not consist of “natural family planning” (as cited in her 2018 interview with Mary Rose Somarriba).

Trump himself attempted to: “restrict the ability of some women to get birth control at no charge because their employers object on religious or moral grounds” (Goldstein, 2019).  As Pam Belluck (2018) explains in her article titled “Science Does Not Support Claims That Contraceptives Are ‘Abortion-Inducing’”, there is not credible evidence of abortifacient effects from contraception upon which spiritual groups should be asserting their religious liberty at the expense of others’. Furthermore, the sexual revolution has long passed and the vast majority of adults will have pre-marital sex, as will adolescents regardless of their state legislature’s willingness to educate them or their parent’s willingness to guide them appropriately (on using condoms to prevent against STDS, healthy relationships, methods of contraception, etc.). It is imperative that those who wish to end abortion on both sides of the political spectrum approach sexuality through the lenses of modernity.

If pro-lifers sought to convince me against abortion (as sensible people define it) they succeeded, but I’ve also lived a privileged life and I refuse to thrust my personal views on the world at large. That is dangerous, ineffective, and belittling of women whose burden I have never carried and whose pain I have never known. Like many of the voters Trump secures through his professed stance on abortion, I’d truly love to see its end. However, I do not believe that barring safe and legal access to the procedure is an appropriate way to get there. It’s not practical and it’s not compassionate (as I see it). How about we destigmatize sex between consenting adults/adolescents, offer first rate sexual education nationwide, make medical advancements so no woman would ever again face a health crises related to pregnancy, offer birth control 100% affordable and accessible to all people post-pubescent, and make advancements in science so as to ensure that this birth control is not 99% but 100% effective in order that every young woman might reach her full economic potential? Making abortion illegal won’t make it cease to exist outright; it will only cease to exist as a medically safe procedure that can be discussed openly without fear of legal prosecution. People of good faith mustn’t be swayed at the hands of God-less man using their religiosity for political expedience.

It is my sincere hope that well-meaning Christians follow the example of Jimmy Carter. One of our most outspokenly devout presidents, Carter sold his peanut farm after winning the presidency so as not to risk perceptions of impropriety. He can be traced to no major scandal and has always responded to criticism with tact and decency. He remains a proponent of internal church reform, namely the ordainment of women as priests, yet as president staunchly supported the separation of church and state. He has never invoked what many people insidiously refer to as “religious liberty” to discriminate against gay people, even stating: “Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Carter elaborated: “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else” (as cited by Birnbaum, 2018).

As it pertains to abortion, Jimmy Carter’s stance reveals not only his deep intelligence (as evidenced by his capability to discern nuance) but his steady moral barometer. He does not conceal his personal reservations in an effort to conform to party expectations, but rather differentiates what his spiritual predilections are concerning abortion from what he believes the government’s role is in legislating reproduction. He plainly states: “I have a hard time believing that Jesus would approve abortions unless it was because of rape or incest or if the mother’s life was in danger. So I’ve had that struggle….. but my oath of office was to obey the Constitution and the laws of this country as interpreted as the Supreme Court, so I went along with that” (as cited by Birnbaum, 2018). Carter, while vocal about his apprehension to condone abortion during his presidency, rejected the creation of a constitutional amendment which would ban it. Instead, he sought to minimize the prevalence of abortion as much as possible. Carter stated during his third presidential debate with Gerald Ford: “I think abortion is wrong. I don't think the Government ought to do anything to encourage abortion, but I don't favor a constitutional amendment on the subject. But short of a constitutional amendment, and within the confines of a Supreme Court ruling, I will do everything I can to minimize the need for abortions with better sex education, family planning, with better adoptive procedures. I personally don't believe that the Federal Government ought to finance abortions, but I draw the line and don't support a constitutional amendment. I honor the right of people to seek a constitutional amendment on abortion, but I won't actively work for its passage” (as cited on ontheissues.org)

Moreover, Jimmy Carter does not seek to make people feel warm and fuzzy as a way of gaining political constituents. He does not conflate the issue of abortion with women’s rights alone (although that is certainly one dimension of the debate) and is himself an ardent feminist who has used his position of power to enhance the rights of women both domestically and abroad. He expresses personal reservation, as is his right, but demonstrates respect for rule of law and when given the opportunity refused to support a constitutional ban on abortions, instead working vigorously to minimize the perceived need of women to seek them out. Jimmy Carter is a real disciple of Christ, not an imposter who claims to revere him for political support.

