#i can make this comparison because theyre both Base Game too

[ad-hawkeye]

fellow artem girlie who likes alkaid checking in. i know i'm predictable but watching a man get hit with a lust spell or whatever that was and then having him cut himself to snap out of it instead of having cheap fanservice was lifechanging ok

OKAY ACTUALLY. SO TRUE ANON. YOU'RE LITERALLY SO RIGHT.

alkaid respects women so much that he literally powered thru some like. insanely powerful Horny Spell Sex Pollen and like you said?? STABBED himself to snap out of it??? AWOOOOGA literally infinitely more sexy than fanservice could ever be and i mean this HAHA

[sapphire-weapon]

As someone who ships leon and ashley and enjoys reading/consuming taboo topics and relationships in fiction including incestuous ones, it's so funny to me that I don't see eagleone that way at ALL. theyre one of the relationships i purely enjoy for being a cute wholesome romance and who i want to see thriving and happy (albeit i enjoy the tragic love angle too--) and yet they have a sizable age difference and a "power dynamic" (??????) so it's a "proship"... honestly outside of them both having a daddy kink i really dont want to see that with them!!! Its just not what I'm here for. Im here for that in OTHER ships and this was supposed to be my one good one and this is what happens. Lol.

As such I try to just not care when people accuse eagleone shippers of being weird because Im like... well I suppose I AM...... but it is really unfair for the majority of vanilla ones. Honestly I don't think the antis are secret shippers or secret incestuous shippers (...okay maybe like one or two--) I think they just have a "NOTP" or are scared of how much they relate to ashley as you say and are just making excuses for why they hate seeing fanart of them and blocking people who ship them. I notice this in other fandoms where people will say two characters are "sibling coded" and its just their way of saying they don't ship them. It's really weird frankly and they're basically ignoring canon to write worse fanfiction but that's just how it is these days.

personally, it actually blows me away that people think of Leon and Ashley as being "age gap" at all.

in modern day 2023, Leon is 46. Ashley is 39.

that feels really fucking normal to me in terms of ages for a couple LMAO if any of these dumbasses met a couple like that irl out in the wild today, no one would bat an eye. but that would require these people actually leaving the house, so.

the whole "power imbalance" thing is completely disingenuous, too, because people only look at it in the context of the events of the actual game and then pretend like that's going to be the norm for them forever and not, you know, a very unique, atypical, and extreme situation they're in.

but if anyone were to think about it a little bit as opposed to not at all, they'd realize that their power dynamic would shift once they got home, and then shift again once Ashley's dad is out of office -- and when the power dynamic is constantly changing, that's not exactly imbalanced, is it?

Leon has all of the power during the events of RE4make, and Ashley is wholly dependent on him. yes. that's true.

but once they're out of that combat situation and they're back home in DC, Ashley has literally all of the power in the world over him. she outranks him socially, and she theoretically has the power to make his life complete hell in terms of his career if she were to whisper in her dad's ear the right way.

but the title of "president" is a very temporary one, and once those very short few years are over...? neither Ashley nor Leon are in a position to hold any power over each other at all anymore. they just become two regular-ass people trying to fit into each other's lives.

the whole idea behind "Ashley is completely dependent on Leon in RE4make, which means she will always be completely dependent on him" isn't just based on a faulty premise -- it's also really sexist and gross and reduces Ashley to something less than human, because it assumes that she's incapable of autonomous thought.

and it's really funny how it's only the people who hate the ship that actually are problematic in their thought process. they project their internalized misogyny and sexual insecurities onto us.

I am pretty much as deep in the middle of eagleone fandom as a person can possibly be, and I have never known a single one of you fuckers to ship this ship because you have an age gap kink or because you get off on the power dynamics. the only time power dynamics get brought up is when we make knight/queen comparisons -- which actually gives Ashley the greater portion of power.

I mean, yeah, there is the whole thing where a lot of the fandom also is of a mind that there are some daddy issue kinks at play in the ship, but --

I don't wanna hear shit from people about us enjoying daddy kink between Leon and Ashley when literally the entire fucking RE fandom is out here posting pics of shirtless Leon mods and writing the word "DADDY" in giant fucking text at the bottom of the post. goddamn hypocrites.

[billymayslesbian]

and the correct answer was b :D choosing animals for this was difficult, i had to strike a balance between things that weren't so recognizable that just anyone could get it but not so obscure that only specialists would get them. i might do one of these in the future with more, weirder skulls

profiles of each animal under the cut

A. Dimorphodon

(left and right both by mark witton)

dimorphodons are a type of pterosaur, a sister group to dinosaurs which is its closest relative of the ones above. they are both archosaurs, which you can tell by the extra hole in front of their eye socket

dimorphodons are a decently archaid species of pterosaur, they lived in the early jurassic and have a very long tail in comparison to their more derived relatives that spring up later in the jurassic and into the cretaceous. theyre pretty small, which is why they were still able to fly with such a long tail, and had the characteristic ridiculous huge head that you see in most pterosaurs. it's estimated to have been a pretty good climber and a pretty poor flier based on its wing proportion and ankle structure

B. Majungasaurus

(top by scott hartman, bottom by cisiopurple on deviantart)

majungasaurus are a dinosaur, you can tell by the extra hole in front of they eye and on the jaw! specifically, they're abelisaurids, which are a super weird group of theropods (the group that contains t rex and raptors). anatomically for theropods abelisaurids are super unusual in a number of ways. while lots of carnivorous theropods have reduced forelimbs, abelisaurids take it to a whole new level in making their forelimbs completely nonfunctional (even t rex could grab things!) and facing backwards as if permanently naruto running. on top of that they have a weirdly blunt skull, thick tail, and horn-like structures on their skulls. what exactly this group was doing is a bit of a mystery. one hypothesis ive seen floated around is that they were specialized to hunt sauropods (long necked dinosaurs) by using their blunt snout to do something disgustingly nicknamed "flesh grazing", where they tear off chunks of the massive living animal while leaving it alive. majungasaurus lived on madagascar, and are also one of a couple dinosaur species with direct evidence of cannibalism!

C. Dimetrodon

(top by scott hartman, bottom by franz anthony)

dimetrodon are a synapsid, which is actually the group which contains mammals! you can tell because they only have one hole behind their eye socket instead of 2 (diapsids) or 0 (anapsids). all the people in the notes who said it looked like a mammal werent too far off! dimetrodons are pelycosaurs, which are a more basal group of synapsids compared to therapsids, the group which contains mammals. dimetrodon lived in the permian and went extinct around 40 million years before the first dinosaurs even appeared. the past decade has seen a LOT of controversy over this animal, specifically stemming from a paper written in 2012 that was kept private and disseminated to the public through a game of telephone. the basic gist of it was that the tips of the spines were probably not fully covered by the sail, but miscommunication led to people believing the sail only covered half or even none of the spines. apart from that a few other things about our view of them changed, including it going from walking with a totally sprawled posture like a lizard to a semi sprawled posture like an alligator

D. Mosasaurus

(top by crowncrocopoda on deviantart, bottom by henry sharpe)

mosasaurus are actually a group of aquatic monitor lizards! they are diapsids like dinosaurs, but unlike dinosaurs they belong to the group lepidosauria (lizards, snakes) instead of the group archosauria (crocodiles, birds). mosasaur skulls are a bit weirder than they look at first glace, they have a second set of jaws on the roof of their mouths

mosasaurs lived a very similar lifestyle to modern toothed whales and seem to have been extremely opportunistic hunters. you can find mosasaur bitemarks in just about anything from the cretaceous, including amonite shells!

feel free to tag/reply your answer and why you think so (unless youre familiar with the above species in which case shhhhhh)

[mnogorgannik]

2 10 n 11 :)

this is basically an essay im so sorry. watch how hard i can infodump (ill put this under a cut hopefully it works bc sometimes tumblr decimates the keep reading things if theyre in asks)

2. Who’s your favorite of the Bound? What do you think of the different ideologies they have? Which of the factions are you most aligned with?

WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER I AM A PETER LOVER THROUGH AND THROUGH!!!!!! oh baby i love that morally questionable architect. pretty early on in getting into pathologic (it’s coming up on a year now...) i thought about peter stamatin too hard and now i’m here. but really i find him to be such a fascinating character!

the thing about pathologic that i love is how almost every character can be as complex as you want. pathologic does an excellent job of implying a lot of character traits while only exploring some in further detail, which in some games is frustrating but patho does it so well! it consistently hints at traits and lets you fill in the details yourself. peter’s character is extremely interesting to me... and maybe a little more relatable at times than i want to admit lol.

i think i’ll talk about both stamatins though! their dynamic hurts me a lot. i’ll start with andrey bc i’ve been thinking about him lately. although i’ll bounce back and forth between both stamatins.

i’ve said this before but i’ll say it again.... andrey’s role as a protector who inadvertently hurts the people he cares about really gets to me. he is not a shield but, in his own words, a battering ram. and the problem is that battering ram has a recoil.

i have to wonder how that mentality of his came about, anyways. the implication is that it’s always just been him and peter, so did he take on that role because there wasn’t anyone else to do it?

in his efforts to protect peter from... military, i believe, he kills four people. which leads to daniil getting mistaken for andrey, which leads to daniil getting shot. and almost dying. he protects peter but to a smothering extent, peter even says he’s been suffering for ten years bc of andrey which is a LOADED line. he protects on a physical level but he kinda fucks up on the emotional.

there’s a horrible irony in peter and eva being the people he cares about the most and both attempting suicide. with eva once she’s missing he immediately goes running off trying to look for her, and . ahh i can’t remember right off hand what exactly he thought happened. but ik he was probably expecting a fight. with peter he says that after that he’ll never let peter leave his side, at least “as far as his knife can fly”... it sounds cheesy but the one thing he can’t save anyone from is themself.

and god the way andrey bases his ENTIRE sense of self worth on peter fucking hurts. they’re not peter and andrey, the architects. they’re Peter And Andrey, The Architect. (thinking about “one architect, two brothers” here.) andrey thinks he’s larger than life and all but he’s constantly living in peter’s shadow. their theatre of death positions come to mind here, with peter standing up, looking down at andrey. but andrey is on his knees in front of peter, arms limp to his sides.... separated by a wooden beam...

peter’s side of this dynamic is fascinating too. his dependency on andrey is. ow. leaving all practical matters and decision making to him... there’s this resentment (That’s Fine I’ve Been Suffering For Ten Years Because Of Him) and lack of communication that especially shows through for him.

while in p2 andrey completely crumbles if peter dies, peter doesn’t seem to care...... at all....?? which hopefully is elaborated upon in p2. he’s willing to talk to aspity about worrying if andrey is angry with him but he can’t bring it up with andrey himself. when he asks how andrey is doing he stops and says andrey is a “tough man” and can handle anything. in general, while it’s definitely there for andrey, themes of dependency are really glaringly obvious for peter.

one of my favorite peter things i’ve talked about before is still his ego!!! peter has a gigantic ego!!! he really does think that even though he’s hit the ceiling and can’t go any further he is still “a true architect” and “the rock upon which is built the stairway to tomorrow”. he has a blunt edge to him and he doesn’t ever tell you more than he thinks he needs to which i love. if he doesn’t want to tell you something he isn’t gonna do it. this is a character trait i think ppl miss which is sad because it’s so good and adds another layer of depth to him!

it really does hurt me how he’s valued for his mind alone (AHEM AHEM AHEM. GEORGIY) but it’s the thing nobody understands about him. i’m nowhere near as smart as peter lol but i do know that pain of feeling like none of your ideas can be understood because you just can’t express them the way you’d like, and then feeling like you’ll never be able to make it happen.

also, here’s a little thing  i’ve picked up on. this connection probably doesn’t exist but i’m making it because the stamatins make me lose my mind and start becoming one of those people who looks for connections in everything i guess. peter standing in the theatre of death, andrey below him. peter’s loft being at a high point in the town, the broken heart being underground. peter’s loft is also higher north on the map but the broken heart is lower south. just smth interesting

i have more thoughts on them of course! but this is all getting awfully long. i feel like i’ve only just gotten to the tip of the iceberg  even though i’ve written so much skfjskfjs this just feels quite surface level or. at least what is surface level for me who thinks about the stamatins so hard.

anyways i’ll keep my answers to the other two parts of this question quick! peter and andrey’s more creative vs practical mindsets are rly neat. especially because i would actually argue peter is a little more grounded in reality in certain aspects. not all, but certain ones...... their take on the utopian ideology is interesting. hot take: peter’s version of utopianism leans a tad towards humility. and andrey /does/ feel “straightforward utopian” but i think in certain regards? this man has a bit of a termite streak..... (hi al if you’re reading this). but i won’t get into that right now i’ve already gone on so long. saving that for later.

i think all of the factions kinda suck in their own way sometimes, honestly? although all of them are well written and have their pros and cons. were i in pathologic and i had to choose one i’d probably be a termite but everyone around me seems to think i’m a utopian. is it bc i love peter so much

10. What would you be like as a Pathologic character?

this question is a hard one! i did make a self insert once, mile-a-minute, but they’ve become their own oc by now. i think i’d be very...... very afraid...... probably isolating myself why does every pathologic character break quarantine???? also you could trade beetles with me :) thats about all i’ve got sorry this is real short

11. What is something you would change, writing-wise, about either game?

UGH i’ve been gushing about pathologic because. obviously i love this game so much. but the way it handles racism & such (in both games!) leaves much to be desired :/

i see a lot of the points it’s trying to make but i think the way they’re handled can be very messy. there are moments that work very well but. a lot that don’t. (i am aware that dybowski writes partially from his own experiences)

all too often the game “validates” the kin’s oppression and... at times paints them as oddly antagonistic? i don’t like how often as artemy you’re able to be like “i’m not one of those beasts” and i think there are better ways to touch on his internalized racism. in general the constant comparisons to animals is weird. you get big vlad who is obviously explicitly racist comparing them to animals, but then sometimes it’s like “ACTUALLY calling them animals is fine :)”

i think the herb brides are kind of. Hm. in their portrayal. also using parts of the buryat alphabet to denote an accent is weird. making odongh and herb brides inhuman is weird. connecting the kin to Magic is weird.

and, listen, i’d really like to not be playing Artemy Burakh Experiences a Microaggression Simulator every time i’m playing the haruspex route. hate that you either can’t call ppl out on their shit or if you can it ends the conversation/bars you from getting necessary information. glad you at least get to drag the vlads, i guess?

i also was talking about this but wrt peter specifically, and this issue is present throughout the game but it’s especially visible with peter, i don’t like how often you can mock him for his addiction.

he’s obviously in an extremely rough patch! being able to be just so plain cruel to him about the dependency on alcohol (and iirc in p1 hallucinogens, bc aglaya mentions it) he’s formed to cope with his mental illness & trauma just feels bad. especially because yes it is not a healthy coping mechanism at all but... it still is a coping mechanism, if that makes sense?

the way you’re able to constantly rub it in his face feels awful. peter is fully aware that it isn’t good for him and shows a desire to quit. even if he didn’t it would still be awful to say because. it’s just insensitive. like you don’t just go up to someone and keep being like HEY YOU DRINK A LOT YOU SHOULD STOP DOING THAT DO YOU KNOW WHAT WATER IS? feels really bad to keep harping on something that causes him pain and that he struggles with every single day.

however peter does have moments where he tells you Not to say that, or if you pry into why he drinks he’ll outright say he doesn’t remember you being his friend, which is better than nothing.

in p1 moreso than p2 i hate how you can be like oh he’s craaaazy he’s off his rocker he’s delusional!!!! that “why, i never... an architect of schizophrenia!” comment sticks in my mind because it’s just... so genuinely mean. especially because if i remember correctly that line is from when he’s planning on LITERALLY FUCKING BURNING HIMSELF ALIVE

i think if they were going to have all of this they should have gone more in depth on how it’s really. not good that he’s treated so poorly. and i do believe that’s what they were going for, a la the art book w/ the whole “not to be made into a drunken clown, this is a tragic character”, etc. but it just doesn’t land. i’m holding out for the bachelor and changeling routes in p2 to see if they expand upon any of it but i highly doubt i’ll be satisfied in this regard.

i stand by the One time it was really fucking funny to clown on peter being the time you can tell him little girls eat raspberries and earthworms and he just believes you

[prcphetess]

greetings ladies, theydies, n gaydies !  it’s officially pride month / my birth month which means my power and chaos are both at their absolute highest so i apologize in advance :/  ANYWAY i’m hannah, i’m twenty but only for a couple more weeks, i’m kickin it in the est, n i use she/her pronouns !  now onto what you’re all here for ...

