#i feel this very specifically about the perspective differences certain parts of the fandom have with L'Manberg

[sunshine-jesse]

Ashley Literally Did Nothing Wrong, Fuck You, Fight Me

Alt title: Ashley Graves: The most convenient scapegoat in the world

I'm going to espouse a take here that will no doubt be controversial, as you can tell by the title. This is a take I've created from my hollistic understanding of the events of the game, and isn't dependent on any one single point I make in this essay. Because of that, I want you to read it with an open mind; if you hyperfocus on one or two smaller details I might've gotten wrong or are fallaciously interpretated, and either use that to discount the whole essay or go into the comment section and immediately try to debunk my interpretation of that event, that'll make it obvious to me that you're not trying to seriously engage with the core of what I'm trying to say. Because unless quite literally everything I've said here is wrong, I feel confident in saying this:

Ashley Graves did nothing wrong.

Moreover, I think Ashley is on the level of people like Rossiu, Shinji Ikari, and Skylar White as far as people who are mistreated by their fandoms goes.

At first this was going to be an essay about how I don't think the demons are evil, using textual and thematic evidence to show that they're just part of a system that deals mostly fairly with humans and doesn't have any nefarious plans, or at least nefarious plans that stand to fuck anyone over. But then I realized that, goodness gracious, that is boring as shit to write! But I looked at what I had written already and realized that I could write something else with it: something better. I could sum up a lot of the points made in my prior essays and elaborate upon them in much more detail, showing why I think certain themes are obviously present within this game. And here, I intend on doing that.

I've spoken a lot before about how Ashley is a scapegoat for all of Andrew's worst habits; and to a lesser extent, her mother's. The game makes it seemingly obvious that she's the bad one, and generally just a Very Not Good person. It shows her and her brother committing many different acts that are, under most moral systems, wrong, and implicitly implies that she's the reason that Andrew ever did those things. It implies that she's corrupting him, that he could be better and refuses- or is unable to- due to her poking and prodding. But… is that the truth? Is that how their relationship actually works, in practice? I don't believe so. I think I've made it obvious by now that I believe the exact opposite!

I'm going to start off by tackling the morality behind their actions, especially relative to the world they're in. Specifically, I'm going to tackle how the game presents the morality of their actions from a thematic point of view, and any statements it may or may not make.

First of all, TCOAL plays with a lot of different taboos- demon summoning, cannibalism, incest, murder- but the game goes through great lengths to muddy the moral weight of the siblings' actions. Every single action they commit is portrayed in the most neutral possible light- killings were done in self defense (with one notable exception), or done to people who greatly wronged them, cannibalism was a necessity to survive (also with one notable exception), incest is shown to come from a marked improvement in their relationship- leading me to believe that this game is taking a hard morally nihilistic stance. Else, they'd be shown to suffer for their actions, when in reality, the literal exact opposite is happening; they are being rewarded for it. This isn't necessarily glorifying the actions, but instead showing that even the worst of actions can potentially be excused, but whether or not you do is up to the reader. Hence, nihilism, or at the very least, skepticism (as noted by Lisafication). There's an existentialist reading of this too, but I think much of that is contingent on the events of chapter 3 so I won't get into that here.

It contrasts this mostly nihilistic perspective on interpersonal taboos with the deep societal ills that drive people to commit such actions. Evil exists at every level of analysis here, but curiously, the only thing that are shown to do direct harm to others without having a justification of some kind- be it self-defense or retaliation- are those societal ills. There is no (morally) good reason to quarantine people, starve them, and harvest their organs. There's no good reason to burn all evidence and then put a hit on the ones who did escape. There's no good reason to extort sexual favors from someone in exchange for food. These are deep structural problems that force people to either retaliate/lash out or enable people's most exploitative or abusive habits lest they just let themselves die.

And thus, the obvious evils become much less obvious. The game makes a point of subverting the obvious or the well-known when it comes to morals, and I think it does so when it comes to everything else, too. Outside of those societal ills (so far, ch3 might have something else to say), every situation where someone could obviously be shown as the bad person in a situation is immensely more complex than it first appears. So much so that I'd argue that displaying said complexity and subverting simplicity to force/encourage people to analyze things deeper is one of the central themes of the game.

So why, exactly, does he blame so much on her? It's because Ashley is the world's most convenient scapegoat, and the game is well-aware of this and displays it in ways both obvious and not.

First off: the title screen has Ashley wielding the cleaver, establishing that she’s the violent one. It's covered in blood, too, implying that she's the one more driven to kill. The reality of this is the opposite; Andrew is the one with less hesitation to inflict violence on others, the cleaver is his weapon, and most of the kills in the story are done by him (and fully justified). Ashley might push him to do these violent acts, but… does she?

Her reaction to the death of the first warden is one of utter shock.

And her expression afterwards?

This is not the look of someone who enjoyed the fact that someone killed for her sake. This is not the look of someone who finds joy to be had in violence. It's not even the look of someone who is apathetic towards violence. It almost seems to express shame or guilt, but at the very least, she's timid over it. At the very least, it's an "oh shit, he actually had to do that for my sake" face. Not a "haha, I am making him worse!" face.

Not to mention, not only does Andrew kill the first Warden without a care in the world, he proactively kills the 302 lady to eliminate all witnesses, and because he believes Ashley would want him to. But Ashley actually grills him for it; she didn't want the 302 lady to die, although she hardly had good-person-reasons for it. But that's not my point. The point is that she is not the violent one between the two of them.

The door doesn't open in response to violence, remember?

The game intentionally misleads us.

And what happens when Ashley tries to make him take responsibility for all this violence? To point out that she didn't force him to do anything and that he chose to do all of it, including lock Nina in the box? She lashes out, hits him a few times… and then he goes to strangle her, and doesn't let go until she acknowledges that he has no reason for her to be around. He literally doesn't cease his threat to her life until she acknowledges she's useless to him.

I acknowledge that this isn't the most charitable framing for Andrew, and maybe too charitable for Ashley. After all, she wasn't indignant. She was mocking him. She found it hilarious. But I have reasons for that charitability that I'll go over towards the end. But even with that charitability in mind, I don't think my reading is too off base. Defaulting to laughter or mocking in stressful situations is just what Ashley does. She's not indignant about it; she just finds it hilarious that people keep pretending to be better than her, when they're not.

Andrew killed the 302 lady and used Ashley as a scapegoat to justify it; this is indisputable, stated in the text during the dream. This alone validates Ashley's point of view. There is no interpretation of this event that doesn't paint Andrew as every bit as unscrupulous as Ashley, and thinking she corrupted him into this- when it was both one of the first actions he did on his own in the story and something he explicitly uses Ashley as a scapegoat for- is just ridiculous. It's frankly unreasonable. She has every right to be sick of being used as a scapegoat. And at the very least, whether or not you accept the idea that Andrew only let Ashley go once she acknowledged that she's useless to him, he's still so taken aback by his misinterpretation of Ashley's desires that HE goes to strangle HER.

This is NOT Andrew triumphantly standing up to his abuser. This is both of their masks slipping; Andrew revealing how violent and insistent on keeping up his internal narrative that he is, and Ashley revealing that she's getting tired of being blamed for everything.

And then, when he finally lets her go… she hugs him, and acknowledges that she's happy that Nina is gone, which makes little sense at the face of it. Why would that be her first response to being let go, when it was ostensibly what made Andrew so upset to begin with?

I think, to her, it's a conciliatory gesture. As chapter 2 showed us, she's more than willing to take responsibility for violence to relieve Andrew of stress over it, as evidenced by her finishing off their parents. This is an earlier instance of that; by acknowledging she was happy that Nina was dead, she took responsibility for it. She willingly framed herself as a bad person here, so Andrew wouldn't have to be.

She let herself be the scapegoat, because it's all she ever knew. She put the mask back on.

This alone is enough to challenge the idea that Ashley 'corrupts' Andrew in any meaningful way. How, exactly, can you define it as corrupt when society itself is twisted enough to force these actions to survive? In a more sane world, a lot of their actions would've been bad, sure, but they're also actions that the siblings probably wouldn't have done in a more sane world. Ashley's actions aren't making Andrew worse, they're helping to ensure their survival. You could say that this is still corruptive in its own way, but at that point it seems like your reasoning is motivated by having already had that narrative rather than making a good-faith reading of their dynamic.

At no point did she actually make him worse; he was already like that and just used her as an excuse.

Next up is the Nina situation. This one is obviously cut and dry- Ashley manipulates Andrew into killing Nina because she wants no competition between the two of them. It's not Andrew's fault and Ashley was an evil abuser from the jump. Obvious, right?

No. It's really not.

It's pretty strongly implied that Ashley was mistreated by people her whole life. The Lemon Cupcake scene shows this in more detail, about how people always neglect or ignore her birthdays, but she also says that nobody likes her because she's weird and loud in the Nina flashback too. But unless something big happened in between the two flashbacks, none of this behavior indicates particularly maladaptive or even strange tendencies on Ashley's part. She's a needy, bratty child, and the closest thing to a friend she has- Nina- wants to take away the one thing from her that's a source of comfort and emotional validation.