I’d like to conclude by sharing a Facebook post I recently came across.  A now adult woman reminisces on the abortion she had as a teenager, and the painful circumstances which led her to terminate her pregnancy. I implore all self-proclaimed Christians to read the post, which I attached below, but to first consider this. During his life, Jesus showed mercy to prostitutes, thieves, and murderers (even his very own); he did not condone or encourage recidivism but empathized with people in desperate circumstances and forgave those who demonstrated humility before God. Christ loved the down-trodden and wayward souls of society. He encouraged his disciples to provide aid for the poor, to welcome foreigners, and to tend to the sick. Furthermore, I ask my fellow followers of Christ to ask themselves this. Would Jesus, who shared with us the beautiful parable of the Good Samaritan, condone Donald Trump’s treatment of Ilhan Omar? Would Jesus permit the mistreatment of migrants at the border? As I see it, how we are treating these immigrants is disgraceful, antithetical to Christ's teachings, and cannot be displaced through making flaccid arguments about sovereignty, safety, and economics. A policy of family separating does not enhance national security. Demonizing people fleeing desperate circumstances on the world stage is not pragmatic or economically advantageous. Making it virtually impossible to claim asylum status and reducing aid to countries from which these migrants are originating is not shrewd, but rather completely counterintuitive to U.S interests.

Who is better at emulating Jesus’s teachings? The publicly pro-life Donald Trump and his ardent supporters on the religious right the likes Franklin Graham? Graham, a prominent Christian evangelist, responded to Jimmy Carter’s acceptance of gay people by stating: “He is absolutely wrong when he said Jesus would approve of gay marriage. Jesus didn't come to promote sin, He came to save us from sin” (as cited by Warren, 2018). Graham even described the Equality Act as catastrophic (Badash, 2019).

Equality!?! Protection from discrimination on the basis of what one does with their own body or who their sleep with in the privacy of their own home! Yikes! Say it isn’t so, Franklin!

....or could it be that pro-choice politicians the likes of Barrack Obama are actually better representatives of Christ than the hypocrites on the religious right? I, for one, do not fear for Barrack Obama, or Jimmy Carter, or even Tara Dove (whose post is provided below) on Judgement Day. Donald Trump, a man of immense privilege who leverages his power over the vulnerable…well, I am not so confident.

This picture was taken a month or two after my abortion. I was 16 and in an incredibly abusive marriage. You see that wrap on my hand? My wrist was sprained because he threw me out of our bed and onto the floor, to "sleep like the dog you are." When I had my abortion, I still had braces on.

When we found out I was pregnant, no one was happy and I felt like dying. There was no question. The pregnancy would be terminated. His parents paid.

We had to cross state lines and he was speeding (he got pulled over and you can bet I was punished for that). At the clinic, he got angry because he wasn't allowed in the back with me. I was punished for that too.

Because I terminated my pregnancy, I was able to leave him and cut all ties later. I was able to get a restraining order. I was able to move, go to college, have a career, and start a family on my own time. Because I terminated my pregnancy, no child was raised with an abusive father.

Also, as I found out with my planned pregnancy some ten years later, I have a clotting disorder that, without medical intervention, has a high chance of killing any child I carry (I've miscarried twice and my daughter's placenta was clotting at 39 weeks) and throwing a clot in me (I've had one DVT already). This would not have been known when I was 16.

Having an abortion saved my life, in more ways than one. I have not and will never regret it.