enter LOURDES CLEMONTE .

her app / bio are kind of Wild Rides but if ur in the business of reading i did send her app in the discord server n i also have Just her bio linked on her navigation tab as well as a stats page !! but i’ll try my best to summarize all the important stuff here !

also before we get started .. a quick TW for child loss, non-descriptive mentions of grooming, sexual harassment/assault, abuse, car crashes, n death and i THINK that’s everything

HISTORY.

it all started w her dad .. leopold clemonte.. in summary: fuck that guy !

he’s a hot shot author turned movie writer man but in order to gain all of his success he had to make a series of shady deals w none other than our petty king apollo

deal #1 was the life of her twin brother :(

deal #2 was her mother’s sanity aka she became like.. a ghost essentially who no longer speaks or interacts w anyone it’s very sad

deal #3 was meant to be lourdes 

now to backtrack a minute, our girl lou went to school to become a playwright bc her whole life she was desperate to make herself seem worthy to her father n unfortunately leopold knew this and used it to his advantage when apollo demanded he pay off his debt

leopold essentially groomed her to please apollo and promised that she would have a hand in his business forever if she could do tht so she was like okay :)

until .. apollo’s price got too high... u know... n she dared to say no and for that she was Punished

aka cursed

but more about that later

anyway bc she royally pissed off apollo by rejecting him, leopold ALSO lost all his help in being famous and had to turn to a famously wealthy family in california known as the grimaldis 

in order to get them to fund him, he forced lourdes to marry their son brooks who was Not A Nice Man 

2 years into their marriage brooks died in a car accident tht lou Might have caused.. for legal reasons i can neither confirm nor deny whether tht happened but the police didn’t charge her so do with tht what you will 

but she kind of went on the run anyway bc post-curse her doctors were like “nah this bitch is straight up crazy” and she knew her dad wasnt gonna b happy with her for another deal going sour so .. she ran !  and she’s kinda been hotel hopping between towns for the last 3 years trying her best not to interact w anyone !

CURSE.

lou’s curse is all abt prophecy baby !

okay so basically she can see the future of things/objects via touching them which was a whole big symbolic thing in the app bc she “deceived” apollo w her hands .. idk man here’s the line from the bio tht says it best

he  binds  her  wrists  and  says  because  it  was  your  hands  you  used  to  lie ,  now  your  hands  will  see  the  truth  as  he  renders  her  incapable  of  touching  anything  or  anyone  without  foreseeing  an  imminent  doom .  you  will  see  but  never  be  seen ,  he  says .  you  will  hear  but  never  be  heard .

ofc in true cassandra style, if she tries to talk to anyone abt her curse ever it’s like the earth swallowed her whole.. nobody can hear her.. nobody can see her.. nothing.. 

she also has absolutely no idea how to control it at all so like sometimes they’re very vivid images of something going to happen sometimes theyre more like bad feelings abt things .. it’s like a fun game where she never knows whats gonna happen and the prophecies ruin her life !

another quote bc im too lazy to resummarize things

the  general  rule  of  thumb ,  however ,  is  that  the  smaller  the  vision ,  the  easier  it  is  to  see  clearly .  small - scale  or  individual  prophecies  —  like  her  university  president  having  a  heart  attack  —  are  generally  more  easy  to  distinguish .  in  comparison ,  the  years  of  anguish  that  brooks  would  later  cause  her  were  much  harder  to  pin  down  and  presented  themselves  more  as  a  more  general  sense  of  danger .

 the only way she can stop it is with a literal.. physical barrier so she sometimes wears gloves but she can only have them on for a small amount of time before her body starts to reject it and make her Physically Unwell so she has to pick n choose man its unfortunate

EXTRA INFO.

man homegirl is Lonely.. big time... she’s just been avoiding human contact for such a long time she’s ALONE !

she has 2 major scars from the car accident, one on her left cheek from the windshield and one down her right shoulder/bicep from the window and both are very much noticeable :(

she very much loves this small town feeling bc she loves to b invisible and it’s so easy to in sleepy nowhere towns like this

she lives off the database property in like .. a tiny run down house that she’s putting all her time and energy into fixing up n she likes it a lot bc she hasnt had a home of her own in a long time

she also has a black cat named ernest, named after the play the importance of being earnest by oscar wilde

she’s also been working on a PLAY for the last few years, it’s a greek-esque tragic “romance” between the sun and the moon, where the sun is based on apollo and the moon is based on her and it does end with the sun realizing tht the moon is the only person w the power to eclipse him and extinguish him so get fucked apollo !

also speaking of writing she writes a letter home to her mom once every couple of months even tho like .. she can’t really read.. it’s very sad, lou is very sad, thank u for listening

ok this is already like .. stupid long.. so im gonna call it a day WHEW but thank u for reading n i think i’ve honestly already plotted w most of u but feel free 2 like this anyway n i’ll either slide into ur dms either to plot or just to say hey KSDJFSK :)

[undert33th]

I really like your Chara design can you talk about your interpretation of them?

First off tysm !!!!!!! I’m so glad u like them ;0

Second off yes of course ! Here’s a few things about them :

-they r mongolian-american

-they lived in northern Oregon/southern Washington for most of their life on the surface, both in civilization and out on the woods (I’ve always had this idea of Chara being a forager, super self sufficient, it’s one of the first things I developed abt my interpretation of them)

-lived in a group home as a child (along with that they love kids !)

-Chara has inattentive ADHD as well as bipolar disorder

-SpIn’s include: fungi, knives, sewing and geometry (which they suck at but it’s challenging and stimulating and fun work)

-they were 9 when they ‘fell’ underground and 12 when The Plan was enacted

And now for more game related stuff:

-i whole-heartedly support NarraChara

-I know everyone likes to think that Chara has a special connection with Frisk but I like to think that they could interact the same way with every fallen (that includes influencing their choices)

-going with influencing the choices of the fallen they initially did their best to cause the children to fail in hopes of saving their family after death

-they talk Like That at the end of NM to appear more intimidating (by Like That I mean like a walking dictionary)

-the no mercy route was NOT their doing (I like to think of the player as an entity, while Chara is more of just an outside force if that makes any sense? Chara can certainly control Frisk as a vessel, but only of A) frisk has given them that option, B) they’re anxious/angry/emotional enough that their power amps up and allows them to overtake frisks living soul, or C) the player is controlling Frisk through Chara) (I can post more of my ghost stuff if y'all want it just shoot me an ask) back on track for this one the no mercy route was not their doing, but they do give you, the player, not frisk, an ultimatum at the end of the no mercy route because they’re fucking pissed at you

-Goopy Chara? Cool! It’s congealed blood

-Chara only finds out that Flowey is Asriel in true lab which is why its so weird (i cannot for the life of me find the post but its super popular, probably a birdsareblooming or undertale-in-2k19 post)

Personality wise:

-theyre super skittish and jumpy. Startle at everything and wear headphones Everywhere

-theyre semi-verbal and have selective mutism (won’t speak in public at all, rarely in front of Toriel and Asgore, and frequently to Asriel and Frisk)

-with that, they’re super light on their feet and hardly make any noise when moving

-also; very quick and hard to catch

-they tend to fall apart under pressure . In a situation where something is expected of them they’ll either overwork themselves into a burnout or stop functioning all together .

-very logical and has a hard time processing strong emotions (mostly anger)

-does a lot of mimicking and can take a while to trust

-hyper empathetic 

-they can be very charming and good at manipulation; take that how you will

Extra HC’s:

-Chara knows magic! It’s not much, and it really drains them, but Asgore taught them (it’s mostly enacted through hand signs and they know healing and self defense)

-they stim a ton! Cracking their knuckles and chewing are the big ones

-Worn Dagger is a survival knife gifted by an older human brother from before falling who I’m referring to currently as Anthony . It’s got a wood and resin handle and a seven inch blade with gold embossing of flowers (specifically daisies). The sheath is hand made and embroidered by them !