It's not entirely rational, sure! But it also -makes perfect sense-. NOBODY treated her well throughout her entire life; it's strongly implied that Nina never did either, given Nina's reaction to Ashley being there and the lower left-hand painting past the Questionable door showing her being distant from the two of them. We can also see a star bouncing off of her head, and stars represent closeness in this game, so it shows there was an attempt made somewhere along the line, it's just not clear as to who made the attempt.

At the very least, Nina's reaction of disappointment fed into Ashley's preconceived notions of how people treat her, and how she deserves to be treated. Although, from what has been directly stated, rather than implied, Nina was nothing more than an innocent victim in this scenario; I don't mean to take that away from her.

"But she didn't care when Nina died?"

So? If Nina treated her like trash for most of her life, why should she care? She didn't expect Nina to die. It was just an acceptable consequence. You can say "That's not how normal kids act!" all you want, but there's a level of spite and apathy that comes with intense bullying and emotional neglect that I don't think you really understand unless you've been there to the extent someone like Ashley has implied to be.

Andrew, meanwhile, was the one who told Ashley that they had to lock Nina in the box to keep them in there. He's the one who looked for and found the stick to keep them locked in. You could say he was coerced by an abusive person into hurting someone, sure, but you'd be wrong. Cataclysmically wrong, even. Like, if you actually think that a seven year old girl (nobody wears overalls past the age of seven) can have anything approximating an abusive dynamic with her as the perpetrator with someone both older and stronger than her, you frankly have some issues with women you need to work out. That's simply not how abuse dynamics work at that age.

Andrew wasn't entirely responsible for it either, mind- he was just a kid who should never have been saddled with this kind of responsibility. But that's not my point; the point is that it enables other people, Andrew included, to use her as a scapegoat to avoid his own responsibility. All this scene does is retroactively justify any preconceptions you might've had about them from seeing their adult selves first. But the moment you start digging, it becomes much less obvious who's really culpable here. Andrew was, as evidenced by the blood oath scene, fully aware that he held the advantage over her in strength, and managed to give up nothing when making the oath while he made Ashley swear to silence. He was fully aware that he could've chosen to do better, but he refused, and instead opted to reinforce Ashley's insecurities for the sake of exerting control over her.

I've said before that the 302 lady was murdered without any input from Ashley, but this is also relevant on a meta-level because it's done without any input from the player, either. Both of the murders in chapter 1 were like that, whereas all that we, the player can choose to do in that chapter is either solve puzzles, or hilariously, die. The only person with control here is Andrew, the character, and this is reinforced by the fact that we have no control over him for much of the Nina flashback, too. He locks her in the box regardless of our input, even though Ashley spends a lot of time trying to convince him. The main difference between the Nina flashback and the scenes in the apartment is that Ashley had absolutely no idea that any of that was going to happen in the present, whereas it's something she wanted with Nina- which isn't that big of a difference when discussing how much agency she really has.

As much as the game frames Ashley as a manipulator- and much of the fanbase uncritically accepts- she is given shockingly little in-game control over many of the actions committed. Even in the case of the Hitman- as a good friend of mine pointed out- the only choice the player is given is whether or not to check the closet and be killed; an impulsive decision leading to a swift and unceremonious end. In the end, Andrew is the one given the choice to kill the hitman, and we can consciously choose whether or not his reaction is panicked or measured. No such choice is given to Ashley, as most of her reactions are impulsive and spontaneous rather than planned. This is not the makings of a standard "manipulative evil bitch" trope. She's pretty consistently portrayed as someone with poor impulse and emotional control who loudly and aggressively states her intent in every single scenario she's in.

And you can still call what she says and does manipulative despite that, sure, but at what point are you just pathologizing relatively normal (if extreme and highly emotional) social interactions for the sake of fitting into a narrative you already held?

We see Ashley's status as a scapegoat for people to use to pretend to be normal reach its most blatant with the parents. This time it's pretty cut and dry to anyone that doesn't already have it in their mind that Ashley is evil and unforgivable. Mrs. Graves explicitly brings up the possibility of a normal life without Ashley to Andrew in the basement, and claims that Ashley was at fault for shutting her out. She would've been a normal parent otherwise, right? Well, no; the game wastes no time in showing that this wasn't the case in the Burial ending.

From when Ashley was a baby, Mrs. Graves was already tired of her shit, and too emotionally exhausted to be a parent. Despite her attempts at blaming Ashley, she would've never been a normal parent unless Ashley was a golden child in the same way that Andrew was. And yet Ashley didn't even deny shutting her mom out. She didn't deny the chance to be used as a scapegoat; it was all she ever knew. The fact that Mrs. Graves had the audacity to claim that she was a saint when she was never prepared to be a parent for a child who didn't make it easy, and when she was willing to sell out her children and let them die for a life insurance payment is absolutely astounding.

This alone should've been enough to recontextualize everything we supposedly know about how responsible Ashley really is in all of this, but bad parents have a knack for being great at manipulating both family members and everyone viewing from the outside, including the people playing the game.

And almost including Andrew.

Andrew almost accepting the mom's offer is the single most tragic moment in the game, by far.

Dandy said it best in his video essay: By Ashley leaving Andrew alone with their parents, she showed that she is capable of changing. That she is capable of getting better. She showed that she loves and respects Andrew enough to be able to put aside her usual role as the scapegoat and allow him to make the decision that was for the best for both of them. And make no mistake, it was for the best; if the mom really DID sell out the siblings, and given the two of them were already on the run for supposedly being dead, there was no hope of any of this ever working out. They saw through the conspiracy and knew the truth of how the quarantine operations really worked. They were an active threat to one of the most powerful entities seen in the setting so far, to the point where they had a hitman sent after them.

Mrs. Graves had every reason to sell them out again, for their presence in a public setting was more than enough to put everyone in their family in danger. Mrs. Graves had every reason to believe that the normalcy she wanted was nothing that could ever be grasped again so long as her children were alive, and as such, it was clear that she had nothing to offer either Andrew or Ashley. Ashley trusted Andrew to see through their obvious manipulations and lies, and understand that the parents had nothing left to give them. She trusted him to love her more than the false promises their parents could give.

…And yet. In spite of it all.

In spite of her love, in spite of clearly displaying that she can grow up and become a person that causes him less stress, and in spite of Ashley showing that all she wants now is their safety and security…

Andrew can still choose to consider Ashley the problem. He can still choose to use her as the scapegoat he always has.

He can still choose to see her as the one thing that caused him to be this way, that stands in between him and normalcy, when she, not once, forced him to do anything.

Were he to accept Mrs. Graves' offer, this would've been the single most tragic moment in the game. It almost was, and still stands to be, because he ignores every indication that things could be better for the sake of his own narrative, and a narrative echoed by much of the fandom.

But no matter what ending was picked, things could be better. They could've been better all along. Compared to chapter 1, their dynamic in chapter 2 is already much healthier. Their banter is less venomous, and while they still poke and prod each other in ways that aren't exactly great, they don't get into the same violent fights we saw in the 302 room. By all accounts, what happened in that room was an outlier. Even when they find themselves in their parents' house, where they stand to do the One Thing That Means They Would Never Be Normal Again, Ever (ignoring the fact that this is already a lost cause by then), Ashley doesn't get into any fights with Andrew in the same way she did back in the apartment. All she wants is affirmation and security. She doesn't even lay into her mom like she lays into Julia over the phone, even in their private conversations.

We’re led to believe that she’s still getting worse because the actions she’s taking are more extreme, but her attitudes and behaviors are much, much different. The actual actions they're taking are so obviously the right thing to do (both morally and practically) that I don't think it's until they eat their parents that you should make a double take and go "Wow, maybe these goblins actually are kinda fucked up," because until then, well… everything is justified! Perfectly so! Even then, eating their parents serves a purpose, even if not a mentally healthy one.

Maybe she’s calmer because she’s in control over the situation, but if the calls she made to Julia are any indication (independent of the theory that she didn’t actually say those things), were she unchanged as a person, she still would’ve lashed out at their mother over how much more useful she is to Andrew than their parents were, or something of that nature. Something about how nothing their mom offers could compete with what Ashley gives. But she makes no such claims. She feels no need to prove anything to her parents, or to reaffirm her place in Andrew’s life even in the face of her mother challenging it (or at least implying such a challenge). Regardless of her insecurities, she’s changed. It’s hard to see, but she has.

And then Andrew can ignore that and consider betraying her because he refuses to believe that she's willing to make their dynamic work, when she shows many different indications of being willing to concede as long as Andrew stops giving her mixed signals.

A friend of mine put it best, and I'm pretty much quoting her word for word here, because of how strongly I agree with it. When I look at Ashley, I find very few actual "flaws." I see familiar wounds.

The Burial ending, despite being triumphant and not nearly as "dark" as some people think, is still very, very sad. A lot of abusive dynamics are characterized by someone having to fight every step of the way to get what they need from the other person, usually some kind of emotional validation or relief. This is what happens between Andrew and Ashley for most of the game: Ashley wants Andrew to treat their relationship as special, to acknowledge there's something to it beyond just him going through the motions. And yet for most of the game, he refuses to, especially in chapter 1. And then, in Burial, when he does…

She's confused.