#YouKnowMe #IAmNotAshamed #1in4

 Works Cited

Abortion. (2019, July 01). Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion

Badash, D. (2019, July 17). In Insane Diatribe Franklin Graham Calls Equality Act 'Catastrophic' and Warns if Passed US 'May Never Recover'. Retrieved from https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/07/in-insane-diatribe-franklin-graham-calls-equality-act-catastrophic-and-warns-if-passed-us-may-never-recover/

Belluck, P. (2018, September 07). Science Does Not Support Claims That Contraceptives Are 'Abortion-Inducing'. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/health/kavanaugh-abortion-inducing-contraceptives.html

Birnbaum, E. (2018, July 09). Jimmy Carter: 'I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage'. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/news/396058-jimmy-carter-i-believe-that-jesus-would-approve-of-gay-marriage

Brice-Saddler, M., & Horton, A. (2019, June 28). A pregnant woman was shot in the stomach. She was charged in the death of the fetus. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/27/pregnant-woman-was-shot-stomach-she-was-indicted-her-babys-death/?utm_term=.393e088b1a94

FAQs about the Reproductive Health Act. (2019, February 19). Retrieved from https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/2019/liz-krueger/faqs-about-reproductive-health-act

Goldstein, A. (2019, January 14). Judge blocks Trump effort to roll back birth control mandate nationwide. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/judge-blocks-trump-effort-to-roll-back-birth-control-mandate-nationwide/2019/01/14/abba97e4-181f-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.4d14463f720f

History.com Editors. (2019, March 27). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade

Jimmy Carter on Abortion. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Jimmy_Carter_Abortion.htm

Marshall, S., Zak, L., & Metz, J. (2019, June 23). Doctor compares conditions for unaccompanied children at immigrant holding centers to 'torture facilities'. Retrieved July 19, 2019, from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doctor-compares-conditions-immigrant-holding-centers-torture-facilities/story?id=63879031

Oberman, M. (2018, May 31). What Happens When Abortion Is Banned? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/opinion/sunday/abortion-banned-latin-america.html

Panetta, G. (2019, June 01). The states passing strict abortion bans have some of the highest maternal and infant mortality rates in the country. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/states-passing-abortion-bans-have-highest-infant-mortality-rates-2019-5

Ruiz, M. (2018, November 08). Will White Women Voters Ever Be Who We Want Them to Be? Retrieved from https://www.vogue.com/article/white-women-voters-conservative-trump-gop-problem

Somarriba, M. R. (Ed.). (2019, March 18). Abby Johnson on the Benefits of Natural Family Planning. Retrieved from https://naturalwomanhood.org/abby-johnson-interview-former-planned-parenthood-director-nfp/

Warren, S. (2018, July 12). Franklin Graham: President Carter 'Absolutely Wrong' on Jesus Approving of Gay Marriage. Retrieved from https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/july/franklin-graham-says-former-president-carter-is-absolutely-wrong-nbsp-on-jesus-approving-of-gay-marriage

What Abortion Was Like In The U.S. Before Roe V. Wade. (2019, May 20). Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade

[kunalkarankapoor]

The character study of Mohan Bhatnagar.

This is the fifth part of the character study of Mohan Bhatnagar. The next part will be up on Monday or Tuesday.

12) Mohan and Addu

Video Link: Mohan/Addu Relationship Study

Sometimes I think that the things I remember are more real than the things I see.

Golden in Memoirs of a Geisha

This was perhaps the most controversial relationship on the show because of how superficially it was handled. There was a great deal of confusion, not to mention dissatisfaction, related to the relationship development of Mohan and Addu, specifically Addu’s poor characterisation and his hate crusade against Mohan. There was never any doubt about Mohan’s concern for Addu, nor will I claim that he did not care for him. It was obvious that he did care for Addu; that his well-being was important to Mohan.

