#i definitely think you can apply the second interpretation

[cherryblossomshadow]

if you were giving a sermon on the good Samaritan in the 1960s to a white church, you should be like "so the policeman walked past, and the pastor walked past, but then a poor black guy saw the injured man, and got him help at the local hospital."

In the 80s, his rescuer is Soviet. In the 2000s, they're a Muslim, from Afghanistan or Iran.

Today? Maybe they're trans.

As an American, there's been many times that "Mexican" would have been the best choice. Maybe even today, especially if you specifically make them an undocumented migrant.

But yeah, the point is that you pick the group of people most hated by the audience you're talking to, and make the point that THEY ARE A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU and ALL THOSE YOU UPHOLD AS PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY if they help their fellow man.

.

People contain multitudes. You might get rescued by the worst person you can imagine, and while this doesn't mean you should rethink your attitude toward their dangerous belief system and actions, it still can happen

Random thought brought on by seeing a veterinarian sign on the drive to Coffee Land, but I think Jesus would really appreciate people localizing his parable of the Good Samaritan.

Because, like, it's a good story, right? When the administrator-guy and the holy man wouldn't help the injured, the Samaritan went out of their way to make sure the injured man was able to get the help they needed, paid out of their own pocket. And that's good and all, but what even is a Samaritan? Do you know?

Well, they're a ethnoreligious group from northern Israel who follow Samaritanism, which split from Judaism sometime around the 11th century BCE. There's only about a thousand of them left. But around the time of Jesus, they were not very popular with your average Hebrew. Remember the Seleucid empire that was oppressing jews? There's a yearly celebration about it, involving a candle that lasted for 8 nights. Yeah. So at the time the Samaritans had taken the opportunity to point out they're not Jewish, they're Samaritans, so they wouldn't be persecuted. So they were seen as, like, selling out their brothers and sisters in the faith. Then by the time the Romans took over the whole area, the province of Judaea contained Samaria.

So basically the Jews and the seen-to-have-sold-them-out Samaritans were stuck in the same province, thanks to some Romans consolidating the areas they'd conquered. Tensions between the two groups were high, and I don't imagine either of them liked each other very much at all.

To a Jew of the first century CE, a Samaritan is basically the worst kind of person you could be, and that's exactly why Jesus used them in the parable of the Good Samaritan!

The parable isn't about Samaritans. It's about how the worst person you can imagine is a better person than the people you idolize and uplift, if that person takes care of their fellow man. It's about how you should love your neighbor as yourself, and who is your neighbor? Everyone. All people are your neighbors. Help them when they need help!

And that's why I say it should really be localized. You should tell this parable differently than it was told in AD 29 or whenever. Do you hate Samaritans? Probably not! You probably barely know who they are, even after I did some explaining up there. So why use them as your example? If Jesus was here, I don't think he would have done that.

So like, if you were giving a sermon on the good Samaritan in the 1960s to a white church, you should be like "so the policeman walked past, and the pastor walked past, but then a poor black guy saw the injured man, and got him help at the local hospital."

In the 80s, his rescuer is Soviet. In the 2000s, they're a Muslim, from Afghanistan or Iran.

Today? Maybe they're trans.

As an American, there's been many times that "Mexican" would have been the best choice. Maybe even today, especially if you specifically make them an undocumented migrant.

But yeah, the point is that you pick the group of people most hated by the audience you're talking to, and make the point that THEY ARE A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU and ALL THOSE YOU UPHOLD AS PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY if they help their fellow man. If your worst enemy is lying injured in the street, you call the ambulance, you pay their doctor, you get them help. That's what Jesus says you should do. That's loving your neighbor, that's the Great Commandment.

And in the Roman province of Judea back in the first half of the first century, when talking to a Jewish audience, that meant the rescuer was a Samaritan helping a Jew. That was just the context for that one particular telling of the story. It shouldn't be told the same way today, or in the future. It should be an evolving parable, always changing, always adjusting the nationalities and situations and genders and everything. It's not a story about a specific event, it doesn't pretend to be history, it's a metaphorical lesson about what makes you a good person.

This parable is basically in the form of an "X, Y and Z walk into a bar" joke, and just like jokes, it should be updated over time. Those don't stay funny though the decades, as cultural attitudes shift. And this parable hasn't been updated in nearly two millenia, so it's long overdue.

[shamebats]

[a text post from r/trans that titled Intersexism within the trans community that reads: "Hi everyone, I'm an intersex enby. As I interact with the trans community, it's becoming more clear to me that a lot of perisex trans people don't understand the intersex experience as much as they think they do and it's creating some problems.

First, intersexism exists, and it's not inherently transphobia. Given the current political climate, is a lot of intersex hate also directed towards trans people? Yes, it is unfortunately. That does not mean that all intersex hate is also trans hate. I've faced intersexism from trans people from this very community, which is why I'm making this post in the first place. If an intersex person tells you about their experience, listen to them! If an intersex person tells you how what you said is leaving out or erasing intersex people, listen to them! If your response is "well you're wrong because I can reduce this down to a binary", that is the entire backbone of intersexist thinking. You need to consider that nothing is binary when it comes to personal identities and that there is always room for nuance.

Second, I've like to cover AGAB. AGAB for perisex people is very different from AGAB for intersex people. No matter how you define AGAB, AGAB describes the way perisex people were assumed to be when they were born. Whether this assumption is correct or not generally determines whether they're cis or trans. For intersex people, AGAB moreso describes the "side" that was picked for us or direction we were forced to transition to. Regardless if that was the "correct" side/direction, it's not a useful metric for determining the transness of intersex people. Using any definition of AGAB and applying it to all intersex people leaves out a lot of nuance that many intersex people have to live with since the day we were born. Many of us detransition after we discovered we were forcibly transitioned, such as myself. Many of us feel that our gender and sex aren't capable of fitting into any binary, such as myself. By using AGAB alone to determine if an intersex person is trans for example, not only are you reducing us to yet another binary you're expecting us to conform ourselves to, you're also essentially saying "You need to base your entire identity on what was forcibly taken from you, not based on any conclusion you came to about yourself."

Third, which kind of plays into the previous point, labels are nothing more than tools that are used for people to understand themselves and others better. If someone has labels that you don't understand, just politely ask them and try to understand where they're coming from. If they don't make sense to you, trying to "correct" the other person won't do anything except upset both of you in a petty argument that won't go anywhere. Even if you don't "agree" with the labels that someone uses for themself, it's not your life and you have no right to tell someone how they should interpret their own life. This is especially true for intersex people who often have complicated and messy relationships with sex and gender that perisex people just aren't able to understand. Label policing only causes infighting and hurts the LGBTQ+ community.

Tldr: just listen to intersex people when they tell you about themselvess" end ID]

Link to post.

[bdafic]

Insights on Elven

While stuck in bed being ill I went completely off the deep end while trying to understand the use of letter-doubling in Elven (spoiler: I think it's a feature of fusional language). I ended up spending two days collecting canon phrases with official translations, retranslating it myself, and then applying each bit of knowledge to the formation of other words and phrases... and I think I've stumbled into a few insights.

First off, the word "vallaslin". We know this means 'blood writing', and we've always assumed the 'lin' is 'blood' and 'vallas' is 'writing' -- and up until two days ago I thought this too. But the more examples I dug up the more I think it's actually 'val' that means blood as a root -- though not necessarily in terms of violence. I believe it originally referred to mortality. We already have use cases of "vallas" meaning "life" in canon (Vallasdahlen: "life trees"), but I think the most damning evidence comes in Veilguard, where an Elven Rook will comment that the word Anvallenim means "womb".

an (place/location) + val (mortal/physical life) + len (people, n.) + im (him, become) = where mortal life becomes.

I think the real root of the word vallaslin is exactly what Solas says it is: a chattel brand. val (blood/physical) +las (have) lin (person).

Second insight was the word 'lath': it's used to refer specifically to a person in physical form. Over time, it expanded to encompass feelings that involve the physical form (eg. love and sex). The World of Thedas vol 1 actually lists two definitions for it, and that first one was really pulling at me when I read it:

Some of Solas' banter with Cole may even confirm this: "Have you felt no interest in women since you came through the Veil?". Spirits are singular in purpose and don't reproduce -- they probably do not fall in love, need, or have sex.

Leaning into this assumption, I found that the presumed translation of 'ath' by the illustrious fenxshiral ('taking the characteristics of' or 'embodiment of') not only works, but actually helps clarify a number of other words. Like, 'athim' for humility. ath (relating to physical/human) + him (become). With so much commentary about the limitations (and consequences) of physical form, and the constant struggle to become better and more powerful in it, the origins of the word would seem to reflect the views of the culture it emerged from.

I think the "L" in "lath" is borrowed (or implied) from the words for 'people' (as in group, not capital-P-People, which is 'vhen' or 'Elvhen'), depending on use). This would make "lath" very literally "love of being".

Along this same path, we know 'eth' is canonically used for "safe". I think it can also mean 'trust'. This would make "lethallin" translate more literally to 'trusted person': friend or kin.

This would also clear up a currently-untranslated word spoken by Solas' spirit sentinels in Trespasser. When you approach, you're greeted with, "Atish'all vallem, Fen'Harel elathadra."