-they know sign language and are constantly making new slang terms . Their signing is so modified and personalized that a lot of people have a hard time understanding what theyre saying

-arthritis in their hands and wrists from a couple injuries that never healed right and constant use of their knife only made it worse (they have these splints designed to look like gloves that hold their wrist in place)

-listen to me . Listen to me. They get their hands on Tetris and never let go . Tetris is the coolest game to them . Have y'all seen Tetris tournaments ? If not watch one they’re addictive . Chara gets in . Chara rocks it . They don’t win but they get up there . They fucking rock at Tetris guys

-also after frisk shows them minecraft they fucking lose it okay . ‘Frisk’ starts making houses or rooms fully furnished for seemingly no-one and Tori only . raises an eyebrow

-they listen to lots of rock and early 2000′s alternative/techno once they can get their hands on it. Frisk hates it so they’ll debate about it a lot

-super sensitive to smell and textures

(ps: its worth mentioning that a lot of my chara is based around myself! chara is one of my comfort characters and so a lot of them is just kinda … me, or who i wish i was on some level owo)

and might as well throw in some thoughts on canon compliant chara:

-we dont really know much about canon chara, but theyve shown to be somewhat manipulative and have a really strong case of suicidal idealization . this sort of ties into the idea of them being a martyr, the future of humans and monsters; thats like a huge fucking load for a kid to carry that i definitely feel could have some effect on mental health. like, telling a kid that they’re the future of two separate races, while theyre also learning about 1) how horrifically humans acted towards monsters and 2)  how the barrier can be broken, especially while already having a tendency towards self harmful actions (i.e: jumping off a fucking mountain), and given how presumably awfully humans treated them in comparison to all the kindness theyve been shown by monsters, I think I’d get some ideas too.

- I’ve already said that i don’t think they’re evil, and I’ll stand by that opinion until the day of my death

-that said, their plan was flawed. I mean, obvi. the things they did, such as attempt suicide on 2 occasions,  and succeed on one with the help of Asriel (as well as taking him down with them !) were wrong for quite a few reasons. I think ultimately they were blinded by the pressure placed on them, whether it was intentional or not, and not having a place to diffuse that anxiety, they sort of absorbed it and honed it into a plan to save everyone important (monsters, who showed some bare minimum decency and kindness) and kill everyone who wasn’t (that being themself.) And, once the first part of that plan succeeded, they sort of exploded; being on the surface, with humans, the people who hurt them, the people they hated, was a good enough motive to release all that built up tension .

-also, i might as well go into no mercy- I think Chara winds up with a lot of power, a lot of anxiety, and anger built up, so when every monster in the underground is killed theyre sort of gaining power bit by bit- until the end, after you kill flowey, and we get to meet them for real . I think they’re pissed off, and they try to convince you that you’re in the right, they thank you, etc; they try to appeal to the player, who throughout the run weve only seen as a mindless killing machine, in an attempt to get you to erase the world and go back on your decisions . When you don’t, they get frustrated, explode, using all the power they’ve gained through the run to erase the file themself.

I just . I dunno . i could talk about chara for hours please ask me more questions about them

[drinkingmelonwater]

1. It just wasnt funny.

Yes, you could argue that its meant to be darker, and that the humor is more nicole’s thing, but the bottom line is still that without its humor, flip side is just less enjoyable. Its too wacky to be truly dark, but not funny enough to be a comedy. What is it then? (Given, that whole 7 seconds bit was genuinely funny, but a lot of the rest of the game was jokes based on saying something offensive for shock value)

2. Nicole

She was my favorite character, and seeing her character get put in the paper shredder was tragic. Ive seen people argue that what nicole did to jecka was just like what she did to megan, but beyond surface level comparisons, theyre nothing alike. Nicole played the long game with megan, manipulating hunter into degrading himself while keeping her hands clean beyond some light flirting. It felt satisfying to watch from her perspective because of how clean a game she played. With jecka, nicole degraded HERSELF, something she only did when she was truly desperate, for a bit of shitty shock value revenge. Imagine that scene played out from nicole’s perspective. …yeah.

Not to mention how that scene retroactively ruins the scene the entire route was based on. Nicoles willingness to go along with the foot thing spits in the face of the myspace prostitution ending. It makes it seem like nicole would easily sell her body if it made her money, and erases the emotional weight of the previous game. Its hard to make a finale to a beloved game series live up to its predecessors, but retroactively ruining otherwise great games is a talent at that point.

3. Its BORING. Class of 09 and its re-up had me hooked while watching it, but the flip side had no such effect. It was so boring and uncomfortable that while watching a playthrough, i skipped over almost all the foot scenes and the entire FYE ending. Its not funny, its not compelling, its not good. Say what you will, if a game refuses to capture its audience, its a bad game, regardless of ‘artistic intent’ or whatever.

4. I know you said not to use ‘its torture porn’ as a reason, but there is a legitimate backing to that. In writing, both comedy and tragedy rely on a foundational principle: catharsis. In tragedies, even when terrible things happen to beloved characters, the audience can get a sense of enjoyment and relief as long as the tragedy is structured and foreshadowed well enough to provide that feeling of catharsis. In comedies, a similar principle applies. They need buildup and payoff to work. The reason the flip side gets so much hate for being torture porn is because torture porn lacks that catharsis. The terrible things happening to jecka dont happen because she brought them upon herself, or for some other, satisfying reason. There is no catharsis.

The flip side fails as a comedy and as a tragedy as a result. Its just 3 hours of torture porn with an hour of foot fetish stuff baked in. It not only fails to live up to its predecessors, but retroactively worsens them too. Not to say you cant enjoy it, there was some good stuff, but the execution was just lackluster. The game’s uncomfortable without payoff, its not funny, its not interesting, and its got weird fetish stuff. On its own, its a mediocre game. In the context of the previous two games, knowing that they did everything flip side was aiming for and more, better, its just disappointing.

sick of seeing people complain about the flipside

it was SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable

that was the fucking POINT

to show how fucked up jeckas life is

also to the ppl complaining about nicole being ooc are you fucking blind??? she was always like that???

[maelien]

stupid dumb Blizzard/Overwatch discourse below the cut

okay so i never thought i would ever post about discourse, but here i am. but since literally nobody wants a giant thing on their dash, im gonna put this below the cut. i apologise to anyone on mobile who has to scroll past this. anyways this post is about this:

by @yubird​

btw im in agreement with the statement of this image, so if you dont care, feel free to scroll by. i dont expect anyone to read this tbh.

first of all, i want to preface this with the fact that while i do not play Overwatch, nor do i follow any of the lore or news, i still want to present some criticism because by being a public company, Blizzard is showing their creations to the world, which are therefore open for all kinds of feedback, positive or negative or even constructive. this isnt me bashing on Blizzard; i think theyre doing great things with the amounts of diversity in Overwatch, and from what i know, they pay a lot of attention to detail when it comes to game design and extra assets and whatnot. i just want to critique the same face syndrome that a lot of people have been pointing out lately.

so earlier today i got in a debate with some friends of mine about the idea that all Overwatch women have the same face. im gonna compile some of my friends’ arguments and my own arguments here, as well as some counter-arguments which were presented to me by my friends or by people discussing this topic online.

this is just because i feel like everyone who points out this same face syndrome doesnt really know why it bothers them, so here are some points i want to make.

first of all, upon asking my friend what they thought of the debate, they said they agree that all the Overwatch women’s faces look the same, stating that they knew this because “i have eyes,” as they put it. i just thought this would be a funny thing to put here, and it in no way is meant to derail the legitimate arguments which they or i have.

some other things this friend said (slightly edited for grammar or missing context from previous statements):

“the female hero that looks the most different is Zarya but her face is just wider, they still all have very similar nose and eye shapes, their facial designs are very plain in-game”

“it’s similar to frozen in how yes they look different but they all look very similar”

“in the cinematics the women look very different but in-game it’s almost like there was one basic model that was slightly tweaked for each character” (this is a point that i will mention and address later on)

“like damn if youre gonna have ‘em look different for the cinematography you cant adapt even just a little more of that into the game itself?”

“did u notice how small the noses on the black characters were” (this is addressing the models which Blizzard released, which are seen below)

another friend of mine had these statements to offer (slightly edited for grammar or missing context from previous statements):

“Okay, like, how many paintings or images or films or books have been about ugly females? The answer is not whole hell of a lot. Art, in general whether we’re talking about games, books, paintings, poems, films, they all have a problem with making ugly female characters. Even characters that are supposed to be “ugly” are often just a different shades of beauty and people find that beauty later. Meanwhile, a man could use his ugliness to his advantage, like Shrek, or the Beast, two ugly characters that frighten and intimidate people. I can’t think of any other “ugly” female character in the popular culture other than Fiona [from Shrek], maybe you have one?”

