#just to clarify the quote is something someone has actually said to me

[forestedlot]

“i know plurality isn’t real because i’ve never met a system with a normal person for a alter- it’s always nonbinary teenage anime characters with dyed hair and neopronouns!”

the members of our system live reactions upon reading that:

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for refusing to buy my friend gold? 

I (f/33) have a very good friend (f/39) who is Hindu and an Indian immigrant, and this year she invited me and my wife (33) to celebrate Diwali with her. My wife and I are white canadians and not religious. We’ve been friends with her for almost a decade, but in the last few years have become very close and now she is basically family. We happily accepted.

We brought over food and the stuff to make paper lanterns, and we had a lovely time. The problem came when near the end of the night, when my friend told me that it’s been so long since she had people to celebrate Diwali with, and she was getting excited for presents. I didn’t know Diwali included presents so I hadn’t brought her anything, besides the craft supplies and food, she said that was fine and we could get her something next year.

I asked her what sort of gift she would like, and she said gold was the traditional gift and, I quote “but make sure it’s above 10 karat or it’s basically tin, I’d just throw it away.”

I thought this was a joke at first so I laughed, which made her confused. I explained that I would never give anyone gold as a gift, I’ve never even gotten my wife gold, we couldn’t even afford wedding rings. When she still looked confused I tried to clarify, and asked how much is a gift of gold, traditionally (since I’ve never bought gold, I had no idea how much it would cost.)

She told me a minimum of 500 dollars.

At this point is the behaviour I think might make me an asshole, because I was laughing in complete disbelief very openly. I told her that was completely insane, and I would happily spend every Diwali with her and get her a gift, but there was no way I was buying her 500 dollars worth of gold, ever, especially not if it was a yearly thing.

I know that in India, my friend was of a pretty high caste socially and her family is well off, and here in Canada she is an accountant who owns her own condo, and is looking to buy more property and become a landlord. My wife and I live frugally, we’re blue collar and both from working class families. An average amount I spend on a Christmas or birthday gifts for someone I’m close to would be about 20-50 bucks.

After I’d explained all this to her, I could tell she was disappointed and it had made her sad and confused. Part of me feels bad for laughing at her tradition, especially since she made the effort to include us and has no family here to celebrate with. But it honestly boggles me, and makes me a bit mad, honestly, which I know is unfair since it’s just differences in how we grew up, but I can’t help feeling annoyed and like she’s not seeing her privilege.

This has been compounded by the fact that for Christmas, which we also celebrated with her, she actually gave us gold, worth quite a lot, in the form of a special coin. We’re not the type to display fancy stuff, so it just sits in storage now. But I’m worried she may expect tit-for-tat, even though the only way we could possibly afford to give her gold back in exchange is if we sold what she gave us which we are definitely not supposed to do.

We still hang out constantly and we will continue to do so, she is a for-life friend for a lot of reasons, and I’d love to make her holidays and celebrations special, but this is just a sticking point for me, and I find myself feeling/acting like a prick every time it’s brought up.

So, AITA? Does anyone have suggestions for this situation?

[pinklayla123]

Putting this reply here because I want it and it saves me time to say the same thing.

So, you, an elriel, I presume, admit that what Elain and Azriel were about to do was indeed wrong? That Elain pursuing another guy while still having the bond with Lucien is not right? Elain who is not technically, but canonically, undeniably, irrefutably Lucien's mate. So you admit that what was about to happen in the first part of the chapter would have been wrong? That if Elain was so in love with Azriel and dying to be with him as Elriels believe she should at least say it to Lucien's face and reject him instead of staying ever in silence because no, a mating bond is not something that you can just ignore away? That there are not just political ramifications to consider but also how Lucien, who has been a literal darling all the time and described by several other characters as a good male, doesn't fucking deserve to be treated this way?

Hello, person behind ghost blog with randomly generated name, who sent a screenshot of a blog that evidently doesn't exist but is tagged in Elucien fanfictions.

First of all, thank you for sending this ask. This is the first time I've gotten a passive-aggressive fandom related ask like this, so this is low-key a tumblr milestone for me. So thank you for that.

I assume the screenshot included is someone's response to an ask they received in regards to this post since the wording is somewhat similar, but I can't actually find the blog you screenshot so idk what's up with that.

Now, onto the actual ask. The screenshot says "Did Azriel think anything about touching Elain feeling like touching the Mother herself? Lol, no." I believe this is referring to this sentence in my post "Touching Elain is the closest this man has come to meeting the Mother herself."

I did not mean to imply, in any way, shape, or form, that Azriel wants to get down and dirty with the Mother and is using Elain as a conduit for that kink. I simply meant to say that touching Elain was a very monumental experience for him. In the back of my head I was thinking about how he was literally questioning the Cauldron ("What if the cauldron was wrong?") which is a large part of the "religion" in Prythian, therefore anything that made him question it is undoubtedly a big deal for him. I see now that this wasn't very clear in the original post, so thank you for allowing me this opportunity to clarify my thought process.

Now, if I may, I will reply to the paragraph you went to the effort of actually typing out. Yes, I ship Elriel, you presume correctly. Do I think Elain and Azriel almost kissing is wrong? No, I'm afraid not.

This seems to be a follow-up to "The situation is wrong because Elain is technically mated to another guy who is literally sleeping upstairs." in my post. Is Elain wanting to kiss the man who has been nothing but kind and caring and gentlemanly since she's known him wrong? No I believe not.

Despite her canonically, undeniably, irrefutably being Lucien's mate, she actually does not owe him anything at all, least of all an explanation, because she did not make him any promises. She never went up to Lucien and said "I wanna explore this thing between us" and then go behind his back. If that were the case, yes it would be wrong. But alas, it is not.

I don't have it in me to go pull out the actual quote, but Rhys said in ACOWAR I believe that a female being a male's mate does not equal to her being accountable to him for every breath she takes. Elain is well within her right to not want to do anything at all with Lucien, as demonstrated by her being more than willing to kiss someone else in the same house.

Okay, if this isn't wrong, then why on earth did I say that it is? Easy. Because while Elain and Azriel are not doing anything wrong, their actions will be perceived as such by others and will have consequences far beyond the two of them.

On the topic of sweet darling Lucien, I wouldn't go as far to say he is one of my favorite characters, but I certainly don't hate him and would like to see him get a happy ending. However, he hasn't really done much for Elain to say he actually cares about her or wants a life-long relationship with her. His inner monologue consists of thinking Elain was "thrown" at him and he chooses to spend his days living with another woman on the other side of the world. Doesn't seem to me like either of them want jack and shit to do with each other.

p.s. Just because someone is a "good male" doesn't entitle them to anyone's time and affections, especially someone who has shown no interest in them and even seem to avoid them.

Anyways, sorry this got a little long. Have a nice day 😊😊

[v88sy]

i think the thing with buck fucking strangers came only from oliver stark. the canon narrative did not, at least so far, explicitly say that this is what buck will do or wants to do imo. the implications of saying "your first cannot be your last" to a guy who has fucked around a lot and already learned that he wants a long-term relationship and was in multiple relationships are kinda icky to me, though. it feels like it says that none of it counts because buck's experiences are only with women and until he has had all of the same experiences with men, he isn't ready for "his last" or whatever tf. even if he doesn't fuck around, we are once again at the same point where we have been for 7 seasons with buck. maybe he won't devolve, but the stagnation is really unbearable at this point. especially after seeing this incredible potential of a love interest that finally checks all the boxes (!) being tossed aside so carelessly, i am personally done with it all.