The only other time we see the "adra" at the end of a word is when you're greeted by Study in the Vir Dirthara. They'll greet Sera, or an elf Inq, as "honoured elvhen", or, "mirthadra elvhen". Mir has been used as a root in words about rebellion, fighting, or weapons -- and that tracks, given that the first thing everybody did upon getting bodies was start a war. If the "th" is coming from my interpretation of "lath/leth", that would make the "adra" apply a concept to an individual.

Honour + physical being + applying base term to that being: honoured.

Spirits embody a singular idea or feeling - they're only ever spoken of in that way. Once they began taking form, they'd need an entirely new vocabulary around the existence of a spirit who is not a spirit -- especially when referencing a feeling/state/idea as a personality trait rather than their whole existence.

So, that spirit guardian isn't saying "peaceful welcome". It's saying, "(come) in peace, those-who-became-physical". That untranslated word, "Elathadra" would be something like, "those loyal/close to the Dread Wolf".

"Peaceful greetings mortals; loyal of Fen'Harel".

[jinkieswouldyoulookatthis]

Anti-destiel Wank (sorry but I have to)

If you hardcore ship Destiel, please just scroll on by. Please.

Ok, I'm gonna get myself in trouble, I'm sure, but I gotta get this off my chest...

Destiel may be a perfectly fine ship,

but,

IT'S JUST A SHIP.

In the actual context of the show there IS NO ROMANTIC OR SEXUAL TENSION/RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEAN AND CAS.*

Full fucking stop.

Subtext can be interpreted in ANY WAY YOU WANT. It is subjective. You will find whatever you look for in it. Please stop waving subtext interpretations around as if they were objective facts, they aren't. Subtext, by its very definition, relies on implied meaning and understanding, this means it is a subjective interpretation of the media that varies from viewer to viewer. The inherent variations are what make it fanon/headcanon instead of canon.

If you see tension of that sort there and it makes you happy to postulate the what if, then go ahead, that is what fanon and head canon and fan fiction is all about. But if the fact that the tension you think you see isn't being addressed in actual canon makes you grumpy, maybe you need to take some of the fanatic out of your fanning. If you are beginning to think the show creators are actively trying to repress Dean's "true sexuality and feelings" because they are evil, you might need to consider that you've dug in too deep.

Because, like I ship wincest. Yeah, I said it. But I am aware that canon doesn't actually include any level of sexual or romantic (in the modern sense) relationship between Sam and Dean. Wincest is not canon.

Now, are Sam and Dean the real "love" story of the show? Yes, yes they are. That has always been 100% the entire point of Supernatural, the great love story of two brothers struggling to save the world together. It's about family and everything that means, but at its heart, it is about Sam and Dean WInchester. Not all kisses and cuddles and sex kind of love, but love nonetheless. Full stop.

Now, the fact that Destiel is such a popular ship is not surprising to me in the least. Jensen and Misha are two gorgeous guys who share a lot of chemistry on screen and off. And, it is canon that Cas loves Dean. That has been evident since Lazarus Rising (4x01) when Cas was introduced. Castiel's love of Dean Winchester has been his character's main motivation all along and culminated with Cas sacrificing himself to save Dean, after telling him that he loved him in Despair (15x18)

But Dean's main motivation has always been to watch out for his brother. And though Castiel became Dean's best friend, he still comes second to Sam. Nothing against Cas, he just isn't Sam.

So why are so many people so absolutely convinced that Destiel is so real within the context of the story?

Well, I'm pretty sure that it is the same reason that they are so opposed to the idea of wincest.

As we all know, incest is bad, mmmkay? Incest is probably one of the biggest, strongest, cultural taboos we have. So it makes perfect sense that the idea of two blood-related brothers having sexual or romantic feelings for each other is considered icky. It's so off putting that it is a complete no go for even fantasizing about for most people. And that's probably a good thing, tbh, incest should be taboo. But where does that taboo spring from? Why is it so deeply off limits? There are several reasons, but the two main ones are:

That incest can lead to inbreeding.

That incest too often involves molestation or rape of children.

Both of these are seriously bad enough that we all pretty much collectively agree to avoid incestuous relationships. But, do either of these two reasons really apply in the case of Sam and Dean?

The short answer is no. Primarily this is because they are fictional characters that are being played by unrelated actors. But to humor the objectors we'll look at it closer.

We can take the first one right off the table. As two cis men, neither of them is capable of becoming pregnant, so outside of the mpreg (male pregnancy) or gender bending subsets of fanfic tropes, this is not applicable.

The second reason only becomes an issue when talking about the characters earlier in their lives, pre-show or flashbacks. Weecest or teencest, or whatever, are things, but these typically have separate ship names for a reason, because even when dealing with fictional characters this squicks a lot of folks who are otherwise down with the wincest ship. So most content is tagged or labeled as its specific flavor, so anyone can find it or avoid it. But wincest that involves adult Sam and Dean (the specific pairing I'm referring to in this post) doesn't apply to the second reason listed above.

So there really is nothing morally wrong with Sam and Dean having sex with each other. I know that statement is going to bother a whole lot of people, but it is true. Just because something is taboo does not automatically make it morally wrong. Being gay used to be taboo in our culture, and is still taboo for way too many people, even though there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.

Now, I wasn't in the fandom back at the beginning of the show, but I've heard tell that the very first Sam/Dean fic was posted just a few hours after the pilot episode aired. A few hours, that's all it took for some highly motivated fan to type out a story where they were more than just brothers. The story is called Reunion. If you watch the pilot, even with your anti-incest goggles on, the chemistry between Jared and Jensen is palpable throughout. There is a reason the show lasted for 15 years, and that reason is that Sam and Dean just work on screen so well together. So if it only took one episode for that ship to be born, what did all the future destiel shippers do? Well I imagine they felt somewhat uncomfortable for the first 60 episodes.

Flash forward to season four and the introduction of Castiel. Finally there was another male character for fans squicked by the notion of sweet, sweet brother loving to focus on! Cas was clearly fixated on Dean more than Sam, which followed the plot since Cas had been instructed to rescue Dean from Hell. As it would turn out, the brothers were destined to be the meatsuits that Michael and Lucifer wore to the big prize fight to determine the fate of the world. Prepping Sam for Lucifer involved him consuming demon blood, which made most of the angelic host view him as an abomination, a factor that Cas had to learn to get past in his relationship with the younger brother. But Dean was ready to go right out of the box, no assembly required for Michael. Castiel, and many of his angelic brethren, as well as a lot of Demons, seem to be drawn to Dean in a way that they just aren't drawn to Sam. Is this fair? Hell no. But I mean, look at him! Jensen has sexual tension with literally everything he comes in contact with, people, food, his car, the man oozes sexual attraction. Don't get me wrong, Jared is a sexy fucking ball of sunshine, and our Sammy is a damned attractive man, but he tends to be more repressed and less openly sexual than his brother, so it is what it is.

Where was I going with this? That's a good question. I got a bit distracted, sorry. Oh right...

At its root, destiel is a reactive projection. There is undeniable tension between characters in the show. Since all of the main cast are male, that tension is highly homoerotic. The two main characters, who are undeniably emotionally enmeshed and co-dependent with each other (a very well established canon fact btw), happen to be blood-related brothers. Oh no! Where is all that tension coming from since we cannot admit or accept that it's coming from them? Ah ha! Here is a new male character that we like, yes, it is obviously coming from his interactions with one of the brothers, even though he wasn't in the first 60 episodes. Yes, it all makes perfect sense now, all that tension was merely foreshadowing.

I've read through all the destiel subtext posts. I've gone back and watched all the scenes they reference multiple times with the express purpose of finding destiel. I'm telling you it is just a fanon ship. Which is 100% fine and good, ship that ship, just stop declaring it more canon than canon, because it's not.

And if you don't like fictional incest, cool, cool, you don't have to. But the underlying sexual tension existed in the first 60 episodes prior to Misha being cast on the show, so it was coming from somewhere. And it'd be cooler if you learned how to scroll past people shipping wincest, like I'm sure you do for all the other weirdass, squicky shit that people post all over the internet. But if it makes your heart beat a little faster to imagine that Dean and Cas have eyesex but that Dean and Sam don't, that's fine. I think it's delusional because neither ship is actually canon and both are 100% A-Ok in fanon, and honestly Jensen doesn't seem to be able to control his eyes, which is not something anyone should feel bad about (it's fucking marvelous) but you do you.

*Castiel does love Dean. He confessed as much, but Dean did not reciprocate. What I am referencing is a mutual romance or attraction, which does not exist.

[schizosamwincester]

Happy wincest Wednesday! Do you prefer romance in your wincest or is it something else entirely? I’ve recently gotten really interested in aromantic Dean Winchester.

-@schizo-sam-winchester

Okay I assume you're sending the same question to everyone because if you don't already know that I am a big fan of aro Dean then I am not talking about it enough and I need to fix that.

I am aromantic and allosexual. I know what an aromantic allosexual looks like. An aroallo person looks like Dean Winchester. I mean not exclusively, obviously, some people who are alloaro actually do care about things that aren't sex (not me, but some) and some even have low libidos or don't like people or whatever and don't have sex at all, but like. I am alloaro and I know my people and my people is Dean Winchester.