“Overwatch is guilty, yes, but it’s more indicative of a systemic problem overall. When humans tell stories about females, their beauty in some form or another has to be addressed” (i appreciated this friend’s application of this issue to the bigger picture outside of Overwatch because it definitely needed to be addressed alongside Blizzard’s same face syndrome)

a third friend had these things to say on the topic (slightly edited for grammar or missing context from previous statements):

“I suppose they do only add traditionally beautiful girls on there. It’s totally fair to say that they put more effort into the model design of the dudes than the girls.”

“Yah there is definitely a focus on accessories and ensuring feminine traits in the girls.”

“In general creating more variety in the way people are presented helps everyone.”

some counter-arguments i received were (slightly edited for grammar or missing context from previous statements):

“Mercy has shallow cheeks and a long face, Mei has a short face with chubby cheeks, Ana has a distinct grandma face” (i personally feel like Ana looks about 35 at most)

“Mercy has a pointy chin, Pharah has a flat square chin”

“Tracer has a flatter round chin”

“Even that overlay of Mercy’s face onto [Brigitte]… The jaw? Different. Mercy has shallower cheeks. The chin? Not even close to the same shape. The nose? Mercy has a much thinner, longer nose.” (referring to the image below)

(from @arimarushunya​)

i received other counter-arguments that were made during a verbal conversation, but i dont remember them. however, i will provide counter-arguments below during my argument.

i am pulling the next part of this post from a long discussion i had with a friend about this matter, and they provided good counter-arguments that are very important to include during my argument because i do not want anyone to think that i am not aware of other ways that people may look at this, nor do i wish for anyone to think that i refuse to listen to other views.

i agree with some of the counter-arguments, but i still stand by my criticism that there could be more effort put in. do i expect that, though? absolutely not. this is just my opinion and nothing more. just a commentary on some person’s irrelevant blog.

first of all, the fact that many of the men’s faces look literally so different from each other needs to be addressed. each one is very unique, or at least a good portion of them. for example:

Roadhog has a really round head.

Junkrat has a banana-shaped head.

McCree has a square jaw.

Hanzo has a very strong brow and jawline.

Torbjorn has a very compressed face.

Winston is a fucking gorilla for chrissake.

many of the male characters in Overwatch have something very unique and discernible from the other male characters. while i do concede that some male models are similar to each other, and some male models wear masks or are not even human (my mention of Winston is half-joking, as i know many people consider him to be a different category, but i also think it should be noted that there are no non-human (or at least, non-human-like) women in Overwatch), i think that the amount of distinctly different male models in comparison to the amount of distinctly different female models is….. annoying. lazy. boring. embarrassing, even.

my biggest point is that the people who have an issue with this same face syndrome is that we’re tired of seeing the same model with tiny changes made to it. you can only look at the same woman with slightly different features so many times before you start to ask, “is this it?” give us something new to look at, Blizzard!

now, a counter-argument i received was that you dont really look at the face much in game. my friend said, “faces, in a game where faces are barely seen, barely matter. in the cinematics they matter a lot.” while i acknowledge the truth behind the argument that you dont look at the characters’ faces much while playing, i still think that the faces do hold some significance, because otherwise all the male models would have the same faces in-game. Blizzard has taken the time to carefully create these incredibly unique models for each male character, but when it comes to creating the female characters’ models, Blizzard sort of gives up and barely changes the default model they seem to use. this isnt a matter of unimportance as it is a matter of laziness.

the best example of this is with Brigitte, who is the most recent addition to the heroes gallery. in her cinematic, she is seen as broad-shouldered with a round face, round eyes, olive or tan skin, a round chin, thick lips, green/hazel eyes and brown hair. however, when it comes to her in-game model, well… she doesnt exactly live up to that. her in-game model has reddish hair, brown eyes, a slender face, a pointed chin, light skin, almond-shaped eyes, and a thin upper lip. she almost doesnt look like the same person! you can see the differences in the image below.

(from @flambxyant​)

now, some people commented on the post that this image is from that the engines used for the cinematics and the game are different. and while i concede that these arent the same, and therefore it would be difficult to make an exact replica of the cinematic version of Brigitte in the game engine, i feel like she still falls short of what could be accomplished. if the problem was truly the difference in the engines, then you would see a similar change in the male models between the cinematic engine and the game engine. however, Blizzard seems to have no problem replicating models in both engines, except for when it come to the female models. thats the problem that people have; they arent being nit-picky, as some may argue – this is an actual issue that many people are noticing.

as seen in previous images, Brigitte has been compared to Mercy, who is a popular support character in the game (Brigitte is also a support character), as well as to D.VA and Tracer, who are not support characters (im not really sure what the categories are other than support tbh). the issue which is being presented is that many of the Overwatch women have very similar faces; even if they have some unique features, the female models in Overwatch still do not stray too far from the base model which is clearly detectable in all of them. you do not really see this as clearly in the male models, as each of them has been changed to express the character’s personality or background. it is more difficult to pick up on a character’s personality or background when looking at the female models; you can kind of gauge that Ana is older and may have been in a war because she has vaguely wrinkled skin and an eye patch, but other than that, the women of Overwatch arent exactly telling their stories unless you read their lore.

another issue i have to address is that, while all of the characters have a unique backstory, not everyone playing Overwatch is interested in that; some people just want to play the game. and when you have a heroes gallery with a plethora of unique male models to choose from, and then basically the same face on all of the female models, it feels kind of…. lacking. like, “oh wow, a new character!” but how new is the character if youre just looking at the same model with slight changes in the face and a repaint? you might as well just be getting a different skin and slapping it onto one available option.

my issue here is that having unique lore doesnt counteract the fact that the female models all look very similar to each other. when youre playing the game, youre looking at the model. sure, you get different weapons and armour, but it’s the same figure. and honestly, i kind of get the feeling that Blizzard tries to give each female model a sense of uniqueness by changing their armour or clothes instead of their model shape or size.

it just doesnt feel right when you compare it to how unique each male model is. you feel refreshed when looking at each male character because they all have a unique silhouette; theyre easily discernible from the others. however, the female models all have rather similar silhouettes: tall and slender. this isnt to completely disregard Mei and Zarya, but really, those two are essentially the only unique silhouettes out of all the of female models.

while im not disparaging the fact that Blizzard has created unique lore for each character, i still feel like having as much model diversity in the female models as is in the male models would be nice. like, i think everyone can agree that having different silhouettes in the male models is really refreshing to look at, and in turn, having different silhouettes in the female models would be just as pleasant. 

i feel as though Blizzard is apprehensive about going out of their comfort zone when creating female models. they kind of seem to default on slender, attractive faces with thin noses. this isnt to say that non-slender faces or big noses cant be attractive; i am saying that Blizzard sticks to western beauty standards when creating their female models. my friend made a counter-argument that the target audience is men, and therefore the women characters are often going to be designed to appeal to this audience. while i understand the reason why Blizzard would do this, as appealing to this audience will likely raise their profits and positive reception, i still feel like they are missing out on a lot of potential that the company has. like, let’s be real here……. if there are people who will main Junkrat and want to bone down with his nasty ass, then im pretty sure that there would be people who would enjoy a less conventionally attractive female character.

i have an issue with the fact that Blizzard wont even attempt to create a unique female model. it’s almost as if they made Zarya and Mei and were like “thats good! no more!” but yet they will make a gorilla; and a really fat guy; and a skinny, unkempt, hunched over dude. but they wont even try to accomplish anything like that when creating a female model. sure, Ana is sort of hunched over to indicate her age, but she still maintains a relatively dainty posture.