I don't think Oliver said "strangers", but I will agree when you look at just his quote about texting Tim ideas about what he wants for Buck, in a vacuum, it reads shitty. And when someone brought that to his attention, he clarified.

Now that his character is single, he would like to have Buck going out and, basically, having a healthy relationship with sex. He said he would also suggest the same if his character were just coming out of a relationship with a woman too, so I don't feel it has anything to do with a certain sexual identity, and more so just Oliver wanting an arc for his character where he grows into having a good and healthy relationship with sex, instead of what he had in season 1. I think he's just trying to go with the story that Tim has given him and make the best of the situation. Oliver said he's constantly texting Tim ideas, to which he usually says "that's why you're the actor and I'm the writer" so who knows if that's actually something we'll see on screen, but I can tell you it's not anything I'm interested in.

I do get what you're saying about Tommy's reasoning, and I had a whole spiel about it too. I absolutely agree it should have been worded better, but I think Tommy was coming from a place of personal experience. All relationships have this new, shiny, honeymoon phase. Buck has already been putting Tommy up on this pedestal, and there is the added "newness" of it being his first same gender relationship. It's not that Tommy thinks Buck has no experience with relationships or that he doesn't know what he wants, it's that Buck is still seeing Tommy with these rose tinted glasses and Tommy knows what will happen once they come off, because it has before. Maybe more than once, with him on both ends of it. At least that's how it reads to me.

Tommy doesn't feel he can live up to this idealized version that Buck has of him in his head, and he thinks it's better to bow out now before he falls too deep, but I think he already has.

[chaifootsteps]

...nevermind! I have another thing to say and ask.

I just literally searched your username in Tumblr and I got to see a lot of posts accusing you of a variety of things, things like:

being a lolicon / shotacon (steming from you pointing out in a post that fictional children shouldn't be reported and the accuser said that's part of the problem and you're encouraging pedophilia)

being a zoopedo (because of the toothless and hiccup pairing, of course, also managing to see that they've defended and remarked that the "SoftFurArchive" / Norry / idk was trying to warn all of that)

being an armchair psychologist and ableist (because you and an Anon diagnosed Viv with narcissism in a ask)

being a proshipper (an amalgamation of posts, but most focused on the fact of the Toothless x Hiccup ship)

being a KiwiFarms apologist (because of posts about you talking about KiwiFarms and sometimes praising some of the users' comments there)

being a gatekeeper over what's trans (from you saying what a trans should or should not be in a post)

Please, Chai, ease my mind by clarifying if any of this is true or false, or it's just a byproduct of gullible people falling over supposed evidence, or just proshipper puritans attacking you because they don't like you.

— Instagram!Stolas Anon, concerned.

Let's break this down point by point

No, I don't like loli or shota, but I've got a couple of ships that are weird and personal and require convoluted explanations, so I try to extend the same benefit of the doubt to other people.

No, I'm not a pedophile. I'm a CSA survivor, which is why I'm incredibly concerned about things like alarm fatigue. I think certain terms need to be limited to things involving real children and then we can argue about Naruto ships all day.

No, I'm not a zoophile, I like monsters and dragons and generic furry stuff. The term for the former is teratophila. I've been accused of murdering my pets and sent links to actual animal abuse over this.

I don't call myself a proshipper anymore because I'm not playing the "Ah-ha, I think it means X and you said you're that, so you believe what I think you believe" game. I judge people as they come and whether you call yourself proshipper or anti, you're welcome here as long as you can behave.

I've said before that I shouldn't have indulged that ask, but I didn't say that Viv definitely has NPD, I said that if you dangled me over a shark tank and forced me to throw out an armchair diagnosis, it's one I've wondered about. I hope she doesn't, because it's a misunderstood disorder and an extremely sad one. To quote someone who's got it, Nothing's ever OK. You're either too high on yourself for outperforming everyone else, or too harsh on yourself for not being good enough for your own standards.

I'm fascinated by old internet forums and Kiwi Farms is a place that interests me more than any other. It's swaddled in a mixture of misinformation and being exactly as bad as everyone says, but in an increasingly corporate owned, regulated, KOSA-just-passed-the-Senate internet, there are days I'm profoundly grateful that Null's as stubborn as he is.

I'm trans. I genuinely have no idea where this "gatekeeping" thing is coming from.

Let me be very clear. The FBI and NCMEC have literally begged people to stop reporting fictional characters, because fighting pedophiles is like fighting a million headed Hydra. So it burns me when people say things like this.

If you think it's acceptable to do something child protection agencies have again, begged people to stop doing because it gives you a good feeling to do it and you think that trumps the well-being of real missing and exploited children, you are dangerously detached from reality and not welcome on my blog.

TL;DR: All false.

[gogodollie]

Sister Imperator and Papa Nihil Romance Masterpost

Saw someone the other day claim that Sister Imperator was a bitch for leading Nihil on and although I blocked them instantly, it haunts me because genuinely what are you smoking to EVER get that vibe.

These two are old people and they’re crazy. Nihil is just really into the chase and Sister still thinks that playing hard to get is sexy. Once again, they’re old.

Chapter Media

Chapter One: New Blood

Sister Imperator: “Not here… not now- not like this.”

At this point I don’t think there’s much from the prequelle livestream that would confirm the two in a current sexual/romantic relationship so that means that is the first instance where there’s an insinuation that there is in fact something sexual going on between them. Sister redirects Nihil rather than shutting him down entirely just makes it clear that this is a mutual thing and not just Nihil being a horndog. Also, the fact that this was a direct result of the sexual charisma spiel and involves a lot of heavy breathing (and several glances downward from Imperator.)

Chapter Five: The Call

Papa Nihil: “You have always had excellent critiquing of films, Sister.”

Sister Imperator: “Papa… Tell me, are you alone?” “And what are you wearing?”

Sister Imperator: “I’m just trying to- forget it.”

This is one of my favorite scenes ever but the secondhand embarrassment it gives me is so bad (my poor girl Imperator has been in that hospital for WEEKS I can’t even blame her for attempting it). Anyways, another clear example of Sister being receptive to Nihil’s flirting and even going on to (very poorly) attempt to reciprocate. She wants to get fucked sooooooo bad it makes her look stupid. If Nihil was a little smarter this could have worked but unfortunately Sister has no game and Nihil was on the toilet.

Chapter Eight: Kiss The Go-Goat

Papa Nihil: “Why can’t I have another chance?”

Sister Imperator: “Do I have to remind you what happened last time?”

This part gets quoted a lot in reference to Sister rejecting Nihil and her lack of forgiveness towards the cheating incident. However, all things given, I don’t think those lines directly are about their relationship given the context that they’re said in (but they can definitely be taken that way when considering the KTGG sequence and ending). This reads more as Imperator reminding Nihil of his failed attempt to lead the band after he criticizes Copia

Chapter Nine: Tomb It May Concern

Sister Imperator: “Ugh it’s perverse: Papa.”

Sister Imperator: “I…had his balls.”

This is the first instance that Sister brings up a sexual connotation with the title “Papa” which she clarifies in Chapter Ten: Home Coming & Special Guests when Copia asks if she won’t call him Papa because of “the old guy.” Then obviously she just straight up says she had Nihil’s balls in a metaphorical and literal sense much to Copia’s horror.

Non-Chapter Media

Prequelle Promo Sermon

Papa Nihil: “Well Sister you’ve never made a mistake in my eyes.”

Sister Imperator: “Isn’t he sweet? Very generous man, he always was.”