A lot of people view this as her being afraid of losing control over Andrew, since her "Andy," who she can push around, is gone. Andrew has changed, and the same tricks wouldn't work. But that's not what that is; it's not about control, it's about her finally getting what she wants from him without having to fight. She still thinks about using sex as leverage to keep him around, but that's because she's never understood what it's like to have someone actually want to be around her. And I speak from experience; when you no longer have to fight for every little bit of emotional validation or relief, when you no longer have to keep checking your messages to keep an argument going so you can finally be proven right, when you no longer have to force yourself to let go, to stop engaging, the reaction isn't happiness. It's not relief.

It's confusion. It's discontent.

Because something you've tied so much of yourself up in to is no longer there, despite it being more peaceful, it still feels wrong. The dynamic still has to be this way in your mind, because you've never known anything else. You latch on to whatever you can in order to justify that, and your actions are still heavily biased in favor of maintaining your place in that nonexistent dynamic. This isn't manipulation; it's trauma. And the fact that Ashley almost immediately understands that Andrew is changing is nothing short of a miracle. By consolidating past and present Andrew into a single person rather than splitting them into two, she showing that she can actually heal from that trauma. And all Andrew had to do to enable this is to acknowledge that she CAN change, that things CAN be better, and that everyone who claims to be better than her is full of shit.

I've analyzed the events of the story in a way that may seem needlessly antagonistic to some characters, and overly charitable to others. But I have to ask you, that if you disagree with anything I've said:

Where does that disagreement come from? What about my narrative clashes with your own? -Why- does it clash? Is it because the game presents your interpretation as obvious, whereas mine is not? Is it because you've experienced someone like Ashley before in your life, and you know it when you see it? Maybe you strongly identify with Andrew, and view his status as a doormat with no agency to be obvious? Or did you just accept the narrative that much of the fanbase has taken at face value, without further analysis other than building on top of it?

I don't believe these things to be contrarian; I've held most of these opinions since my first or second playthrough. I don't believe what I do because you don't, I believe what I do because I understand what Ashley has been through. I've experienced a lot of the specific traumas she had, such as deep feelings of isolation and being deprived of the emotional validation I need from the people who need to give it. I know what it's like to be misunderstood, to have who and what I am taken for granted, and to be terrified of being abandoned by the people I need the most. I see what I do because I understand.

And I want to give her that understanding that nobody gave me.

Maybe you should think about it. Why do you take it for granted that Andrew is a doormat who is strung along by Ashley? Why do you find it so odd when the trope of a woman corrupting a good man through leveraging sex is drawn into question? Why is Ashley seen as crazy, when all of her actions are so straightforward and rational? How is she corrupting him, when the single most needlessly violent act in the whole story- outside of the Nina flashback- is done without her influence? Why is Ashley seen as the abusive one when Andrew both threatens and resorts to physical violence and witholds emotional validation?

Weirdly personal tangent aside, Ashley and Andrew are two of the most well-written characters I have ever seen. They're not written like archetypes who interact with each other through a series of tropes; they're written like real people who's words and actions have astoundingly human motivations. They come from places that we can understand and relate to.

And just like people, they deserve respect. In spite of all they've done, they deserve love.

But make no mistake, Ashley is not the one stopping that love from happening. She just has the audacity to still want it in spite of everything telling her that she doesn't deserve it. We're led to believe she wants too much, but all she ever wanted was the bare minimum that she was never given.

And she has every right to be mad about it.

[dekusleftsock]

Hey, so you said in your tags about how katsuki is a freak in his own way, could you please expand on this idea a little and when it comes to Izuku?

Sure!

I actually made a post about this very concept semi recently but that post also didn’t really have organization lmao

The main reason I’ve always thought Katsuki as “a freak” as I dub him is for the very foundations of his personality. I think the main reason why no one in the western fandom looks at him and sees him for his (kinda) socially inept aspects is because of a combination between cultural differences and the nuances that hero society throws into Japan specifically.

It’s well known that Horikoshi’s story/world is heavily influenced by American super hero comics. Superman, Spider-Man, Harley, Poison Ivy, Bat-man, Captain America, ant man, etc. are all very obvious influences throughout the story, with characters like Allmight often feeling like a combination of Superman and Captain America.

The reason I bring this up is because the very aspects of these super hero comics is kind of in direct contradiction with Japanese society, especially as those heroics within the world affect the society around them.

Heroes are this curve ball thrown into a society that teaches its citizens to be polite, complicit, and quiet. That’s not to say that this is necessarily a “wrong” way to have a society, but I think it’s with this context that Katsuki’s character (and therefore the intentions behind it) become clearer.

Heroes are bright, loud, and powerful. But long before Katsuki was a hero he already was these things; how does that affect his social life? How do the people around him treat him in the context that he is both not a hero nor having of a quirk? If heroes are the “exceptions” to the society around them, and Katsuki is not yet an exception, then he is an outcast, right?

It’s this context that I feel most people forget. Katsuki understands the people around him, he’s very observant and nosy, but he also just doesn’t care. He is unabashedly himself at all times. Those jokes Aizawa made about keeping him out of the spotlight showcase this perfectly, Japanese society expects a certain standard for the social context around him—which he actively ignores.

It’s a very ironic aspect to his character given that most people admire and/or envy him. It puts a whole new light on izuku saying that he was the one “actually in his life”, that Izuku may have admired him before his quirk for simply being himself. Not to mention how it makes sense that he would believe izuku was looking down on him for admiring him before his quirk, because Katsuki was bullied! I think that’s an often overlooked detail given that he only became “acceptable” to most kids around him when he gained his quirk. The memory this is showcased in is entirely Izuku’s pov, which is heavily biased in the sense that he admired Katsuki. Getting jumped by kids two years older than you though is so weird, and I can’t help but wonder if the perspective might’ve changed were it in Katsuki’s pov.

To me, the idea that Izuku’s memories of Katsuki being this social god come from blind childlike envy and admiration, especially as the contextual things happening (Katsuki is a REALLY big hero fan, he’s rude, he doesn’t remember people’s names, actively terrible at making friends at UA for a good couple weeks, getting bullied to even a minimal extent) in comparison to the words being told. You are told by Izuku that Katsuki is amazing, brilliant, talented, energetic, crass, and in reality (especially when they enter UA), to most people Katsuki is annoying, loud, mean, a little intimidating, and not nearly as cool as he thinks he is. His friends spend the entirety of the beginning of their first year actively making fun of him for thinking he’s tough shit when he so obviously isn’t.

And I think the biggest most important part to this “Katsuki is a bit of a social outcast” discussion, is that the villains thought he was like them! They thought he would hurt people because he screamed “die” and didn’t like winning when he felt he didn’t earn it.

The only reason Katsuki is not as much of an outcast as, say, Izuku, is simply because he won the lottery. He earned that extra point. He caught that curve ball to Japanese society and honed it into something greater.

And, see, Izuku can’t really know/comprehend that Katsuki would be, I don’t know, unpopular to any extent (shown in the beginning of the series when he’s freaking out on the bus that HES being complimented and Katsuki is being insulted), because to him Katsuki always acted like a hero. And in a way, he does! But it’s in the way that hero society throws that curve ball, contradictory to social norms, and of course it makes sense why they still happened at all; the past was dangerous! It was life changing! Disparity and violence and death, desperation fueled this huge monumental change. And what is izuku “I don’t know how to make people like me” Midoriya going to do when this kid, Bakugou Katsuki, acts like one of the heroes on TV? He’s not gonna call the Geneva convention and ask why the hell this child isn’t acting like a normal citizen—he’ll admire him to such a visceral degree because it’s almost like he was born a hero.

I like the concept that, because heroes and villain are cut from the same cloth, relatively similar in concept and strength and past hurts in their history, that this also affects how they are socially. You are outcasted by society: you want to oppose societal norms to live freely as yourself and others as theirselves, you want to make sure everyone can smile at the end of the day because sometimes you or your parents couldn’t, you want to be the best because someone told you that you couldn’t, you want to be just like the hero on your TV, who inspired the hero in your life.

Also you need to be at least a little bit of a freak to be listening in on people’s business all the time because it involves your childhood friend/rival to literally any degree. Like bro what is wrong with you come HERE BBG LET ME PICK YOUR BRAIN APART PIECE BY PIECE

More side note: idfk where I got the Geneva convention thing. I was just thinking about how mha has genuinely had violations against the Geneva convention

[the-far-bright-center]

There's a fundamental disconnect between my view of Star Wars and that of, well.... the majority of the SW fandom these days. Whether this is due to lingering disdain for the Prequels (despite fandom claims of acceptance, there's still plenty of prequels-hate going around, it's just taken on a different guise) or the constant onslaught of Disney’s big-budget fanfic muddying the waters, or a combination of both, I don’t know.