Dean Winchester has no clue that romantic attraction is even real. Dean died thinking that romance is just when you have a friend who you also have sex with. And you know what's better than a friend? A brother. And you know who he also has sex with? His brother. So if you ask him, yeah, sure, he and Sam are dating or an item or whatever. They're a couple. They're romantic. Of course they are. They love each other, and they are together all the time, and they live together, and they have sex. Those are the requirements.

Sam, having been in actual romantic relationships, obviously knows better. He also knows Dean well enough to know that he does not do that and is simply incapable of thinking that way. In the event that he comes across aromanticism in his travels online and it isn't framed as just an offshoot of asexuality, he's going to immediately go "oh there's a word for that! Good. Good to know there are other people like Dean." He absolutely would not tell Dean about this, though. Dean barely admits to being bi. He's not going to want Sam to give him a whole other word.

(If the source in question did treat aromanticism as just being for asexuals, though? Well Sam knows damn well how his brother feels about sex, and how sexually attractive Dean finds him in particular. And queer labels and all that are decidedly not his area of interest, so if a thing says it's only for aces, he's not going to question that. The prospect of it applying to Dean just won't occur to him at all)

I do think Sam has romantic feelings for Dean, although I imagine they're a little different than what he'd feel for a partner who felt romantically back just because that lack of reciprocation does make the whole thing different. Still, I don't think they're unromantic per se? I think it's complicated. Dean is definitely aro, but I do think there are some elements of romance there. And I think Sam is down bad for Dean in every way, romantic and sexual.

But yeah, for me Dean being aro is a fundamental fact. I will occasionally bend that for my interpretations of Deanjohn, because there I can definitely see some elements of pining and that's fun, but I don't get that from wincest. Sam has always been there. He is part of Dean. How can Dean be romantically attracted to the other half of his own soul?

If I saw wincest as traditionally romantic, I would not give a shit about it. I wouldn't be here. I simply do not care about romance. There's a reason I don't ship destiel, and it's not because there's nothing there. It's objectively a very good set up for a ship. It's just that what's there is the potential for very good romance, and the second things get romantic my brain turns off.

Wincest is pure electric sexual attraction and tension, and sex? Yeah I understand sex. I like sex. My brain is about 90% sex at any given moment. I'm kind of impressed that I have so many ace friends, actually, given the amount I'm incapable of shutting up about sex.

... Like I said. I know Dean Winchester is aro because his view of sex and romance is pretty much identical to mine.

(To be fair, it is very helpful that I think all this because I am almost incapable of writing romance even if I do see things as romantic. It turns out that doesn't actually matter. If you write sexual feelings and just make the context romantic and don't say it's a purely sexual relationship, people will see the romance there anyway. You don't have to actually understand romantic feelings and how to write them. People will just project them in. Which definitely says some things about amatonormativity that aren't great, but hey, it's convenient for me.)

[selfship-confession-void]

"Isn't Enemies to Lovers proship" Nope! Here's Why (+ Explaining Strawmen)

Proship/comship/neutral/darkfic DO NOT interact!! This post is not and never will be for you, stay away from me.

So I got this question as an anon but the ask just disappeared 😭 anyways I feel like this is a good topic to tackle because this shoddy argument is thrown around a lot

Short answer: No, but it can be depending on the execution

Long answer: Enemies to lovers as a trope isn't inherently toxic, but if it's handled wrong then yes the relationship would be abusive and ergo would be proship. But just because it CAN be handled poorly doesn't mean it's AUTOMATICALLY toxic and bad on principal

More under the cut:

I've had people I've hated who I later warmed up to. Happens all the time, that's life, you're not gonna like everyone. But that doesn't mean we abused one another or made one another's life a living hell. If you're thinking about ETL (Enemies To Lovers) in the context of the Enemy being this ruthless tyrant who tears down the MC at every opportunity, ruins their life, and overall makes the MC severely harmed from their actions: yes, that is abuse. THAT relationship would be proship.

But that's what I call BookTok ETL, cause BookTok is where it's most normalized (and let's be fr, they normalize proship stuff ALL THE TIME). BookTok ETL is specifically different from general ETL cause most interpretations of the trope are written by people who know there's a line between flirty angry banter and actual harmful interactions. Any sane person who loves the trope will tell you there's definitely a limit and that it becomes gross and uncomfortable when that line is crossed.

And, what I find important to emphasize: every trope CAN be toxic if done wrong. Childhood Friends to Lovers can be unhealthy if the childhood friend in question is a thoughtless shitbag and torments the MC. Coffee Shop AUs can be toxic if it's someone harassing an essential service worker the whole time. I've experienced media that's made me love tropes I usually don't care for just as much as I've seen media do a trope I love so badly that the relationship is a cesspit mess that I wouldn't ever dream of supporting.

My point here is judging a general and inherently harmless trope just based off of the idea that it could sometimes maybe be portrayed as toxic, doesn't mean the trope is on principal bad/toxic/gross. "But what about hero x villain?"— same rules apply. If Villain is terrorizing Hero or the ones they love so badly that it gives Hero trauma or deeply negatively impacts them in a scarring way, that is abuse and no one should argue that it isn't. But the trope can also be lighthearted and sweet, depending on the way it's handled.

Now onto my second portion:

What is a strawman?

A strawman is directly defined as "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument". The very question of attributing harmless tropes to abuse romanticizing proshippers is a strawman. An argument that's meant to seem like a "HAHA GOTCHA" to people who don't sit and think for more than two seconds on how you're literally grasping at straws. This ties into a common trend of proshippers trying to worm their way into everything.

Let me be blunt: proshippers did NOT and never have invented shipping, selfshipping, fandoms, or anything of the like. They like saying that as an imaginary "gotcha" card to the rest of us, just claiming with zero proof or evidence to have invented online spaces because that's easier to argue over than the fact that they're supporting actually disgusting things. 9/10 they just wanna piss people off and then flood them with harassment when the person points out the obvious holes in their argument (pretty ironic coming from the "we don't support harassment!" crowd by the way)

So, to reiterate and be as clear as possible; no, enemies to lovers and hero x villain aren't proship. They can BECOME proship if specific portrayals are done in a very toxic way that make the relationship abusive, but any trope can be represented horribly, so no it does not automatically mean the trope as a concept is proship. Claiming it is is a strawman argument largely used by proshippers because they're deflecting from what they're actually doing wrong and trying to grasp at straws to "epically own the stupid antis" or something like that

Ty for reading

[actual-changeling]

On unhealthy relationship dynamics

A little while ago, I stumbled across a post discussing Aziraphale's character on a meta level, and without knowing the content, I was completely unprepared when one single sentence pushed me from 'uncomfortable but doable' into 'triggered and panicking'. The post itself was triggering from start to finish, but that phrase stood out to me.

Why am I telling you this?

After calming down and thinking about it for a few hours, I realised what exactly my brain had reacted to—victim blaming rhetoric repackaged to fit Aziraphale and Crowley's situation. Victim blaming is, to provide a short summary, the act of putting blame for mistreatment on the victim instead of the perpetrator. It's a concept often used in r/pe discussions, but it can be applied to any abusive or non-abusive situation as long as a power imbalance is created, meaning you have at least one person harming another in whatever shape or form.

If you broaden the definition, you can apply it to more situations, including—and this is where we reach the actual topic—their relationship and the Final Fifteen (F15).

That is exactly what some people have been doing—putting all the blame on Crowley and absolving Aziraphale of any and all responsibility as if it were his fault that Aziraphale broke his heart

Before anyone runs to the comments, let me clarify what I assume will be the FAQ.

no, I do not think Aziraphale is abusive

I do not think that their relationship is abusive either

no, I do not hate Aziraphale

yes, I know what I am talking about

everything I will talk about is largely based on what we as the audience actually see and know, combined with interpretations of the intentional subtext Neil wrote into the show.

I have been actively in this fandom since the second season was released, and I have seen a lot of (hopefully accidental) ableist & generally insensitive takes. These are the ones I see the most and what I personally consider to be important topics of discussion, but the same logic I will be applying to these can be applied to many, many more situations.

Since my meta posts get very long very quickly, I will be posting them in parts and always linking back to the others, plus this one as the masterpost.

Part 1—Nice Is A Four Letter Word

The basic pattern is this:

Aziraphale refers to Crowley with a 'nice' term -> Crowley gets upset and tells him to stop -> Aziraphale hears him but continues anyway.

There are reasons behind Crowley's rejection, and I will go into detail, but I want to make one thing very clear: It does not matter why Crowley asked him to stop. He set a boundary, and Aziraphale repeatedly and intentionally overstepped it; this causes understandable anger and frustration.

Crowley does not owe Aziraphale an explanation, just like you would not owe someone an explanation when you don't want to be called x-term. Mutual respect requires the acceptance of personal boundaries like that, and by breaking them over and over again, Aziraphale tells Crowley that his own wants are more important than Crowley's needs.

In the 1827 Edinburgh flashback, we see the consequences of Crowley doing good/being called good (which are usually connected, meaning if they notice someone is calling Crowley good, he most likely did something to cause that) firsthand, and so does Aziraphale. He gets dragged down to hell and tortured for up to thirty years.