Dance Macabre Music Video

I take this mv with a grain of salt because nothing about it aligns with the 60s and to me it feels more like a retelling of their meeting from Copia’s memories, rumors he may have heard, and whatever misinformation Sister and Nihil had spread about the event themselves. That being said, I do know there are a lot of people that accept that this was the actual first meeting and wedding of Imperator and Papa which actually is insanely romantic. They’re like if Romeo and Juliet were cult leaders and also in their mid-twenties. Love at first sight! Also the first insight into a past relationship between the two.

SIOSP Promo Live

Papa Nihil: “Oh Sister, I wish you were here- I wish Sister was here. She’d be so proud of me.”

Just a guy missing his girlfriend nothing to see here folks.

Ghost on Ghost

Literally just look at them. The context of the scene they’re recreating is enough to sum everything up, the video being posted on Valentine’s day, those old people were getting NASTY.

Mary on a Cross Music Video

There’s a lot of things about this music video that make me crazy and I would like to begin with the confirmation that the two did in fact live together in a non-abbey setting (PLEASE peep the two empty glasses and wine bottle on their porch table). Aside from the violent aftermath of Nihil’s little on stage scandal, the two obviously were seriously together in some sort of way that would both warrant this reaction from Sister and also would involve them living together (mind you it’s still the 60s and this sort of arrangement between an unmarried couple would be uncommon but also they’re fucking satanists so. whatever). A little peak into Sister being the one to initiate intimacy even after the cheating and what their messy future will look like together (but this time around she doesn’t forget her bra).

The Future is a Foreign Land Music Video

This is mainly just about Nihil’s perspective on the breakup and the instant regret he has once realizing that Sister is gone for good. Though he may be an idiot, Papa is genuinely willing to give up everything to have her again and in his little drug induced haze is dreaming about a future where she does forgive him for all that he’s done. Also the way that dystopian Sister/Papa fucking explode and old futuristic Sister/Papa just fade away makes me think that perhaps there’s an essence of moving on in a physical sense in the future but for my sake (needs to see those old people as much as possible) I pray this is not true.

Final thoughts:

In my humble opinion, I think by the time Maralyn took over as Sister there was a shift in her relationship with Papa Nihil that made them go from strictly sexual to romantic again- the next few chapters and RHRN make them seem almost domestic as they take on more parental roles. This could be because of Nihil’s death and Imperator being able to forgive him because she is quite literally one of the few people that can see/interact with him (she was NOT risking another cheating incident, who knows what that 80 yr old was capable of when he was still alive OR she was just finally able to make peace with it because Nihil in some sense is an entirely different person than the man that cheated on her all those years ago (aka a fucking ghost without a physical form).

At the end of the day these two are STUPID and despite the assumed breakup in the Mary on a Cross music video, I don’t think they’re capable of being away from each other for long. God knows they fucked at least twice directly after watching Papa Nihil kiss three different women in front of her so I really would not doubt that they were still hooking up from the time after the moac mv and before their first older appearances.

[taelophone]

hi!!

i js realized and UGH I FEEL SO STUPID BUT i realized how much of an impact fanficiton can actually dent to the whole "some people are forgetting luigi's inspo and purpose and the whole crux of this situation" im not sure if it is disrespectful that's why i wanted to run it by to u guys but we can totally bring things to perspective on luigi's current conditions. how scared he is, how ignorant MEDIA is in general, we can totally do it and honestly we already are!! most of the fanfictions ive read are raising awareness about the struggles of going through traumatic surgeries, making people feel seen about injuries they had that are similar to luigi's!! i just want to clarify that im not saying that EVERYTHING we choose to write to be apart of this community must be sort of tasked to carry the weight of the world at all times and have this altruistic can-do attitude about it. what im saying is that we all require something real even if it is in our fantasies - real as in something that is close to us as humans and ive realized that there is always and forever will be a certain standing that we take against oppressors that quote and quote "work in the shadows - making them systems of cowardice" most importantly ive noticed that us as a community loves fanfiction that humanizes luigi - we live vicariously through the name of "y/n" and that is just us feeling human and through this fandom we create a community an institution with a base for smart thinkers and creative writers i think luigi has inspired a lot of people and it is important to note that people especially creators - those who know they belong or has hosted a blog or whatever type of creative craft of their that hones their skills are easily touched by topics that wake them up and inspire them - those are topics that are hard to forget

so i just wanted to share this message! and im sending this as Phoenix (pseudonym) to my favorite luigi writers, you guys dont have to respond politically or feel pressured to completely agree with what im saying i mean im still learning and im def a minor exposed to media so of course i am subject to multiple errors! i just felt the need to say it and im too shy to post it on my actual tumblr..

clarification: i really dont mean this as an attack or as a self-righteous claim :(( i sent this to you because i adore you and ur writing, how u see the world, how u contribute to this fandom, and how u make us feel dare i say... one with the one we are reading about!! im sorry if i said anything bad or insensitive or just offending in any way!! dont be pressured to reply to this i just realized that it's important for me to share my voice even if i think it doesnt matter because it might matter to others who would like to read it

by the way!! i got these ideas a lot from a book called the message by ta nehisi coates!! if you love writing you'd love this book for sure :))

i really dont mean to offend and i apologize for the long message my love!! i hope you have a great day please drink water and stay safe!!

OHHHH MY GOD I LOVE YOU!!

IVE BEEN SAYING THIS THE WHOLE TIME!! Writing Luigi, or writing FOR Luigi, is a political move in itself. How you choose to portray or regurgitate his character automatically clarifies how he is seen by the media! For some people who only watch the news or don’t do research on him as a person, we’re gonna have more surface level and extremely harmful takes. By now I’ve seen such AWFUL things being said about a man who was already confirmed to be

1, A huge man who advocated for COMPLETE equality, 2. An extremely pleasant and kind soul to be around, and someone who literally GAVE UP THEIR LIFE OF UPPER CLASS FREEDOM AND COMFORT BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO TRY AND BETTER SOMETHING THEY SAW AS AN AMERICAN FLAW.

I’ve seen rumors fly around that he’s a narcissist, trump supporter, misogynist, abuser, etc etc and it’s so fucking apparent who actually did research and is able to form a strong opinion without the influence of others or the media, and people who are able to take a moment and literally just fact check themselves LMFAOO😭

So yes, writing Luigi raises awareness to his cause and situations, but also the calls of others, the healthcare system, the judicial system, and many many more. Albeit it’s a very unconventional way of raising awareness, but I am literally punk, I am all about unconventional LMAOOO

Keep reading, please! You are such a bright brilliant mind and you are able to draw such loaded conclusions and make statements that the comfortable won’t! We love you!! Rock on man!