But ultimately, it's quite simple. I view 'Star Wars' as the Skywalker saga...aka the six-film Lucas saga, which tells the story of Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption. I don't personally see 'Star Wars' as some ongoing, open-ended franchise that can or even should have indefinite *canonical* additions to it. (An optional expanded universe is one thing, but additions that we, as fans, are just supposed to accept as canon without question because Disney says so is another thing entirely.) Because 'Star Wars' is not just some cinematic universe that exists for its own sake. The fact is, almost the entirety of the world-building from the Lucas-era was done in service of the story and characters of the Original Trilogy and the Prequels. The galaxy far, far away was created specifically to be the backdrop for the Skywalker saga.

So when people debate topics like ‘pro-Jedi’ vs. ‘Jedi critical’, I’m often unable to relate to the angle that these discussions take because I feel like they are largely missing the point. Story-wise, the Jedi don’t exist for their own sake, they (along with the Jedi vs. Sith struggle) are simply part of the mythic backstory of the saga. As a concept, the Jedi exist primarily to serve Anakin and Luke’s respective journeys. So, the Jedi Order of the Prequels-era is written as having become rigid and flawed because that is the necessary context for Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side. And likewise, Luke bringing Anakin back to the Light through the power of love and familial bonds is what rectifies the Old Order’s failings and thus restores the Jedi to the galaxy.

That's just... the story. As in, how it was told. So when I write meta about the Prequels and Original Trilogy, and how they work together as one story, my descriptions and interpretations of both the Jedi Order and the Jedi religion (these are related but not exactly the same thing) are simply neutral in my mind. I'm just talking about what the story is trying to convey. I can't relate to this idea that we must leap to the Jedi Order's defense, nor the converse, that we must condemn the Jedi eternally for having lost their way by the time of the Twilight of the Republic. Rather, I step outside of the story for a moment, and look from the outside in to try to see what is happening from that perspective.

I'm not sure that everyone in the fandom is willing or even able to do that.

Whether that is because very few people actually appreciate the Skywalker saga as Lucas told it to begin with (many people still loudly proclaim that 'Star Wars sucks!', which leads me to believe they must not value the core story at its heart), or they have been so confused by the Disney nonsense that they think the 'new canon' has automatically overridden any meaning that once existed in the PT x OT saga...again, I don't know. I have purposefully tried very hard to stay away from any Disney-related SW discussions for years now, so this is just all what I've gleaned from glimpses here and there.

But it seems to me that many SW fans have trouble accepting that the concept of the Jedi (and the Sith) are inextricably linked to the Skywalker saga and the Skywalker saga alone. These things would never have been created in the way they were without that story. But to acknowledge this would means fans have to accept how central Anakin is to the entire thing. All of it exists for Anakin's story. There are fans who don't like this for a slew of reasons, whether it be that they became attached to a certain idea of the Jedi based on how they were portrayed in Expanded Universe stories that came out during the interim between RotJ and the release of the Prequels (stories that were largely jossed by Lucas' canon), or because they hate Anakin for in-story reasons and have never been able to accept that Star Wars is about him whether they like it or not.

It certainly doesn't help that Disney has played into this discomfort by largely ignoring Anakin (at least, until fan-demand forced their hand) or even outright denying his importance to the story as Lucas told it. (Anakin is the Chosen One whether Disney or fans want him to be or not. Being the Chosen One is not about whether he 'deserves' it, it's literally just his role in the story. And Lucas' saga simply doesn't work without Anakin in the central role.) If fans are confused and disoriented these days, I can't entirely blame them. Disney's version of SW doesn't 'match' the Lucas saga and in many places outright contradicts it. But everything can easily be made clear if people step back (and put aside the Disney stuff for a moment) and just look at the actual story being told in the PT and OT. Likewise, any debates about the Jedi can easily be resolved in the same way. It's really not about how much fans like the Jedi as a group or as individual characters, or how much fans might wish they could be a Jedi themselves. It's about the role the Jedi play in the story, and it's about acknowledging whose story it really is.

[rabbiitte]

thank you so much for your analysis on Mew - it's so interesting! I feel like there's so much hate towards him right now (and I don't really get why? The SandRay situation obviously isn't his fault?) but he's such an interesting character to me, flaws and all.

You're also the only person I've seen talk about his potential demisexuality, and I was wondering if you could expand on that? There are a lot of comments out there saying that Mew has a really unhealthy attitude to sex because he doesn't seem to want to have it - and spends the first few episodes actively avoiding it. I'm not disagreeing with that perspective entirely, but what's wrong with just not wanting to have sex? I'm asexual so I may be missing something in this fandom discourse - is it Mew's desire for control that's unhealthy, or is the argument that a healthy relationship must include sex? I was so pleased to see your comment about demisexuality, because honestly that's what his whole character screams to me. (I could also be reading into it way too much, we don't get a lot of ace/demi rep!)

Thanks again for the great meta, I love your posts!

You're welcome Anon! I'm glad you found the analysis on Mew interesting. I agree, there's so much hate towards Mew right now and I think it is due to several reasons: a) Mew negatively affects SandRay's development. b) Mew is a difficult character to read and that can make certain people uncomfortable. c) People don't like the actor and resent the fact that he's a central character in the series.

The topic you brought up is extremely interesting and I don't see enough people talking about it, so... Sure, let's talk about Mew's possible sexual orientation! 🤗

Since EP1 it has been theorized about Mew being demisexual due to the following moment:

Demisexuality is a sexual orientation where individuals typically experience sexual attraction only after forming a strong emotional connection or bond with someone. Unlike many other sexual orientations, demisexual individuals may not feel immediate or purely physical attraction to others and often require a deeper emotional connection to develop sexual desire.

Demisexuality is a sexual orientation that is on the spectrum of asexuality. What does it mean that asexuality is a spectrum?

“asexuality as a spectrum” means that asexuality it's not a monolithic sexual orientation (not a single, uniform category that encompasses all people who identify as asexual) and that it encompasses a variety of experiences and degrees of sexual attraction. Asexual people may experience their orientation differently, and that's why we talk about a spectrum. Many asexual people may experience no sexual attraction and others may experience sexual attraction in very specific circumstances. However, this is only one aspect of many that makes asexuality a spectrum.

At the same time, asexuality is a sexual orientation within the asexual spectrum.

Mind you, lack of sexual attraction should not be confused with lack of romantic attraction. A person can be hetero-romantic, bi-romantic, homo-romantic, and so on.

Why do I explain all this? First, in the case that someone who's not very informed is reading. Second, because I think Mew is asexual and not demisexual. It's debatable, what's not debatable is that Mew's sexual orientation is part of the asexual spectrum. However, I think the theory that Mew is demisexual is no longer in line with what Mew has shown in recent episodes. Despite having accepted his feelings for Top and forming an emotional bond, Mew has no sexual attraction for Top. This is also consistent with the fact that Mew is still discovering his sexuality and, at first, he might have thought that after getting to know Top he would experience sexual attraction. In fact, many asexual people used to think at first they were demisexual (because at first you don't want to rule out the idea of possible future sexual attraction).

So, let's get things straight:

Mew isn't sexually attracted to Top. Despite that, like many asexual people, he may consider someone attractive. In this case, he considers Top attractive and, at the same time, he actively seeks a romantic relationship with him (once again, romantic attraction isn't related to sexual attraction). He isn't particularly interested in having or perusing sex. He never manifests enthusiasm, desire or strong emotional reactions (deep desire, passion, excitement, among other) towards the sexual act itself. In the shower scene he tells Top that their sexual encounter was "okay" and, during their first time, Mew simply lies down and lets himself be pleased (in case anyone is wondering, yes, asexual people can feel physical pleasure because they're still people and physical pleasure is a natural response of the body to stimuli).

Actually, Mew is completely fine being a virgin. Even so, he's not sex repulsed so he's fine with the idea of having sex. Although he doesn't have a terrible time doing it, he certainly doesn't enjoy it. And, like many asexual people, he feels pressured to have sex. However, it's important to note that Mew didn't have sex against his will. In fact, like many asexual people who decide to have sex for different reasons, Mew had sex with Top because he considered it important when it came to forming an intimate relationship.

Based on all this information we can say that, although someone's sexual orientation is something very particular that everyone experiences and defines internally (therefore it's difficult to know with certainty someone's sexual orientation), we can say that Mew is a homo-romantic asexual person. This means that Mew doesn't feel sexual attraction but does feel romantic attraction to people of the same gender. In turn, his attitude towards sex is neutral (he neither takes a sex-favorable stance nor rejects the idea of having sex).

Regarding your question about control or sex as something inherent in relationships, I don't think either of these two desires is unhealthy. Actually, we all want to have some degree of control in our lives, otherwise we would live in a constant state of anxiety and panic. Control is unhealthy when it becomes a necessity and an obsession. Control also becomes unhealthy when someone tries to maintain control through questionable attitudes that affect others negatively. I also don't think the idea of not wanting to have sex is unhealthy. Sex isn't a prerequisite for romantic relationships (in fact, there are countless healthy romantic relationships that don't include sex), our degree of sexual attraction doesn't define us. In terms of sexual health, a healthy and positive relationship with one's sexuality involves being able to identify one's own limits and respect them. I believe that the thought of “avoiding sex or not wanting to have sex” as unhealthy is related to the pathologization of asexuality. However, it's of utmost importance to remember that asexuality is not a problem to be solved.