Even before that, Crowley expresses numerous times how hell punishes good deeds, and they are 'always listening' in on him. You would assume that Aziraphale would stop to keep him safe—and yet he doesn't because he cannot accept the reality of Crowley's situation and refuses to listen to him.

On top of that, Aziraphale only ever "praises" Crowley when he does something he personally sees as praiseworthy, aka something good/kind/nice/angelic/etc. but never when it is something that CROWLEY would like to be praised for, or at the very least acknowledged. We see it in season 2 over and over and over again: Aziraphale cares for no one's thoughts or plans except his own and has no interest in even hearing Crowley out.

Aziraphale calling him nice is not a sweet little gesture, it is an intentional overstepping of a boundary Crowley has been trying to enforce for centuries, and it reinforces the dichotomy of good angels/bad demons, with angelic existence being the ultimate goal. At the very least, it's disrespectful towards Crowley, and at worst, it is actively keeping Crowley in a trauma response, tugging on his leash whenever he tries to explain reality to Aziraphale.

To have a healthy relationship, Aziraphale needs to stop.

part 2 - part 3

[ctheathy]

Yandere Eepop the Performer NSFW Headcanons

Eepop x Reader

Yandere+NSFW Headcanons

Short Concept

Author's note: I personally interpret Eepop as a male. But I am always willing to write for those who'd see her as a girl instead ;)) Just don't forget to mention which gender you'd think is more fitting if you wanna request for Eepop <3

Eepop/Reader [Romantic Tendencies]

[Gender-neutral Darling|Female Darling|Male Darling]

Potential ⚠️TWs⚠️ :

Both reader+character are of legal age or aged-up for obvious reasons in this post!

These are smut headcanons, read at own risk. dom!Reader+sub!Eepop • You're basically gonna step on him LOL • Masochism on top of some more masochism • Obsession • Another sadism streak Reader • Poor mental state • Punishment • Harassment • Sexual fantasies • Dirty talk • Onomadek's abuse mentioned • Degradation • Climax mentioned •

I believe it's quite easy to say that Eepop is a rather submissive and meek person to be around. Even as a yandere with his nasty mentality, he would still be obedient to what you tell him ... probably even more so. Cause unlike usually being fearful of being hurt, in this state Eepop relishes in his pain. Years upon years of Onomadek's physical abuse, torturous abilities on the mental state and hostile behaviour having affected Eepop greatly in the head. You could literally make him bow down with the snap of a finger and that's not even all of it. You could walk all over him and he would absolutely love being under your heel. You could treat him like a personal footstool and he would still ask for more. You'd definitely have Eepop as a masochist because he’ll be craving the idea of being physically dominated and hurt. If you were to step on a tiny insect next to him, it wouldn't take long for his body to react. Getting so shaky and aroused that he’d be seconds away from begging you to step on him too.

Oh, when this man proposes the idea, you should absolutely take your chance and do it too. I suggest you try remaining partly gentle about it though, as we're not necessarily here to cause any physical harm. But as long as you keep a high posture, basically threatening him with the sharp heel of your footgear, he’d be completely at your mercy in that situation. He would try to resist himself for a bit, try to ignore how turned on he is by you, try to ignore how much he wants you to continue. But eventually his breath would start becoming erratic, eyes half lid as he whimpers out your name while squirming.

But as soon as you brought the heels out he would probably be trembling all over, trying to plead with you to be gentler with him and not get his hopes up and then crush them. Like you would just constantly be walking around him, keeping him on edge by coming dangerously close to stepping on him but never actually doing it. And the sharp tip wouldn't even dig into him, but instead pinched in between his thighs as it's pressing his crotch. Which is treatment Eepop would go absolutely wild over. A person that can dominate him in every aspect but in such an oddly gentle way? A person that squeezes his crotch but doesn’t dig their heel into his flesh? Eepop's mind would be utterly filled with the most erotic and sweet thoughts about you. And the fact that you couldn't even bother to look at him would make it even worse. You would have the capability to absolutely stomp down on him, but you may also actively just choose not to.

There would definitely be better options instead, like teasingly dragging your footwear across his face, tracing his jawline before sliding them down his body. Squeezing his rump as you apply the pressure to his hips, looking down at him with such an unimpressed gaze. Dragging your foot down his side like it’s nothing, your heel poking his skin like pins in a balloon. You’d be able to hear a high-pitched yelp every time you moved it along his skin, his tail flinching and becoming stiff as it happens. And he would likely just freeze in place, not knowing what to do or knowing whether he could move or not, trying to act like it didn't sting a little bit.

I honestly cannot even imagine you putting your heel against his throat or near it and NOT having him be completely terrified and start frantically pleading with you like you hold his life in your hands. He would definitely be in shambles after a session like that, with the worst part being that he embarrassingly craves more of it. He would be pouring with desire, he would want nothing more than to please you. He would probably have to be force-fed water or he would dehydrate from how much he would be salivating. You would be able to do whatever you wanted with him like this and he would be a complete mess.

You should have absolutely zero shame with this boy. You could toy with his feelings and fantasies like a master, being the reason why his mind starts to fall apart like a house of cards. Holding even less respect for him if he were to fall onto his knees and moan for you to take advantage of his mind and body, at the verge of completely begging for you to do what you want with him and use him as a puppet. And I wouldn't even be surprised if you pushed him that far that he ends up releasing before the ordeal is even done, the white strings that squirt out of his body now ruining your footgear ...which would likely, understandably make you scoff in disgust. Your flirting turning more passive aggressive.

“You would've preferred to empty your load inside of me instead, didn't you..~?”

“You'd much rather prefer your meat to be buried deep within me and your sticky semen being shot and squirt into me like you were trying to overload me with your mark, wouldn't you?”

“I'm betting you would want to fill me up with your seed. ...Gross.”

A moment where you'd really just be playing along and feeding into those fantasies. Where in return his junk would keep twitching in excitement by just hearing it. Any sense of sanity draining from his face the longer you keep it up, as his tail begins to sway excitedly at this treatment. I can absolutely imagine his body having a similar reaction too, like his hips twitch up involuntarily, his breath shivers and quivers every time you even say something. His whole body spasming every now and again when you do this and you laugh and mock him for it. You'd be able to get him all kinds of riled up in the most suggestive ways possible. Just the mere thought of him hearing the things that you'd say to him and his body is just absolutely tingling with raw excitement and arousal.

Where in response you could be behaving so bipolar that you'd go from treating him like an angel and telling him “good boy” to looking down at his whimpering puppy-like face and calling him a filthy dog. But it's getting to a point where you're not even wrong for doing that, he is the filthiest boy of them all. He's so out of control that he deserves to be put down and punished. And this is when he'll start getting into the dirty names. I could easily imagine Eepop's body being sent into a state of pure primal hunger. You're playing with his fantasies and desires, teasing him with those sweet words and making his mouth water for more. I’d bet that at some point he’d be trying to keep his mouth closed to prevent any saliva from dribbling out and down his chin, but his breathing would become more and more shallow as you continued to tease him.

His poor, poor eyes would roll back so much that he would be able to see the inside of his skull. It would be so much for him to handle that he would immediately become completely overwhelmed, turning into this twitching, drooling mess of a boy that's desperate for you to keep giving anything to him. It would be the biggest test to his willpower ever and he wouldn’t survive it. He would simply give in and beg the entire time.

Where he'd honestly just have a whole mental breakdown at that point. He’d fall to his knees and plead with you with tears in his eyes. Eepop would be at a low point like he’s never been in his entire life, he would be the most submissive and pathetic person in existence and he would absolutely want you to have so much power over him. He’d be nothing but “give me more of yourself, I want you to own me. I want you to make me yours. please... please…” and doing anything in order to get it. He’s so weak and susceptible and you'd know exactly what you're doing to him. All your little comments and questions of degradation, the way you hold and present yourself, your voice, your body, your lips...

EVERYTHING is a form of control for him.

ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ♡ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ♡ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ♡ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ♡ﮩ٨ـﮩﮩ٨ـ

[lemonavocado]

i have many many thoughts about the portrayal of elizabeth (and henry) in adaptations of frankenstein and they need to be broadcasted immediately. feverish incoherent raving about this subject under the cut. tw for very brief mention of SA

so. elizabeth lavenza. by the time of the wedding, elizabeth is rather obviously portrayed to be just as morose and brooding as victor is, she just isn't as susceptible to episodes of mania and psychosis so it doesn't seem nearly as dramatic compared to victor's trauma. she's been through the gutter herself, being an orphan for starters, then being adopted into a family and having to assume the role of caregiver in the frankenstein family because of the coercion of her dead mother to not only take her place as the maternal figure in the family but also marry her surrogate brother (or literal cousin, depending on which version you read). then her surrogate younger brother william dies, and the within weeks she has to watch her closest heterosexual life partner justine be unjustly hung by a corrupt justice system. and she vocalizes, actively, her pessimism and hopelessness in light of these many tragedies. tldr she's fucked up and rightfully so, and while she's a little less crippled by depression than victor, she still has the distinct appearance of being rather ill, listless, and tired, especially towards the end of the novel. anyways my point is in the novel, the most important thing about elizabeth is not that she's a woman and victor's bride. yes, that's obviously the purpose she was created for, but shelley went out of her way to give elizabeth an extremely definite and unique character. she's gentle and maternal like most woman in early 19th century literature, but she's also introspective, intelligent, and perceptive. she displays agency and self-awareness repeatedly (her guilt over the locket, going to the execution of justine even when alphonse tells her not to, waxing poetic on the failures of the justice system, asking repeatedly and rather pointedly if victor actually wants to go through with the marriage, obvious anxiety and solemnity concerning the wedding) we also have to take into account that elizabeth's personality is being relayed to us BY VICTOR, and he wants to see elizabeth as docile and femininely passive, even if a lot of her actions themselves in the novel actually seem to contradict that. also, i am peppering in that many people can (and have) made a genuine and convincing argument that victor and elizabeth are not in love and were groomed to accept their union by their weirdo parents - that they care for each other, but the text includes important nuances that make it evident that victor doesn't feel anything for elizabeth like that. it is a legitimate interpretation of the book - dare i say it's the correct interpretation of the relationship between victor and elizabeth. but that's another essay for another day and it's not SUPER integral to my rant here today. it just highlights the complexity of elizabeth as a character.

so. for some fucking reason, writers do not understand this when they are adapting the novel, and do not want to apply more than eight seconds of critical thinking and the absolute shallowest 3rd grader levels of reading comprehension to this character, so they simplify her from what she was in the original novel, freshly complex, opinionated, and introspective to boring useless incest lady. victor is never portrayed with the same amount of nuance he deserves in any adaptation (also another essay for another day), because adaptations also have a very surface level reading of him as "guy who was ambitious and played god which immediately cements him as an irredeemable self-aggrandizing asshole and/or a raging insufferable narcissist who's a dick to everyone around him EXCEPT for elizabeth" but at least SOME adaptations are able to kiiinnnddaaaa capture the sympathy meant to be felt for the character in the novel. not so for elizabeth. her character in basically every adaptation can be boiled down to this: "omg victor my brother let me hammer in that you are my brother. im just going to stand here and look clueless and annoyingly naive for the entire time im on screen/stage. im just a little girl and idk what's going on victor but im gonna stay blindly devoted to you and ask numerous but completely useless questions 🥺 let me stare at you with tender worry in my eyes and treat you like a child even though we have absolutely no romantic chemistry and you're an objectifying dick towards me and we have nothing in common and the audience is actively dry heaving as we sensually make out for no other reason than to have characters in this movie sensually make out. im basically a carbon copy of original-novel-henry expect super boring and super useless because im a woman which means the doylist explanation for why im here HAS TO BE ONLY for the main character to fuck me and to hold the attention of the male viewership. now time for me to get SA'd by the creechur for basically no reason" we can observe something approximating this in basically every frankenstein adaptation i've ever seen: kenneth branagh's (my enemy) 1994 film, the 2004 hallmark miniseries, the musical, and the ballet. also in the 1931 film, but that one isn't really trying to be book-accurate so it doesn't really count for this rant.

with this understanding of elizabeth, writers then attempt to artificially generate more romance between these characters, mostly by, yes, replacing a lot of henry's role in the novel with elizabeth, hence why we see so many adaptations (1994, 2004, ballet) make elizabeth nurse victor back to health in ingolstadt instead of henry, which generates... so many problems. one problem with this is that it just sorta ruins henry's original role in the novel in one go. writers recognize that henry is supposed to be victor's character foil, but now they don't have much for him to do so he can demonstrate that role in the story since they gave all of the romantic tension moments to elizabeth. meaning that in adaptations you can tell the writers didn't really know what to do with henry because he's reduced to a comic relief bumbling idiot (1994, ballet, 2004 to an extent) with his only personality traits being "random xd" and "morals good playing god wrong!!!! 😠" (2004, musical, several independent stage adaptations). they keep him as a character foil, but just replace all of his compassion, tenderness, and devotion with elizabeth, while effectively draining henry of all of his original appeal and charm and stamping those traits onto their already stripped-of-all-nuance elizabeth. so now both henry and elizabeth are not only extremely different from their original roles in the novel but extremely, woefully less charming and complex. this especially pisses me off because it's explicitly stated in the book that henry was victor's only friend precisely because he was victor's intellectual equal, so seeing henry reduced to a smiley idiot and/or stupid generic male side character with Morals fills me with a visceral rage. writers will also sometimes make victor and henry meet in college (ballet, 1994) and try to strengthen the bond between victor and elizabeth by making it appear as though she was victor's ONLY childhood friend and companion. other times, victor and henry will be friends pre-ingolstadt (2004, musical) but most of the relationship development will be between elizabeth and victor. those two have all of the tender bonding moments while henry is just kinda inexplicably there sometimes. but i digress. this post is supposed to be about elizabeth. but IF YOU NEED A CHARACTER TO BE A SUNSHINE SOFT OPTIMISTIC LOVER FOR VICTOR IN A FRANKENSTEIN ADAPTATION, HENRY IS ABLE AND WILLING ARE YOU STEPPING ON MY BALLS

clervalstein is true. anyway

elizabeth is somehow more complex and powerful as a female character than the literal adaptations produced almost 200 years later. in adaptations, the most important thing about her is somebody else. the development of all of her character traits (which usually never go beyond standing around and looking helpless) are solely dependant on victor. she feels more like an appendage of the protagonist than an individual with thoughts and experiences separate from victor, and her character is loosely defined and flimsy so the writers can have her conform to her actions in the book whenever it's convenient and then change things up entirely that completely contradict her characterization in the book whenever it's convenient. i have no idea why the fuck this keeps happening with frankenstein adaptations (it's misogyny) and because it isn't looking like guillermo del toro's film (from what ive heard) is going to be super book accurate, i dont foresee too much of a shift in frankenstein adaptations.

look i get it. it's a movie/play/ballet which lasts like 2 hours and you have a lot to do and not a lot of time to do it. i understand you have to make sacrifices for brevity and these characters are, frankly, a lot less interesting and exciting than victor and creechur. people didn't come to see john hughes levels of charm and complexity in the side characters, they came to watch the creechur do scary shit and for victor to say IT'S ALIVE 😱 and be an evil mad scientist you love to hate. they came for their values of "it's wrong to play god!!!" and "too much ambition bad!!!" to be re-cemented even though that's not even the original point of the novel. which is why imo if you're going to adapt frankenstein in a manner that does justice to the beautiful and sublime subtlety of the original novel, it needs to be either a miniseries or a REALLY LONG film. it's a short book, but it's very eventful, and imo for an adaptation to work you have to let the audience sit with it. which is why you all need to donate to my gofundme so i can produce an honest to god frankenstein adaptation. in fact, im running for president in this year's primaries :3

just a disclaimer: im not an academic or a scholar or anything. i just like the book. i probably have no idea what the fuck im talking about. but im a very very passionate little guy and this has been my rant

[fatuismooches]

what if dottore had to create a new segment for a very specific experimental project (dunno what it is but for the sake of this ask just hear me out xddd) and its the female version of prime ! fragile reader has always been nosey as to what dottore's new project is ab and would even snoop around eventhough prime or the segments would eventually rant ab it sooner or later . so when reader found out that theres been a newcomer at the lab their curiousity peaked yet the lab is very restricted whenever its being operated and can only hear their voice which is somewhat familiar w their figure of speech so reader is left quite frustrated . ladyttore has all the memories of prime so whenever reader's presence can be sensed outside of the lab she just smiles to herself and felt giddy at reader's antics for being curious yet clueless ab her . after the project has been completed she just ... kind of almost nothing to do since prime and all of the segments had already been assigned onto a new project w all the roles taken and shes left to standby if there happens to be any emergency . she met reader for the first time when she strolls along the halls to study the area then suddenly reader appeared in different direction as they were ab to go to their room . reader immediately froze as their mind went , " WHO IS THIS PRETTY LADY AND WHY DOES SHE LOOK LIKE DOTTORE ?!?!?!? " . ladyttore just simply chuckles at this then holds one of their hand on hers to bring it to her lips and said , " its a pleasure to finally meet you " and u just burst into million shades . i have a feeling ladyttore is more suave than most segments so when prime and the other segments were left busy both of u went along quite well and when they got back they lowkey feels jealous LOL . zandi is prob quite fond of ladyttore since shes very attentive and he likes adults that are somewhat similar to reader .

had this idea bc i want dottore yuri 🥺🩷

YESSS WBDWQKDWQD FEMTTORE WOULD BE... SO SUAVE AND CHARMING AND TALL AND PRETTY,, Dottore, as someone who is constantly seeking new perspectives, well it wouldn't be too surprising for him to make a female segment!! (We know he's done much crazier things anyway.) Although you've been told many many times to stop wandering around certain off-limits areas of the lab... you can't help it. You're still a scholar, after all! (Interpret "scholar" that how one would like.) Though many times, you end up being caught before you can get any of the juicy details... which happens yet again, and all you can hear is a familiar yet unfamiliar voice at the same time...

Although Femttore thinks you are the cutest little thing that she would love to gobble up, she doesn't force the meeting, rather, she wants it to happen naturally. Oh, of course she'd love to wrap her hands around your shoulders and purr into your ear, have you lay on her lap as you glance nervously at her but, she's not impatient. Yes, seeing all the other segments hog your attention is rather annoying but her chance will come. And it is worth every second of waiting.