[messrsrarchives]

Heyyy You explain these things in ways I can actually understand is it insensitive to ask about the blocker ban? And I hope you haven't been affected by any of it and that you are okay 💖💖💖

HI !! i'm gonna be so honest and say that my initial response was going to be that i can't. and,,, i can't really.

but the corner feels really empty at the moment. which,,, i know it's not. but it's really fucking lonely both in and out of this space to be trans right now so i'm gonna make this corner mine 🙂↕️ let's talk about it.

to preface - it's so much deeper than everything below. it's,,, i haven't been hurt by the ban of puberty blockers but since they've made it indefinite, i've been taken off of all care. from my seizures to my mental health to even just "if i broke my leg right now, where the fuck do i go???". which,,, fucking sucks init. i thought maybe it was just a Me thing and i'd gotten unlucky with my gp, but all bar one of my trans friends have been taken off of everything. so,,, not directly no. but this isn't just an attack on Trans Healthcare, this is an attack on trans people receiving any healthcare. oh and they changed my name back to my deadname on the database without telling me. so that's. something.

yeah. it fucking sucks. eloquent, i know but idk. no words for it really and you've sent this at 4am which is prime crying time so 🫂🫂 thank you for checking in 🫂🫂

but now that the sob session is over, onto the important things:

THE BASICS:

puberty blockers: used to postpone puberty, once taken off of these puberty proceeds as normal.

these are not predominately a form of trans healthcare and can be used for: early onset puberty (affects v roughly 1 in 5-10,000), endometriosis (growth of uterine lining, incredibly painful condition), some forms of cancer - and some other things but these are the most common uses

these have been used commonly since the 80s to treat such things with no question in regards to their safety (because, spoiler alert: this isn't actually about the safety of them, it's about transphobia)

the ban only applies to gender dysphoria cases: note here, at the time of the original ban only 83 cases of this were being prescribed. more cis people were on them than trans people.

to clarify, in case it wasn't clear how blatant the transphobia is: puberty blockers do not function differently on trans people. healthcare does not discriminate, the system does.

TIMELINE:

MARCH 2024: nhs england decides that blockers will no longer be routine treatment for gender dysphoria

APRIL 2024: final cass report released -> more below but this was a review into gender identity services for under-18s, written by someone who hates trans people,,, i'm sure that won't be biased at all ! /s

MAY 2024: previous tory government tightens this and introduces an "emergent temporary ban" (those already on the drug are allowed to continue)

JULY 2024: labour gov comes into power and keep it in place. law is challenged in the high court, government wins.

AUGUST 2024: "temporary" ban extended again

NOW: wes streeting (health secretary) has made this indefinite with a review in 2027.

EXTRA DETAILS:

this comes from "expert advice" including the Cass Report. i'll link a review by Stonewall Scotland here but the general synopsis is that this is written by a terf who did not communicate with trans individuals, has no fucking clue what actually happens, and is completely fucking wrong about everything. government (both previous and current) approve this review 😄👍🏼 -PSSTTT so does jkr, she said she felt "vindicated" by this)

there are planned clinical trials by the nhs into the use of puberty blockers (will these happen? who knows! will they be fair? absolutely not, the nhs started this and have been cutting their trans services for fucking ages)

backed by Sex Matters (incrediblyyy transphobic organisation and PSSSTTTT jkr is connected to them! anyway :3 here's a quote from them -> "It marks another step towards puberty blockers being relegated to a shameful chapter of history, in which parents and health professionals were emotionally blackmailed into harming children in the name of 'progress'."

this here is a response from Trans Actual -> note, this is from the august extension, i'm unsure if they've responded to the indefinite ban yet.

there's most definitely more but i've spent too long looking at my google doc. i hope this helped explain it a little !!

it's all incredibly baseless with no evidence of the harm these "cause", but plenty of evidence on the harm the ban causes. it's blatant transphobia no matter how much they phrase it as "protecting kids"

[hrizantemy]

"I truly hope you never encounter someone who’s been a victim of assault where their abuser was someone others found attractive or charming. It’s hurtful and dismissive, and it’s a dangerous mindset to have." What a holier-than-thou, hypocritical, braindead take to have as someone who dismissed victims' upset and defended people's lies about how a canonical victim of SA Rhysand wasn't raped because oh no he *wanted* despite BLATANT text showing he was forced for just because you hate a character and lie to yourself to feel morally superior.

Do you have any idea how delusional you sound? You literally lie and twist canon SA to defend people mocking it and likening it to "sex workers" who can't get raped apparently and oh "rape isn't emotional abuse" because you hate Rhys... and then go off about real world issues for SA not in the books and then condescendingly say it's because people think someone's "charming"...

Maybe like your hypocritical ass thinks Rhys sucks so you invalidated his canon SA? Maybe like your two-faced lying ass defended the posts that say rape isn't emotional abuse and sex workers can't have it happen and Rhys asked for it???

I hope YOU never actual encounter a victim of assault given you're a victim blaming liar who twists real world issues to suit your strange obsession with hating the main characters of a fictional series you clearly haven't read or at least fail to grasp the basics of it and its characters.

You have such a "dangerous mindset" and lack basic understanding of your hypocrisy and obsession with twisting things to demonize fictional characters because they're your faves or not ig??? Is that excusing behavior because it "charmed" you.

To quote you: it's hurtful and dismissive.

(and also dumb as fuck. you're too far up your own ass to reflect but before worrying about fake fictional SA maybe look within and gain basic reading comprehension and step away from the condescending hypocrisy that apparently gets you high off a fake moral superiority that you clearly lack)

You're revolting

I’m honestly so tired of seeing paragraphs and paragraphs accusing me of invalidating Rhysand’s SA. I’ve read these posts again and again, and I want to clarify something: no, I did not invalidate it. It’s frustrating because people keep twisting my words. I’ve never said Rhysand’s experience doesn’t matter or that it didn’t happen. I’ve always acknowledged and believed that Rhysand is an SA victim.

What I did say is that I apologized for the harm caused to innocent people who got hate and death threats based on misinformation. I’ve been clear about that. I have never defended people who spread hate or malicious accusations. So can we please stop acting like I’ve done the opposite?

I have always taken accountability for my mistakes, and it’s tiring to be misunderstood when I’m just trying to have a constructive conversation. Please, read the posts carefully, because my stance has always been about supporting victims, including Rhysand, and clarifying things for the sake of everyone involved.

I’ve apologized to all the people I believe were affected by my actions. Yes, some people actually did say things that were harmful, and in the past, I might have jumped to conclusions. But here’s the thing—I didn’t have all the information back then, and that’s on me. I’ve acknowledged that I accused people without knowing the full picture, and that’s where my mistake lies.

I owe an apology to the people I wrongly accused, especially those I believe are genuinely innocent. I had no idea at the time who was truly involved or what their motives were. But now I know better, and I’m owning up to that mistake.

What I won’t apologize for, though, is still apologizing because even if someone said something that I don’t agree with they still got death threats, and hate. And I am against that in ALL ways. I made accusations based on the limited knowledge I had, and I deeply regret that.

From the way you’re talking, it seems like you’re coming from the post I made when I said that people shouldn’t excuse Rhysand’s SA just because he’s hot. I’m sorry, honey, but if that’s what you’re mad about, get a grip. Yes, Rhysand is a victim of SA, and I’ve never denied that. But let’s not ignore the fact that Feyre was also a victim in this situation, and Rhysand did commit SA against her, too.

It’s frustrating when people try to make one aspect of the situation more important than the other. Both Rhysand and Feyre’s experiences matter, and the harm done to both of them should be acknowledged. So if you’re only focusing on one side of the story while disregarding the other, it feels like you’re missing the point entirely. My stance has always been about holding all parties accountable and not letting anything slide just because of someone’s appeal or status. If that bothers you, maybe it’s time to take a step back and reconsider the whole picture.

I just want to clear something up about the artist who was getting hate for their drawing. The piece depicted Rhysand’s hands not just touching Feyre’s waist, and for some reason, that sent people into a rage. Let’s get one thing straight—I wasn’t defending any sort of harmful behavior, but I was responding to the hate the artist was getting for simply creating a piece of art. Rhysand SA’d Feyre—it’s not up for debate, it’s a fact. If you look up SA and what he did to her, it’s right there in black and white.

So, please don’t throw a fit or try to act like I’m excusing anything just because I stood up for an artist being bullied. What I’m doing is calling out the inconsistency and double standards when it comes to acknowledging SA. 

