#look the whole thing about sex work not being inherently abusive. true.

[eldriitchmurmurs]

there's this really long storytime tumblr post about how some chronic pain ladyposter in britaingland was getting massages for her chronic pain in a massage parlor with a sexy sexy title but because she's a lady she doesn't get offered the sexy sexy options and doesn't know that it exists until her husband goes. and the whole thing is written in this very lighthearted tone and she's like oh i don't have a problem with it being a brothel and i'd like to say, from the bottom of my heart, I HATEEEEE YOUUUUUUUUUUU

[8-evil-annoying-catboys]

i didn’t spend my time going through TERFs’ blogs before blocking, and familiarising myself with what their common beliefs about stuff other than transness are, to then have to see someone claim that “decentering” their hatred of trans women (and pointedly, not trans people, in general, even tho more and more these days i see TERFs talking about trans men and nonbinary people with the same level of vitriol), is “ceding ground” to TERFs, and that recognising that they also hate cis men is invalidating trans women’s identities as women, because they treat trans women differently than cis men (true but… does not prove that TERFs don’t hate men???) and some TERFs are straight or bi (???). and like. sorry but youre being fucking stupid if you think this.

TERFs hate men. political lesbianism is huge in bi/straight TERF circles for a reason, and lesbian TERFs still actively send hate mail to bi and straight TERFs for being attracted to men, regardless of whether or not the bi/straight TERFs in question are political lesbians or not, which they oftentimes are. and it is not only okay, but necessary, even vital, to recognise what TERFism looks like aside from how they talk about trans people, because otherwise you leave the door open to cryptoterfs getting you with their “men bad” rhetoric leading you towards SWERFs and their “porn is all evil and all sex workers are either victimised women or evil men or evil trans people who want to keep victimising women in porn” leading you to openly radfems with “all men think about is abusing women sexually” and eventually to the conclusion of “trans people don’t deserve bodily autonomy to the same level that cis people do and should be convinced (through coercion or force) to accept the reality of sex (detransition), and, failing that, they should just die, to protect women from them, because they’re all either men who want to get in women’s spaces to commit sexual assault, or women who mutilated and defiled their natural bodies and want to indoctrinate other women into doing the same.” it does not matter if you’re a trans ally or if you are trans yourself, you NEED to educate yourself on TERF talking points if you want to avoid falling for and spreading their indoctrination tactics. no one is too smart to fall into a cult, and even if you avoid actually becoming a TERF, you can easily spread cryptoterfs’ posts to end up in front of someone who WILL become a TERF more easily than you. so here’s some stuff to avoid.

- basically anything villainising Men As A Group or neutral traits associated with men (as in, things that they can’t control like their appearance, or behaviors that are more common in men but ultimately do not make a misogynist by themselves, like being a gamer for example.) making fun of men for balding, for having a neckbeard, for having a beer gut. making fun of men for doing dumb, but harmless shit, like pranks and friendly competitions, making fun of gamers as a whole, etc.—all of this not only harms cis men who are actually allies but also people who aren’t even cis men, including and especially trans people when it comes to physical traits associated with men: trans women who wear wigs to hide their hairlines and trans men who are on T and balding are not gonna be helped by you making jokes about bald spots, for example.

- “porn abolition” and the attitude that porn and/or kink is inherently evil and violent. it’s fair to point out that the porn INDUSTRY is riddled with problems and that sex workers are incredibly vulnerable, it’s fair to point out that kink puts all its participants in an incredibly vulnerable spot, but that’s not what TERFs do. they may start there, as a hook, but ultimately they believe that porn and kink should be abolished and that if that happened it would lessen, if not entirely eradicate, sexual violence against women. they believe that sex work should stay criminalised and become even more so, and some of them even falsely believe this would somehow help sex workers, when in reality it would just make them even more vulnerable to the long arm of the law. others may know that it would be a life sentence or even a death sentence for many of the women they claim to want to protect, but falsely believe that it’s possible to actually destroy the porn/sex work industry through criminalisation and so they believe current sex workers are an acceptable sacrifice towards that end. let it be known that porn and other forms of sex work will continue underground if they are fully criminalised, and sex workers who actually are victims of human trafficking or who have information that could be used to stop or lessen sex trafficking will merely be discouraged to approach the police, since doing so will put them at the risk of arrest. this is already true and will only get worse if sex work and porn are criminalised more thoroughly. let it also be known that the majority of human trafficking is labor trafficking, NOT sex trafficking, contrary to popular belief.

- circling back to kink, anti-kink and sex negativity are both prevalent in TERF circles. most of the time, sex negativity in TERF circles will center around the involvement of people with penises, and anti-kink sentiment usually follows the same pattern, but TERFs generally condemn kink even between consenting, adult, cis lesbians in loving, monogamous, white picket fence type relationships. when you see anti-kink sentiment that is not the misguided “don’t have sex in public at pride!!”, nor the diabolical “i didn’t consent to see your leather kink gear which covers you up more than most casual summer wear but which i project the idea of sex acts onto” rhetoric, when it’s instead “kink is just an excuse for men to abuse women” or similar, that should set off all the alarms in your head bc that is TERF rhetoric. TERFs correctly identify the fact that certain aspects of kink are normalised even in straight “vanilla” sex culture, but the part where the stigmatised aspects are literally the safety features (using safe words, learning how to choke someone safely, learning how to do shibari and other safe bondage practices rather than just tying someone up willy nilly, learning extensive first aid and applying it during aftercare when necessary, practicing aftercare in the first place) flies over their heads, and so TERFs see how dangerous straight vanilla sex culture is when it comes into brushing contact with kink, and they think that kink is the problem. in actual reality, kink communities are filled with people who want to give you information on how to keep your partner(s) safe, how to practice proactive consent (as in, scene negotiations, establishing safewords and learning how to keep them fluid to meet your needs, and learning how to read your partner(s) to know when you need to check in on them), and generally just keep your kink practices safe and sane. it’s straight sex culture that has the problem, from stigmatising the interest in kink that would lead someone to learn kink safety, to making fun of people—especially women, who, when straight ‘vanilla’ sex and kink collide, often are the submissive ones in the dynamic—who want to cuddle after sex as being ‘clingy,’ even tho cuddling after sex is like, aftercare 101 lesson 1 first page first line type stuff. i could go on, but my point here is that anti-kink sentiment is ALWAYS worthy of distrust and in some cases it should absolutely set off TERF alarm bells.

- this is the last one bc i’m tired of typing this post but a major point of TERF ideology is seeing sex-based oppression as paramount to all other forms of oppression, and outside of openly TERFy circles, this will be substituted with the idea of gender-based oppression replacing sex-based oppression (basically, the exact same idea, only with a veneer of trans acceptance, so, generally, asserting that all trans men always have privilege over all trans women and also even all cis women—cryptoterfs usually won’t speak directly on intercommunity dynamics in the trans community, bc they hate all of us and have to keep it secret so they can indoctrinate us, but it’s clear that some trans people have chosen to drink the radfem koolaid on this one anyway based on how much resistance the transunity movement is facing from trans people of all genders, based on their beliefs that either sex-based or gender-based oppression—which one they believe in depends on their personal background usually—trumps transphobia). to a TERF, a Black bisexual woman will always be oppressed as a woman first, and her ethnic/racial identity and sexuality are just “adding to” that sex-based oppression. most Black women will outright tell you that white people actually routinely deny them their womanhood based on the fact that they’re Black, and misogynoir is separate, albeit related, to the misogyny faced by white women, and the racism faced by Black men, and cannot be extrapolated from the unique lived experiences of Black women to be “misogyny with a pinch of racism” or “racism with a sprinkle of misogyny” and is not consistent in the way you’d expect if you thought one form of oppression was more important than the other. if you’re versed in intersectional feminism, it’s very easy to see where this argument falls apart—while marginalised women ARE generally treated differently than their peers who are men, all else being equal, and while marginalised communities DO always have misogyny problems, just like how non-racialised marginalised communities always have racism problems and marginalised communities always have ableism problems, even the disabled community itself, etc… it all works together. there is no one immutable trait that is oppressed above all others, and if there is one trait that IS oppressed first and foremost, it would most likely actually be socioeconomic status, and not sex/gender or anything else like that—given that rich people who are marginalised in another way can always get away with much more than their poor counterparts of the same marginalised group(s), bc money is power. and even rich people aren’t immune to oppression if they aren’t privileged in every single other aspect of their identity. anyway, you can see this in how TERFs talk about oppression—they will usually only talk about that which affects them personally, and misogyny will always be what they talk about most. this is also why most TERFs are women and most male feminists are not TERFs even if they are not good at being feminists—TERFs’ attitudes tend to sway towards “i need to get mine first, then everyone else can get theirs,” even if they don’t realise it. male TERFs exist, but they are few and far between

[linkspooky]

TOJI AND MAKI

The parallels between the two outcasts of the zenin clan have already been pointed out plenty of times in canon, for example they're both incredibly buff. However, I thought I would take a deeer look at both characters, as they share both a role as the abused child that destroys the system that created them, and the same fatal flaw.

1. The Child Who is Not Embraced by the Village Will Burn it Down to Feel its Warmth

"The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas" is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction, about a summer festival in the utopian ity of OMelas, whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child. The idea is written around the idea of the scapegoat, a reoccurring trope in stories where someone innocent is blamed, or outcast for the mistakes of other characters.

All of this to say that both Maki and Toji represent the archetype of the scapegoats of their generation. Just like the child of Omelas, all of the problems in the Zenin household are blamed on one child.

This is something Ogi does to Maki directly, and also Naoya recognizes that the other members of the clan did to Toji. They were unable to face their own inferiority, so they blamed it on a scapegoat. Ogi blames his failure to become the head of the clan on his children. The entire clan is unable to recognize Toji's strength, because it would make them question their traditionally held notions of strength, Toji requires the use of weapons and can fight without cursed techniques, which means the cursed techniques they were born with don't make them inherently better with other people.

This is also related to Gojo's criticisms of Jujutsu Society at large, of which the Zenin Household is a very toxic microcosm of. Gojo's critique is that the previous generation will sacrifice the lives of the younger generation, to maintain their power, and in the name of pointless tradition. In the Zenin family "tradition" is the idea that inherited curse technique determines a person's worth.

Their entire system is built around one, keeping cursed techniques in the clan, and two, passing down inherited curse techniques from father to child. Which would go farther to explain the treatment of women by the clan, but we're not getting into that this time. Basically, the "peace" and the "superiority" of the household are built on the idea of marking and scapegoating an outsider, that is anyone who doesn't fit in with the clan's traditions. "If you are not of the Zenin Clan you are not a sorcerer, and if you are not a sorcerer then you are not even Human". That quote alone should explain how Maki and Toji were both treated as subhuman 'monkeys' by everyone around them.

However, the story shows us by both Toji and Maki snapping how terrible these abusive power structures are. One person cannot handle all of that alone, so they snap. Of course they snap. It's not a sign of who Toji and Maki are as people, but rather how no one deserves to be treated that way. A major reocurring theme in Jujutsu Kaisen is no one person alone, can take responsibility for everything, not even Gojo who is the strongest can save everyone he wants to save or be responsible for all of society he needs allies too. Toji, and Maki without allies, they snap and lash out against the same abusive power structure that created them. They are so thoroughly othered by everyone around them, that they embrace their own inhumanity, Maki becomes a weapon bent on killing her family even murdering her own mother, and Toji outright calls himself a monkey.