You have to do a double take when you see such a lovely, well-dressed lady with... a familiar mask and... long, blue hair?? You nearly trip over your feet as you try to understand when she just strolls up and kisses your hand so romantically,, And her voice? It's like Dottore's but it has a distinct tone to it, like not other. It makes your cheeks warm, definitely.

Omega and Femttore are definitely the ones silently fighting with each other through sharp smiles and passive-aggressive statements. They are the two latest versions of Prime after all... They are both selfish in many matters, that applies to you as well of course. The other segments don't like her because she always manages to steal you away... why are you so enamored with her, it's not fair! The younger ones especially, they mumble and grumble all the time when they see her touch you so casually as you fawn over her,,

She always makes sure you have all the products you need (hygiene, skincare, lotion, etc) because she knows her creator knows only the basics of the basics,, </3 of course she also has very pointy teeth and likes to mark you but the other segments get mad of course,, it's always a competition

[lavendermoonlitskies]

The nature of Aziraphale & Crowley’s relationship (Good Omens)

So I know I have like 30 followers and probably no one gives a shit what I think, but the internet’s the internet and it’s free to post on Tumblr so who cares

I have gone back & forth a bunch on what I think of the “discourse” (if we can even call it that?) surrounding Aziraphale and Crowley’s relationship in Good Omens, and I think I’ve settled on something.

I am still very much for the “why does this criticism only seem to come up when the pairing in question is of the same sex (or played by actors of the same sex)” argument against the whole “why can’t they just be friends” criticism that comes up in response to a lot of queer media, however, I can see why it doesn’t necessarily apply here. At least not in the same way.

In the book, and subsequently in season 1, their relationship is entirely up to interpretation. The information we are given at that point about their past can absolutely either be seen as platonic OR the grounds for something more. I don’t think it’s wrong to say you think it’s one way or another. With the way that their relationship works at this point in the story, they have a lovely friendship and if that’s the point where the progression of their relationship ends, that’s all well & good.

However

Moving on to season 2, we get a little more. There are people saying that the romantic element that has been added kind of ruined it, and I would like to respectfully disagree with that. First of all, the surviving author of the original novel is directly involved with the writing, so I have to say I find it kind of hard to say that anything has been ruined when it’s still directly from the mind of one of the people who wrote it. He is writing it with what the two of them had planned originally in mind. (I believe he said at some point that season 2 is a sort of stepping-stone between the original book and the sequel that he and Terry had in mind)

Second of all, the romance didn’t exactly come out of left-field. As I said earlier, you can interpret their relationship in season 1 however you like, but the notion that their relationship may actually be more than just a friendship is an interpretation that was clearly explored in the second season. Neil Gaiman is not one to shy away from queer storytelling, so if that is the direction he wants to take it, that’s where it’s gonna go. It’s 2023, LGBTQ+ representation in media is far less taboo than it used to be, and so he has virtually no reason to filter their relationship into something that he doesn’t actually want it to be as the writer.

If you want my personal opinion, I think that season 2 being “quiet, gentle, and romantic” is foreshadowing for their relationship’s progression season 3, so I can definitely see the romantic undertones that have more or less been there the whole time (of course depending on how you interpret it) being brought out into the limelight. (I know he said that season 3 will most definitely not be those 3 things, but that’s not to say that none of those elements will be showing up at all)

All in all I don’t think it’s wrong or “homophobic” to interpret their relationship however you see it, but in terms of my own theories, I think that if the fact that the (once again quiet, gentle, and romantic) season 2 is a “stepping-stone” between seasons 1 and 3 is true, their friendship is evolving into something more.

[archivalofsins]

I realized one thing about me I'm pretty straight-forward. Especially when it comes to things I like and this can come off as complaining incessantly, being too critical, being too anal, talking people down or being uncompromising.

I don't miss the humor and irony in fans of a series about biases and opinions feeling that others are too opinionated or bias when it comes to the material. I mean that's the name of the game basically.

At this point that should be the expectation on entry.

Yet, I do find it interesting that people can see this with others but to an extent not their selves. Not even just with Milgram this mindset can be applied to most social interactions.

Honestly, I get it. Everyone enjoys believing that they're reasonable and that their beliefs are sound. I like thinking I'm the smartest person in the room sometimes as well. I'm not above it. I don't want to be either.

There's a good reason that people take personal offence to their interpretations of media being questioned or dismissed. A good deal of people's beliefs, how they interpret media, and the world around them is rooted in emotionality. Regardless of how objective a person believes they're being.

For example when I talk about any of the characters my interpretation of their narratives will always be intrinsically tied with my blackness and the sort of judgment I've faced in my life due to that.

This shows itself with characters like Mu. A lot of people may not have the same experience of deviating from the normative appearance associated with their ethnicity. Many who relate to Mu or consider themselves her diehard supporters may not understand what it's like to be something but due to how you look be told that you don't count actually.

People that are biracial or double as Mu puts it in her first voice drama would. Along with people who aren't biracial and would not be considered such by any societal standard being treated the same way for being light skin.

Mu was opinionated enough to tell Es-

When they did the equivalent of calling her a halfie or half-caste by the way. Just more of that casual racism undertone Milgram has going on.

Even to the point that the translation provided even mentions the term Es used can come of as discriminatory.

Gee I wonder... I wonder why it might feel discriminatory. I can't really pinpoint a reason. Nope none coming to mind. Funnily enough this adds more depth to Mikoto's second song title being Double along with his statement trial one that made it sound like he believed he was being profiled.

Though he states it was because of his gender and clothing not due to race.

Alright, then. For an innocent person like you to end up here alongside them... Why do you think that is? Uhm... They got the wrong person. Oh? I can't imagine they'd know the details of what we look like. They mistook me for someone else in terms of gender or clothing... something along those lines. So, Milgram made a mistake, is what you're suggesting? Yeah, exactly. It's the only thing I can think of.

Please tell me it’s a mistake, that’s it’s a lie. That I’m right, I’ll forgive you If you tell me now.

Yet, I can understand why someone in his situation would want to give as little information about themselves as possible. Imagine being falsely arrested and then going you can't do this I'm a minori-wait, fuck, that might make them treat me worse actually um I'm not the guy- You got the wrong guy.

My point is Mu told Es how she actually wanted her biracial experience to be referred to. Not in a um actually way she just forcefully went yes I am this used a different word and probably side-eyed Es super hard internally. Like any person would.

Then there's Yuno.

Someone that everyone seems to love but love ignoring way more. Yuno is the definition of opinionated. She has no issue telling someone how things really are,

20/07/08 Yuno: Hey, Mikoto-san. Don’t you get tired being so conscious of others all the time? I mean, you’re free to do what you want though. Mikoto: Eh…… Aha, what are you talking about? I’m not being conscious or anything. It’s normal to make sure to get along with everyone, right? I mean, when you put it like that, aren’t you the same, Yun-chan? You’re always smiling and getting on with everyone too. Yuno: I don’t smile unless I actually want to. But with you, when you’re talking with other people it’s more like you only smile deliberately. So I kept thinking, don’t your cheeks get tired? Ah, is this just what happens when you become a working adult? ……you see people like that sometimes. Mikoto: Haha, you don’t mince your words do you. …….that was never my intention, but now that you mention it, yeah, I guess I do. This might’ve been since I started my job too…… But like, if I was rude to everyone I met, all my efforts would come to nothing, right?

Q.06 Are there any prisoners you don’t get along with?

Kazui: To be honest, probably also Kashiki-chan. It feels like she sees through all the things I don’t want anyone to notice.

20/08/02 Mahiru: Yeah, I’m asking for what you like in the opposite sex! I mean, with a lifestyle like this we have a lot of free time, right? So earlier when I was talking with all the other girls we got onto the topic! It’s not often you get a chance like this to live with a mix of men and women together, so I thought it might be nice to use the chance to talk about stuff like this in preparation for when we leave. Kazui: Ah…… Haha, I understand. I can see that’d be the sort of thing girls your age would be interested in, huh. How peaceful. What I like in the opposite sex… I don’t know if what I say will really be a good reference for you…… Ah, you know, since I’m at this age. I like a girl who can just smile free of worries. Seeing that’d make my old, tired heart feel young again. Yuno: Uh-huh, I see, I see. ……that’s a total lie, right? Kazui: Haha…… Give me a break here. You sure don’t make things easy for people, Kashiki-chan.

She has no problem directly contradicting others in public and questioning them further if their statements sound untrue.

22/09/02 (Yuno’s Birthday) Kazui: You're helping Shidou-kun, aren't you? Well, to put it this way, it's a bit surprising. You seemed uninterested in others. Yuno: Hmm? Why all of a sudden? Yeah, I'm not really interested. But if someone is about to die in front of me, I'd help out. That's just normal, isn't it? Aren't you the same, Kazui-san? You're not interested, fundamentally. Kazui: ...Maybe. I'm not as quick-witted as Kashiki-chan. You know, I've come up in a world that's all about physical strength. I've never even thought about things like that. Yuno: Haha, we both lie, don't we? The difference is the reason for lying. Kazui-san, you lie to protect yourself, because you're important to yourself. For me, no one is particularly important. That includes myself as well.