[doi-dot]

super random but—

My explanation as to why i headcannon Balloon from II to be demiromantic:

(this is for my friend rocky who doesn’t get why I view him this way and wanted me to explain)

“I think the idea of romance and finding someone special sounds, really nice but also might not be for everyone?”

That quote is said from Balloon from “BALLOON VS THE POPPER | Inanimate Answers Episode 2”, Balloon says this because someone asked the, ‘Secret Advisor’ this being Balloon, how do people instantly look at someone and have something for them; in this case, “being hot”. (NOTE: the viewer says they value romance and finding someone special in their life as their goal) Balloon answers with, “I don’t really get how they do either.”

He explains on one hand, there’s people who when it comes to romance, it just happens. While on the other hand, there’s people who don’t find romance being their thing.

Obviously, with the factor of Balloon canonically being on the aro-spectrum, this implies Balloon doesn’t feel any sort of attraction. Not unless perhaps an emotional connection?

[Demiromantic : Someone who ONLY feels any romantic attraction for another when they share a strong emotional connection or bond with them.]

Now before I move on, i just wanna quickly clarify that I’m not saying “Oh he hasn’t found the right person yet”, I don’t intend to give off that vibe so I just wanna say that =] (All i’m saying is Balloon heavily gives off that Demiromantic vibe I get—(I wonder if there’s another way I could word this 😓) especially when we saw A LOT of him in season 3.

The implication:

In Inanimate Insanity Invitational, Balloon connected with tons of other contestants but one of them standing out in particular is Nickel, as he says (along with Cheesy and Coiny) Balloon’s social game sure is strong. And so is the bond between those best friends.

When it comes to Balloon or Nickel, or Balloon and suitcase and MAYBE Balloon and Oj, analyzing their friendships would show you how strong the bond is.

For example, you could see the demonstration between Balloon and Oj in Ep. 19 of III with the picture of those two together and Oj having a thumbs up. While this doesn’t seem like a big deal, it actually is since at the beginning (Ep.1) When Balloon asked Oj why he invited him on the whole resort thingy and the tickets, Oj said he didn’t and he mentioned how if he did, the list would be very different, implying that he didn’t want to do anything with Balloon.

As for Suitcase and Balloon, suitcase was the first to know Balloon has changed and deserves a second chance from everyone, so the bond is obviously strong and the two still mention one another from time to time.

And Nickel and Balloon. I think I could go on for an hour but to summarize, their situation is a enemies to best friends trope and tbh, I can totally see them as being even more! The two were practically together at all times and when it came to supporting one another or how they are together as a power duo, IT WAS AMAZING SEEING HOW WELL IT WAS DEMONSTRATED.

From Nickel saying it’s obvious Balloon deserves to win, to Balloon having a grand understanding to Nickel’s reason for his behavior from the past, and even from early episodes like the try not the laugh challenge, it was clear Nickel was changing and befriended Balloon by the end of the episode and that demonstrates how their bond was only getting stronger from there, as well as the fact in the same episode you could tell Nickel cared more about Balloon when Balloon started getting nervous for the fact that Bow and Floory were both going to try to make Balloon laugh which put too much pressure on him, Nickel quickly notices this and makes him laugh as a way to prevent any more stress.

In conclusion, with Balloon sharing an amazing strong bond with characters like suitcase, nickel and oj, and the way Balloon acts around each of them, AND Balloon is on the aro-spectrum, gets me to think and headcannon Balloon as a demiromantic individual.

(if you wanna say anything pls lmk so I can answer and hopefully learn too so I can have a better understanding of things :D)

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

is paul quoted as saying he’s straight? I just know he’s said that he’s not gay (probably). but I could see him just never clarifying and being bi… or something. ya know? ❤️

You know, I'm not 100% sure. But if someone has a quote handy where he specifically refers to himself as straight or hetero that would be neato.

However, To Be Frank, reading the times he called himself not gay as him playing coy instead of just engaging in bi-erasure-tinged heteronormativity feels like… trying to make fetch happen.

Like, for instance he says it in the context of his and Robert Fraser's relationship (ignore his cringe wording lol):

"If there was to be gayness it would be a quiet phone call that Robert would go and take in the bedroom or something. That was one of the good things, actually, because I knew he was gay and he knew I wasn't gay so were quite safe in our own sexuality. We could talk to each other."

If you ask me, this quote becomes near nonsensical if Paul is actually saying he was "a secret third option", as opposed to simply assuming he – as a man born in the 40s – is using "not gay" and "straight" synonymously here. The reason one even could be coy in that way is because people do make that assumption.

I'd sooner believe he was just lying than that he was playing 3d chess here.

[batsplat]

Wait what's this about Casey, Marc and getting kicked out of honda

ah just a fun bit of old gossip. to clarify in case the phrasing in this post was confusing, we're talking about casey's role as a test rider with honda after his retirement, so 2013-15 (not casey's initial retirement from his honda ride, which was ofc entirely his own choice)

so! first of all! from the moment casey retired, everybody was going 'when will casey be back'. this wasn't based on anything casey was actually saying - it's just how people are about retirement announcements ig, the disbelief at how early casey retired, wanting to see him race again, refusing to believe he might actually properly be done. when the riders were asked about it in pressers, they usually gave very neutral 'sure that would be nice' responses. when casey was asked about it, he was generally pretty firm in going 'I'm not interested' and also 'stop asking'. but in 2015, dani made the decision to pause his season to get an operation for his recurring severe arm pump issues. he ended up missing three races, and inevitably people went, 'hey you know who would be fun to have back for a few races, you know who also happens to be familiar with the honda bike'

and this time casey WOULD have been up for it. except, according to him, SOMEONE didn't want him to race:

now fwiw, we have zero proof that this 'someone' was marc, although ofc that was something people speculated about at the time - the idea being that marc wouldn't have wanted to be undermined by casey outperforming him, especially in the context of a tricky start to the 2015 season. (funnily enough, the phrasing does echo the "somebody inside Yamaha didn't want me there" thing; a topic for another post but I'm pretty unconvinced valentino was involved in blocking casey's yamaha deal.) and... given this is the same interview where casey talks about his belief that marc forced him out of honda (which we'll get to)... I mean, he must have at least known it's a conclusion people would draw

marc was asked in pressers about casey racing as dani's replacement, and he basically stuck to 'it's not up to me'. some more casey quotes:

I like to think 'I would've won that' was one of casey's main takeaways from sepang 2015

anyway at the end of 2015, casey left honda to join ducati as a test rider. here is an excerpt from a piece about it at the time, saying marc had complained about casey's performance level as a test rider:

you'll note the HRC sources disagree with casey on how good casey's pace was; unfortunately we'll never really know either way. (in any case it's not particularly great form for sources to 'let slip' that your test rider's pace is poor, even if it was true, but there we are.) and ofc there's the assertion that marc felt 'threatened' by casey and/or didn't think casey's feedback was valuable. here's a screenshot of the piece from speedweek being referenced:

again, a lot of this is obviously hearsay. we don't really know how hard marc pushed to get rid of casey (if at all), and certainly not for what reasons - whether it was casey being too slow or the quality of his feedback or marc's ego or whatever else. we do know casey thinks marc wanted him out because marc felt threatened by him, as he's very helpfully said as much:

casey does make it clear he doesn't have any proof that marc (and his entourage) felt threatened by him, but, well. either way he did believe it. this story dropped in january 2016 btw, so at a time where press coverage of marc was not exactly at its friendliest anyway. marc hasn't really ever responded to these assertions afaik - but when casey ended up leaving ducati again at the end of 2018, he was pretty lukewarm about the idea of casey returning to honda:

here too there's nothing from marc's side to suggest any real antipathy, but of course we also don't know whether he's being honest about his reasons for preferring the distinctly unthreatening bradl. and finally, casey has more recently (aka start of this year, 2024) said that he left honda because they only listened to marc:

which is also obviously relevant now in the context of honda's long-term decline and marc's decision to leave (criticised in some quarters by those who feel marc is at least partly to blame for said decline)

anyway ofc this is all very he said she said, so who knows what really happened - but the fun bit is that nobody can quite agree! all a bit messy isn't it. it's very low stakes beef, kinda nice... but it does also fit in with casey's whole outlook towards the sport, where he often feels like he's being unfairly treated. and (this cannot be stressed enough) a lot of the time he was right, he was being unfairly treated, so it's absolutely possible some underhanded stuff was going on here too. believe what you will! who knows!