I am sorry to dwell on so much Anon but I consider this topic extremely significant and valuable to discuss. Of course, feel free to disagree with me. I hope I answered your questions!

[miraculousagentsofkrypton]

Just a small frustrated stream of consciousness, don’t mind it’s rushed nature:

You know, there's a very specific kind of behavior and type of trauma response that people like in characters. Fandoms go out of their way to justify their lashing out, to make it cute. Many times, there are understandable reasons for how they turned out the way they did. To each their own, if someone wants to latch on to different characters, that's their prerogative and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, there are two aspects of the way some fans approach things that I am so frustrated by. I run into them time and time again. Obviously, part of it is just how it attacks my own favorite characters constantly, but it can also be a sign of unhealthy patterns in how people think about real people with trauma or in certain circumstances.

First part: Lack of recognition that there is more than one way that trauma presents itself. I find it is often the case that people give characters like Jinx, Catra, Lena Luthor, Adrien Agreste, Leo Fitz, and Steve Harrington a pass. And I get it, they are likable characters! They have complex reasons, and tragic pasts, and weren't ever actively trying to be bad people. Many of them are genuinely good people. Their mistakes are treated with compassion and understanding by their fandoms.

Their friends or significant-others’ traumas, however, are frequently not. Vi, Adora, Kara Danvers, Marinette Dupain-Cheng, Daisy Johnson, and Nancy Wheeler are examples of group ones' counterparts. These are characters that respond to trauma in a different way from the first group. Theirs is less immediately obvious, as they don't lash out the same way.

They tend to repress and avoid. They react to hurt by trying to help. These are masks that many people overlook. The second group are the kind that like to take responsibility onto themselves unnecessarily. They all deal with survivors' guilt, or something of the sort. They are hard on themselves, rather than others. This does not mean that they are correct in that blame. They don't look as obviously in pain or in need of help, and so people take them at face value. This creates a different perspective when they do lash out, or when they do make mistakes. Suddenly, there isn't any of the compassionate understanding given to others. They should have been on top of things, should have understood what others were feeling, and how it hurt them. Because they had been shown to make an effort to understand before.

And THAT'S DUMB.

Believe me when I say that that is an extraordinarily harmful way to approach people like that! Just because they hold themselves up to an extremely high standard, doesn’t mean others should too! The second group needs just as much help as the first, and be given equal levels of leniency and compassion. Because of their outward appearances though, people don’t realize that. Fandom’s don’t find that as appealing, because they still take these characters at face value, even though they are shown more of what’s going on under the surface than anyone in the character’s world. 

And that leads to the second point, that people like to shift blame and responsibility off of the first group and onto the second. People project onto characters, it’s just a part of fandom. What ends up happening though, is that creates a desire to remove the responsibility/blame from their chosen character, and place it onto someone else. 

There’s a difference between understanding and feeling empathy for someone, and removing responsibility. Removing responsibility means the responsibility must be put on someone else, because it can’t be removed entirely from the equation. Someone needs to come down, to prop the first one up, in situations where character one either hurts the other, or shares the blame with them. Doing this does two things, which are harmful to both characters. It infantilizes character one, as suddenly they aren’t capable of truly making their own choices. Two, it warps the view of character two. It villianizes them for things outside of their control. It becomes more than just preferring one character over another. I don’t know how else to say it other than, That’s Bad. 

It also ruins fandom content for people who like character two. They don’t have to be the center of everything, but no one likes reading a fic only to realize that character two is being treated with hate by the author. 

It doesn’t have to be either or! People can have compassion and empathy for multiple characters in a conflict! Heck, there are plenty of examples where people on both sides are both right and wrong. I don’t know where I’m going with this, and I’m not hating on people who love those characters, but gosh darn it, is there anyone else who understands?? I am so sick and tired of having to avoid large swaths of fan content because they are so populated with dislike for the types of characters I relate to or love.

[moonlightdancer26]

(tw bullying) Sometimes I go to the anti-snape tag bc I want some variety in opinions, and I don't really have an issue with people disliking Snape...he's not a nice person.

But then I get a post that's like 'Snape deserved to be bullied' and all the variants and it's just...look, "Snape was and awful person" and "Snape didn't deserve to be bullied" are not mutually exclusive. And just bc Snape was a lousy nasty teacher as an adult doesn't mean he was that way as a kid.

I think it's just a specific minority that thinks this stuff*, and granted, there is a very strong slant in HP that leans towards the Marauders* but it just kills any desire I have to read further, even if I block whoever said it.

*(for the sake of the post and all new readers, I'll give the summarized version: Almost every time we hear about something the Marauders do to Snape, we quickly get the Marauder's 'Snape did something to deserve it' POV. Plus we're inclined to like the nicer Marauders vs the nasty teacher Snape).

*I'm trying not to generalize all marauders fans/anti snape people for a variety of reasons.

I completely agree. Despite how headstrong I seem to be about my opinions (which I am), I genuinely am so interested in hearing other people’s opinions and trying to look at the text from their perspectives and interpretations. 😭 I feel like my followers have no idea how balanced I can be during arguments bc y’all mostly just see me focusing on the negative aspects of the characters I hate (because to me, that overshadows the positive aspects of their character). For each character I hate, there’s almost always a long process of how I came to hate them, watching/reading the entirety of the show/movie(s)/book(s), forming an opinion about the character throughout the series, reading other people’s analyses of said character and how they interpreted certain things the character did, finally concluding whether I love/hate/dislike/get irritated by/etc this character, and then try to build a balanced take on them for later discussions.

Sorry that got long 😭 I just wanted to explain to y’all that I really love meeting people who have different/more neutral opinions than I do so I can learn about them 💀 anyway-

Like I said, I agree with you, I enjoy reading a variety of mixed opinions and seeing other people’s perceptions of a character I feel strongly about (be it positive or negative). But I seriously hate when Snaters always dramatise their hatred (emphasis on always, bc sure I can be dramatic too BUT AT LEAST I ACTUALLY ANALYSE SCENES AND EXPLAIN WHY SAID CHARACTER SUCKS) and over-exaggerate every single thing he does, they always make it hard to be civil and calm when reading their posts 😭 And when they call him Snivellus, make childish and hurtful jokes about his appearance, and try to actually JUSTIFY all the trauma he went through? That’s a no-no. I may hate a lot of characters, but I would never actively try to justify what they went through (throwback to that one Snape fan who tried to say Sirius wasn’t abused and was just mistreated 🤢 so gross and disrespectful) nor would I pretend that it doesn’t play a part in how the character turned out later on. Snaters fail to realise that “this character was abused” and “this character is a shitty person/a bully” can coexist, they hardly even register that his being abused at childhood was most definitely a contributing factor in how he turned out as an adult (which even the simplest of minds can realise).

*I'm trying not to generalize all marauders fans/anti snape people for a variety of reasons.

Lol it’s okay anon, your clarification isn’t necessary. I think we all know that not everyone from the Marauders fandom acts like that. Usually, if one were to look at your ask and think “ok but not all of us!! you’re generalising! *starts attacking us*”, then that would be a pretty tell-tale sign of low intelligence. 💀

Thanks for the ask, love! Have a great day.

[shannonsketches]

Can I just say I love how you can be somewhat critical about certain things about totk without completely and unnecessarily trashing it and even adding humor. I wish more people were like that.

Aw, thank you! I'm just trying to make sure folks feel safe to enjoy things here (as long as, yknow, the respect goes both ways).

I definitely used to be someone who would trash stuff unnecessarily, and I'll always credit a mutual (although I did forget their handle,,,I'm so sorry) I had at the time for just letting me go on a long rant about why something bothered me and went, "That sounds really personal, but that got nothing to do with this." And all at once I realized I'd been projecting my needs/wants/expectations onto other peoples work (commercial or otherwise), and holding strangers responsible for serving me, specifically! Which is an absurd thing to expect from anyone!!

And sometimes I still forget the world doesn't revolve around me, glorious me, and I have to go back and apologize and do my mental health homework to figure out why I reacted a certain way, and why I took something so personally. But it's been really helpful to try and do the homework first, or type that whole salty take up and delete it or draft and review it again in the morning, before you make a stranger (or a friend!) feel bad or unsafe with you for the crime of enjoying something you didn't (which I have done, many times, and feel very bad about).

Plus, I've learned that if you're someone who is always analyzing and critiquing things, those moments can be really good practice for (respectfully! privately! in your own space! not on that stranger's post! not in that poor dev's DMs!) considering what you might have done differently, assuming you had the same parameters and resources available. I find this is especially good practice if you plan on entering a creative field! I promise you get a lot more sympathetic with how things turn out when you force yourself to dream within a budget and a deadline.

(also being nice to professionals is good practice! Some of them are jerks, true, but 99% of devs artists designers directors etc are just doing their best under a ton of stress and pressure to make everyone happy, and they're usually really proud of what they're able to accomplish, and they are absolutely not getting paid enough to deal with the comment section)

Once you let go of that need to be Correct and have control over stuff that isn't about you, you end up having a lot more fun and a lot less limitations for playing in the sandbox, and with other creatives! Plus you learn about yourself, and what your priorities and tastes are. You become a better story teller and collaborator when you can not only find but actively look for the good in things you may have completely dismissed as a kneejerk reaction to not liking something about it.