Or turning the conversation back on the person who approached her. She's assured in her actions and that makes her the type ready to question others if she feels comfortable enough to.

She's opinionated to the point of being able to draw firm boundaries between the people she likes and dislikes. Stating bluntly,

Q.21 Do you have someone you like?

Yuno: Other than the people I specifically dislike, I like everyone.

Voice Drama 2

Really? If you ask me, Kotoko-san is someone I would never want to make my friend, though. She's the type who picks a conclusion from the very beginning and won't actually talk to you.

Hm?

Well, I guess it's arbitrary who one gets along with.

She also has no problem telling people when to shut up as we've all seen,

"Just shut it, will you? You know it all."

Yet her coarse way of speaking tends to be sanded down in favor of infantilizing her. In what I can only believe is an attempt to make her character more palatable at this point. People implying or downright stating that she's too naive to know better.

Even in the face of that she remains forward and earnest about her feelings,

"“Poor naive little girl”? So off the mark, what’s it to you? It’s just absurd."

Yet all of these statements do little to deter this interpretation of her character. Because when faced with opposition to one's preconceived beliefs it's easier to continue to believe the person disagreeing or criticizing the belief simply doesn't know what they're talking about instead of take their input at face value. It's easier to try to find subjective reasons the other party may be disagreeing with one's own well founded and rooted in reason beliefs than to even humor the idea of ourselves being wrong some times.

Even when it's someone discussing their own life.

Sometimes even more so when it's a person discussing their own life. Because then one can easily justify their belief by saying the person was too in the moment to be an objective party or and just doesn't realize why this was bad yet or that they were being used. This is something brought up in both the cases of Yuno and Amane.

Regardless of how belittling or dismissive of the person's perception of reality implying such a thing is. It's basically an attempt to make someone view the life they've lived and experienced under the other parties framing whether they've actually had those experiences or not. It can't be referred to anything other than what it is invalidating. A person has to go through something terrible and traumatic then when they try to tell others about it they get told they're internalizing it wrong, taking it too personally, misreading the situation, or being to positive.

In that sort of situation the only thing a persons words can be taken as is self-serving and hurtful. Which I personally can't fault Yuno for viewing as,

"So nauseating...so creepy..."

It's easy to say believe others when they tell you their experiences and feelings on them until one actively has to do that. Then suddenly another person's lived experience and words on them can be debated actually. Especially if one feels like they interpreted it wrong or is the one being blamed for causing that hurt. If one's concern and kindness is only extended to the people they haven't hurt. If it's only easy to say I'm sorry and that shouldn't have happened when the pain being discussed wasn't caused by us then does it really mean anything?

It's easy to get caught up in the idea of not being wrong. Even easier to lash out and get defensive when someone else tells you that you hurt them. Yet looking past your ego means facing the fact that every can be wrong and hurt others even ourselves. Yes even if we didn't mean to do it, just couldn't get the words right, or were having such a hard time. To me it's realizing yeah my feelings are valid but that doesn't mean the hurt I caused while feeling that way is.

Yes I think x, y, and z about this situation but that doesn't change how you interpreted it. That's just my interpretation.

To think that being wrong is worst than just taking a situation as it is does cause more harm than good.

It took me a pretty long time to get comfortable with the fact that I will be wrong and regardless of how well thought out I find my points to be people will view me as wrong. This is just in general not when it comes to theories or anything. I didn't really get comfortable with being wrong until I was taking a speech class in college. At that point I was faced with a dilemma is it better to wait until you can say something exactly the right way or to say it wrong but still say it.

In a graded situation the latter is much better than the former. I mean you can't really go to a speech class and not speak without failing. So I realized then that sure I hate being wrong but it honestly makes when I am right far more enjoyable. That I'm not as afraid of being wrong as I am of being so scared of being wrong that I ultimately fail to do anything right or anything at all.

There's no perfect explanation that will make people believe what you're saying is true. Even when it's about your own experiences. People will still measure others by their own metrics of success and failure or right and wrong. A lot of people will tell others it's how they said it even if they know full and well they didn't want to hear it to begin with.

In those situation you can contort your words to be as safe or light as possible that won't change their unwillingness to hear you though. A person may even get harsher, colder, show outward signs of depression. Even attempt to remove themselves from the conversation entirely.

None of it will matter to those intent on seeing someone only one way.

[haru-dipthong]

The linguistic domain consists of signs (words) which consist of the signifier (the written or spoken word) and the signified (the thing the word means). In context, the signified is often a specific thing or action in the real world that can be pointed to and said to directly correspond to the signifier (e.g. “that tree” spoken while pointing to a specific tree). But out of context, the signified becomes intangible. It no longer represents a real thing or action, but the idea of a thing or action, or a grouping/category of possible things or actions (e.g. this written word right here: “tree”).

We, as participants of linguistic communities, develop a shared understanding of what comprises these categories through the process of language acquisition (a process in which a learner is exposed to specific things and actions being repeatedly signified by spoken and written signifiers, through existing native speakers). People acquire an understanding of the general categories instinctively and subconsciously by observing many of these specific signs.

These categories can be thought of as a kind of “melding of minds” - a shared understanding that transcends the linguistic domain. It is evidently outside of the linguistic domain because any attempts at pulling these shared understandings into the linguistic domain (i.e. “definitions”) prove to be incomplete, and often circular. All definitions, especially the circular ones, rely on an preexisting understanding of the signified category, or of a similar signified category to which comparisons can be drawn.

“A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” - how would one identify as a woman if one does not know what a woman is? This definition relies on a world in which a complete understanding of what a “woman” is exists. And I believe that reliance holds true - we do live in a world in which one or more complete understandings of “woman” exist. But if those understandings exist, and the point of the definition is to describe those understandings, yet the definition’s existence relies on a preexisting understanding, then there is no need for the definition - it is self defeating.

This blog is run by a nonbinary person. I understand that the above paragraph is a bit dense, and could be appropriated by TERFs. It is my opinion that a TERF interpretation of the above is an interpretation that has misunderstood what it is saying. So for any TERFs with poor reading comprehension, allow me to clarify: I think that the "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" definition approaches the truest possible definition of "woman" precisely because it is circular. The more a definition leans on a preexisting understanding, the closer it is to describing the concept accurately (and ironically, the further it is from being "useful" to a person who does not already understand the word). I think an even more accurate definition of "woman" would be "a woman is a woman".

The above is a particularly poignant example, but the same logic can be applied to any word. Fish, sandwich, vegetable, table, love, run, slay. These are all examples of words. Try applying the same logic to them! You may do this to any word you like: this post is full of words; you may use any of them, even this one.

One practical application of this idea is to realise that this is why it is essential to second language acquisition that words are learned in context, rather than learned from dictionary definitions. You cannot derive the specific from the general. The human mind is tuned to operate in the opposite way - observe many examples, and see a pattern “automatically” emerge.

[keepmycandleburning]

And then the second thing I was going to post about last night was the idea of a writer 'punishing' their characters. You've seen it surely. Like the idea that Umbridge being attacked by centaurs was her punishment for being too girly (and furthermore that this is a statement from Rowling that unlikable women deserve to be raped and the reader is supposed to sympathize) (many examples this is common). This idea about HP is most typically about the author 'treating' women who don't properly conform to her standards a certain way: like Lavender Brown was attacked by Greyback as narrative punishment for being too feminine (This whole Twitter thread is a gold mine for unimaginable takes. I don't understand how SO many people believe that characters' actions are an expression of the writer's beliefs. It really makes me wonder if I am somehow wrong).

Can you 'punish' your fictional character? Is making something bad happen to an unlikable character punishing them? What if the POV character is glad the bad thing happened? What if the POV character is imperfect, or even straight up wrong? Can you treat a fictional character improperly? As with my post last night, the answer is technically yes, there can be problems with writing, but I just don't see it in these particular situations or in this type of fiction. For example some conservative Christian could write about a woman having premarital sex and then her life falls apart but then she saves herself by finding God and it's clearly meant to be a pretty straightforward message, and it lines up with the writer's irl beliefs, and they use to it to push their irl narrative, etc, and I'd say sure that character is being punished. Or conversely a writer can definitely punish an abusive character. So yeah you CAN punish a character. But how do you know when this is what's happening, and why do so many people apply this way more liberally than I do? What if someone were to think I was punishing one of my characters, and what if they thought it was for an immoral reason? What if I were to make a bad thing happen to one character, and someone thought I was saying 'I think this bad thing should happen to every real person who resembles this character'? Or on the other hand, must a writer punish their immoral characters?

This is extremely niche, but what about the criticisms of Rita Skeeter's appearance being masculine? Is this communicating that Rowling thinks masculine women are evil? If so, how do you know? Can you only queer-code 'good characters'? Surely not. So how would one avoid being interpreted that way? Making multiple varied characters w whatever trait definitely helps, but do you have to? How much do you have to proactively plan for people to misunderstand?