[pynkhues]

curious as to your thoughts on the may december discourse (some spoilers i guess) - vili has come out and essentially said that he felt the film contributed to his victimization and hurt him. and the response from a lot of film twitter seems to be to yell ITS NOT A BIOPIC and to say he doesnt understand the film (gross). i feel like i dont really care if its a biopic or not, when the film literally quoted vili/mary kay, recreated the mary kay in prison photo exactly, and both charles melton and julianne moore studied vili/mary kay for their performances. to hand wave that all as "not a biopic" feels like a way of writing off any discomfort. i feel like the film should not have made those specific choices, but having done so they had a duty of care to vili. i dont think the film that ended up getting made is worth the continued trauma to vili even if it is art. there were other ways they could have told the story to minimize the harm and they chose not to - and i dont think that choice is a great commentary on tabloids or whatever, its just a ghoulish thing to do

I did see that, anon, and I do have thoughts on it as it's a real grey area in terms of creative license, art and storytelling, and it's a grey area that's been around really since storytelling existed, but before I get into that I just want to quickly clarify what Vili said, because I do think it's important.

Vili didn't say that the film contributed to his victimisation and hurt him, he said the film offended him because it was a ripoff:

“I’m still alive and well,” says Fualaau, now 40 and still living in the Seattle area, where the scandal unfolded. “If they had reached out to me, we could have worked together on a masterpiece. Instead, they chose to do a ripoff of my original story. “I’m offended by the entire project and the lack of respect given to me — who lived through a real story and is still living it,” he adds.

“I love movies — good movies,” he says. “And I admire ones that capture the essence and complications of real-life events. You know, movies that allow you to see or realize something new every time you watch them. “Those kinds of writers and directors — someone who can do that — would be perfect to work with, because my story is not nearly as simple as this movie [portrays],” Fualaau adds.

The reason I think this distinction is an important one to make is because in interviews since Mary Kay Letourneau passing, it's pretty clear that Vili - while absolutely being a victim-survivor - doesn't see himself that way, and even says pretty specifically in his Doctor Oz interview from 2020 that he doesn't see her as a predator or himself as having been preyed on ('there was no perversion...she was my wife and my best friend' are his exact words), and he's pretty clearly open to the idea of a film being made about his story.

I'm not saying this to diminish his feelings about May December at all (I strongly believe that Vili is entitled to feel any and every which way about the film) or to patronise his own understanding of what he experienced - I can't even begin to imagine the complexity of trying to unpack the life he shared with her - but I think it's important to reflect his feelings accurately and to provide a little context to those feelings.

With that said, do I think the creative team should've reached out to Vili before making the film?

Honestly, I don't know.

I think it's one of those questions in art where there's not really a right answer. If Vili's feelings towards Mary Kay are still lost in the silver linings of her grooming, any film that has his direct approval or involvement is going to run the risk of tacit endorsement. It also hamstrings the creative team and opens them up in terms of liability (I actually was a writers assistant on a TV show a million years ago that was sort of a bio pic and I can tell you for a fact that it was a disaster once the person it was based on got involved), and, of course, it runs the risk of shifting the focus of the story the writer is wanting to tell.

And that's the thing about art, right? By design, art is supposed to reflect us back to ourselves in ways that we might not always be comfortable with. Of course, that usually happens less literally than in how Todd Haynes has used Vili and Mary Kay's stories, but not always. Todd Haynes is certainly no stranger to the technique given Velvet Goldmine is pretty transparently inspired by David Bowie and I'm Not There is often confused as a Bob Dylan bio pic despite the fact that it's actually not.

Hell, everyone loves that Succession points a pretty clear finger to the Murdoch's, and while, of course, the Murdoch's - and Bowie and Dylan for that matter - have social, political and economic power that Vili doesn't which does impact the ethics of the decision, it's still made under the same creative ideology that aspects of a real story can render an artwork, a story, a film more emotionally authentic, can create greater resonance, can offer a sharper reflection of the world we live in and offer, perhaps, a message or a question that lingers.

All of this has actually kind of been funny timing as I just finished reading Sarah Weinman's The Real Lolita the other day which is a really excellent blend of true crime, literary history and critical commentary on this exact topic. The book explores the real life case of Sally Horner who was kidnapped by a pedophile in 1948 when she was 11 years old and was forced to roadtrip with him around America for two years. It's actually mentioned in passing in Nabokov's Lolita, but once you go a little deeper it's pretty clear how much of Horner and her story Nabokov used to create Dolores Haze / Lolita.

In the book, Weinnman asks the question as to why Lolita gets to be remembered when Sally's been left to obscurity, and of course, the answer is that there are other Sally's in the news cycle, but only one Lolita in art, and that hopefully in her writing Sally Horner's story she can write her back into bookshelves and place her back into this artwork but who knows if that's what Sally would've wanted (Sarah does, at least, talk to Sally's lone surviving family member, and makes a measure to show that it's very unlikely Nabokov ever did the same).

Was Nabokov wrong for not seeking out Sally's family for Lolita? Honestly, I doubt it even would've occured to him to do so, and the fact that we do now ask questions like this about the ethics of inspiration is, I think, a good thing. We should be critical of how stories are told and who is, and isn't, involved in the telling of them, but again, I don't actually think there are right or wrong answers here.

Fiction is always inspired by real people, real events, real life, it's a part of creation, it's a part of capturing a moment in time, it's about reflection and authenticity, but of course that's been rendered more complex in recent years by the fact that we live in a world that's ever shrinking and the people or the events that inspire new stories are inevitably brought into the public narrative in a way they just weren't back in 1955 when Lolita was first published.

So what does that mean for creativity and inspiration? I don't know, but personally I guess my thoughts would be that Vili is absolutely in his rights to be offended by the film, but I also don't think the filmmakers were wrong necessarily to not reach out. It's not the most ethical choice, but I also don't think it was an inherently bad one either. This isn't a Blonde situation where they write fiction and present it as fact, the creatives have been clear about it being inspried by what happened between Mary Kay and Vili, but they're also not saying Vili and Mary Kay are Joe and Gracie.

I appreciate you feeling like it's much of a muchness though given how they've apparently lifted entire scenes of dialogue. It's a murky question after all, and it's certainly one that's more complex when it comes to people like Vili and Sally than it is with the Murdoch's or even David Bowie, but yes, I'm not sure I see it as something inherently wrong, and I don't personally think it was ghoulish. I just think the specifics of this particular case just kind of shows how the sausage is made when it comes to storytelling.