And again, I'm definitely still an ass, a lot more often than I'd like to be. I still struggle with that need to be Correct and to have complete control over my sandbox. I still get defensive and have to navigate rejection sensitivity when someone's idea contradicts mine. I definitely understand the reactivity when something means a lot to us, and it takes practice to share when you're used to being protective! But it's so, so worth it.

You meet such amazing people and find such wonderful, supportive communities when you embrace two cake theory. I highly recommend making an effort to expand your perspective and be a part of that support.

Supportive Community Pro-Tips from a Fandom Old Guy:

You don't have to adopt a theory to enjoy or appreciate it!

If someone's takes upset you, just block them. It's okay.

Don't critique someone's work unless they ask for critique

Don't RB someone's work with negative/contradictory comments, just make your own post

DO freak out in the tags/comments/inbox if you like something

Obviously don't wish harm over ships/headcanons/etc, just block!

Remember someone else's work is not about you

Remember someone else's work is Not About You

Are they experiencing a thing? Are they sharing their experience with you? That's a gift! Treat it like one!

Elitism is a mind killer. Newer ≠ Lesser, Older ≠ Greater. We all have stuff to offer and we all have stuff to learn.

and if I may impart the most important thing I've ever learned in fandom:

BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, WE'RE ALL JUST MAKING STUFF UP!

Thank you for the lovely message and for letting me ramble I'm!! Sorry this got so long and preachy, haha

[nandorsbignaturals]

Some reminders bc people don't know how to process their feelings regarding certain shows:

1) If you don't like the show Don't be posting about it in the main tag. it's literally nobody's fault that you don't like it, and forcing others to witness you not-liking it isn't magically going to change their opinions.

2) Just because it's not meeting your very specific biases and interests does not make it a bad property. Stop complaining about it and go find something else that does meet your interests.

3) Different people are allowed to have dfferent perspectives on a property. no one opinion is better or worse than another- if it's not to your liking, hit da bricks!!!

4) Just because one show is not as gay as another show (which, how tf do you even gauge that), does not make any one of them more or less superior to the others. It's called nuance, and it's actually a very important part of society.

If any of these bother you or irk you, I honestly don't care. Fandom is not about curating things to your very-specific worldview*, and I highly encourage you to go do something to exist outside of yourself (volunteer at an animal shelter or a soup kitchen. go volunteer at a food not bombs rally, go do something that makes you think about other living beings for a little while. your sense of self has swallowed you whole.)

*[Except for trigger and content warnings.]

[castlebyersafterdark]

"I'd love to read more breakdowns on the details as to as to what people who really love omegaverse specifically love about it"

Ok sure! I cannot speak for everyone who likes omegaverse stuff but I'm happy to talk about what I like about it.

Obviously it's a really really broad genre with a lot of different aspects, and not every aspect is gonna appeal to every reader, but I think that's honestly really cool! Like I personally am not super into the breeding/pregnancy aspect, but I can definitely see the appeal of it for people who want to play around with gender (or people who are just into breeding, live and let live!).

What I DO really like about omegaverse fics is the way a lot of the build up/sexual tension (at least in the ones I've read) is very much about how the character's desire and arousal is so intense that it eventually becomes impossible to control. I can see how this might be a turn off for a lot people, as it can get into dubious consent territory, but the way I look at it (and I'm gonna get a lil heavy here) is like: for a lot women & queer people, we're taught that our sexuality and desires are wrong, right? So you feel shameful about having sexual desire (even tho it's totally normal). So there's something kinda liberating about giving up control of those desires and letting them overtake you, in way that it's kinda not your fault if that makes sense? To me, it's very much the same kinda thing as like, bodice ripper romance novels where women aren't "allowed" to indulge in their sexual desires even though they want to.

So that's the main thing. Other stuff I like, and this is gonna sound super nerdy, but I honestly love the world building of a lot of omegaverse fics? Like, some stories are just in a world exactly like ours except people have an A/B/O category, and those are fine, but other stories really explore how the world would be different if people were like that in lots of cool ways. I'm a nerd, I want my porn to have lore!

And to address the anon's point, I also don't really see how it's beastiality. Like sure, animalistic is not an unfair adjective, but people are animals? And just because omegaverse erotica embraces a more primal view of sex doesn't make it anywhere near beastiality. Like, omegaverse is honestly so tame compared to like, monster fucking (and once again that's not shade! Live and let live!).

Thank you for the perspective!! Love reading about this stuff and getting insight to fandom topics like this.

The TENSION and intensity of arousal is what's the appealing aspect to me, since some of the other coinciding kinks are not it for me, but I can get past those for a general interest in seeing what's being portrayed if the writing's good. It's a fantasy - obviously a lot of the stuff portrayed would probably not be so fantastic in reality, but it's not reality. It's almost like, magical realism? Fantasy genre for sure, omegaverse. Which is an interesting concept to consider. And yeah!!!! I totally see what you're saying with the societal view of certain demographic's sexuality and expressing it. That's kind of what I like with fanfic myself, getting to tap into intimacy and sex that isn't really portrayed in media for gay men, especially guys like myself who lean kinda more hmmm sensitive and heavily into romance in media type? It's just not as common a thing, this really intricate and detailed exploration. So I've found that outlet through fanfic.

So, in the interest of an expression of all consuming arousal and passion and raw sexual indulgence, it's all there with omegaverse. It's filling a niche that certain people really want, but you're not going to find in mainstream media. And the other part I appreciate about the trope is the lore! I find the fact that this trope has to have at least a little world building, is so fascinating.

I guess the things that are limits for me and I just breeze past are the pregnancy things. It's not a gripe, and I love that there's an interesting outlet for those who are into the literal breeding aspect, I don't down on what people are into. But that's not for me, but it's also not what I'm reading it for! It's the intensity and the world building as discussed above haha. I guess also the way that sex physically happens isn't really like, super hot to me but I can def see it conceptually being so? I'll skip the the details since it's not important because the fics aren't for me, I'm just there for entertainment really hahaha. I think something to keep in mind is not everything needs to appeal to every person!! Live and let live for sure!! And I guess it's just funny to me comparing it to bestiality or anything actually animalistic because everything I've read all characters seem very human completely, it's all instinct and emotion and biology changes, not species. I have a few acquaintances who are into furry fandom and hmm. That's very blatant. Not for me either, and if omegaverse is too animalistic... stay back haha. But again, it's not judgement. I love fandom and the internet because with a little effort - you find your people, you find your fandom. There's something for everyone because if there's one thing people are gonna be, it's the duality of horniness and creativity. Live and let live!!

[windandwater]

I know various people have talked about how insular people around here are but like. we need to actually incorporate this fact into our behavior, and change it. and what I mean by this is. people who aren't online all the time have an extremely different perspective on almost everything we take for granted here.

like. my parents watched Sherlock. they enjoyed it a lot and my mom still makes jokes related to it without any irony or self-loathing. to them it was just. a fun detective show, a modern take on an old story. watch once and move on with life. she and my dad didn't spend several years knee-deep in navel-gazing meta that ruined it for everyone so now they can't talk about it without feeling like everyone's going to judge them for ever liking it in the first place.

partially this is a function of a lot of people here being teens & kids when it came out, but we (my parents & me) were adults. I was having a good time in fandom and look back on the 2010s pretty fondly while a lot of people here are still going through the process of hating their past selves, and you tend to project that onto the things you used to like. I did that too. and then I came around to forgiving & loving my past selves--all of them--which is why I have no problem admitting to all the things I loved in the early 90s & early 2000s but would have had a hard time admitting to 15 years ago.

but it's not just that. the weird refusal to pretend certain things never happened--Harry Potter. a smaller example, Firefly. etcetera. people think if you even mention HP at all you're automatically terf? like...if you go into the outside world, I'm sorry, but JKR's shit beliefs are not common knowledge. and like it or not that book kinda changed the world. and not all for the worse.

(I will NOT go off here on why Joss Whedon seems to get a pass for Buffy & Avengers but someone mentioned a bad thing about Firefly and now we can't talk about it at all--not to mention that it's apparently still okay for him to actively profit off of his work--but. that's off topic.)

(for the record my views are thus: neither of these creators should get any more money or attention as creators, but we shouldn't pretend that the stuff they made had zero effect on us as a culture or as individuals.)

this isn't really about any of these pieces of media specifically, it's more like. this weird insular culture that believes certain things are common knowledge and therefore if you ever talk about them except for in the Approved ways, You're Bad. it's not healthy here and it's not healthy if you ever plan to have a conversation with any living human.

I'm tired of like. if you post a gif of the wrong show you're cringe. if you reference a the wrong book you hate queer people. if you quote the wrong show you're racist. no matter what the actual gif or quote or reference is. it's not like that outside the internet and on the internet it feels like walking on very stupid eggshells.