Does Harry having a certain thought mean that's Rowling's thought (Is Harry making fun of SPEW Rowling expressing her real belief? How do you know?)? Does Harry having a thought mean that's 'meant to be' the readers' thought? Are plot elements all Rowling's morals, and what she thinks is good and right? What about world-building elements, like how people will say that Rowling made all the women housewives (+ married young) because she's sexist? Why would an author simply designing their fictional world in a certain way mean they think it's good? Are they then obligated to have their narrative condemn the negative aspects of their world, or can the reader decide that for themselves upon observing it?

Overall I think most of these questions of mine come down to that 1. I think a story's narrative typically comes from its POV character, while other people seem to think a story's narrative comes from its writer's beliefs, and 2. that I think the reader can think for themselves and typically draw the intended conclusion, while other people criticize when the message isn't spelled out on the page (look at this lol. SURELY Azkaban was a commentary on the justice system. Why does the fact that Harry doesn't really sit there and ponder it that much mean the message can't come through clearly to the reader—surely it does!)

Feel free to actually answer these questions, not because I will follow any of the rules, I won't necessarily, but you know just to discuss the reasons why something is going to get interpreted in these ways

[julietasgf]

Can you elaborate more on your thoughts about jokes on Coriolanus having a type? Tbh I find endearing that he would have a soft spot for people with specific physical traits, like brown eyes, but that’s me choosing a more favorable (?) interpretation because I’m fond of him. I’m not blind to his canon character though, and I can definitely see how it can be interpreted as him fetishizing a specific kind of people…I don’t like it but I can 10000% see where you’re coming from, and like I say, I don’t mind the discussion :)

hello anon!! ty for the ask, and ofc I can!

warnings for this post: this post will contain discussions of racism, xenophobia and fetishization.

(before starting, I think it's valid to highlight two things: one is that ofc my opinion can be biased, because I don't like coriolanus. second is that my opinion is also influenced by some real life experiences, so it's very personal and it's completely understandable and valid if people don't share it or don't have the same vision over it!)

I feel like tbosas can be interpreted in various lenses (and ofc you can disagree with me at any point of this text), but particularly, when reading a work (specially a dystopic one), I prefer applying real life situations and comparisons. for tbosas, regarding coriolanus and his thoughts, the interpretation I usually go for is: coriolanus is racist and xenophobic. of course we can say that it comes a lot from his context, from his family, considering that his grandma says that district people only drink water because it doesn't rain blood (and though this is a line a lot of people remember, one less reminded of is the one about how she at first confuses mrs. plinth with a servant by the end of the book).

coriolanus is not favorable on district people, even more so than plenty of his capitol colleagues. and still, despite showing clearly his despise for them, we have two cases of him interacting and forming a close bond with two district people:

sejanus and lucy gray.

since this post is about fetishization, let's start with his relationship with lucy gray, since it's his canon love interest and in which we can see some of these signs manifestated.

the biggest difference between just having a type vs fetishizing someone (in specific, poc) is that fetishization comes from an idea that these people are not really people. they are ideas. they are attractive concepts. these are not real life persons with tastes, they are just a hot thought. fetishization takes root in dehumanization. and knowing this, here are some lines with how coriolanus refers to lucy gray:

"His filly in a race, his dog in a fight. The more he had treated her as something special, the more she’d become human."

"Here in the Capitol, it was a given that Lucy Gray belonged to him, as if she’d had no life before her name was called out at the reaping."

"A second-class citizen. Human, but bestial. Smart, perhaps, but not evolved. Part of a shapeless mass of unfortunate, barbaric creatures that hovered on the periphery of his consciousness."

coriolanus doesn't see lucy gray as human. he doesn't see people like lucy gray as human. and it's from that where the issue comes from: when feeling attracted to lucy gray, he likes the idea of her, and the idea of staying with her. in D12, in some parts, he comes close to even romanticize the thought of a "free" life with her (and of course, leaving aside the fact that she has a life herself, and that life is not wasy; it's once again the idea of the thing, and an idea that sounds almost "exotic" to him, because lucy gray is different from anything he has seen in the capitol).

(I also think it's important to highlight that fetishization has inherent roots in sexualization. coriolanus makes points in D12 about lucy gray's "questionable past" and the idea that it's implied she have done sex work before.)

now, let's talk about sejanus, the second district person coriolanus has a bond in the book. this is how coriolanus talks about sejanus and his family int he book:

"Ma might be pathetic, but she was something of an artist in the kitchen."

"The thought of blackmailing old Strabo Plinth had definite appeal."

"You could put a turnip in a ball gown and it would still beg to be mashed" (referring to the way ma plinth was dressed)

"Sejanus had already usurped his position, his inheritance, his clothes, his candy, his sandwiches, his privilege due a Snow."

"[...] well-fed district boy with the cloddish accent" (referring to sejanus)

"Coriolanus' first impulse had been to join his classmates' campaign to make the new kid's life a living hell." (referring to thinking about participating in the bullying of sejanus for him being district; coriolanus decided to ignore sejanus, but only because he thought it would be a waste his time bullying sejanus)

in specific, it strikes to me that coriolanus mocks district traditions. what he says about the death tradition of D2 is, word by word: "Primitive people with their primitive customs. How much bread had they wasted with this nonsense?"

I could go further in how coriolanus' intense hatred for the plinths and sejanus doesn't come mainly from a class struggle feeling, specially because coriolanus hangs out with other kids from the capitol and the academy (extremely rich and powerful kids), but he doesn't show the same intense hatred in the same way. however, this is a discussion for another time. the point now is exactly how despite coriolanus not seeing sejanus and his family as human beings... in D12, he still hangs out with sejanus. he still hugs him, and still goes out with him.

and in the moment sejanus acts just a bit out of how he expected him to (even after sejanus have been a good friend for him so many times in D12), coriolanus got him killed.

coriolanus hates district people. he sees them as primitive, he sees them as uncivilized, and still. still, he hangs out with them. he forms bonds with them, that, in the end, are just harmful for the people in question, because he doesn't see them as humans.

I searched just to be sure, but just like sejanus, lucy gray got no concrete book description besides her clothing + some small aspects (her having dark, curly hair, for example). sejanus being poc coded can be discussed (though I have strong opinions on this, and how I really think the plinths were meant to be poc immigrant coded, as there's a literal line in the book where someone says: "go back to two, then! who'd miss you?") but it's been pointed out so many times and by so many people how lucy gray is romani coded, and though I won't go deep into this because I'm not romani and it's not my place to speak on this topic specifically, this only highlights some of the stuff coriolanus says and thinks about her, considering the extremely harmful stereotypes and portrayals of romani women. this is the way coriolanus' grandma talks about her (reminding that lucy gray is just 16 years old):

"She's district. And, trust me, that one hasn't been a girl in a long time."

before heading to the end of this, it's important to say lucy gray doesn't identify herself as district. she identifies herself as covey, and it's one of the reasons on why coriolanus can handle "better" the thought of him falling for a girl that comes from the districts. more than once, he tries to make mental gymnastics to convince himself that lucy gray isn't district, she's different, she's special, she's an exception to the rule, therefore, it's okay for him to fall for her:

"She seemed to have no love for District 12, always separating herself from it, saying she was, what was it... Covey?"

again, all of these thoughts and views come from a very specific interpretation, and you're free to disagree with me, specially because I don't think collins intended to make a criticism on fetishization of poc. however, specially translating these to modern setting issues, I can't help but feel a bit offput by the thought that (considering a shipping context) coriolanus would clearly have a type, yes, but it comes from a very specific place, and it only causes harm to the ones he gets in relationships with.

again, anon, tysm for the ask! I hope I expressed my thoughts in an okay way (specially because english isn't my first language, so sorry for any typos or confusing expressions). again, this is just my opinion, and you're totally free to disagree! take care <3

[sophieinwonderland]

Tbh I think Sysmeds in general are approaching psychology from a fundamentally *wrong* perspective.

They think of psychology as this definite “truth” that can somehow tell what internal experiences are “valid” or not. When that’s not how *any* of it works.

It’s similar to how some people approach science in general (that instead of it being a tool, it’s just a belief system that can 100% get the ‘truth’ all the time) but like 10x worse because it deals with human minds, which are already infinitely complex. It’s a soft science.

It can be very useful for a lot of things, but it CANT ever say “this is how minds work 100% of the time without anyone diverging.” Theirs a reason why theirs so many types and approaches to therapy in general, because what can work for one person can not work for another.

Just, we are still very much not ANYWHERE close to completely understanding the mind and brain. And trying to deny peoples internal experiences NEVER gets you anywhere. It’s never worked out when people have tried to apply that sort of thing to psychology.

Definitely! One thing I've talked about before is that there is a weird mentality among sysmeds that essentially treats science as a religion.

And this manifests in two ways.

First, as you put it, science to sysmeds is viewed as The Truth. It is Gospel that can't be questioned rather than a method for learning and understanding the world.

Second, much like the actual Gospels, a lot of interpretations seem developed more on tradition rather than the actual text. The fact is, a lot of Christians aren't really basing their belief system on the text of the Bible. They're basing it on people's interpretations of that text that have gotten twisted through a 2000-year-long game of Telephone.

Similarly, sysmeds aren't basing their beliefs on scientific journals or trusted academics. Their beliefs in what the science actually says are completely divorced from anything resembling actual science.