But it is also an undeniable fact that Mohan did not share the same bond with Addu as he did with Nanhi. There was always a distance, an impenetrable wall between them, and Addu seemed hell-bound on keeping it up. It started with a simple misunderstanding, e.g. when Mohan argued with Addu about an ice cream wrapper in their first scene together. Later, it developed into a competition (for Addu). It was about his mother; about making certain that she continued to adore and love him more than she did Mohan. Thus whenever he felt that her attention was slipping from him to Mohan, it made him dislike Mohan even more. It was a natural phase in a boy’s life – the hard transition from being the sole male in the family (and the centre of his mother’s attention) to having to share that place with another male. Not just any male, but an authority figure. In addition to that, Addu was incredibly attached to his mother and too young to understand the death of his father (since he was only four years old when his father died). Thus in his head, Mohan was trying to take his mother from him. Mohan was a threat, so to speak.

It was a mistake on Megha’s part that she never addressed Addu’s issues with Mohan, nor made it a point to help him understand and deal with the many changes in their lives. e.g. Amar’s death, Mohan’s arrival, and finally her second marriage. Perhaps she was very traditional in the sense that she did not think it important to include her children in the process of marrying another man, and simply assumed that they would adapt as children often do. But the situation was complicated. Nanhi already knew Mohan. She had befriended him. For her, the transition was simple. However, Addu still regarded Mohan as a stranger; an intruder in their (in his head) perfectly happy family.

That is not to say that Addu did not want a father. No, on the contrary, Addu needed a father. But he was simply not prepared for Mohan’s permanent presence in their lives, nor did he understand how to deal with the emotions related to Mohan’s new role in their family. On one hand, he wanted a father and even began to grow fond of Mohan, but on the other hand, he could get away with disrespecting Mohan because Mohan was not really his father – something that was confirmed daily when Nanhi called him Spiderman (even as their relationship had altered entirely), or when Megha did not emphasise his role as an authority figure. Thus it was natural for a six-year old Addu to disregard Mohan as a father figure. It was still Megha/Nanhi/Addu (the family) separated from Mohan (the outsider/intruder).

For a while, in season one, it did seem as if Addu was starting to accept Mohan as a part of their family. There were a couple of brief but memorable moments between them, (e.g. on Janmashtami, in Nepal, or the times Mohan took care of him when Megha was in the hospital). Mohan and Addu had their occasional conflicts, but at the end of the first season, their relationship appeared to be moving in the right direction. It all changed in the second season, though.

Returning to how Megha never asserted Mohan as an authority figure in the household, it had consequences in relation to Mohan and Addu. But more than that, it was when she failed to treat Mohan as an authority figure herself that it had a really negative impact, e.g. she tended to treat Mohan according to her own emotional standpoints. If she was upset with him, she would shut him out (in front of her own children). There was one such incident when she had just found out about Riddhima and suddenly decided not to live with Mohan. Firstly, it showed that she refused to cut the umbilical cord to her in-laws through her first marriage. Secondly, it destroyed the fragile bond between Mohan and Addu which had just begun to form in Nepal. Then later, when she suddenly decided to leave the house with Mohan (in support of him) and allowed her in-laws to keep her children, it further damaged the tentative bond of trust between Mohan and Addu – because Addu would have perceived Megha’s action as his mother abandoning him for Mohan.

There was a sequence during Megha’s engagement track when you saw how oblivious Megha was to Addu’s treatment of Mohan and Mohan’s emotions. It was a sequence when Mohan had bought a video game for Addu, but Manav (the doctor) had bought a fancier one. Addu disrespected Mohan’s present by rejecting it in front of the entire Vyas clan, which not only embarrassed Mohan, but also wounded him. However, no one stepped in to reprimand Addu – least of all Megha.

Mohan and Addu needed to spend more time together and bond as father and son. Mohan did not know how to deal with him, but Megha had the opportunity to encourage father/son outings to help their relationship along. A part of Addu was willing to accept him as his father, but played hard to get because he wanted Mohan to show that he wanted a relationship to him, that it mattered, e.g. the Janmashtami sequence when Mohan asked him if he wanted to smash the urn with him. Addu refused. But when he was placed on Mohan’s shoulders and when Mohan climbed up to the urn, there was genuine excitement on Addu’s face. He enjoyed it and it was okay that it was Mohan. Basically, Addu did want to smash the urn with Mohan. But at the same time, he wanted Mohan to work for his friendship.