Overwatch gets praise for the diversity seen in their characters, and while my friend made a counter-argument that it might just be for national diversity – or racial diversity, or whatever you wanna call it when people come from different parts of the world –  i still feel like this diversity is lacking in the women of Overwatch. the men of Overwatch have all sorts of body types: short, tall, skinny, fat, muscled, disabilities, etc…… but the women have significantly less body types: you have Zarya, who is broad-shouldered and has muscles; you have Mei, who is plus-sized – or fat, or thicc if you prefer; you have Ana who is old and sort of shows it; you have Sombra who is slightly shorter than the rest of the characters, but not by much; you have Moira who is slightly taller than the rest of the characters, but not by much….. but generally, all of the women of Overwatch look pretty much the same. theres not much diversity seen there.

now, again, do i expect Blizzard to change the way they design female characters? no, because as my friend stated, “…their current formula is working out quite well…” i just wish that when people look at the characters in Overwatch, they could have something new to see in each and every character. it’s tiring to see pretty much the same woman with different clothes when the men of Overwatch are so distinct from each other.

and yes, while i do not play Overwatch, or any video games for that matter, that doesnt mean my argument is pointless. sure, i dont expect anything to come of it, but it’s at least food for thought, you know? and if you think about it, the lack of diversity in the female models in Overwatch doesnt do much good in showing the creative abilities of Blizzard, which is a public company and therefore trying to sell their product to an audience who very likely wants to buy something unique and impressive. thats not to say Overwatch isnt impressive – i actually find the art style to be extremely attractive, and the fact that it is such a popular game goes to show that the company is doing something right. but that doesnt mean that the game is flawless; it just means the flaws are often overlooked or just accepted by the consumers and creators.

you see, when i look at a character and see how unique and detailed their physical design is in comparison to other characters that it is associated with, i am able to tell that the person who made that character put a lot of time, care, and thought into that character in order to make it stand out as its own individual. when looking at how similar the women of Overwatch look to each other, i cant help but feel that there is a lack of time, care, and thought going into them. you can tell the creators thought a lot about each man in Overwatch, as they all look like individuals compared to one another; however, this isnt very present when looking at the women of Overwatch.

you see, you need to put care and effort into all of your characters in order for people to take your diversity seriously. if youre presenting all of the same models for the women, but really unique models for the men, sure, you have representation for women, but it kind of feels like you see women as identical and incapable of being as unique as men can be, which is just lazy and kind of sexist. and im not trying to get into a really stupidly obnoxious “this is sexist!” argument, because tbh i hate those, but like…. i just wanna see some new stuff brought to the table. something to really make you go, “wow, that character really stands out from the others!”

i dont feel like my opinion of the game – or really anyone’s opinion of the game – would change if Overwatch were to have more diverse female models, but i do think that people, no matter what their opinions of the game were, would at least be able to look at the character and be able to tell that at least the creators put thought and care into each character. while there definitely is care and thought seen in each character, i dont really see an issue with some people wishing there was just a bit more for the women of Overwatch.

anyways that basically all i have. if you made it this far, i appreciate you reading all of this. feel free to message me or something about this (on @nuketowncryptid since i dont have any messaging system set up on this blog because it’s pointless) if you wanna talk about it. anyways, thank you so much for reading what i have to say. you dont have to share this if you dont want to, and again, i really dont want to have anyone feel like im pushing my opinions on them; i just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject. overall, im just glad to see people are at least enjoying the game because in the end, thats what really counts.

[caredogstips]

Is sugar the world’s most popular narcotic? | Gary Taubes

The Long Read: It eases suffering, seems to be addictive and indicates every signaling of effecting long-term health problems. Is it time to quit sugar for good?

Imagine a drug that can intoxicate us, can infuse us with vigor and can be taken by lip. It doesnt have to be injected, inhaled, or snorted for us to know its exalted and soothing influences. Imagine that it concoctions well with almost every meat and specially liquids, and that when paid attention to babies it causes a sense of solace so profound and intense that its pursuit becomes a driving force throughout their lives.

Could the delicacy of sugar on the tongue be a kind of delirium? What regarding the possibility that sugar itself is an intoxicant, a drug? Overconsumption of this stimulant may have long-term side-effects, but there are none in the short term no staggering or dizziness , no slurring of discussion , no passing out or drifting away , no middle palpitations or respiratory distress. When it is given to children, its effects may be only more extreme modifications on the apparently natural psychological rollercoaster of children, from the initial intoxication to the outbursts and whining of what may or may not be withdrawal a few hours later. More than anything, it becomes infants glad, at least for the period during which theyre exhausting it. It appeased their distress, eases their anguish, focuses their attention and leaves them stimulated and full of delight until the dose wears off. The only downside is that children will come to expect another dosage, perhaps to necessitate it, on a regular basis.

How long would it be before mothers took to using our imaginary drug to soothe “their childrens” where required, to alleviate annoyance, to prevent outbursts of unhappiness or to distract attention? And formerly the dose became identified with pleasure, how long before it was used to celebrate birthdays, a football game, good grades at school? How long before no amas of family and friends was accomplish without it, before major holidays and fetes were defined in part by the use of this medication to ensure gratification? How long would it be before the underprivileged of “the worlds” would blithely spend what little coin they had on this medicine rather than on healthful snacks for their own families?

There is something about its own experience of devouring sugar and sugaries, particularly during childhood, that readily cites the comparison to a drug. I have babes, still relatively young, and I accept causing them would be a far easier errand if sugar and sweeteneds were no longer policy options, if managing their carbohydrate consumption did not seem to be a constant topic in our parental responsibilities. Even those who energetically defend the place of carbohydrate and sweeteneds in modern foods an innocent moment of pleasure, a ointment amid the stress of life, as the reporter Tim Richardson has written acknowledge that this does not include giving children to eat as many desserts as they want, at any time, and that most mothers will want to food their childrens sweets.

But why is this rationing required? Children crave many things Pokmon posters, Star Wars paraphernalia, Dora the Explorer backpacks and many meat savor good to them. What is it about desserts that makes them so uniquely in need of rationing?

This is of more than academic sake, because the response of entire populations to sugar has been effectively identical to that of children: formerly people are disclosed, they exhaust as much sugar as they can easily find. The primary roadblock to more consumption up to the point where people become obese and diabetic has tended to be availability and toll. As the price of a pound of sugar has discontinued over the centuries, the amount of sugar consumed has steadily, inexorably climbed.

In 1934, while sale of sugareds continued to increase during the Great Depression, the New York Times explained: The Depression[ has] have confirmed that people wanted candy, and that as long as they had any fund at all, they are able to buy it. During those brief periods of time during which sugar production outdid our ability to consume it, the sugar the enterprises and purveyors of sugar-rich makes have worked diligently to increase demand and, at the least until recently, have succeeded.

The critical question, as the journalist and historian Charles C Mann has elegantly put it, is whether[ sugar] is actually an addictive element, or if beings merely act like it is. This doubt is not easy to reaction. Surely, parties and people have acted as though sugar is addictive, but science provisions no definitive indicate. Until recently, nutritionists analyse sugar did so from the natural position of viewing it as a nutrient a carbohydrate and good-for-nothing more. They sometimes insisted about whether or not it might play a role in diabetes or heart disease, but not about whether it triggered a reply in the mentality or mas that cleared us want to eat it in excess. That was not their area of interest.

The few neurologists and psychologists interested in probing the sweet-tooth phenomenon, or why we might is a requirement to ration our sugar intake so as not to eat too much of it, did so frequently from the perspective of how these sugars compared with other drugs of mistreat, in which the mechanism of craving is now relatively well understood. Lately, this comparison has received greater attention as the public-health community has examined to ration our carbohydrate intake as a population, and has thus considered the possibility that one course to regulate these carbohydrates as with cigarettes is to establish that “they il be”, indeed, addictive. These carbohydrates are very probably unique in that they are both a nutrient and a psychoactive element with some addictive characteristics.

Historians have often considers the sugar-as-a-drug metaphor to be an apt one. That sugars, particularly highly refined sucrose, produce strange physiological outcomes is well known, wrote Sidney Mintz, whose 1985 journal Sweetness and Power is one of two seminal English-language biographies of sugar. But these effects are neither as visible nor as long-lasting as those of booze or caffeinated alcohols, the first exploit of which can prompt speedy changes in breathing, heartbeat, skin colour and so on.

Mintz has argued that a primary rationale sugar has escaped social disfavor is that, whatever conspicuous behavioural changes may occur when infants ingest carbohydrate, it did not cause the kind of flushing, floundering, dizziness, euphoria, changes in the pitch of the tone, slurring of lecture, visibly intensified physical activity or any of the other clues associated with the ingestion of other doses. Sugar appears to justification amusement with world prices that is difficult to discern immediately and paid in full exclusively times or decades later. With no visible, instantly pronounced importances, as Mintz tells, questions of long-term nutritive or medical significances ran unasked and unanswered. Most of us today will never know if we digest even subtle retirement indications from carbohydrate, because well never go long enough without it to find out.