This is also why Toji is referred to as the "destroyer of destinies" there are two reasons for this. One, Gege is making a thematic point here. The abusive system built on othering and excluding children among other things doesn't actually provide the stability it promises. The center does not hold. The abuse of the system perpetuates and only leads to more destruction. Toji's outcasting isn't something that just hurt Toji alone, everyone felt the consequences of it because the abusive system proliferates and only causes further destruction. The second reason is a Jungian idea on which the story is based on. Toji himself is much like a curse created by the actions of his entire family. If Mahito is created from the fear humans have for each other and acts as the shadow of humanity representing their dark side, Toji metaphorically represents the combined shadow and dark side of the zenin clan. In Watch Man, Rorsarch monologues about how the accumulated filth of all of the abuses that happen in the city will one day rise up and affect everyone.

"This city is afraid of me, I have seen it's true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will form up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout save us and I'll look down and whisper no."

This is expressing the same Jungian idea, a society that ignores these problems will only cause the muck to rise up further and further until it affects everyone. The Zenin clan was a microcosm for the abuses of Jujutsu Society as a whole, they weren't the only ones affected by their abuse because abuse perpetuates. They endured it until they snapped and then acted out that abuse. The Jungian idea put forth is that this sort of reckoning was always going to happen, as long as the Zenin clan continues to create these outcasts in order to hold themselves up as superior, another Toji will happen.

2. Love is the Worst Curse of Them All

Toji and Maki also share the same flaw as people. Their abuse revolved around the idea of outcasting them from the rest of the family, othering them, continually putting them down and also most likely not even doing the job of raising them as children or providing them with the help they needed. We don't see much of it, but in the databook apparently Toji regularly had cursed spirits sicked on him to mock him, and Maki was locked in the cursed spirit room as punishment.

This taught them not only do they need to be strong on their own, but also in order to prove themselves they both thought they needed to be stronger than anyone else in the clan. Toji left Jujutsu Society as a whole, whereas Maki just left the house, both of them with the motivation of proving themselves stronger than the people who looked down on them.

This strong sense of individualism is their greatest strength, and also their weakness, as the situation is more complicated than being stronger than a bully. Maki and Toji are made to feel alone because of their abuse, however, neither Maki nor Toji suffer their abuse alone.

Mai was abused right alongside Maki, they were both outcasts due to being twins. There's no point in arguing which one of them had it worse, because Ogi was perfectly willing to kill both daughters right alongside each other. Maki does and doesn't remember that Mai is right alongside her in her abuse, it's... a bit complicated.

I mention this because Makiaated reason why is that she would have hated herself if she stayed inside that household with Maki. She put pursuit of becoming a stronger sorcerer above her relationship with her sister.

Maki later states "I can't create a place where Mai would feel like she belongs". I don't believe that was always her intention from the start that she secretly left the household for Mai's sake, and wanted to get stronger to create a place where Mai belongs, because Maki's always been really clear she was doing it for her own sake. I think rather after the loss she suffered in Shibuya, and also the fight she had with her sister in the school met, that she came to change her mind and realized she wasn't just in this alone. She changed her mind, that she wanted to be together with Mai, but she didn't change it in time and tragedy struck.

I mention this because Maki and Toji both share the same tragic flaw. Both of them have no idea how to be close even to the people they love, so they end up pushing away the ones they love the most. Maki continually shows behavior of pushing away Mai, and in Toji's case he does everything he can to try to show himself he doesn't love his son.

Maki continually pushes away her sister Mai. Mai reacts to getting pushed away in a not-so-healthy way. Toji full on deadbeats his son. He doesn't raise him or participate in his life to the point where Megumi can't remember his face or name at all. Toji did everything he could to try to give Megumi to someone else, anyone else other than him and avoided his responsibility as a father.

It doesn't come from malice on Toji and Maki's part, but rather it's a less savory aspect of their abuse. Both Toji and Maki believe themselves to be worthless, and that they can't be accepted or loved. They've internalized the way the clan has treated them. They are so isolated that this comes out in how they treated their closest loved ones, their response is to always push them away and isolate themselves further. Toji narrates this, he chose to throw his son aside because he wanted to affirm himself and prove that he was better than Jujutsu Society. Maki says to Mai that she left the house and left Mai because staying would have meant hating herself.

They are both trying desperately to prove themselves as individually strong, to the point where loving anyone else, or even requiring that love from someone is a weakness. They prove they are strong by avoiding the vulnerability of loving someone else. Toji and Maki both try to separate themselves from their heart in order to become even more physically stronger. For Toji his heart was his son Megumi who he did everything to distance himself, forgetting his name, selling him to the Zenin clan, while at the same time paradoxically believing that he was somehow protecting Megumi and arranging for things that would have been better than Toji just stepping up as a father and taking care of him.

At the same time Maki pushes Mai away when Mai does not want that, and believes that also she can return to the clan and make it a safe place for her sister by being individually stronger than everyone else.

They both approach their loved ones this way, because they were taught that one, they are unworthy of love, and they choose to try to get stronger by throwing away anything that might make them vulnerable.

TWhich is why Maki breaks so hard, and lashes out at everyone when Mai is gone, because Maki believed that keeping Mai separate from herself and protecting her was her way of showing love.

However, Mai and Megumi are like... people. They're people entirely separate from Maki and Toji and also affected by their actions. Megumi was neglected his entire lives, whereas Mai didn't get to have a relationship with her sister and felt like she was worthless and only holding her sister back. This is the central idea of Toji and Maki's abuse narrative, that abuse is complicated, and abuse proliferates and hurts people you don't even intend for it to hurt. It has consequences. Megumi suffers the consequences of the Zenin family's abuse because it turned Toji into such an unfit and emotionally immature father. Mai was being abused alongside Maki, and even ended up dying from her abuser's hand as her father Ogi beat her half to death and locked her in a room. Now, as a consequence Maki is lashing out at everything around her. That's also why the connection between Toji and Maki is drawn, to show that as long as the abusive institution still stands, it's just going to keep creating more outcasts like Toji and Maki.

[terramythos]

TerraMythos 2021 Reading Challenge - Book 15 of 26

Title: Tehanu (Earthsea Cycle #4) (1990)

Author: Ursula K. Le Guin

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Fiction, Third-Person, Female Protagonist 

Rating: 8/10

Date Began: 6/24/2021

Date Finished: 6/30/2021

Decades after The Tombs of Atuan, Tenar decided to settle down and live an ordinary life on the shepherding Isle of Gont. Now a farmer’s widow, she adopts a disfigured and horrifically abused child, who she names Therru. When a giant dragon deposits a grief-stricken Ged at her doorstep, Tenar finds herself in a strange situation as she cares for her old friend and her adopted daughter. But threats from Therru’s past and a malevolent force on the island soon threaten Tenar’s small family. 

Despair speaks evenly, in a quiet voice.

Content warnings and spoilers below the cut.

Content warnings for the book: Violence and death. Mentioned murder. Severe child abuse. Descriptions of traumatic injury and disfigurement. Mentions of r*pe, including of children. Trauma, sexism, and ableism are explored in depth. 

Tehanu is a much different book than the trilogy that precedes it. Perhaps this is unsurprising, considering the 17-year gap between this book and The Farthest Shore. I’d describe the Earthsea series as “grounded fantasy”. While all of them take place in a magical world, the thesis of each book is universal; the fantasy always comes second. Tehanu takes this idea to an extreme. The story is about everyday life as a common woman in the Earthsea world, with fantasy barely factoring in. The pacing is intentionally slow and introspective, which is something I normally don’t like, but Le Guin is a consistent exception. 

Key characters from the previous books make an appearance. Obviously Tenar is the biggest return, absent since The Tombs of Atuan. The Tenar in this book is older and much more mature, having decided to live a simple life in spite of her adventures and accomplishments. Ged returns, but he’s a shell of his former self, as he mourns the loss of his magic and the man he used to be. Even King Lebannen (formerly Arren, the main character of The Farthest Shore) makes a brief appearance, and is quite a palate cleanser after the horrible men throughout the rest of the book.  

Probably my favorite aspect of the novel is the fact that these characters stand well on their own without magic to prop them up. Tenar explored the terrifying freedom she won in The Tombs of Atuan; got married, settled down, had kids — but still finds herself at a loss on what to do with her life after her husband dies. Ged is in a similar boat; he’s gone from an almost mythic character to an ordinary man, and like Tenar finds himself at a crossroads in life. Other characters embody this idea of transformation and uncertainty; Therru’s escaped her abusers and now has a loving mother, but what does the future hold for someone with her appearance? Stuff like that. 

The idea of metamorphosis and new beginnings is well-trodden. But what makes Tehanu interesting is Le Guin primarily examines this with the middle-aged characters. Tenar and Ged are legendary figures in the world of Earthsea, but life has taken them to an uncertain future. The thrust of the novel lies in finding a purpose and becoming someone new. I also like that Tenar/Ged is endgame; I got Vibes from The Tombs of Atuan, but neither character was in a position where it would work. Seeing them form a romantic relationship much later in life is touching and cute. But it’s not the reason that either of them grow as people; finding one’s purpose is something one has to do on their own. Their relationship only develops once both parties have done so.   

My main complaint about A Wizard of Earthsea, the first book, is the sexism inherent in the setting, which is never examined below the surface level. Perhaps Le Guin’s outlook changed, or perhaps the publishing environment did, because often Tehanu reads like a response to this criticism. The central theme of the book is misogyny, the patriarchy, and its debilitating effects on women. Le Guin examines everything from micro-aggressions (“common wisdom” that happens to paint women as inferior) to domestic issues (“women’s work” and how much that actually is) to outright sexual assault (both in threats and actual acts; it is heavily implied this is part of the abuse Therru endured). She even goes into how powerful women are only considered as such because a man gave them that power. 

While I appreciate the fact she addresses these issues in such a frank, blatant way, at times reading Tehanu felt like reading a basic feminism primer. These subjects are all things I’m familiar with, and I feel like anyone who’s studied key feminist ideas would be aware of them also. Maybe 1990 was different? Le Guin doesn’t add any insights to the bleak reality of patriarchy and sexism, which is a little disappointing compared to previous books. That being said, this book is aimed at young adults despite its dark subject matter. Tehanu could be the first exposure to these ideas that many children receive; looking at it that way, it makes sense that the analysis comes off as basic. 

I also found the book’s examination of gender to be very cishet-normative. That’s definitely not surprising, considering the book was published in 1990, but to a 2021 reader this hasn’t aged super well. There’s a lot of discussion about the relationships and differences between men and women--whether there are any or not, how magic differs between them, the ability to bear children, and so on. There’s a weird sexual component to this, like how wizards (who are exclusively men) have to remain celibate in order to… keep being wizards? But women who are witches don’t have to do that, and that’s an advantage women have? (There’s mentions of male witches too, iirc, but it’s not expanded upon— do they have to remain celibate? Who knows.). I found this whole bit pretty odd and unnecessary, although I realize a lot of my perspective on the matter comes from a modern view of sex and gender (and, y’know, being trans). Not all the gender takes in the book are bad, but they are limited. 

I found Le Guin’s exploration of trauma and ableism through Therru to be more interesting. There’s a lot of examination about how society treats Therru, a survivor of unspeakable abuse. Her trauma is visible due to severe burns along part of her body, leaving her with a missing eye and disfigured hand. Tenar spends much of the novel wondering what future Therru has; no matter how capable she is and how much she acts like any other little girl, strangers gawk at her, or assume she “deserved” what happened to her. Therru becomes happier and more independent over the course of the novel, but relapses into a traumatized state when she encounters one of her abusers. As a survivor, it’s heartbreaking and distressingly realistic. As much as I like Tenar, I almost wish the novel was from Therru’s perspective (other than the brief jump at the end), but I realize it would spoil the ending.  

I’m torn on the ending because, while I thought it was cool and had some interesting revelations, it’s a jarring tonal shift. As I mentioned, Tehanu is a slow novel with a heavy focus on everyday life, and the trials and tribulations both Tenar and Therru experience. There’s even a climactic event a few chapters before the end; the only thing left is a persistent loose thread from earlier in the novel. That subplot explodes to the forefront a bare chapter and a half before the end of the book, and a lot of action-y fantasy stuff happens. It doesn’t come out of nowhere; it’s set up throughout the novel, but it is sudden. 