I know how we got here but it's dumb. the past happened. it wasn't always perfect but we were still part of it. if we erase it we'll never learn from it but we'll also never get comfy with good the ways it shaped us.

we're so busy molding ourselves into a perfect future that we don't realize that the imperfect past got us here in the first place. let it exist. in all the ways it was.

[cabeswaterdrowned]

for the ship asks: Noah/Blue and/or Noah/Blue/Gansey

Blue/Noah

Whether I ship it or not: yes I really do! They’re one of my favorite noncanon trc pairings tbh. I do think I was more actively into them on some previous rereads compared to recently but I still think they’re neat <3

Why I ship it or not: I mean they’re a lovely relationship whether you ship them or not, I love that Noah so immediately likes Blue (although obviously that was partly about her energy) that makes her feel more at home in the group, and as I mentioned in my notes consistently throughout the series when Blue is at her loneliest (the scene post the boat debacle in tdt / the kiss scene in tdt / the guiding counselor scene in BLLB) Noah will manifest and sort of reflect certain aspects of her feelings or allow her an outlet for them when normally it’s Blue who is the mirror to other chars, but Noah is also a mirror so that gets into an interesting territory the magic/world building of trc functioning as a metaphor for relationships and char work which is always my favorite way for magic in trc (and in many fantasy stories tbh but specifically in this context) to be utilized. So I think there is something very special to their scenes because of that thread and even though they don’t have as many as some other combos they tend to be emotionally impactful to me from that perspective. I generally enjoy when in paranormal stories there’s a blurred line or connection between love and death which is a big thing going on here but I’ll go into my thoughts on that in my Gansey/Blue/Noah answer otherwise I’ll be repeating myself. I also think while a lot of their interactions are very soft and adorable there’s often an undercurrent that’s just a little bit fucked up, such as Noah parasitically feeding off Blue’s energy (which she lets him do because she loves him so much..) or something of that nature, which makes it like. Real sweet but also real creepy, which is appealing to my tastes.

My opinion on their canon potential (chemistry, canon interactions, etc): well their kiss scene is definitely my favorite kiss scene in either series tbh but can you even call it a kiss with chemistry, or a kiss without chemistry for that matter, given it’s function in the story? That could be its own theoretical debate lol but I do think they consistently have really sweet moments of physicality such as the hair touching and hand holding and the pretzel-of-ghost-boy-and-not-psychic-girl scene. And like, it’s trc it’s the Gangsey there’s canon basis for p much everything ship wise.

My opinion on fanon interpretations/fandom around it (Favorite widespread hcs, pet-peeves, etc): I mean it isn’t that popular as a ship so would welcome more content around it.

Gansey/Blue/Noah

Whether I ship it or not: absolutely! one of my favorite triads in the Gangsey, actually there was a time a few years back where I would have called them my favorite that isn’t the case anymore since other ot3/triad dynamics have caught my eye more / I feel more strongly about at least 3 others than I do about this one, but it’s still really up there. Love them

Why I ship it or not: first of all on a thematic level there’s a lot to dig into with the three of them together. While obviously there is a lot going on in trc that is not the literal blurb, in theory the series is built around the idea of killing your true love with a kiss and the Blue x Noah kiss is essentially her first kiss with death because that’s what her kiss was always going to be, on my Blue Pinterest board I have a section labeled “her first and last kiss” (quote from that scene in the book) as my Gansey/Blue/Noah section. I just love the symmetry of the concept a lot. And then obviously just the transference kiss as a concept speaks to ot3 shipping imo. And then you have Gansey/Noah parallelisms re: their deaths and also the Whelk/Noah Gansey/Adam as foils part, and Blue and Noah being the two chars (besides maybe Henry which is a little different) who understand Gansey best which includes understanding his suicidality … there’s just a lot there that’s interesting imo and certain links between all three dynamics so that’s the perspective from which I enjoy it mostly.

My opinion on their canon potential (chemistry, canon interactions, etc): well Bluesey are canon and have plenty of chemistry imo, and I answered Blue x Noah already. I’m not going to say I think Gansey/Noah chemistry ranks high in terms of Gansey’s male friendships I do think it probably is the least homoerotic of them but like. There’s A Lot of competition to be fair. And there are moments (particularly the TRK scene where Gansey is swimming) that feel that way even if it’s less than other dynamics.

My opinion on fanon interpretations/fandom around it (Favorite widespread hcs, pet-peeves, etc): again mostly that I would like more exploration of it

[asherlockstudy]

And I feel like in this fandom, it’s quite easy to be swayed by the gifs when you’re already fond of them and their cute friendship, but when you zoom out and listen to what they’ve said about having never experimented with each other, and realize how convincingly tentative, childish, clueless or even kind of bro-y they talk about stuff that they’d have experience with if they were an item, you can come to the conclusion that they’re probably not having a secret relationship. (2)

|!| I can't find part 1 of your mail, desktop tumblr inbox ate it up apparently.

I agree with some of your points. Some of your observations about Rhett and Link are similar to mine and I agree that for many people sometimes leaning towards certain dynamics and shipping might be informed by the demographic one belongs to, their identity (I don't belong to any demographic that could relate though, personally). But in general, yes, our perspectives and reasonings are different. But regarding the puzzle piece reference, my general belief is that when coincidences pile up, they stop being coincidences. Anyway, thanks again for presenting your arguments!

*I tried not to say it but I will blow up if I don't - I think the inbox allows longer texts at this point. cos I had to take and crop screenshots 8 times lol 😅😅😅😅😅😅

EDIT

After I deleted the mail parts, the part 1 reappeared so I put it here.

The story of the ship is that they kinda started it themselves (name, making a video with shipping themselves like post etc), then distanced themselves from it at least vocally, then Rhett expressed some distress, immediately the shipdom essentially was dissolved and now they are trying to resurrect it (through GME, all the bi jokes, all the "supposedly fake" sex jokes they make at each other). They have not been very sincere or clean or consistent towards their shippers which is why a few years ago they lost a lot of fans for queerbaiting and which is why I don't think such moral concerns apply to us regarding these two in specific. If you don't want to be shipped, you don't suck your friend's nipples for your fans' money, you know? It's that simple. So, zero moral dilemma from me. And I am 100% upfront about it. My conscience is clear. I am not being confrontational here, I am just explaining my thought process.

Cheers!

[vitospaghetta]

I hope you never stop talking about Leon. OG or Remake doesn't matter. Just keep it loud and LOUDER for the people in the back. Please. <33

Now, for my question, as we know that OGs and more specifically CGI movies are only canon to them, the new approach Capcom took with Leon's relationship with Ada starting RE2R to RE4R and how he's basically done with her at the end, there's a vaaast difference there imo it's practically unmissable and even Nick was talking how Leon is "done with her shit" to put it bluntly. So it really does seem like there's a different approach to Leon's entire relationship with her. And when we combine all that, it makes sense that Damnation is cut out of this because it's just not gonna fit... the entire concept and point of this game is Leon moving past his trauma that includes Raccoon City and Ada both, and he does that by forming a bond with another human being that he rescues but also Luis. There's so many different things and the way they play out that to me personally this is absolutely a different take on Leon. They're now two different people/characters. Which is why i am so excited and ready to see how RE6R will play out especially with Ada where we get the utmost closure.

Again, this is my two cents. But i really love your takes and i wish you continue. There's so many misinformation out there that's being spread on an almost daily basis that this fandom deserves some clearance. Stay strong and take care !! <3

Oh I absolutely agree!!! Capcom's definitely taking a new approach to Leon and Ada this time around with the remakes. Admittedly, I'm not the biggest fan of the vilification of Ada in the remakes, but then I've never been a big enough fan of her to have a strong opinion on it either way? Especially since they're just heavily leaning into what was already there in the original games, so I'm all here for this different perspective. Leon's feelings towards Ada in RE4R are completely justifiable and feel very realistic and genuine. Also I'm a HUGE sucker for narratives where two characters grow through their experiences with one another, so the way that Ashley and Leon do just that in the RE4R makes my heart melt. I'm really glad Capcom decided to approach Leon's Raccoon City trauma in the way they did — with his relationships with Ashley, Luis, as well as Ada and Krauser, being representative of him processing his inner turmoil and moving forward.

Hahaha thank you!!!! 🖤 Seriously, I'm glad you like my meta so much!!!

I think a lot of the misinformation floating around is just misguided, ya know? I don't think a lot of people are satisfied with the information provided to them (regarding anything prior to the remakes), so they're constantly digging for more and can easily find themselves believing something that's not necessarily true because that's what they want to believe. They want there to be more depth laid out in front of them than what's already there, they want a certain level of tragedy to be properly explored with good writing, etc.

Then the other part of it is that I think that younger/newer fans just take issue with OG Leon when they're not sexualizing him (which I'm not saying is wrong, mind you). Almost like people are threatened by the idea of their favorite character being flawed in a way that they don't deem as acceptable. Leon's flaws are relatively minimal and often come at the detriment of himself rather than others, but that doesn't mean that he is without any flaws that impact those around him. OG Leon wasn't/still isn't written with gen-z kids in mind, so I feel like it's natural for younger people to gravitate towards remake Leon because he's more palatable. He feels safer, so-to-speak. I think that's perfectly reasonable. However, I think the general bias skews peoples' perspectives when taking OG Leon into account.