[beautifulpersonpeach]

bpp sorry if this isn't the content you want on your blog after yesterday but is it ok if i ask for clarification on sth? i know youre army you don't like solos but i like reading solos for a wide span of info. i don't like to be in a bubble of echo chambers

i saw a post and i'll send the link right after this ask but the person was criticizing a post you made but it confused me bc what you wrote didnt match what they said. they didn't post your name but i know its you because you always start your answers with 3 dots

***

many armys say they like jimin but they pretend. i don't think youre like that but your answer is confusing so can you clarify? its like you allow jjks to shit on jimin but you drag out pjms only. armys do this over and over. its sad if youre the same bc i like your blog.

***

Please block me.

Actually, you know what? Don't. At least not just yet. Let's do this instead.

I checked the link you sent. I'd received that link a couple other times today accompanied with more hostile language, so I ignored it. But I checked out yours because I wondered what was so serious you couldn't add the link to your main ask, so if you're all in fact the same person sending that link, kudos for getting my attention.

And thank you for sending that to me, because now I'd like to use you and that post to make an example of what I'm talking about when I say solo stans think differently and are just less intelligent. In my opinion.

For other readers, I'm not going to link it directly so as to not draw more attention to them, and since they're stalking my blog to make an example without directly mentioning me or showing my blog name, I think it's only fair I react in kind by also not making a direct mention.

Here’s the post (mine) in question:

*

Here is the akgae's takeaway from the post above (mine):

**

Already, the dissonance between the first and second screenshot should be obvious. I’ll explain in any case just so everyone can follow along.

Shortly after Jimin released Closer Than This, I received an ask from someone who calls themselves a PJM (a Jimin akgae), who said they hate the song and also hate his voice. But that they are his solo stan because he’s “talented and hot”.

I responded that they, the Jimin solo stan who hates his ARMY song and voice, isn’t exactly a rare breed. And that Jimin has ARMY supporting him anyway. This is within the context of me always saying solo stans don’t actually like the person they choose to solo stan (if they did, they wouldn’t be akgaes), and that an akgae’s experience is more about them and their personal insecurities than anything Jimin (or any other BTS member) is actually doing.

Months later (present day), another Jimin solo stan quotes that ask and my response, as proof of me (1) going “sameee you’re so valid”, (2) not correctly identifying that person as someone who actually antis Jimin a.k.a. his akgae, and (3) as proof of me believing “one is more talented and more deserving than the other” re: Jungkook vs Jimin.

…is there even anything more for me to say?

Y'all, I bet you something like 90% of the shit that has solos constantly bouncing off the walls starts from things like this: a complete lack of reading comprehension coupled with gaps in logic and pre-conceived notions/insecurities. If I wanted to be really mean, there's so many places I could take this post right now, but I'll stop here for now.

That post made me laugh because the entire thing is a comedy of errors. The OP Anon in that akgae's post, is actually talking about another 'blogger' (who I know and generally like but that's besides the point), but the akgae responding to them mistook OP Anon's 'blogger' to be me, and then proceeded to write what's in the second screenshot...

It's just sad.

I've lost count of how many times I've been the subject of callout posts on Tumblr and each time it's been something like this lmaooo. Each time it's been by akgaes (and their exile varieties) and shippers. The last time this happened, I was a taekooker, and now someone has essentially embarrassed themselves with a lamentable lack of reading comprehension to spin a pretty innocuous post into... alladat.

This is how drama is manufactured in fan spaces out of plain stupidity.

*

There are many reasons I don't like akgaes, but one top reason is because they dumb down the quality of conversation in whatever space they're in. It's part of why I have such a disdain for 'discourse' in k-pop spaces in general, because oftentimes, the people most eager to write paragraphs on end while being hateful and/or victimizing, are people who don't know what they're talking about or lack basic skills in reading comprehension, among other things. ARMYs and k-pop stans are guilty of this too, but you're more likely to run into culprits in akgae 'discourse' spaces or adjacent ones.

I've given examples of this many times but here's a couple here, and here.

I'm not even trying to be condescending, I don't actually think I know all there is to know about Jimin, BTS, and k-pop, I just no longer have the patience for people who choose remain in spaces filled with akgaes and who keep bringing their nonsense into my inbox. And what's worse asking me to clarify sentences that a grade 5 student should be able to parse in any language.

Anyway Anon, now, you can block me.

[rimofwell]

I’ve experienced this myself and have observed it in friends too (though obviously I can’t know for sure). And it makes me want to SCREAM < why do you say that? Can you elaborate?

I could honestly say so much about this because I’ve experienced these situations myself and seen hints of similar dynamics between friends and their therapists. I’ll try to speak to my own experience though because obviously I can’t say with certainty what’s going on for someone else.  

But basically, just everything that was said in the post. The person I quoted is a really renowned psychologist and psychoanalyst and the way he talks about therapy and its purpose has been so clarifying and helpful to me. I’ve had many therapeutic relationships in the past go very wrong and because of that, it’s become a huge interest of mine just like… understanding the countertransference/transference dynamics that get played out in the therapeutic relationship as a result of the patient’s and therapist’s own schemas/orientations/pathologies. 

I think it’s tricky because there’s so much nuance and it’s hard to speak about things without overgeneralizing, but basically the therapy relationship, while concrete in some respects, is also symbolic. I don’t know how to say this in quite the right way, but a therapeutic relationship is obviously “real” in that it’s between two humans who care about each other and the compassion is real and all of that. But at the same time, it’s largely symbolic, in that the patient projects onto the therapist their own relational schemas and past trauma and difficulties (transference), and then this transference is actually a vehicle for psychotherapy to occur. So it’s not the same as a friendship or a romantic partnership or a mentorship, because the transference is actually the point – like it’s not a bad thing, it’s actually what allows therapy to happen because it tells the therapist about patterns in the patient’s life and the job of the therapist is to analyze that transference, observe their own countertransference reaction (how they respond as a result of what the patient has ‘projected’ onto them), and then use that entire thing as a vehicle for the patient to understand themselves more clearly and the dynamics they recreate in the world.

I think so often clients/patients start to treat the relationship like it’s purely concrete and get really stuck in the relationship itself rather than bringing these themes into their actual life and their real mutual relationships. And I can say this from experience because I’ve had therapeutic relationships where there was so much care and support and empathy, and I felt soooo connected to the provider and really loved the therapist and knew she loved me, and blah blah. And it was all very real, but at the end of the day her love wasn’t curative… it was never going to be because the role of a therapist is not just that. There were so many points when I was like, “Oh I feel so connected to this therapist and she cares so much” but I was still doing really really poorly. So something about the dynamic wasn’t working. Because while our relationship itself was rich and meaningful, nothing in my LIFE was changing. (So basically the therapist and I got stuck in the concreteness of the relationship, rather than expanding and zooming out and interfacing with the symbolism and what was getting recreated and then using that to transform my life and change the way I interacted in the world.)

Basically what I’m saying is all that love and care and empathy wasn’t enough. Like… that alone is not therapy. You can get love and care and empathy from so many people. And I myself have (unconsciously) used therapy almost as a substitute for getting that love/care elsewhere, and I know others do the same. It’s kind of inevitable because on the surface, you have what seems to be this perfect one-sided relationship since the focus is supposed to be on the patient, and giving the patient the care that they need (I mean care as in treatment). And that’s how it should be, because the therapist shouldn’t be using the patient to gratify their own desires, obviously (even though some do without realizing it). Anyway, that is the point and that in and of itself (the one-sidedness) IS the therapeutic relationship and is exactly why it is symbolic and not concrete because the goal of psychotherapy isn’t mutuality. And of course the therapist has feelings because they are a person, so those get explored but only to the extent that they impact the patient’s care and ONLY if it’s beneficial to that care. And everything else, is what the therapist explores in their own therapy (hopefully). 