That being said, I do like that the subplot with dragons vs humans is hinted at as early as The Tombs of Atuan. When Tenar tells the legend about the origin of dragons early in the story, my mind immediately went to that one room from the Labyrinth with the sad winged humanoids painted on its walls. I’m curious if there are hints elsewhere in the series. I also figured out Therru’s true name and how she relates to that subplot based on context clues. While it’s not a shocking twist, it is a satisfying one. Though parts of it gave me a “magical destiny” vibe which is counter to much of the series so far; I do wonder how the last two books will address this. (Also… did Le Guin imply Kalessin is Segoy? AKA God? What did she mean by this. So Ged literally like… hitched a ride from God, who promptly yeeted out of the story until the end? That’s kind of funny. Maybe I misinterpreted something.) 

I probably sound critical of this book, but I did genuinely enjoy it. It just didn’t speak to me the way the previous two did. The next book is a short story collection before the conclusion to the series, so we’ll see where it goes! Tehanu set some stuff up that I expect will be expanded upon in these volumes.

[system-of-a-feather]

Have you considered that the whole Super straight/bi/lesbian/gay thing came about specifically because y'all are so quick to call people transphobic? I don't understand why supporters of trans rights are so interested in whether or not people are willing to date trans people.

Like, if that's your biggest problem, you're doing well. Genuinely, what is this oppression trans ppl face if the biggest concern is getting a date? And if someone doesn't want to date a trans person, why, WHY would y'all wanna pressure them into it? What does that do for you? Isn't it dangerous for the trans person to pursue the issue once they've been turned down? Why are you encouraging them to be in a place of danger? Who cares if some people don't want to date trans people? If they're as oppressed as y'all say, that is literally the least of their concern.

I absolutely fully agree with that. It absolutely isn’t an okay thing to do and people aren’t transphobic for not wanting to date or be with a trans person. I have absolutely nothing against that.

What *does* bother me is how people go about using the “trans people are mad that we won’t date them” to straw man that most people that say that follow it up with saying “trans men aren’t real men” or combine it with “I only want to date real and natural men” which is inherently transphobic.

I fully support anyone who is just not interested in dating trans people. That’s fine, and I really don’t care. We are a blog of people who have been traumatized, abused, and sexually abused and forced upon. We would never put that upon anyone else. Our blog is first and foremost about trauma and consent and harassments is absolute big “N-O”s for us

If the majority of the people who said they didn’t want to date trans people didn’t start using “real” women and men lines, then I would have no issue with being “super straight” or “super lesbian”.

Similarly to you assuming everyone who is against it cares about if you can get a date or not and is upset about it, we are forced to assume everyone who thinks it is about that is going to use and talk like a transphobe / TERF and de-legitimize their gender identity. Most of the shit talking and memes in the Super Straight tags are dissing “new” gender labels like nonbinary or whatever and trans identities and all that, so don’t act as if this is all about predatory trans behavior and not about people being disgustingly transphobic.

If your tag and movement was solely about addressing toxic behavior in the trans community that is predatory, I would be standing with you and in support, but instead a large majority of the people in your “movement” take it as an opportunity to diss, disrespect, and let blatant transphobic / TERF rhetoric spew disgustingly on your floor and I just can’t stand for that.

As for the Trans community, our largest issue **isnt** getting a fucking date. It has never fucking been getting a date and if you really think that is the largest issue, god are you blind and deaf. 

I think the largest issue would be the overall stigma hatred and disgust many people in society hold towards people who are trans. There are also all the people who regularly threaten violence and state that they would kick the head in of anyone who they saw if they were trans or saw “a man in a dress.” There are people thinking people who are trans are secretly just pedophiles that want to fondle children. There are people who murder people for being trans. There are people who just regularly bully and make fun of people or completely cut ties with people because they are trans. There are people assaulting - physically and sexually - people who are trans just for being trans.

“In 2009, 17 percent of all reported violent hate crimes against LGBTQ people were directed against those who identified themselves as transgender, with most (11 percent of all hate crimes) identifying as transgender women.8 The remainder identified as transgender men, genderqueer, gender questioning, or intersex.” - x

“People may assume that being visibly transgender or having a transgender history is a direct cause of sexual assault. There is some truth to this: A number of murders of transgender people (particularly transgender women of color) have taken place when new sexual partners "discover" their sexual partners were assigned male at birth and/or have a penis. “ - x

I promise you, almost any of the bigotry and exclusion that people who are lesbian, bi, and/or gay experience, people who are trans also experience, but they also get it from people who are lesbian, bi, and gay.

If you want to have a discussion about the predatory nature of some people who use being trans as a means to attack and pressure people into sex or a relationship, we would be more than glad to sit down and talk about that. It is a huge problem and a disgusting one. 

If you are trans and you get rejected and then use your trans identity to try to pity and victim cry yourself a date or sex, then you are scum and worse than any transphobe out there. You don’t deserve to look at this blog or group yourself with us. Don’t be a fucking predator.

If you are one of those people, lick my boot and cry because fuck you. 

I’m not against “supers” because I think they have a right to your body. I’m against “supers” because they parade behind “I don’t like the predatory behavior!!” to be transphobic.

I understand that if some of your have been pressured into shit like this, it might be a trauma response and I understand that. I’m not actually mad at you for that because I very much understand how that works. We have been there before and have generalized horribly, but please do know a large majority of the community is not just about sexuality and who they will date. We aren’t predators. We are just people and most of us just will handle rejection like a normal god damn person. Please don’t generalize us with abusers because of a negative experience you or someone you know might have experienced.

A lot of people who are trans are far more busy and concerned with how having to choose between who they actually are and living in a constant lie to themselves and others, and being their true self and risking to upturn their entire life, loose many acquaintances, and naturally have a target on your back if you aren’t living in an area that is considerably tolerant and even then its still a risk. I don’t know where you got that getting a date is the largest issue about being trans because it never was and never is.

Please, take some time to really try to listen to us and our experiences and please don’t immediately group all trans people in with abusive people. A lot of us really don’t care about getting in people’s pants and most of it is really just about trying to live and be ourselves.

I understand the experiences are horrible and anyone who puts that pressure is horrible, but don’t let that be an excuse to spread rhetoric and hate on a group that already has an insanely high suicide rate. 

People aren’t killing themselves because they aren’t getting dates. They are killing themselves because being trans is hard and insanely difficult. Dating someone is a speck of sand in a desert.

Please don’t use that straw man on us and please don’t use it to paint all trans people as bad and worthy of hate.

Thank you.

-Ray (Gatekeeper)

[thxngam]

i think being a ww fan means recognizing the inherent flaws in its story and characters. for every amazing character moment, theres the fact that the show has a lot of misogyny, both from its male characters and how its female characters are written and treated (ex. the whole laurie and sam arc. some of the stuff that josh says to donna). for every istotg moment, theres the fact that charlie was literally written in bc the show was considered too white (and for most of its run, was). for all the awesome political moments, for all the show presented bipartisanship, and had republicans that were sympathetic, three-dimensional characters, theres the fact of ainsleys entire introduction to the show. it has issues, real issues, and highlighting its high highs should also come with acknowledging its low lows.

Absolutely! I couldn’t have said it any better  (but pls watch as i proceed to make your point bc i feel like i should respond).

For any of yall saying the moments i talk about don’t rlly matter, please notice that even if it didn’t bother you, it might have bothered other ppl/enforced steroetypes/etc. 

For example, there’s one super misogynistic line that josh says that still sticks with me? as a woman, i think most times the show was sexist/anytime anybody was sexist i tend to notice in a way men probably don’t, the same way white ppl don’t notice when everybody in a room is white. it’s just something you notice. but anyway, there’s that one thing with the economy/china-us trade relationship or something in season 5 or 6 and they talk about bras, which is this whole comedic moment. but i remember donna telling josh this, and then josh going “do the Chinese even need bras?”

and i’m not Chinese, i’m desi and i don’t know what it’s like be Chinese and i’m sure there are cultural beauty standards i’m not aware of, obviously. but hearing that line made me so uncomfortable. ig it was supposed to be funny, and donna sort of reprimands him, but it made me so uncomfortable! and there are so many moments like that on the show.

there are maybe 3 recurring black characters (charlie, fitz, nancy mcnally) and that’s it. there’s angela blake, but she wasn’t there for you to like her bc she was “replacing” josh after that whole carrick business. your point about charlie being the point of diversity saddens me. i saw one asian person on the show, cathy, for like two episodes. that’s all. 

and also, sam, despite being my favorite, says some sexist things! i’m gonna talk about sam because he is my favorite, but moments of casual sexism are true of just about every character on the show. the bit about “leggy blonde republicans not knowing anything”, he condescends connie tate (i thought that was kinda funny but it was in poor taste bc connie--despite not seeing much of her--was incredibly intelligent and sam speaking down to her did rub me wrong), the bit about “baton twirling” when he talks to ainsley (tho she gives a great quip back and abt five minutes later he calls her intelligent), that borderline savior mentality with laurie (i (not being a sex worker, someone pls let me know if that was more problematic than the way i saw it) would’ve been fine with that whole storyline if they just kept her on so we could see laurie put sam in his place some more. bc i liked that they said that sex work was real work and that she liked what she did and didn’t fall to some trope about being abused as a child/crazy/etc but then they straight up never mentioned her again. she was smart and she could put him into his place and i liked her enough that i wish we saw their friendship). also he hears from this one weather person/air force person, and when he sees her he goes “you look exactly how you sound on the phone” and yuck

all the same, i like sam! he was idealistic and incredibly smart and i loved all his little impromptu speeches and he had great chemistry with everybody. i was so sad when he left the show and so excited when he came back (even for like two scenes). but i know he’s problematic. knowing he’s problematic and liking him as a character can happen at the same time.

also cj and relationships is weird on this show. that whole episode where she goes back to visit her ailing father there’s this weird romance with that one guy and it’s so weird. also bill? that we never see? the ranger or whatever? i like that cj had emotions (to be strong does not equal emotionless, i appreciated her appreciation for a pretty dress/shoes/jewelry bc that’s something i wish i knew when i was younger) but that was ridiculous. when she gets promoted to chief of staff, this was a great moment to mention sexism in the workplace/the sad rarity of women in power and i honestly don’t think they did, at least not meaningfully enough that i remember it. 

also there’s this whole ridicule of the michigan’s women’s caucus? not important at all, but it’s a sad how they talk down to an organization that isn’t there for mockery just because it’s full of women. it’s a legitimate thing, and because it’s full of women they constantly talk down about it.

i don’t know, but as i type this, i keep noticing more casual sexism and racism on the show. but that doesn’t mean i don’t love the show anyway. government can be optimistic (it’s not right now, but it can be) and it brought me out of a funk and i love it so, but like you said, it has its high highs and its low lows and we, as viewers, should acknowledge this. 

[freddieofhearts]

Bye bye, dears (for now!)

I know there have been a lot of rumours and some posts about me leaving, so here I am to set the record straight and say a quick ‘au revoir’. This post is long, and I don’t expect everyone to read the whole thing—if you just want information on how to keep in touch, or about access to my removed fics, scroll to the bottom. ⬇️

*

Why are you leaving?

Firstly, of course I’m not leaving Freddie. This is just an ongoing hiatus from the social side of fandom, because while I have some incredible friends here, who have done all they can to support me and have made this experience wonderful in lots of ways—it’s also true that the social space has become more and more toxic for me.

I get a wild amount of hate. Despite never having my ask box enabled on here, people create new accounts just to message me and tell me all the problems in this fandom are my fault, that I’m faking being sick, that I should kill myself, that I’m fat, etc. I also very regularly get hateful comments on AO3.