Sugar historians reviewed and considered the narcotic similarity to be fitting in part because carbohydrate is one of a handful of pharmaceutical meat, to use Mintzs term, that came out of the tropics, and on which European territories were built from the 16 th century onward the others being tea, coffee, chocolate, rum and tobacco.

Its history is intimately linked to that of these other pharmaceuticals. Rum is distilled, of course, from sugar cane. In the 17 th century, once carbohydrate was contributed as a sweetener to tea, coffee and chocolate, and costs permitted to be, the consumption of these substances in Europe exploded. Sugar was used to sweeten tones and wine-colored in Europe as early as the 14 th century; even cannabis groomings in India and opium-based wine-coloureds and syrups contained sugar.

As for tobacco, sugar was, and still is, a critical ingredient in the American blended-tobacco cigarette, the first of which was Camel. Its this marriage of tobacco and sugar, as a sugar-industry report describing him in 1950, that shapes for the mild event of smoking cigarettes as compared with cigars and, perhaps most significant, makes it possible for most of us to breath cigarette cigarette and describe it deep into our lungs.

Unlike alcohol, which was the only commonly available psychoactive element in the old world until they arrived, sugar, nicotine and caffeine had at least some quicken owneds, and so offered a quite different knowledge, one that was more conducive to the labour of everyday life. These were the 18 th-century equivalent of uppers, writes the Scottish historian Niall Ferguson. The territory, it might be said, was built on a huge sugar, caffeine and nicotine rushing a rush nearly everyone could experience.

Sugar, more than anything, seems to have realise life worth living( as it still does) for so many, particularly those whose lives scarcity the kind of pleases that relative fortune and daily hours of vacation are able to ply. Sugar was an ideal essence, remarks Mintz. It served to make a busy life seem less so; it eased, or seemed to ease, the changes back and forth from work to rest; it swifter whizs of fullness or gratification than complex carbohydrates did; it combined with many other nutrients No wonder rich countries and powerful liked it so much, and no wonder the poorest of the poor “ve learned to” love it.

What Oscar Wilde wrote about a cigarette in 1891 might also be said about sugar: It is the perfect gratification. It is elegant, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one miss?

Children surely respond to sugar instantaneously. Contribute babes a select of carbohydrate sea or grassland, wrote the British physician Frederick Slare 300 years ago, and they will greedily suck down the one, and realize Appearances at the other: Nor will they be pleasd with Cows Milk, unless that be blessd with a little Sugar, to create it up to the Sweetness of Breast-Milk.

Sugar persuasions the same answers in the region of the brain known as the reinforce centre as nicotine, cocaine, heroin and alcohol Image: Alamy

One proposition commonly mentioned to explain why the English would become “the worlds” greatest carbohydrate consumers and remain so through the early 20 th century alongside the facts of the case that the English had “the worlds” most productive system of sugar-producing settlements is that they lacked any succulent native return, and so had little previous opportunity to accustom themselves to sweet thoughts, as Mediterranean people did. The sweetened penchant was more of a originality to the English, and their first showing to sugar occasioned a population-wide astonishment.

This is speculation, however, as is the notion that the preference of sugar will relieve distress and stop infants weeping, or that depleting carbohydrate will allow adults to work through suffering and exhaustion and to assuage hunger stings. If carbohydrate, though, is only a distraction to the babe and not actively a pain reliever or a psychoactive inducer of pleasure that overcomes any sting, we have to explain why, in clinical tests, it is more effective in soothing the distress of infants than the mothers breast and breast milk itself.

Research literature on the issues of whether sugar is addictive and thus a nutritional variant on a drug of defamation is surprisingly sparse. Until the 1970 s, and for the most place since then, mainstream authorities have not considered this question to be particularly relevant to human health. The very limited research allows us to describe what happens when both rats and apes ingest sugar, but were not them and theyre not us. The critical ventures are rarely if ever done on human rights, and certainly not babes, for the obvious ethical reasonableness: we cant liken how they respond to carbohydrate, cocaine and heroin, for instance, to adjudicate which is more addictive.

Sugar does persuade the same reactions in the region of the mentality known as the reward centre as nicotine, cocaine, heroin and alcohol. Craving investigates have come to believe that behaviours required for the survival of a species specific, chewing and sexuality are known as enjoyable in this region of the mentality, and so we do them again and again. Sugar arouses the release of the same neurotransmitters dopamine in particular through which the potent effects of these other medicines are liaised. Because the narcotics make this acces, humen have learned how to refine their essence into concentrated ways that heighten the rush. Coca leaves, for instance, are mildly provoking when grinded, but powerfully addictive when refined into cocaine; even more so taken directly into the lungs when smoked as crack cocaine. Sugar, very, has been refined from its original way to heightens its race and concentrate its effects.

The more we use these substances, the less dopamine we induce naturally in the mentality. The solution is that we need more of the medication to get the same pleasurable answer, while natural gratifications, such as fornication and eating, please us less and less.

There is little doubt that sugar can allay the physical thirst for booze, the neurologist James Leonard Corning observed during about a hundred years ago. The 12 -step bible of Alcoholics Anonymous recommends the consumption of sugareds and chocolate in lieu of alcohol when the desires for suck develop. Surely, average per capita uptake of sweets in the US redoubled with the beginning of injunction in 1919, as Americans apparently diverted en masse from booze to sweets.

Sugar and sweeteneds inexorably came to saturate our diets as the annual global production of carbohydrate increased exponentially. By the early 20 th century, sugar had assimilated itself into all aspects of our feeing suffer, and was being exhausted during breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. Nutritional permissions were already hinting what seems to be obvious: that this increased intake was a product of at least a kind of addiction the development of the carbohydrate stomach, which, like any other appetite for instance, the liquid appetite changes by gratification.

A century subsequently still, sugar has become an ingredient in are developed and packed nutrients so ubiquitous it is impossible to be avoided by coordinating and defined effort. There is sugar not just in the obvious sugared meat cookies, ice creams, chocolates, fizzy boozes, sodas, plays and energy boozings, sweetened iced tea, jam-packs, jellies and breakfast cereals but also in peanut butter, salad dressing, ketchup, barbecue sauces, canned soups, processed meat, bacon, hot dog, crisp, roasted peanuts, pasta sauces, tinned tomatoes and breads.

From the 1980 s onwards, makers of commodities advertised as uniquely healthy because they were low in flab, or specifically in saturated fatten, took to replacing those fatty calories with sugar to stimulate them evenly, if not more, appetizing often disguising the carbohydrate under one or more of the 50 epithets by which the combination of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup might be found. Fat was removed from candy bars so that they became health-food tables, in spite of contributed sugar. Fat was removed from yoghurts and sugars lent, and these became heart-healthy snacks. It was almost like the nutrient manufacture had decided en masse that, if a make wasnt sweetened at least a bit, our modern palates would reject it and we would purchase instead a challengers version that was.

For those of us who dont reward our life with a potion( and for many of us who do ), its a chocolate table, a dessert, an ice-cream cone or a Coke( or Pepsi) that makes our daylight. For those of us who are mothers, carbohydrate and sugaries have become the right tools we hold to reinforce our childrens attainments, to illustrate our adore and our dignity in them, to motivate them, to seduce them.

For those of us who dont reward our actuality with a suck, its a chocolate barroom, a dessert, an ice-cream cone or a Coke( or Pepsi) that stirs our era. Photograph: Christopher Stevenson/ Getty Images

The common predisposition is, again, to think of this conversion as driven by the mere point that sugars and sweeteneds savor good. The alternative style to be considered this is that carbohydrate took over our nutritions because the first taste, whether for an newborn today or for an adult centuries ago, is a kind of poisoning; its the kindling of a lifelong craving , not identical but akin to the effect of other medicines of abuse.

Because it is a nutrient, and because the conspicuous afflictions are attached to human consumption are benign compared with those of nicotine, caffeine and booze at the least in the short term and in small doses carbohydrate remained practically invulnerable to moral, ethical or religion onrushes. It likewise remained invulnerable to attacks on fields of damage to health.

Nutritionists have found it in themselves to blamed our chronic ailments on almost any ingredient of the nutrition or medium on fattens and cholesterol, on protein and meat, on gluten and glycoproteins, increment hormones and oestrogens and antibiotics, on the absence of staple, vitamins and minerals, and surely on the presence of salt, on processed foods in general, on over-consumption and sedentary practice before theyll concede that its even possible that carbohydrate has played a unique character in any way other than simply getting us all to eat so damned much. And so, when a few notified approvals over the years did indeed risk their credibility by hinting sugar was to blame, their words had little upshot on the beliefs of their colleagues or on the dining habits of a population that had come to rely on sugar and desserts as the wages for the torments of daily life.