Why? Why was Mohan so important to him? Why was he constantly testing his boundaries?

It was implied that Addu was manipulative as a child, but it seemed more as if he was rebellious because 1) he was spoiled and never had a father to keep an eye on him and 2) a huge part of him wanted Mohan’s undivided attention (i.e. perhaps Addu felt that Mohan did not love him as much as he loved Nanhi and Megha, which he seemed to put into words at the station when he said that Mohan would understand once he was gone – as in that Mohan would realise how much he missed Addu).

However, it was all messed up when he became an adult.

The frustration I experienced had to do with how the reasoning behind Addu’s villainous demeanour was unclear. I could not, for the life of me, comprehend what the channel/writers wanted with his character. What was the point of Addu’s entire mission? What did he actually want from Mohan? Did he want to destroy him? Or did he want to destroy his family? Did he want his mother to himself? Why did he hide from them all? Did he love Mohan at any point on the show? Did he want Mohan to apologise for having abandoned him when he needed him the most? Why did he not see how much his family loved him? Why did it not make him content to be forgiven for his mistakes and accepted by his mother? Why did he still make that deal with Mohan? Why did he hate Mohan when Mohan was the only father that he ever remembered having?

The issue remained that Addu was shown as a black-hearted villain – entirely irredeemable. There was never any actual reason behind his actions, e.g. that he ran the market of kidnapped children (despite having been one of those children himself), he nearly gutted Nanhi, he murdered a doctor (and for what, really?), he hosed his mother with ice cold water until she fainted (and then left her unconscious in the mud), he manipulated everyone around him, he tortured his own best friend and threatened to kill him, he put Mohan through months of mental torture, he took Mohan’s money and his properties – and throughout it all, he felt no remorse and faced no consequences. Where was the moral message in all of this?

Instead of Addu hating Mohan and wanting to destroy him, it should have been shown that Mohan breached Addu’s wall in the first season and that they bonded. It should have been shown that Mohan became a father figure to Addu and that his attention became invaluable to Addu – to the point that if he experienced that Mohan showed Nanhi and Megha more attention/love than him, he rebelled by stealing things in order to regain Mohan’s full attention. It was a matter of tweaking their scenes and deepening them, e.g. there was one scene where Mohan had bought Addu another video game and Megha complained that he would not do his homework. Instead of showing it from an angle that said “Mohan was an irresponsible parent and Megha had to educate him”, it could have been shown that Addu wanted to play the video game with Mohan, but Mohan was too busy with his work, which might have made Addu feel unimportant. If subtle moments such as these had taken place after Addu had accepted Mohan as a father, then the fact that Mohan did not come when he called for him (at the station) would have made Addu feel abandoned, resulting in the following resentment and ambivalence toward Mohan, i.e. Mohan failing to save Addu should have woundedAddu rather than angered him, making him doubt the entire foundation of Mohan’s love for him while at the same time still wanting it.

Furthermore, it was never clarified what Addu had been through as a child – the stories from the streets and from Addu’s mouth were never believable as his purpose was to shock and hurt Mohan, not to speak the honest-to-God truth. There should also have been some consistency in his character. Either it should have been about how irredeemable he was, e.g. he hated Mohan and his family for abandoning him, regardless of whether they meant to or not, and wanted vengeance for personal pleasure. Or it should have been about how redeemable he was despite his actions, e.g. he did not hate Mohan, but actually loved him, which intensified the pain of being abandoned by him. Thus when he confronted Mohan about his feelings and found out that Mohan had always loved him, it opened a window to forgiveness.

Regardless of whether he was good or bad at heart, Addu should have faced the consequences of his actions; what he did to Mohan and others. He should have been punished somehow. Mohan sacrificed so much for Addu, including his own principles, i.e. even when he found out that Addu was a criminal, he did not turn him in. A Mohan without guilt, a Mohan who had never been accused of being an unloving parent, might have done it. This was also evident in the sequence with Megha when Mohan needed her to forgive Addu, to let him come home. That was one of the few times that I saw Megha do something against her own will and belief system in order to give Mohan some peace of mind. I doubt that she ever realised how far Addu had actually stretched Mohan on an emotional level.