Obviously I realise that I’m not the only one who receives these cruel attacks, but it’s become increasingly hard to handle them—especially as some people (‘real’ accounts, not faceless anons) do continue to blame me for wider problems in the fandom. It makes me feel consistently sad, anxious, and paranoid, so that I can’t focus on anything Queen-related that I enjoy.

More pressingly, it’s affected my mental health, which is—imperfect at the best of times. As I’ve occasionally alluded to in older posts on this blog, I have a history of anorexia, OCD, PTSD, and some other overlapping issues. Most people who know me in the fandom are also aware that I’m ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ to Covid-19, significantly immunocompromised, and have been isolating at home for eleven months.

The combination of all of these things + the constant toxic messages has really been triggering me, and leading to an uptick in disordered behaviours, which my body cannot sustain. Every new instance of hate from an anon—every time there’s another indication of groups in the fandom wanting to ostracise me further—my reaction is deeply self-punitive and unhealthy. Ultimately I need to be out of this environment for, at least, a protracted period. My therapist, my partner and my close friends in the fandom support this decision.

*

So, what went wrong?

In 2019, I expected to be an absolutely tiny blog in the Queen Tumblr landscape. The fandom was already well-established, and I have never worked to ‘build a following’ on here—I think I’ve linked my own fic a maximum of three or four times!—in fact, more or less the opposite. As I mentioned above: ya girl is nutty as a fruitcake. As a result, I often avoid extremely niche things in daily life which cause severe anxiety for me, Relevant examples here: I never look at my timeline. I never intentionally look at my follower number. Yup, it’s strange, I fully admit it, but it’s best for me to go with these things—usually. In Queen fandom, however, this avoidance both of analytic stats and of most direct engagement led to some problems... My followers grew without me realising, and way more people were reading my blog than I was aware of. I was still in a—“Wow, this fandom is very frustrating, and rife with ableism, racism, etc., so how do we fix this???”—mindset, and I wanted to share my opinions, sure! but I also thought I was sharing them with 15-20 like-minded people.

Now, intent is not impact, and I recognise that I was brusque, didn’t phrase things particularly sensitively, and absolutely did hurt some people by criticising the fandom so freely. I still regret this—and I regret just as much the fact that some assholes have used my criticising the fandom on my own blog as implicit justification for attacking authors. I have said on here many times that I don’t condone that behaviour—but I also think there’s some truth in the presumption that these anonymous malcontents felt my critiques somehow ‘permitted’ them to engage in abuse. For the first few months, though, I genuinely had no idea there was a link at all—and so I was initially slow to condemn this abusive behaviour in public, because I was taking it for granted all authors agreed it was shitty. It took someone directly telling me (shoutout to @a-froger-epic) that people had identified a connection between my posts and the anons, before everything fell into place.

I would like to offer my apologies to the fandom at large for not being more quick on the uptake about this, because I feel that had I realised sooner that these people were taking ‘inspiration’ in some way from me, it might have been easier to put a stop to it. It does seem that there is still a lot of confusion about whether I support them and which of their views I agree with. Let’s be 100% clear on this: I do not support the anonymous commenters on AO3. At times there is some, limited overlap between parts of their views and parts of mine, but even that is less than you may think—I often see anonymous comments from so-called ‘Freddie fans’ that I substantially disagree with.

Perhaps even more importantly: I do not support anyone who sends anonymous hate on Tumblr.

*

What’s all this about ‘overlap’ with the anons?

Let’s do a mini-summary of the myths vs. the truth. There are views I hold which are genuinely unpopular in the fandom—but which I own up to completely, and have never tried to hide in any way. I’ve never needed to use anonymous to share my opinions because I’m completely open about them! What people who don’t know me tend to have ‘heard’ about me, though, is usually a drastic distortion of my real opinions.

What people think I think:

- Freddie should never top.

- It’s okay to send anon hate if someone writes Freddie ‘wrong’.

- It’s more important to correct ‘wrong’ portrayals than to respect other writers.

- It’s inherently wrong to be more interested in band pairings than canon pairings.

- Freddie should be overtly written as a r*pe survivor/victim (and not doing this is wrong).

- Freddie should be overtly written as having an eating disorder (and not doing this is wrong).

- Kink fics are wrong.

What I actually think:

- I believe Freddie did have a strongly defined sexual identity with marked preferences, but I don’t think Jim Hutton lied when he said that Freddie topped. I believe Freddie did top, but this isn’t the time or place to get into my thoughts on why/when/how much. I do believe that my analysis of the sources relevant to this subject is as historically accurate as one can reasonably be in matters of sex (where historical accuracy will always be particularly limited and imperfect)—but I don’t think it’s morally wrong to write Freddie as topping more than he probably did.

- I don’t believe there’s only one ‘right’ version of Freddie (all others being ‘wrong’). I do believe it is possible to be more right or less right—but I’m also conscious of the fact that this scale of value is not one by which everyone measures fanfiction. As a result, then, I don’t think that any perceptions surrounding ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ justify sending anonymous, non-constructive criticism, or outright hate.

- I do believe constructive criticism is a good thing. I welcome and appreciate it myself; I have received it on my fics in Queen fandom, and it has made them better. I have been in writing workshops which included very forceful criticisms, and the value of such feedback has been intimately and immediately part of my life as a writer for years. However: in this case, I have accepted that my opinion differs from the general community preference, and so I no longer offer any constructive criticism (outside private beta-reading). I haven’t changed my view, but I’ve changed my practice to align with community norms.

- I do not think any single, individual writer has a personal responsibility to write about Freddie Mercury in any given way. That ranges from including the more distressing topics to which I’ve devoted attention (such as trauma)—to concentrating on ‘canon’ pairings like Jimercury—to, even, focusing on Freddie at all.

“Now, that doesn’t sound like you, @freddieofhearts,” you might be thinking. And I know it doesn’t; I think something I’ve done a poor job of articulating is the difference between how I view each individual fan—namely, as free to shape their creative experience at will, even in ways that I might find distressing or offensive; even in ways that you might find distressing or offensive—and the way I view the Collective. I think people have interpreted some of my critiques of ‘Queen Fandom’ as meaning something like: “You-in-particular, a specific Queen fan, are doing it wrong and should change everything about how you do it; also you don’t really care about Freddie.”

And—that’s not it. What any given fan, as an individual, does, isn’t a problem. And that can be true alongside—concurrently with—a multivalent critique of how the fandom is lacking in representation of Freddie’s life, with all that that (wonderful, deservedly celebrated, but also profoundly traumatic) life entailed. I still hold that view; I still have myriad problems with ‘the fandom’ (structurally, collectively, historically and presently—from the 1990s to the 2020s). Some of what I want to work on (away from the social life of fandom) is expressing those critiques with greater nuance, in ways that can’t be misinterpreted as shading any particular fanfiction author or subgenre of story.

In brief: I haven’t changed my mind, but I think Tumblr is an untenable environment in which to discuss the things I want to analyse, especially as there is an ever-present danger of hurting someone.

*

Can we keep in touch? Where is the fic?

I will drop by this account periodically to check out posts that friends have sent me, so you can always sent me a private message to ask for my contact details on the other app that I’m using now for fandom friends. Multiple Freddie conversations and projects are going on over there, off-Tumblr, with a much ‘gentler’ environment and no bad actors—I personally love it!

All my fic has been downloaded and saved. I don’t want to deal with constant harassment on AO3, but I’m happy to share a copy with anyone who missed it and wants to read/re-read something. I also saved everyone’s lovely comments and thoughtful con-crit, so none of that has been lost or erased.

Thank you to everyone who welcomed me to the fandom, made me think, taught me, shared with me, sent me into fits of the giggles, collaborated with me creatively, and otherwise made this one hell of a ride! Love you all. ❤️

[ginmo]

...This response took me a million years, because there’s so much textbook abuse and mislabeling that I was like where do I even fucking start and how do I come at this. I’m still not happy with my approach but here we go. Sorry. This is going to be long. 

Why do people abuse?

Domestic violence and abuse stem from a desire to gain and maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abusive people believe they have the right to control and restrict their partners, and they may enjoy the feeling that exerting power gives them. They often believe that their own feelings and needs should be the priority in their relationships, so they use abusive tactics to dismantle equality and make their partners feel less valuable and deserving of respect in the relationship. [x]

Abuse is habitual. Everyone on the planet has either intentionally or unintentionally done an abusive act, emotionally or physically, in one of their relationships at some point in their life, but that doesn’t mean that relationship was abusive or that the pair was mutually abusive.

It’s also not uncommon for an abusive relationship to have a degree of abuse from both parties involved. Many victims will unconsciously do something abusive as an attempt to bring balance to the relationship and gain some control, but those incidents are isolated and not “habitual,” which puts them in the overall victim category. 

In this abusive relationship: 

Jaime is the main victim. Cersei is the main abuser. There’s nothing “mutual” about it.

“lmaoooo Jaime CHOSE to be in this relationship”

I’m aware that GRRM probably intended Jaime to totally jump in 100% by his choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that literally every person in an abusive relationship appears to have chosen to remain in that relationship. Hell, I knew my abuser was abusive before I even got into a relationship with him, but I did it anyway because, man, he was charming and persuasive. He unconsciously used that charm, manipulation, and seduction to keep me hooked while chipping away at my identity. Victims of abuse all have a choice, in theory, but the reality of it is messy, because there’s manipulation at play and a great degree of delusion.

Cersei is guilty of narcissistic abuse. 

It’s perfectly valid to view Cersei as a narcissist. She obviously isn’t diagnosed with anything, but I’m reading her as a textbook narcissist so… let’s play. Before I dive into all the abuse, I’m going to dig into Cersei’s narcissism, because it plays into the interpretation of their dynamic. 

“You can argue, well, does she genuinely love her children, or does she just love them because they’re her children? There’s certainly a great level of narcissism in Cersei. She has an almost sociopathic view of the world and civilization.” (Also look up: malignant narcissism and sociopathy)

GRRM then immediately makes a comparison to Jaime, contrasting their abilities to love. 

“At the same time, what Jaime did is interesting.”

He goes on to describe Jaime’s action of pushing Bran, implying he did it out of genuine love for others (since he used the word genuinely for Cersei and then compared). [x]

“LMAO BUT JAIME IS A NARCISSIST TOO” 

No lmfao. Someone can appear narcissistic at times and swing on that spectrum, but that doesn’t make them a narcissist or show they have “a great level of narcissism.” One of the main defining characteristics of a narcissist is a lack of empathy. I’m not even going to dig up all of the empathy examples, because the above comparison from GRRM should be enough to tell you he isn’t writing Jaime as a narcissist and going that route would take this way off topic. Just… read his chapters lol. You don’t even have to get far into his POVs to see empathy and how his thought process is intentionally written to be different than Cersei’s. 

Anyway, my level of sympathy for Cersei is entirely wrapped around her narcissism. To me, what’s sad here is the idea she can’t experience true intimacy and is completely unaware of it. She loves Jaime, and I truly believe she believes she loves Jaime, but in reality it’s only at the capacity that narcissism allows. 

Narcissistic Abuse: 

“Narcissists don’t really love themselves. Actually, they’re driven by shame. It’s the idealized image of themselves, which they convince themselves they embody, that they admire. But deep down, narcissists feel the gap between the façade they show the world and their shame-based self. They work hard to avoid feeling that shame.

Many of the narcissist’s coping mechanisms are abusive — hence the term, “narcissistic abuse.” [x]

I mean… that’s kinda sad? I feel for her in that sense, but, as the article says, “Abuse is abuse, no matter the abuser’s diagnosis.” 

Needs to Look Like Her

There are several examples of Cersei commenting on his changed appearance and how she doesn’t like it. That isn’t too weird, since people have their own personal preferences and hey, maybe she just doesn't like beards? But no. That’s not the case. She doesn’t like the changes, because it means he looks less like her. It 100% is about Jaime being male Cersei - an extension of herself. 