Also I think people are just confused lol because of how murky lore shit can be, and again, people are want to believe anything that makes them think that there's more depth than what's being provided in canonical material.

That's why I'm happy to share my own meta/knowledge/whatever, because I think it's nice to offer another perspective into the mix!!

[darkmagicmirror]

Half of this fandom has no idea about the concept of using limited omniscient point of view for storytelling and it shows (/lh)

And I started rambling in the tags about this because I was just going to leave it at that but decided to move it to the post for once...

If you don't know, it's where you have a third person perspective, but not the full story. Most often to follow one specific character without using first person.

Usually it's a writing thing, and actually they use it for all of the Reflections short stories, except for the ones about Aaravos. (Which I'm sure definitely means something, but what does it mean? I haven't thought about it yet lmao.)

But they do something similar in the show because we see different perspectives in third person, but there's a very limited amount we've seen. We haven't seen Aaravos's side. We haven't seen much of Zubeia’s side from her perspective (only what she told the dragang). And so on... S5 followed mostly Callum/Rayla, Ezran, and Claudia (some Soren and Viren and a couple others sprinkled in as a treat /lh), so those are the sides we've seen a bit of. The fun(? for some) part with it being visual but still clearly following specific perspectives is that we see what they see-- but we don't necessarily know everything they know, unless they saw it or someone else told them while we're "with" them (and in that case, it might not be the truth).

All this to say some people think certain characters are good and certain characters are evil when we literally don't know. There's a LOT that the characters don't know (or they learned off-screen), so we don't know. It's selective on purpose. That's why the show portrays certain things as Pure Evil (ie. dark magic and Aaravos) most of the time, so far. Because they show the protagonists' perspective for the most part, but they don't have the full picture, and neither do we. So...

It's complex because they don't necessarily say when they switch perspectives. But they definitely do, and it means we don't have all the information.

One last note is, I remember also seeing it in the novelizations too, but they switch a lot so it almost comes off like fully omniscient. But it feels more like limited omniscient with varying perspectives-- which would be the same as the show. (And maybe why people seem to think we have all the info?)

[chirpsythismorning]

The one thing I struggle with about the online ST fandom is how certain groups come down so hard on others. If people wanna theorise or speculate let them. If people just want to watch it as it's given to them without deep diving that is absolutely fine too! There is no wrong way to watch and enjoy a show and guess what? The talented writers have created in such a way that you can do either! You don't like what someone's posted, you don't need to go at them for it. Scroll on. It's gonna be a long hiatus! Let's just enjoy the ride

There will always be people like that, it is what it is. In fact, everyone will find themselves doing that at some point if they are indeed confident enough based on all the evidence they've compiled and choose to believe. Because we are all choosing to believe things bc of evidence and other factors out of our control.

Right now both bylers and milkvans are 100% certain about endgame. But they can't both be right can they?... It's just a matter of perspective and being able to think about it beyond wanting to stick to a conclusion and leave it at that.

We don't have to stoop down to other peoples' levels either. We don't have to discredit whole theories and ideas bc one person who subscribed to that same idea said something that we didn't like and some people agreed with them. They do not make up the majority.

Also, it’s possible to agree with people sometimes and not agree with them other times. That's the beauty of free thought and complex thinking.

Not only that but I also think a lot of the times, people aren't even disagreeing. It's like we're arguing about semantics because we reached different conclusions and so we're trying to break each others arguments as being flawed when really at the end of the day we agree about a lot of parts, there’s just very specific aspects we feel differently about. And more often than not, people aren’t going to be able to change their minds if they feel confident in those interpretations, until it’s all said and done at least.

But like you said, if you see something you don't like and you saying something won’t contribute to anything, then leave it be.

Or even just give it a few days, think on it. Maybe you can make a post about it of your own with the evidence to back it up. Often I find giving it some time makes me realize it’s not that deep and I can just continue to think what I think and not always resort to calling out without directly calling out basically.

Bc again it’s often that we’re not even really disagreeing about things, it’s just the wording of it doesn’t match up and we have to find a way to meet somewhere in the middle, if that’s even something either side wants to do. That won’t always be the case for everyone and that’s life. You can’t make people think something just bc you do, and vise versa.

I also suggest if you’re getting hate anons with people being hostile, block. Like always block.

When I get asks, if I have something to say and reasoning to why I feel how I feel, I will try to put it into words. But if it’s obvious the person is just trying to like genuinely troll or be disrespectful, it’s not worth my time. Sometimes people come off sort of snippy and condescending, but it’s not like in every case they’re intending to be outright offensive, they probably just want to show confidence. But still, you can choose to not engage with that if you don’t want to.

We are all responsible for our own experience on here. But also each others in the sense that you are posting stuff other people will see. They might react. If you don’t want people to react then always try to keep that in mind before making posts.

There is a possibility there will be assholes out there. But there will also be fellow fans genuinely just trying to have discourse with you and that can be a good thing, arguably the best thing! Disagreements don’t always have to be bad. Some of the best byler evidence has come from all sides of the spectrum. If we all agreed on everything we probably wouldn’t have gotten that far.

[pooopopop]

I've seen nearly all of J2M's panels, interviews, posts, read articles about them and their own provided works etc. I find them all observationally fascinating and approach trying to understand them and their different life experiences with an open mind and can acknowledge that certain situations aren't always going to equal the whole truth of a famous someone because I will never know them personally and therefore cannot ask directly. Conventions/panels, for instance: they're for entertainment purposes, part humor and sarcasm, part truth. Stories, interactions, are often going to be embellished.

Whilst none of them are perfect — literally no one is! — and of course I don't know them on an intimate, personal level, I still feel very confident in saying that they're inherently good people, based on the conclusions I've reached from my own research. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of scrutinising certain behavior or thinking critically just because I'm not agreeing with your opinions.

I could continue to refute a lot of your points individually by offering a different perspective (and draw attention to where your so-called facts are simply incorrect) but I don't think persisting with circular arguments is a worthwhile use of time. You're entitled to feel differently about these things and clearly have made firm decisions based on the "evidence" you've gathered about Misha in particular. I rest assured knowing your POV is not the majority. ✌️

I mean you’ve been sending me long anons for days already and I’ve gone to the trouble of providing sources for all my claims for *you*, I don’t know why you couldn’t do the same if you’re already invested in talking to me anyways. If there’s individual claims I made that you take issue with because you don’t think they’re credible and I didn’t supply my sources, please be specific, and I’ll provide what I can to show either what I’m referring to or how it brought me to having my opinion. I think people just make excuses and justify questionable behavior in order to keep their attachments to them. Even if you think you’re looking at them critically and from a distance, you’re still fostering a parasocial relationship, and nobody is “inherently good”, least of which are rich celebrities. That doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy them. I enjoy Norm Macdonald, the IASIP cast, and a lot of other people without needing to make sure I’m weighing their every sin and good deed on a scale, in order to keep enjoying them.

The difference is that these people constantly go to conventions and everybody besides J2 is pretty accessible. Misha in particular has gone out of his way to foster this environment where he knows the happenings in the fandom and recognizes fangirls, acknowledges them, responds to them on social media, sometimes meets up with them IRL, and has had things like Gish and his community phone number where he’s been even MORE accessible and uses terms of endearments with everybody. The last part feels especially suspect to me because it proves he’s speaking to an audience of fangirls (and people of whatever adjacent gender who are attracted to men, obviously, but we’ll still refer to them as fangirls for brevity’s sake and because I think calling them “minions” is stupid infighting shit that aligns me with J2ers).

I’m speaking to people on here because tumblr is a historically horny and obsessive fandom space and people are joining this fandom all the time and they are only made aware of whatever the circle jerk tells them first. Not only does it foster a bad relationship with middle aged men that you don’t know, and if you did know then it’s because they met you as someone who is a fan of them, it also fosters a bad community environment. People end up having whole friendship networks that depend on unquestionable loyalty to these men, and a hierarchy is created based on who proves themselves to be more devout; in their determination to defend these men, defend the people that they surround themselves with, defend their beliefs, and their every action big OR small. From Misha supporting ICE, the Clintons, the predatory advice in the threesome’s handbook, to the dumbest little things like how he made a Threads account and positioned it as a better alternative to Twitter. This fandom routinely cannibalizes itself and purges the whistleblowers out.

and I got triggered by that karla gif set the other day lol. SailorSally joined the fandom after November 5th and knows nothing but praise for the man, and while I didn’t send those anons to her I can sympathize with them. The cockles fandom can be the worst sometimes because they really push the narrative that he’s queer (and gay for jensen) because they think it’s a testament to his character and therefore it discredits a lot of the shit I’m complaining about. Even if they’re not tinhatters, then they think it positions Misha’s virtues above Jensen, because I guess he’s supposed to be like a bullied gay kid who is still so loving and affectionate in the face of Jensen’s Toxic Masculinity and Homophobia, or something, despite Jensen having gay gossip rags and magazines profiling him as a closeted cutie for way longer with a lot more persistence. Tbh