In the end, as Mohan fell to his “death”, there was finally something peaceful about him. Even as it was supposed to be about his love for Megha and inseparable they were, and so on, Kunal’s performance was so beautifully layered that I interpreted it as being about Mohan’s guilt, not Megha. When Mohan realised that Addu was not going to pull him up, that he would remain bitter (and even commit murder), Mohan’s entire expression changed from full of angst to calm realisation.

And he did both a selfish and selfless thing: He let go of Addu’s hand.

The peace on his face, the contentment? It was the weight of guilt being lifted from his heart. It was the very burden of self-blame that he had carried for 12 years of his life. It was gone. Not only had he erased the guilt, but he had also “saved” Addu from committing another horrendous crime — and that meant forgiveness. It was not forgiveness from Addu. No, it was that Mohan could finally forgive himself. It was freedom. Mohan deserved that freedom. Thus I was not upset that Mohan “died”. Not even as I loved him so much. Not even as I felt that he deserved much better than this end. I had been through the slow burn of character deaths before; some more terrible than Mohan’s end, i.e. they were character deaths that had me crying for days. For instance when they killed Michael Scofield on

Prison Break.

Scofield, nature wise, reminded me a lot of Mohan, actually. With his empathic ability, his self-sacrifices for people that he loved (and even strangers). Though, they were complete opposites, too, e.g. Mohan was a crime reporter whereas Scofield became a criminal. Speaking of Prison Break, I would have loved to see Kunal as Scofield or even Mahone.Side-track.Returning to Mohan’s fall, I was not upset, but I was gloating. For once, Megha and Nanhi and everyone who had ever disowned Mohan would know what it was

really

like to lose him; to not have him at their convenience. If Mohan had never survived that fall, it would have been Addu’s punishment. It would have remained on Addu’s conscience until his last dying breath, and he would have known what it was like to carry the guilt of another person’s undoing in his heart, as Mohan had carried around the guilt of losing Addu in his own.

13) Mohan and Munna

Video Link: Mohan/Munna Relationship Study

Honestly, I was an even bigger fan of Mohan/Munna than I was of Mohan/Guru. There was just something incredibly special between the characters and in the actors’ interaction. If there was anyone who managed to complement Kunal’s performance, it was Manish, because he brought the same level of sincerity in his performances as Kunal, e.g. his body language, head movements, facial expressions, hand movements, and eyes were involved with the character of Munna. Kunal and Manish did not have enough scenes together to satisfy my heart. But the few that they did have were absolutely beautiful.

The relationship between Mohan and Munna did not start on positive terms. Munna was furious with Mohan, and feared him, because of Addu’s manipulations. Meanwhile the fact that Mohan was so shocked over “Addu’s” condition and instantly blamed himself was hard to watch. Kunal’s performance throughout Mohan’s first meeting with Munna was just heart-wrenching. The tentative steps that he took into the room, terrified of what he would find. The happiness mixed with insecurity as he smiled at Munna — only to have water splashed in his face followed by Munna’s furious attack. Mohan’s pain and self-blame and remorse were evident on his face. But he stayed and took it all. There was no way that he was ever leaving “Addu” alone again. It took a lot of courage for Mohan to stay; to approach Munna and look him in the eye (believing it was Addu’s eyes) and see himself reflected in them as a monster.

There was also a self-doubt and self-hatred to trace in Mohan as he backed out of the room. Was he such a horrible person that he caused this? When Mohan covered his mouth, it expressed so much more of his state of mind than dialogues would have. That is, Kunal’s performance provided a clear insight as to the thoughts in Mohan’s head. Did he do this to him? What if Addu had never been kidnapped? What if he had stopped it when Addu had called for him? Was this real? Was this really happening? And how? How would he deal? How could he ever look at Addu again and not think that he, Mohan, had broken him? Basically, in Mohan’s eyes, Munna’s condition was his doing. Thus Munna’s violent reaction, his rejection, it only intensified Mohan’s self-blame — only added more weight to the burden in his heart.