“Nor did Jaime help her mood when he turned up all in white and still unshaven, to tell her how he meant to keep her son from being poisoned. - AFFC

“his face was thinner, with hollows under his eyes and lines he did not remember. I don’t look as much like Cersei this way. She’ll hate that.” - ASOS

(and lol so tempted to go into how Jaime’s facial hair is symbolic of his identity shift and how that relates to the separation with his twin). 

“Jaime likes looking like Cersei too”

Oh does he? If that’s still so then why isn’t he shaving his beard for her? 

Has he ever been disgusted by her looks? Does he ever look at siblings and get irritated if he thinks they look more alike? When he noticed his change in appearance did he think, “I hate that we look different” or did he think, “Cersei will hate that”...? (Also, when he thinks that he would be Cersei in fucking ASOS - *pre-handchop which is pre-arc-* that’s a laughably obvious set up for the identity aspect of his arc with that belief being destroy, you dense- ...*deep breath* moving on)

I’m sure he romanticized the looks to an extent, but it’s been made clear that it’s far more important to Cersei than it is to him, since she often makes note of his change in appearance. This is even shown in a scene where Cersei is observing Loras and Margaery and getting annoyed that they look more like twins than she and Jaime do. 

For some context, Cersei was watching them dance.

“They could be twins, Cersei thought as she watched them. Ser Loras was a year older than his sister, but they had the same big brown eyes, the same thick brown hair falling in lazy ringlets to their shoulders, the same smooth unblemished skin. A ripe crop of pimples would teach them some humility. Loras was taller and had a few wisps of soft brown fuzz on his face, and Margaery had a woman’s shape, but elsewise they were more alike than she and Jaime. 

That annoyed her too. -AFFC”

Narcissistic abuse includes emotional and physical and is used as an umbrella term for the two when they’re done by a narcissist, therefore slightly changing the context of the abuse. 

I’m not going to pretend that GRRM sat down with a sexual narcissist checklist, created from the hours of research through his dinosaur computer, BUT he clearly is aware of basic narcissistic and abusive dynamics. It’s… really not that hard. And even if you don’t think he consciously did it, her behaviors are still aligned.

“LmAo CeRsEi’S ‘EvIL VaGiNa’ - MiSoGyNiStS!”

…manipulation through sex is an actual fucking thing that’s genderless.

Right lmfao this is going to be long.

“A sexual narcissist is a person who uses sex as a tool to emotionally manipulate their victims to get what they want.”

People admit that she uses sex as a tool to get stuff done, claiming its her form of power in the patriarchy. What they fail to consider is that Cersei does this frequently to Jaime - a person who is meant to be her lover - which… makes him a victim of narcissistic abuse. Don’t believe me? 

I’m going to be using this article to break apart sexual narcissism. If you want more just research. They all pretty much say the same thing, but I chose this one because I prefer the structure. The article breaks examples into categories: 

Sex is used to manipulate/persuade

Excessive focus on physical over emotional

You Exist to Serve the Narcissist’s Needs

Constantly Puts You Down

Reacts Negatively When You Don’t Give Them What They Want

Treats You Poorly / Neglects You After Sex

Infidelity, Violence, and Sexual Addiction  

This whole post has been a nightmare to organize. Tbh most of the examples I’ll use fall under MULTIPLE categories. The scenes are like fucking Russian dolls of abuse. Or like… Abuse Inception. Abuse within abuse within abuse, so I had to just pick and choose which ones to put where. 

Charming and Romantic – But with a Catch 

“Many sexual narcissists can come across as alluring and attractive, especially during the initial stages of a relationship, when they’re trying to win you over. Like a master salesperson, they use charisma to get your attention, flattery to make you feel special, seduction (flirting, gifts, dinners, get-aways, etc.) to lift you off your feet, and persuasion to get you to give them what they want. Some sexual narcissists are very good in bed (at least they think they are), for sex is used as a tool to impress, entrap, and manipulate.

While there’s absolutely nothing wrong inherently with being charming, romantic, and a good lover, the narcissist crafts these traits in order to use others. He or she is not really interested in you, but only what he wants to extract from you (often to fulfill an inner emptiness due to the inability to create true intimacy).”

You can even find some meta that almost word for word says what’s described above, but they erase her doing this to Jaime - her partner- and frame these actions as feminist lol. 

Eel Alley. 

“But,” Jaime said, “there’s Casterly Rock …” 

“Is it a rock you want? Or me?” 

She then starts to seduce him to show him what he can have, to have the scale weigh in her favor. Manipulation through sex.

“He remembered that night as if it were yesterday. They spent it in an old inn on Eel Alley, well away from watchful eyes. Cersei had come to him dressed as a simple serving wench, which somehow excited him all the more. Jaime had never seen her more passionate. Every time he went to sleep, she woke him again. By morning Casterly Rock seemed a small price to pay to be near her always. He gave his consent, and Cersei promised to do the rest.” - AFFC

There's no indication whatsoever that Jaime had any intent to NOT wed and be Lord of Casterly Rock. He wasn’t really into Lysa but he never straight up refused to take on the role he was born into. In fact, he even kinda fancied Catelyn lol.

“Lord Hoster kept me for a fortnight whilst mulling his reply, and sat me beside his daughter Lysa at every meal.” 

“Small wonder you took the white. I’d have done the same.” 

“Oh, Lysa was not so fearsome as all that.” She had been a pretty girl, in truth; dimpled and delicate, with long auburn hair. Timid, though. Prone to tongue-tied silences and fits of giggles, with none of Cersei’s fire. Her older sister had seemed more interesting, though Catelyn was promised to some northern boy, the heir of Winterfell …”

And lol

“but at that age, no girl interested Jaime half so much as Hoster’s famous brother, who had won renown fighting the Ninepenny Kings upon the Stepstones.” - AFFC

He doesn’t even say, “but at that age, no girl interested Jaime so much as Cersei.” No. The Blackfish. Had Catelyn been unbetrothed, it’s not a stretch to think that Jaime would have been entertained by the idea of their betrothal. This was before Cersei seduced him at Eel Alley.

“hE GaVe HiS ConSenT”

Yeah, after she manipulated him through sex LOL. IT’S RIGHT THERE. 

“Jaime always wanted to join the KG!” 

“He had joined the Kingsguard for love, of course”.-ASOS

(HEY! Just like that tall, blonde, “beauty” he’s been hanging out with HHMM)

He wasn’t going to join the KG before Cersei gave him “love,” which is why he was asking about Casterly Rock and talking about Tywin, as if this was an idea he hadn’t thought of before. (Knight and KG are not synonymous). He joined “for love” AFTER she gave him intimacy, showing him what he could have if he agreed to stay by her side forever. 

She even murdered Melara -HER FRIEND- for saying she wanted to marry Jaime one day. She kept trying to rob Jaime of a life outside of her, and yes I use the word “rob,” because it was through narcissistic abuse. She literally turned up the passion and kept waking him up with sex until he gave his consent. 

And “by morning” Casterly Rock was “a small price to pay.” A SMALL PRICE TO PAY. That means it was worth something of value to him and then “by morning,” after she woke him up over and over and over until he agreed, it became a “small price.” 

Also keep in mind that when Cersei was begging Jaime to join the KG to be close to her, she was legitimately crushing hard on Rhaegar not long before... she’s allowed to fantasize about marriage with Rhaegar, but Jaime isn’t allowed to fit his role and marry?

“once she had drawn a picture of herself flying behind Rhaegar on a dragon, her arms wrapped tight about his chest. When Jaime had discovered it she told him it was Queen Alysanne and King Jaehaerys. [...] By night the prince played his silver harp and made her weep. When she had been presented to him, Cersei had almost drowned in the depths of his sad purple eyes. He has been wounded, she recalled thinking, but I will mend his hurt when we are wed. Next to Rhaegar, even her beautiful Jaime had seemed no more than a callow boy. The prince is going to be my husband, she had thought, giddy with excitement, and when the old king dies I’ll be the queen.” -AFFC

Like… fuck… 

Later on, when Jaime is developing into his own being and becoming aware of the bs, the Eel Alley scene is brought up again.

“Cersei.” He spoke slowly, like a man waking from a dream, still wondering where he was. “What hour is it?” 

“The hour of the wolf.” His sister lowered her hood, and made a face. “The drowned wolf, perhaps.” She smiled for him, so sweetly.” 

There’s the use of charm. Normally you could argue that she was honestly happy to see him. But what does she say next and what does he associate with that encounter? 

“Do you remember the first time I came to you like this? It was some dismal inn off Weasel Alley, and I put on servant’s garb to get past Father’s guards.”

 “I remember. It was Eel Alley.” She wants something of me. “Why are you here, at this hour? What would you have of me?” His last word echoed up and down the sept, mememememememememememe, fading to a whisper. For a moment he dared to hope that all she wanted was the comfort of his arms.”

And he wasn’t wrong. She did want something from him. So no. It’s not in his head. 

“Jaime, Kevan has refused me. He will not serve as Hand [...] “You must be Tommen’s Hand.” -AFFC

This time he realizes what she’s doing. Using her outfit, she’s causing a recall to a past manipulative event that worked, exposing her intent, which is why Jaime immediately recognizes it as something she wants from him. This also implies that he now views their encounter at Eel Alley as Cersei wanting something of him since the two encounters were directly associated.

Here’s another moment of manipulation by a sexual narcissist.

“My sister wanted the girl to lose a hand. The old penalty, for striking one of the blood royal. Robert told her she was cruel and mad. They fought for half the night … well, Cersei fought, and Robert drank. Past midnight, the queen summoned me inside.”

Failing to get Robert to side with her and do something, she then summoned Jaime to give him the attention she knows he wants. You see where I’m going here?

“The king was passed out snoring on the Myrish carpet. I asked my sister if she wanted me to carry him to bed. She told me I should carry her to bed, and shrugged out of her robe. I took her on Raymun Darry’s bed after stepping over Robert. If His Grace had woken I would have killed him there and then. He would not have been the first king to die upon my sword … but you know that story, don’t you?” He slashed at a tree branch, shearing it in half. “As I was fucking her, Cersei cried, ‘I want.’ I thought that she meant me, but it was the Stark girl that she wanted, maimed or dead.” The things I do for love. - AFFC

This isn’t Jaime interpreting the incident incorrectly. This is character growth. 

GRRM is speaking through Jaime by destroying the illusion and becoming aware of the reality he has been living. Because the lights are turning on for him, the things I do for love can take on a new meaning here. It’s more like the things I do to earn intimacy. He’s jogging down memory lane and realizing that every time (shown or told about in the books) she approached him she was trying to get something from him or trying to get him to agree with her. There was always a motive apart from a genuine desire to give and receive love, no strings attached. 

Excessive Focus on Physical Over Emotional 

“The sexual narcissist’s style of love-making is often focused on appearance and image, with a keen dislike for flaws and weaknesses from oneself or the partner. The love-making is less about two human beings connecting, and more about measuring up to idealized expectations. Try as the sexual narcissist might at physical grandiosity, there’s inevitably something missing in their performance: genuine human emotions.”

Mm yes.Going back to this as an example:

“his face was thinner, with hollows under his eyes and lines he did not remember. I don’t look as much like Cersei this way. She’ll hate that.” - ASOS

“The Targaryens wed brother to sister for three hundred years, to keep the bloodlines pure. And Jaime and I are more than brother and sister. We are one person in two bodies. We shared a womb together. He came into this world holding my foot, our old maester said. When he is in me, I feel … whole.” - AGOT

“I need you. I need my other half.” He could hear the rain pattering against the windows high above. “You are me, I am you. I need you with me. In me. Please, Jaime. Please.” - AFFC

People use Cersei’s romanticized twin comments as evidence to show that she genuinely loves Jaime. This also can connect to the GRRM quote mentioned above about her genuine love capabilities which can be argued as “lol no”. 