And it’s tough to be stuck in this trap of having murky boundaries and the relationship going from purely concrete to symbolic… then to both etc. It’s also difficult to discuss without making it sound like you’re minimizing the care present (because it is real for both parties!!) 

And it’s just tough to see people who have been in therapy for fucking ever with a therapist they love so much and who loves them and blah blah but I’m like wait….. You’re literally still doing so badly, so it’s probably time to evaluate what is going on….. Like therapy is not supposed to last FOREVER. And if you’ve seen the same therapist for SO long and made really minimal progress something does need to be looked at.

It’s also tricky because trauma is hard and some conditions take a long time to treat and progress is definitely slow and difficult and you need to build trust etc., so of course it won’t be quick. Like all of that is absolutely true, BUT at some point, I do think you need to take a look at the relationship and be like, “Okay what is the PURPOSE of our work together.”

I think it’s really easy for attachment to happen on both ends (which isn’t bad, obviously it’s important and normal and human and good for the therapy!). But I think the client AND the therapist can get into these patterns where they forget that… there is a purpose to the work… like a goal they are both orienting toward that isn’t just… to make someone feel loved and good. Like it truly is for change to happen.

I think it’s hard when you get comfortable with someone to have that relationship become like a default in your mind. Like the idea of staying with the same therapist for a super long time and they see you grow up and all of that is appealing and safe. And I’m not judging that, like people can do whatever they want. And maybe that can work for some people, but if I’m being entirely honest, I’ve never seen it work. When the therapeutic relationship becomes this drawn out extended thing where for years and years the therapist stays the patient’s only source of support and there are no shifts toward someone in the patient’s real life taking that place, progress is limited. I mean like… of course it is because healthy relationships are fulfilling on both ends — to give and receive love and support, the mutuality of it is what makes it fulfilling and by definition you can’t have that to the fullest extent within the boundaries of a therapy relationship (because of the fact that it’s supposed to be one sided, focused on enhancing the wellbeing of one party). And if it starts to shift to that (become a truly mutual thing) then it is again, by definition, no longer therapy.

And I absolutely don’t ~blame~ the client/patient, because at the end of the day it’s 100% the therapist’s responsibility to maintain the frame of the treatment and keep both parties on track and manage their own countertransference reactions as well. And I’m also not necessarily ~blaming~ the therapist. Like it’s natural to love your patients (I honestly still don’t like when therapists use that word and after having therapists cross boundaries with me, if my current one was like, “I love you” I’d be super disturbed)… but anyway, natural to really care about your patients and nothing wrong with that, but you have to also ask yourself whether you’re really serving your client. And if they’re still so stuck even if you love them… you do have to ask what’s in the best interest of the client

And I think a lot of times therapists don’t want to admit that it obviously feels good to be admired and loved by your patient. And I think they can get comfortable in that role (kind of like the ~shadow~ part of why people get into this work) and if you’re not keeping it in check, I think things really go south. 

Anyway, I could talk forever about this because I’ve read literally so many books on this topic and also had so much personal experience with it. But I guess I’ll end with the fact that with any other medical professional, if you were not getting better, you would find another provider. You wouldn’t stay with the same provider if after years you were not seeing improvement. And again, I absolutely understand that trauma is tough to deal with and that building trust takes time, and it’s obviously slower than going and getting a quick surgery, but even with all of that, there should be movement and if there’s not, then something should change. 

And therapy is unique because you have both people’s psychologies intertwining in this little dance and what is symbolic becomes super concrete and then neither party wants to leave or admit that it’s not serving its purpose and that although they feel good and nice and connected that is at the core not what therapy is for (at least it can’t *only* be that)

I edited this because it was wordy and confusing and had a lot of typos, so if you had to struggle through the first iteration, I apologize lol

[cantsayidont]

In Christopher Tolkien's THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE-EARTH, VOLUME 8, THE WAR OF THE RINGS, the third of four volumes on the writing of LORD OF THE RINGS, there's an early draft of the chapter "The Last Debate," where Gandalf and the captains of the West discuss their remaining options against the forces of Mordor. In the draft, there's a lengthier discussion of the Ring, including an explanation of what would happen if one of them succeeded in wielding it against Sauron:

‘But if we should find the Ring and wield it, how would it give us victory?’ asked Imrahil. ‘It would not do so all in a day,’ answered Gandalf. ‘But were it to come to the hand of some one of power [?or] royalty, as say the Lord Aragorn, or the Steward of this City, or Elrond of Imladrist, or even to me, then he being the Ringlord would wax ever in power and the desire of power; and all minds he would cow or dominate so that they would blindly do his will. And he could not be slain. More: the deepest secrets of the mind and heart of Sauron would become plain to him, so that the Dark Lord could do nothing unforeseen. The Ringlord would suck the very power and thought from him, so that all would forsake his allegiance and follow the Ringlord, and they would serve him and worship him as a God. And so Sauron would be overthrown utterly and fade into oblivion; but behold, there would be Sauron still ….. but upon the other side, [a tyrant brooking no freedom, shrinking from no deed of evil to hold his sway and to widen it].’ ‘And worse,’ said Aragorn. ‘For all that is left of the ancient power and wisdom of the West he would also have broken and corrupted.’

[Footnote references omitted.]

I assume Tolkien deleted this passage from the final version of this chapter in RETURN OF THE KING because the fact that Gandalf and Aragorn no longer have access to the Ring made this all something of a moot point, but it helps to clarify the nature of the trap they're seeking to set by riding to the Black Gate: Sauron already fears that Aragorn has the Ring and is waiting for an opportune moment to seize and claim it; Sauron knows that hasn't happened yet (judging by what happens when Frodo claims the Ring in "Mount Doom," Sauron would know immediately), but if someone of real power does claim the Ring, there will be only a finite window of time in which Sauron can still hope to wrest the Ring back from them before losing too much of his own strength.

Tolkien appears to have vacillated somewhat on this point: In a 1963 letter (LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN, Letter 246), in which he discusses what would have happened if the Ring-wraiths had reached Frodo at the Crack of Doom, Tolkien asserts that no one other than Gandalf or the Eldar — even Aragorn — could have withheld the Ring from Sauron in a face-to-face confrontation. However, if that were so, I'm not sure Sauron would feel the sense of urgency Gandalf and Aragorn sought to provoke. If Sauron could be confident of simply taking the Ring from Aragorn by confronting him directly, why not refuse to take the bait and just keep wearing down the already-crumbling defenses of Minas Tirith? Also, if the only one who could have really hoped to wield the Ring effectively against Sauron was Gandalf, I presume Sauron's fears would have been focused more on him than on Aragorn. Sauron probably knows that Gandalf is in Minas Tirith (the Witch-King obviously recognizes him, although it's not entirely clear if the Witch-King is able to report back before being destroyed), but Sauron very definitely knows about Aragorn and obviously regards him as a potentially grave threat. In this area, I have to think the villain's actions in the actual text speak louder than the author's commentary after the fact.

The assertion in the above-quoted passage that the one claiming the Ring "could not be slain" is curious (certainly the Ring didn't save Isildur, although I suppose he hadn't attempted to wield it in the way Gandalf describes), but the passage does make clear why Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are so convinced that using the Ring against Sauron would cause the wielder to become a new Dark Lord: It's not simply an abstract truism about power corrupting, but rather the mechanical function of the Ring causing the new Ring-Lord to absorb Sauron's knowledge and power (and with it his malice), even though Sauron as an entity would eventually be destroyed in the process and his minions would desert him.