The first embrace between Mohan and Munna was probably my favourite scene with them. It was a bittersweet moment. Kunal’s performance was so heart-wrenching. When Munna moved toward Mohan, it was evident from his expression that he expected Munna to attack him again. There was no fight in Mohan’s body language. This time, he was not going to stop him. What I could read in his features was that Mohan had surrendered hope. He did not believe that he would ever win Addu’s love. But he would still do everything in his power to keep him safe from harm. However, Munna hugged him. It was a painfully beautiful moment as Munna wrapped his arms around him and held on tight. For a moment, I thought that if Munna had really been Addu, then I could have forgiven the channel/writers for skipping such huge portions of their relationship development.

Kunal smoothly conveyed the raw transition of Mohan’s emotions as he hugged him back. (Wherever Kunal goes in his head when he does an emotional scenes, or whatever dark place that he revisits, it is bloody effective.) Mohan’s complete emotional journey in relation to Addu came to pass through Kunal’s facial expressions, his body language, e.g. the tentativeness about the way that he held Munna, as if the moment was a frail illusion that might shatter at a wrong move, and how the disbelief and shock on his face settled into relief and happiness and hope.

When all you have ever wanted is to be accepted by this scrawny boy; when you have spent 12 years searching for him out of both love and guilt; when you have finally found him and been rejected again, practically spat at; and when that immeasurable guilt has magnified inside your heart because of it all — then naturally, it all comes crashing down in a moment such as this one. Munna, as he embraced Mohan, gave Mohan the one thing that he had ever wanted from Addu; acceptance. And as he accepted Mohan, Mohan could finally forgive himself. He could let go of that burden. He looked as if he did not know where to place the peace and happiness, how to deal with it now that he felt it. All of this was interpreted from Kunal’s performance, not because the scene in itself held the depth of the character.

Something that intensifies Kunal’s emotional performances and keeps them grounded is that he never exaggerates the tears. His eyes become flooded, but you only see one or two tears dangling from his eyelashes for a long moment before they parachute — and that is what makes my chest constrict in pain. Many actors seem to empty their glycerine bottles in their eyes, and it is like the frigging Niagara Falls when they do their emotional scenes, which often ruins it for me. Kunal knows how to balance his performances and that is a kick-ass skill.

What I especially enjoyed about Mohan and Munna’s interaction was how there was always a silent understanding between them post-acceptance. A wordless communication and closeness that went beyond anything that the channel/writers had probably imagined, e.g. it was the way that Munna would smile when he saw Mohan; it was the way that he would make his fingers tap-dance on Mohan’s shoulder; it was how Mohan came to know and understand Munna on a much deeper level than anyone else, comforting him, reading him. It could have been explored on a much larger plane because there was a lot of potential in this relationship.

It was another evidence of Mohan’s beauty and charisma. There was something about him; about the way that he cared for people, sacrificed for people that made even strangers become attached to him. It is a significant point to mention that Munna, being a stranger who had been filled with lies about Mohan, easily came to understand what Mohan was made of. In fact, at the very first sign of Mohan’s kindness, Munna abandoned his anger and embraced Mohan. Something that Addu could never do. It was rather interesting to witness that a stranger could care for Mohan at just a glimpse of his heart while the very people who had known Mohan for years never comprehended his value, or saw his heart.

When it was revealed that Munna was not Addu, I was not surprised. But I was still upset because it verified that Mohan had been cheated again. Mohan had been given the false hope, the illusion that he could forgive himself, that Addu loved him — only to find out that he was back to square one. Furthermore, it was bothersome to know that Mohan saw Munna as his son, that he had bonded with him far more than he had with Addu, but now the story line would return to villainous Addu and his hate crusade against Mohan. Was that really necessary?