She does not have “genuine human emotions,” because her words and feelings are from a narcissistic desire to be whole through the idea that Jaime is an extension of herself. So… yeah, if she thinks Jaime is herself as a male (“you are me, I am you”), then she’s missing half of her until he’s inside her, making her whole. Her, her, her, her. 

Also, that’s a move to try to strip him of his own identity, his own person, and is a fucking massive red flag that this is how the relationship began. Does he ever try to persuade her to do shit by reminding her that they’re the same person? Like ffs. 

She does this while trying to manipulate him using sex. He’s not listening to her, so she begs him to be inside her. Hey, why not? We’ve seen this work before. 

“Every time he went to sleep, she woke him again. By morning Casterly Rock seemed a small price to pay to be near her always. He gave his consent, and Cersei promised to do the rest.” - ASOS

You Exist to Serve the Narcissist’s Needs. 

“After the initial courtship period during which he or she tries to impress and please, a sexual narcissist may begin to demand that you cater primarily to his own selfish needs. He may expect you to be “on call”

Okay I bolded that “on call” bit, because she does go to him when she wants something, and then gets hella mad when he refuses. But I know some people will use this to be like BuT JaImE TaKeS hEr WhEn He WaNts and like.. Yeah, fair enough, you can make that argument, but… that’s leaving out context. He goes to her because she’s withholding intimacy and only initiates when she wants something from him. I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say it does fit. Remember what I said in the beginning that it’s not uncommon for victims to act in ways that are problematic (hate that word) to try to get back some control? Yeah. Apply this here. His unhealthy response is a reaction to her using intimacy as a tool.

“and satisfy sexual desires at his pleasure, require you to engage in sexual acts which only he enjoys [doesn’t really apply], or demand that you limit your other activities to be more available. Rather than being an individual with your own thoughts, feelings and priorities. The sexual narcissist expects you to exist merely as an extension of his or her wishes. ” 

Cersei resents Jaime for disagreeing with her and thinking on his own. Literally the “you are me” bs and how she gets really angry when he begins to challenge her and goes against her wishes. She views him as someone who needs to cater to her, All he’s doing for her to slap and throw nasty words and cups at him is just... not doing what she asks him to do... his existence in Cersei’s life is simply to cater to her. 

Constantly Puts You Down 

“In order to put up a facade of superiority, and disguise hidden insecurity and inadequacy, some narcissists will constantly put other people down, to boost their own desirability and acceptability. In a sexual relationship, some (but not all) narcissists may also target their partners for ridicule, blame, shame, sarcasm, and overall marginalization. By subjecting the partner to an inferior psychological position, the narcissist is able to exercise a greater degree of dominance and manipulation.” 

I mean… Do I really need to provide examples here? This is actually similar to the next one, so I’m going to put my examples there.

Reacts Negatively When You Don’t Give Them What They Want

“Since many sexual narcissists can't stand disappointment or rejection, they will frequently react negatively when you don’t give them what they want, in the way they want it. Some of the common responses include:

Anger – Tantrum. Negative judgment. Personal attacks. Ridicule.

Passive-Aggression – The cold shoulder. The silent treatment. Withhold of love and affection [which ties in to withholding intimacy examples I provided above]. Sarcasm. Calculated separation.

Emotional Coercion – Blame. Guilt trip. Calling the partner ungrateful. Threaten to withhold love and intimacy (such as it is). Pretend narcissistic victimhood.

None of these responses are those of a mature, reasonable adult. The sexual narcissist, by acting like a petulant child or a bully, hopes the drama and manipulation will hook you back in, so you’ll once again “belong” to him or her.”

Some of this is physical abuse too, so I’m sticking those under here. And yes, slapping counts as physical abuse and it doesn’t matter who the hell does it.

“Rule? I said naught of ruling. I shall rule until my son comes of age.” 

“I don’t know who I pity more,” her brother said. “Tommen, or the Seven Kingdoms.” She slapped him. Jaime’s arm rose to catch the blow, cat-quick … but this cat had a cripple’s stump in place of a right hand. Her fingers left red marks on his cheek. - AFFC

Keep in mind that every time Jaime’s reflex goes to his face to block a blow it’s a sign that this is a behavior he’s used to. Sometimes people use the, “I don’t know who I pity more” line as well for “mutual abuse.” Context and… where’s the lie? Lmao. 

Most of the time he’s being straight with her. Snarky ass? Sure. Abusive? No. Intent is key. She puts him down to shame him and attempts to decrease his self-worth. This is a control move, because she throws cruel words at him when she is unsuccessful in getting what she wants. He sometimes calls her a fool and one time asks if she’s drunk or stupid, because she’s legit spiraling into a paranoia and he’s going wtf lol. He’s not trying to make her dependent on him through the use of his poor language. 

Anyway, back to physical.

Jaime felt his anger rising. “True, Loras does not leer at your teats the way Ser Osmund does, but I hardly think—” 

“Think about this.” Cersei slapped his face. Jaime made no attempt to block the blow. 

“I see I need a thicker beard, to cushion me against my queen’s caresses.” He wanted to rip her gown off and turn her blows to kisses. He’d done it before, back when he had two good hands.”

People love to use this against Jaime. Ffs. He’s literally trying to fucking defend himself from physical abuse by trying to diffuse the situation through sex, turning “blows to kisses.” This is one of those messy situations where it’s a victim trying to gain back control in an unhealthy, arguably abusive way. Does that make them anywhere near “mutually” abusive as if they’re 50/50? LMFAO no.

“Would Your Grace honor her white knight with a dance?” She gave him a withering look. “And have you fumbling at me with that stump? No. I will let you fill my wine cup for me, though. If you think you can manage it without spilling.” - AFFC

She turns him down with her disgust over his missing hand and then allows him to fill her cup I- 

“Get out, I said. I am sick of looking at that ugly stump of yours. Get out!” To speed him on his way, she heaved her wine cup at his head. She missed, but Jaime took the hint.” - AFFC

Alright this big one… 

WST:

“You mustn’t let Father take him from me. Jaime, please. 

“I can talk to him, but he will not listen …” 

“He will if you agree to leave the Kingsguard.” 

“I’m not leaving the Kingsguard.” His sister fought back tears. 

“Jaime, you’re my shining knight. You cannot abandon me when I need you most! He is stealing my son, sending me away … and unless you stop him, Father is going to force me to wed again!” 

Guilt tripping and playing up the loving language. 

Also, off topic, but I just want to point out that it’s funny Cersei came to him in Eel Alley to persuade him to join the KG to be with her. Jaime said they can’t get Tywin’s approval, so then she fucks him all night and he agrees. They played as lovers before that moment, but that was the night that sealed their affair to one another, to remove himself off the market and stay by her side forever. In this scene, she’s coming to him to ask him to LEAVE the KG, knowing Tywin would approve, and when he’s questioning the idea she tries to have sex with him, BUT he refuses her so her plan doesn’t work, making this moment the solid beginning of their downfall lmao. The opposite of Eel Alley. 

“It makes no matter who they wed me to, I want you at my side, I want you in my bed, I want you inside me. Nothing has changed between us.” 

Increasing the level of manipulation through intimacy since her previous persuasive strategy wasn’t working.

“Let me prove it to you.” She pushed up his tunic and began to fumble with the laces of his breeches. Jaime felt himself responding. 

“No,” he said, “not here.” They had never done it in White Sword Tower, much less in the Lord Commander’s chambers. “Cersei, this is not the place.” 

“You took me in the sept. This is no different.”

She drew out his cock and bent her head over it. Jaime pushed her away with the stump of his right hand. “No. Not here, I said.” He forced himself to stand. For an instant he could see confusion in her bright green eyes, and fear as well. Then rage replaced it.

Angry reaction due to refusal of sex. Childish reaction from not getting what she wants which quickly turns into bullying.

Cersei gathered herself together, got to her feet, straightened her skirts. “Was it your hand they hacked off in Harrenhal, or your manhood?” As she shook her head, her hair tumbled around her bare white shoulders. “I was a fool to come. You lacked the courage to avenge Joffrey, why would I think that you’d protect Tommen? Tell me, if the Imp had killed all three of your children, would that have made you wroth?” 

Lol people thinking she was there to hang out with him. She admits to only being in there to ask something of him. “I was a fool to come.” Don’t miss out on the angry, nasty response because she was rejected and couldn’t use her favorite go-to manipulation tactic. 

“You great golden fool. He’s lied to you a thousand times, and so have I.” [...]

“You had best go, Cersei. You’re making me angry.” 

“Oh, an angry cripple. How terrifying.” She laughed. “A pity Lord Tywin Lannister never had a son. I could have been what he wanted, but I lacked the cock. And speaking of such, best tuck yours away, brother. It looks rather sad and small, hanging from your breeches like that.” 

She’s trying to establish superiority by attempting to break him down, using his disability against him and attacking his manhood. 

More?

“Gold? Or silver?” Cersei plucked a hair from beneath his chin and held it up. It was grey. “All the color is draining out of you, brother. You’ve become a ghost of what you were, a pale crippled thing. And so bloodless, always in white.” She flicked the hair away. “I prefer you garbed in crimson and gold.” - AFFC

I mean…I think that’s enough. 

 lol jk 

“Tell him what has happened, and write … write …” 

“Yes, Your Grace?” She licked her lips, shivering. “Come at once. Help me. Save me. I need you now as I have never needed you before. I love you. I love you. I love you. Come at once.” 

“As you command. ‘I love you’ thrice?” 

“Thrice.” She had to reach him. “He will come. I know he will. He must. Jaime is my only hope.” 

“My queen,” said Qyburn, “have you … forgotten? Ser Jaime has no sword hand. If he should champion you and lose …” 

We will leave this world together, as we once came into it. “He will not lose. Not Jaime. Not with my life at stake.” - AFFC

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

SHE

FUCKING

THOUGHT

ABOUT 

HOW TO WORD IT

TO GET HIM TO COME BACK

SHE CONSCIOUSLY, FORMULATED A PLAN TO WRITE “I LOVE YOU” 

SPECIFICALLY THREE TIMES 

TO “REACH HIM.” 

SHE. LITERALLY. ADMITS. TO MANIPULATING HIM. THROUGH EMOTIONS. 

“Come at once,” she said. “Help me. Save me. I need you now as I have never needed you before. I love you. I love you. I love you. Come at once.”

 Vyman was hovering by the door, waiting, and Jaime sensed that Peck was watching too. “Does my lord wish to answer?” the maester asked, after a long silence. A snowflake landed on the letter. As it melted, the ink began to blur. Jaime rolled the parchment up again, as tight as one hand would allow, and handed it to Peck.

 “No,” he said. “Put this in the fire.”-AFFC

And Jaime had so much character growth by that point that IT DIDN’T FUCKING WORK LMAO. Her game isn’t working anymore. And not only is she trying to manipulate him through loving words, she’s also NOT GIVING A FUCK ABOUT HIS LIFE OUTSIDE OF HERSELF, because she’s acknowledging that if she’s going down then she’s taking him with her. T

he loving thing to do would be, “Jaime, I won’t allow you to be my champion. You’re missing your good hand and can’t win. I don’t want to be the one to cause your death.” But Cersei never gave a shit about his life outside of her so... not a shocker. (Also I just lmao that around the same time Cersei is trying to get Jaime to come back for his death sentence, Brienne is out there willing to literally hang by a noose to save him. Great contrast.)

On to Jaime… 

I did a bit of research to see why the fuck people think Jaime is abusive towards Cersei. Almost all of the examples involve their type of sex play, his thoughts (WHAT LMAO), and… not understanding the difference between toxicity and abuse. Abuse is always toxic, but toxicity isn’t always abusive. 