So how do we prove a safe level of sugar consumption? In 1986, the US Food and Drug Administration( FDA) concluded that most experts considered sugar safe. And when the relevant investigate parishes settled on caloric inequality as the cause of obesity and saturated flab as the dietary make of congestive heart failure, the clinical experiments necessary to begin to answer this question was ever pursued.

The traditional response to the how-little-is-too-much interrogate is that we should chew sugar in moderation not gobble too much of it. But we are just know were eating too much when were get fatter or revealing other indications of insulin opposition and metabolic syndrome.

Insulin resistance is the fundamental defect present in type 2 diabetes, and perhaps obesity more. Those who are obese and diabetic also tend to be hypertensive; they have a higher gamble of congestive heart failure, cancer and strokings, and maybe dementia and even Alzheimers as well. If sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are the source of obesity, diabetes and insulin fight, then theyre likewise the most likely dietary initiation of these other sickness. Make simply: without such carbohydrates in our nutritions, the cluster of related illness would be far less common than it is today.

Metabolic syndrome ties together a multitude of ailments that the medical community generally to be considered as unrelated, or at the least having separate and distinct lawsuits including obesity, high-pitched blood pressure, high blood sugar and swelling as produces of insulin opposition and high circulating insulin ranks. Regulatory organisations throughout the body begin to misbehave, with slow, chronic, pathological consequences everywhere.

Once we have find the evidences of devouring too much sugar, the premise is that we can dial it back a little and be fine drink one or two sugary beverages a date instead of three; or, if were parenting, allow most children ice cream on weekends merely, answer, rather than as a daily consider. But if it takes times or decades, or even generations, for us to get to the point which is something we showing indications of metabolic disorder, its quite possible that even these apparently moderate sums of sugar will turn out to be too much for us to be able to reverse the situation and render us to health. And if the symptom / indicated that shows firstly is something other than going fatter cancer, for instance were truly out of luck.

The governments who argue for temperance in our snacking habits tend to be individuals who are relatively lean and healthy; they define moderation as what works for them. This assumes that the same approaching and amount will have the same advantageous influence on all of us. If it doesnt, of course, if we fail to remain lean and healthy or our children fail to do so, the belief is that weve failed we ingest too much sugar, or our children did.

If it takes 20 years of spending carbohydrate for the consequences to appear, how can we know whether weve spent too much before its too late? Isnt it more reasonable to decide early in life( or early in parenting) that not too much is as little as is practicable?

Sugar and sugaries have become the right tools we exercise to honor our childrens accomplishments, to support our ardour and our pride in them, to motivate them, to tempt them. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

Any discussion of how little carbohydrate is too much also has to account for the possibility that sugar is a drug and perhaps addictive. Trying to destroy sugar in moderation, nonetheless its characterized, in a world-wide in which substantial carbohydrate intake is the norm and practically unavoidable, is likely to be no more successful for some of us than trying to smoking cigarettes in moderation only a few a era, rather than a whole pack. Even if we can avoid any meaningful chronic influences by cutting down, we may not be capable of managing our habits, or succeeding our practices might become the dominant theme in “peoples lives”. Some of us certainly find it easier to consume no carbohydrate than to destroy a bit no dessert at all, rather than a spoonful or two before pushing the plate to the side.

If sugar consumption is a slippery slope, then advocating temperance is not a meaningful concept.

In my own head, I impede reverting to a few remarks unscientific as they may be that stimulate me interrogation the validity of any description of moderation in the context of sugar consumption.

The beginnings of the modern discussion on sugar and cancer can be traced to the early 1670 s. Thomas Willis, medical consultant to the duke of York and King Charles II , memo an increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the affluent cases of his practice. The pee-pee misery, he called it, and became the first European physician to diagnose the sugared feeling of diabetic urine wonderfully sweetened like sugar or hon[ e] y. Williss the purpose of determining diabetes and the sweetness of the urine happens to coincide with both the first flowing of carbohydrate into England from its Caribbean settlements, and the first implement of carbohydrate to sweeten tea.

Other observations that reverberate with me when I wrestle with the concept of temperance include one of Frederick Slares remarks in 1715, in his article Vindication of Sugars Against the Charges of Dr Willis. At a day when sugar was just beginning to be more widely expended in England, Slare noted that women who cared about their representations but were inclining to be too fatty might want to avoid sugar, because it may set them to be fatter than they desire to be. When Slare made his watching, the English were devouring, on average, perhaps 5lb of sugar a year. The US FDA research indicates we now eat 42 lb a year.

We have to acknowledge that the evidence presented against carbohydrate is not definitive, enforcing though I personally find it to be. Lets say we arbitrarily allocated someones in our population to eat a modern food with or without sugar in it. Since nearly all processed foods have carbohydrate lent or, like most bread, are form with sugar, the population that is asked to avoid sugar would simultaneously be avoiding virtually all processed foods as well. They would dramatically reduce their consumption of what journalist Michael Pollan, writer of notebooks on meat, agriculture and drugs, has memorably announced food-like substances, and unless they are healthier, there would now be a emcee of possible reasons why. Maybe they chew fewer polished specks of any form, less gluten, fewer trans fattens, preservatives or artificial spices? We would have no practical way to know for sure.

We could try to reformulate all these foods so that they are made without sugar, but then they wont taste the same unless, of course, we supersede the carbohydrate with artificial sweeteners. Our population randomised to consume as little sugar as possible is likely to lose weight, but we wont know if it happened since they are ate less sugar, or fewer calories of all sorts. Surely, virtually all dietary admonition suffers from this same complication: whether youre trying to avoid gluten, trans fattens, saturated fatties or refined carbohydrates of all types, or just trying to cut calories ingest less and snack healthily an tip cause of their recommendations is that youre often eschewing processed foods containing sugar and a host of other ingredients.

Artificial sweeteners as a substitution for carbohydrate obscure these water even more. Much of the feeling about these sweeteners was generated in the 60 s and 70 s by the research, partly funded by the sugar manufacture, that led to the banning of the artificial sweetener cyclamate as a possible carcinogen, and the suggestion that saccharin could stimulate cancer( at least in rats, at inordinately high doses ). Though this particular feeling has faded with era, it has been replaced by the suggestion that maybe these artificial sweeteners can cause metabolic disorder, and thus obesity and diabetes.

This suggestion runs primarily from epidemiological studies that indicate an association between the use of artificial sweeteners and obesity and diabetes. But it will probably that people who are predisposed to gain weight and become diabetic are also the people who use artificial sweeteners instead of sugar.

As Philip Handler, then head of the US National Academies of Sciences, suggested in 1975, what we want to know is whether utilizing artificial sweeteners over a lifetime or even a few years or decades is better or worse for us than however much carbohydrate we would have expended instead. Its hard for me to be thought that carbohydrate would then be the healthier select. If the goal is to get by sugar, then supplanting it with artificial sweeteners is one room to do it.

The research community can definitely do a something better responsibility than it has in the past of testing all these questions. But we may have a very long wait before the public-health authorities fund such studies and leave us the definite answer we try. What do we do until then?

Ultimately, the question of how much is too much becomes a personal decision, just as we all decide as adults what height of alcohol, caffeine or cigarettes well ingest. Enough prove exists for us to consider sugar very likely to be a poison essence, and to make an informed decision about how best to offset the likely risks with the benefits. To know what those benefits are, though, it helps to see how life appears without sugar. Former cigarette smokers( of which I am one) will tell you that it was impossible in order to be allowed to clasp intellectually or emotionally what life would be like without cigarettes until they cease; that through weeks or months or even times, it was a constant skirmish. Then, the working day, they reached a degree at which they couldnt envisage smoking a cigarette and couldnt see why they had ever inhaled, let alone met it desirable.

A same suffer is likely to be true of sugar but until we try to live without it, until we try to sustain that struggle for more than daytimes, or merely a few weeks, well never know.

This is an revised extract from The Case Against Sugar, published by Portobello Books( 14.99 ). To prescribe a print for 12.29 go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846 .

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

The post Is sugar the world’s most popular narcotic? | Gary Taubes appeared first on caredogstips.com.

from WordPress http://ift.tt/2skzsx4 via IFTTT