I’ve been in both an abusive and toxic relationship and the difference was that my partner in the toxic one wasn’t trying to establish constant control through various different methods. He wasn’t using me for his own gain or trying to make me feel like garbage about myself. He didn’t become physical when I went against him. In my non-abuse toxic one, we were like each other’s “drug.” Extreme highs and lows, propping each other up on a pedestal, losing ourselves within the relationship by wrapping our happiness around the other. The twins are definitely toxic, mutually, but some of Jaime’s unhealthy behaviors are confused with abuse and, ironically, his more questionable actions stem from Cersei’s abuse on him. 

Quoting this again since it’s like a million pages up:

Why do people abuse?

Domestic violence and abuse stem from a desire to gain and maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abusive people believe they have the right to control and restrict their partners, and they may enjoy the feeling that exerting power gives them. They often believe that their own feelings and needs should be the priority in their relationships, so they use abusive tactics to dismantle equality and make their partners feel less valuable and deserving of respect in the relationship. [x]

There is a difference between UNHEALTHY/TOXIC and ABUSIVE. 

Don’t come at me about the patriarchy being the reason why Cersei can’t be abusive towards Jaime (yes… I’ve actually seen that hot take). Within their own personal dynamic, Cersei has power over Jaime just by the nature of him being in the KG. She literally uses her position to tell him where to go and what to do, and even oversteps her boundaries sometimes by giving orders for him. 

As stated above, she manipulated him into joining the KG with implied promises of being together always. She then had affairs behind his back, used intimacy to persuade him, and cruelly put him down when he didn’t want to do the things she asked of him. That’s Cersei trying to maintain control of their dynamic. This is a “pattern of behavior” that dates back to at least Eel Alley. 

Unhealthy/Toxic

There isn’t a clear line when a relationship becomes unhealthy or abusive. This means it might be hard to figure out what kind of relationship you’re in. Remember that abuse is all about power and control. An unhealthy relationship might involve a power imbalance, being mean, ignoring boundaries [x]

Unhealthy behaviors can appear to be abusive behaviors, and certain toxic acts can turn into abusive over time, but they’re not the same thing.

For Jaime’s side of the “abuse,” he falls more often into the “unhealthy” category. I’m going to respond to a meta I came across recently.

“Jaime has channelled all his sexual desire into Cersei for most of his life (even thinking “I’ve been too long away from Cersei” when he experiences some arousal upon seeing Brienne naked), and that is not something one partner should put upon another. He judges the attractiveness of other women in reference to Cersei: Brienne, once, and Hildy the sex worker in ADWD. Cersei is a person, not a standard of idealised beauty.”

People twist the entire context to make him appear to be somehow abusive in a situation that actually…. sounds like a victim. Cersei wants that level of devotion from Jaime (and so do some of her stans), which is literally exactly why they don’t think Jaime and Brienne are a love story and why Cersei is like LMAO HER? Jaime would never leave me for that creature! SHE’S UGLY. 

She lived her whole life knowing that Jaime only had eyes for her, and the irony of “not a standard of idealised beauty” is that Cersei wants to be the standard of idealised beauty. He’s not “putting” anything on her. He’s reflecting what she wants and what has been reinforced since childhood. 

Besides that, I don’t see why it’s so wrong for Jaime to think Cersei is the most beautiful woman on the planet lol. And way to miss the entire fucking point, because the point is that YEAH, their entire relationship is superficial. Superficiality is unhealthy to an extent, but it’s not “abusive.” Jaime has only been with one woman his entire life and now he’s finally starting to encounter women away from his sister, so of course he’s going to compare. It’s like if you never left your town but one day decided to venture out into the world outside of it. You’re going to compare the buildings, the culture, etc because your mind is going to be expanding. 

“ Until late in ASoS, he does not value his Kingsguard vows except as they allow him to be close to her. (Again, mutually abusive relationship; Cersei’s actions were vital in getting him into this position where he has nothing but her.)”

HOW IS THIS ABUSIVE ON JAIME’S END? And I already discussed how she manipulated him into that situation with Casterly Rock being something of value to him. 

“Cersei has no meaningful relationships with anyone or anything outside of Jaime and her children. This is bad for both of them. So much of their emotional energy goes into each other, fostering the sense that they are not independent, whole people, and reinforcing the sense that the relationship is the only thing of value in their lives.”

Yeah! It is! And since Jaime is in the KG because Cersei convinced him to join, and she literally murdered her friend because the girl expressed wanting to marry Jaime, I WONDER WHY JAIME HAS NO FUCKING LIFE OUTSIDE OF CERSEI? As for Cersei, she CHOOSES to limit herself to Lannisters. Jaime isn’t forcing her to not have friends what the actual fuck. Cersei murders her friends lmfao. 

This is unhealthy, not abusive, on Jaime’s end. HE isn’t the one “fostering the sense that they are not independent, whole people.” As explained above, CERSEI is the one repeating this over and over, using it to convince him, to control, to attempt to rob him of his identity when he tries to stray. So on Cersei’s end, yeah, that’s abuse.

“For all his idealisation of her and their relationship, Jaime’s trust in Cersei is also a very brittle thing. When Tyrion tells Jaime “she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know,” while still believing Cersei’s declaration that Tyrion has “lied to you a thousand times, and so have I” was “a clumsy attempt to hurt him,” he doesn’t do what someone in a healthy relationship would do, and ask her. Whatever trust he has in her vanishes in two sentences, one about Cersei’s honesty, one about her fidelity.”

And… his… lack of trust was justified anyway? LMAO. He even thinks at some point that Tyrion IS lying. And when he’s away from Cersei in ASOS, he doesn’t imagine her fucking other people while he’s gone, because he trusted her. He genuinely believes that she’s faithful to him (which is precisely why he felt so betrayed). But he also trusts Tyrion, so he went back and forth, wondering wtf was the truth.

AND HOW THE FUCK IS LACK OF TRUST ABUSIVE? This is another case of IT’S UNHEALTHY to have little to no trust in your relationship. Not abusive ffs (!!!)

“Jaime is abusive because he coerces her into sex”

BTW, a person who laughed at me and said this also is a huge twincest shipper which… why… do you… romanticize it and claim their love to be True.. If… you think… he does that?!

Pretty much everyone brings up “sexual coercion.” And you know what? Fair. 

But... Jaime and Cersei are drawn to a messy push-pull sex play. She says no and then “weakley” pushes him away. 

There were soft, wet sounds. Bran realized they were kissing. He watched, wide-eyed and frightened, his breath tight in his throat. The man had a hand down between her legs, and he must have been hurting her there, because the woman started to moan, low in her throat. “Stop it,” she said, “stop it, stop it. Oh, please …” But her voice was low and weak, and she did not push him away. Her hands buried themselves in his hair, his tangled golden hair, and pulled his face down to her breast. -AGOT

This is GRRM trying to clarify that this is their messy sex dynamic. I mean, he has a fucking little kid observe this all “oh hey but she isn’t pushing him away guys! It’s all good, guys! That’s just them!” Like he’s taking down notes. The 4th wall being broken here is almost jarring. 

This sounds a lot like the scene at WF. 

“No,” she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, “not here. The septons …” 

“The Others can take the septons.” He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother’s altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her. He undid his breeches and climbed up and pushed her bare white legs apart. One hand slid up her thigh and underneath her smallclothes. When he tore them away, he saw that her moon’s blood was on her, but it made no difference. “Hurry,” she was whispering now, “quickly, quickly, now, do it now, do me now. Jaime Jaime Jaime.” Her hands helped guide him. “Yes,” Cersei said as he thrust, “my brother, sweet brother, yes, like that, yes, I have you, you’re home now, you’re home now, you’re home.” She kissed his ear and stroked his short bristly hair. Jaime lost himself in her flesh. He could feel Cersei’s heart beating in time with his own, and the wetness of blood and seed where they were joined. - ASOS

In both scenes she’s weakly protesting which implies it’s a form of their sex play, and she’s being turned on by him “taking” her. This depiction of sex was actually really trendy in the media not too long ago, so honestly the sex scenes for this “edgey couple” just exposes his age. That push-pull, yes/no, “he can’t resist me” wasn’t nearly as controversial as it is now. He was literally writing what used to be seen as hot. It obviously did not age well. 

And GRRM never meant for Jaime to be interpreted as a rapist.  

"If the show had retained some of Cersei's dialogue from the books, it might have left a somewhat different impression – but that dialogue was very much shaped by the circumstances of the books, delivered by a woman who is seeing her lover again for the first time after a long while apart during which she feared he was dead. I am not sure it would have worked with the new timeline. That's really all I can say on this issue. The scene was always intended to be disturbing … but I do regret if it has disturbed people for the wrong reasons." [x]

“Jaime thinks of her as a whore”

WHY IS THERE A THOUGHT POLICE? How is it abuse that he thinks a word with zero abusive action attached to it?? And like fuck LMAO Cersei is the one that goes off with the word “whore” quite often, in a misogynistic way. 

What’s even stupider is when Jaime thinks of her as a “whore,” he’s just reciting what Tyrion told him, word for word. The words came from Tyrion, so Tyrion’s words are playing out in his mind.

“Cersei is a lying whore, she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and probably Moon Boy for all I know. And I am the monster they all say I am. Yes, I killed your vile son.” - AFFC

Oh, how Tyrion was sniggering.… a lying whore … fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack … - AFFC

And he even removes the whore bit. 

“If so, we might have coaxed the truth from them.” … she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know … - AFFC

Ser Osmund Kettleblack paced beside them in his white enamel plate and white wool cloak. “… she been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know …” - AFFC

Jaime could feel his phantom fingers itching at the sight of him.… fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know … - AFFC

Strong and vigorous and handsome, Jaime thought.… she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know … - AFFC

He wanted to kiss her, carry her to her bedchamber, throw her on the bed … she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy … - AFFC

That only made her laugh. “We all have secrets, brother,” she replied. … she’s been fucking Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack and Moon Boy for all I know … - AFFC

Now there’s this time where he says, 

Jaime gave a shrug. “My apologies if I mistook you for something you’re not. My little brother has known a hundred whores, I’m sure, but I’ve only ever bedded one.” -ADWD

OMG EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING NOW IT’S TIME TO OFFICIALLY STAMP HIM AS A MISOGYNIST AND THIS AS MUTUAL ABUSE towards someone who isn’t even fucking there and for bitterly thinking of his cheating partner as a whore in a world that throws that word around like it’s candy at a parade. 

Since “whore” in Westeros is more loosely thrown around than it is in our world, the incredibly hurt and angry Jaime thinking she’s a whore for sleeping with multiple people behind his back is not that fucking wild. Do I think that's sexist? Yeah. Do I think it’s healthy? No. Do I think it’s a realistic response that a very hurt person would think, especially in a world where it’s a common term? Absolutely. 

“He dreams about hurting her though so lol he’s clearly violent against her”

(yes I’ve unfortunately seen this a lot)

Hey all... I have a confession to make... 

I dreamed about pushing a certain politician in front of a bus and bashing D&D’s teeth in. I also had a dream where I kicked my sister because she ate my last piece of cheesecake. I’m so sorry. Please lock me up and throw away the key until it’s time for me to be executed. 

Last night he dreamed he’d found her fucking Moon Boy. He’d killed the fool and smashed his sister’s teeth to splinters with his golden hand, just as Gregor Clegane had done to poor Pia. -AFFC

… he DREAMED it. 

PEOPLE ARE FUCKING USING THIS AS EVIDENCE FOR MUTUAL ABUSE BECAUSE HE DREAMED IT.  

You know partly why? Because they THINK he’s going to murder her or harm her, so they’re prematurely calling him abusive and removing literally all the context because... IT HASN’T HAPPENED. They’re essentially accusing a man of doing something before he even does it without even knowing FOR SURE if he’s even going to do it, USING THIS DREAM TO ACCUSE HIM LOL. 

god THIS FUCKING FANDOM I- 

DREAMS. ARE NOT. ABUSE

I’mcryingwhydoIhavetosaythat

Not only is it in a dream, but like, idk, why do you think he’s having those violent dreams? Did she do something to really hurt him so his pain is manifesting in his subconscious as violence? IDK just a wild guess! Maybe he specifically thought about smashing her teeth in, because just previously they were speaking about how Ser Gregor did the same thing to Pia. You know... kinda like me dreaming about angrily pushing my cheating ex down the stairs after I watched a murder mystery documentary where someone was pushed down a flight of stairs. (Oh but my ex was a man, so it’s just viewed as a dream). 

… the cringe of the thought police... 

Yeah. I’m done. I didn’t even dig up all of Cersei’s instances of abuse and this thing is like fucking 20 pages long. So even IF you view Jaime’s thoughts (!!!!) as abusive and IF you believe he was full on coercing or raping her, they still aren’t nearly MUTUALLY abusive, as in 50/50 abuse, and I’m just going to circle back around to what I said in the beginning about the main victims reacting in problematic ways. 

Anyway. I always start these as calm and cool and then end with all caps and a glass of wine to chill me out. All I have left to say about whatever that “mutually abusive” meta was is

[kendrixtermina]

On the great selfishness of forced “reconcilliation”or, what’s in it for me? (A Thinkpiece)

It’s very clear and easy to see what he would get out of it: A great relief to his ego, self-image and pride. A feeling of attaining his goal. He’d no longer have to explain to himself or anyone why his daughter isn’t speaking to him. He would be more comform with the image and values he wants to attain. He would have piece of mind. 

I’m even gonna be generous and grant that he would feel happy about the connection and being able to show his love, though I personally don’t buy it. 

But what do I get? 

A common retort here tends to be that I’d get “peace of mind”, and I grant that this can be true for a person who hates conflict and feels distres from disharmony, but I am really quite comfortable with some conflict. I don’t care to be friends with everyone. I get that not everyone will like me, and I’m fine with that. 

It’s actually rather arrogant for someone to inflate their own importance to the point that they think your mentsal wholeness, hapiness and peace of mind depends wholly on themselves - like all your other relationships, your job,  your hobbies and any self-improvement efforts you might be  doing don’t matter at all. It’s jarring that anyone would think claiming that would make you forgive them, especially if your initial complaint was that they are arrogant and treated you as an extension of themselves rather than a whole person. They’re claiming that they changed and in the same breath showing that they still think your life revolves around them, that they get to have the relationship by default without ever having to build it. 

And even such a person for whom forgiveness would bring piece of mind could just forgive the person in the quiet of their own heat for their own betterment without reestablishing relations. They wouldn’t be keeping to themselves because of a grudge, but simply because there is no good reason to connect. 

Do you need a reason?

Well, if you didn’t, then you would have to connect to every single person who has not given you reason to loathe them. That’s impossible. 

Consider that there are seven billion human beings on this planet. Most of them I will never meet. I couldn’t be friends with all of them even if I wanted. We all have limited time and energy. So, I have to pick some.

And to pick all the ones who just happen to be nearby seems like leaving a very important part of your life up to randomness. Your social contacts, after all, influence what values ideas you’re exposed to and what kind of support is available to you, and what experiences and energies you invite into your life.

It makes sense to first consider your family: They’re already nearby, you get to know them very well by virtue of living together, they’re biologically programmed to get attached to you, and they are likely to have things in common with you.

So if you know nothing else, it makes good sense to assume that a family member is a good candidate for a social contact. 

But there are also family members who are NOT good choices for company. I think most of us can agree to this as a principle at least for extreme cases like rape. 

So, it’s rather like this: A family member is a good candidate for social contact unless proven otherwise. 

If we were like god who can be everywhere at once and needs nothing and never gets tired, then maybe we could be friends with everyone who is not an irreedemable sinner, but I am not god. 

Any relationship costs time and energy. Yet, this can be very worthwhile, because human relationships also have great benefits.

For a relationship to be worth keeping up, the benefits have to equal or outweigh the work. 

In our christianity-influenced culture it is still considered shameful to admit that you “want” something out of a relationship, but really, all of us do - that’s why we start and maintain relationships. Not being aware of that makes us blind.

By ‘benefits’ I don’t just mean shallow things like sex, attention or status. If you are longing for deep, meaningful experiences, that’s your benefit. If you love to give and see others thrive, that’s your benefit. 

And I don’t mean that as a clever gotcha or as some cynical assertion that all relationships are inherently transactional, but as an useful mental framework to make oneself aware of the desired end result and check if one’s actions are in accordance with that.

If you want your children to trust you, you can’t judge and humiliate them when it’s convenient because that destroys the trust that keeps them listening to you & sustains the relationship. In the book “7 habits of extraordinaryly efficient people” this is called Production vs. Production Capacity or “The Goose and the Golden Egg”. 

And don’t get me wrong, nortmally, there are great benefits to keeping in touch with your parent as an adult: 

They typically have more ressources and are more advanced in their careers, so they can help you if you’re in trouble

They might be wiser, more experienced and more mature than you, so they can give you valuable advice

And lastly, you have all the benefits you’d get from any close social bond: Companionship and emotional support. They can listen to your woes, share you joy, you can tell them your thoughts, liven up your everyday life, and they can also introduce you to new ideas and viewpoints, and motivate you to go beyond your comfort zone. What’s more, being with a loved one can give you a feeling of meaning and community all on its own. Just seeing them on its own can make you feel happy, satisfied and meaningful. They don’t even need to do anything. They might be interesting and loveable and just all around enjoyable to be around and fill your heart with warm fondness.

People who have even 1 decent parent should be aware how lucky they are compared to ppl with no parents or two unforgiveable asshat parents. Every time you spend a good time with your parent, think of all the orphans, thrown-out gay kids etc. who don’t have that. Having a nice parent who supports you well into adulthood is a cause for great gratitude. 

But now let’s look at an abusive jerk parent. 

Could I get material support? No, because it comes with a proce tag of emotional distress. You will be guilt tripped even for the baby wipes that wiped your newborn butt! Super not worth it. If I wanted to pretend to like someone for money, I would just open an onlyFans, it’d be much less stressful 

Could I get valuable advice? Is he wise? No. He is a fool. All his opinions are copypasted from rightwing websites. H e was telling us to heard hydroxy last year. Is he mature? He has the maturity of a toddler My 20 year old sister is a hundred times more mature. 

Could I get emotional support? No, you have to walk on eggshells around him

Could i share my thoughts? No. he flies into a range if anyone voices any opinion that isn’t to his liking

Could we have fun together? No. He hates my lifestyle and values, and I loathe his. I think his politics are deeply immoral and he probably thinks the same about mine. We have zero interests in common. He only ever mocked my music and interests and tried to force me into sharing his so that I now associate them with bad memories. I would never be friends with such a person normally.  I would count to ten so that O don’t waste time having pointless arguments with them on youtube comments.  He says people like me are destroying Europe and that we are lazy degenerates. And this is assuming I believe that he didnt mean all the other outrageous things hes since made flimsy pretend apologies for.  

Could I relax around him? No. I’m rather efficiently pavlov trained to associate him with pain and humiliation. Speaking to him tires me alot. It would cost me much, much more effort than any other relationship, and much time I could be spending doing useful things or interacting with people that I don’t have bad blood with & that don’t trigger emotional flashbacks with their mere presence

Would I enjoy being near him? No. He has zero traits that I like, value or enjoy. I absolutely do not enjoy being near him. I might have suffered him to touch me as I child because I was told to by my mother whom I trusted, but it was always with fear. He’s also never shown much signs of being interested in me. He would always yell at me if I entered a room and cried and whined about what a burden and a punishment I was. That is, except for making me take courses so he could then brag about having a child that does this & that, ignoring my wishes completely. In effect he brushed my real instincts and personality aside to mold me into his fantasy of having a child prodigy, exerting extreme pressure, and then humiliated and abused me when I remained a perfectly ordinary, non-genius child. 

None of the normal reasons for having a social bond is present. There are only downsides for me: I have to shut up, bottle up my feelings, play nice, censure my thoughts etc. 

I could see the point of doing that for a boss who pays me money, or to get into a social group that gets me prestige and energy, or maybe to get along with the friends and family of spouse I love and enjoy. 

But what do I get here? 

I mean, I’m not a child. I get that you sometimes have to play nice to get paid or archieve a cause. But my private relationships in my private life should be pleasurable. It’s where I go to recover from the work where fakery maybe can’t be avoided.

So why, why in the name of god would I ever chose THIS person to spend time with out of all the seven billion humans on earth? Aside from murderesrs, rapists and evil politicians, he’s probably among the worst choices. 

Obviously this “reconcilliation” could only benefit him. There is no joy for me, no benefit. It’s purely letting myself be used for his ego like he has always done for the first 20 years of my life. If he was capable of providing the benefits normally associated with having a father, he would have done so already. 

Considering that the whole problem was that he used me to fill his needs instead of thinking about my needs like a parent is supposed to, it’s insuit to injury and salt in the wounds. 

And if I wanted such benefits, I would have much better odds of getting them by trying to find a mentor, tutor, life coach, therapist,  friend etc. who is an older male. 

So why would I believe that he is changed if in the next breath he makes such a profoundly, deeply selfish request? 

If anything it shows me that he still doesn’t have the capacity to consider things from my PoV and see me as an adult independent human with logic, feelings and will. 

This is not about not wanting to make the effort. No one makes an effort for effort’s sake; They do it because something worthwhile is at the other end. 

There is nothing for me to gain here, nothing at all. 

I see the point of making an effort to salvage a once good relationship that has gotten sour because of mistakes: The hope is that you can have that good relationship once again, or even a better, more evolved version of it. 

But here there was never any good to begin with, and any hypothetical good that come in the future is questionable and dubious from past experience.

If he come then and ask, “Then what is he supposed to do then?” that would just be proof of that same objectifying mindset, that he just need to throw some coins in and out pops a relationship.

You’re just going to have to live with the consequences of your actions, just as I do every day. 

Once upon a time when I was younger, I might have said “show real interest in me”, there’s people that know me that you can ask. Heck, I’ve got an internet presence. Nowadays, I do NOT want that. I’ve learned not to let him have any information or acess about me because I’ve seen time and time again that it will just be used as ammunition to clubber me. The benefit of the doubt is fucking gone. 

But I have always believed in free will & not putting people into fixed unchangeable categories like, say, “narcissist” that give themselves easily to easy juddgement and fundamental attribution & stigmatize mentally ill people. It’s much more sensible to label behavior. 

So in the name ofintellectual integrity, I’m going to try & name something that might lead me to reconsider. Not immediately agree, because that would presuppose that he’s entitled to it somehow. Just think about it. 

It’s really pretty simple: Actually change. 

When I visit my mother and don’t have to witnesses her getting yelled at, pressured and emotionally blackmailed over the phone, when my younger sisters tell me of all the great quality time theyare spending and how much he listens and cares about their feelings, when he behaves like he understands what he did, maybe then I’ll believe. 

But as of now it seems about as unlikely to me as a giant sucker on the backside of Pluto. I can’t prove 100% it isn’t there, but it seems unreasonable to live my life assuming it exists. 

99% sure isn’t the same as 100% sure, but both those things are very different from 0%. then again its a pretty common trope of far right rhetorics to act like every degree of uncertainty is the same

[monkeyspawnskydiamond]

Transcript of Interview

Q: What do you see as the origins of violence against women? Is it cultural? Is it biological?

I believe that the origins of violence against women are completely in systems of gender inequity. In systems of basically male supremacy and although many proponents of male supremacy would have us believe that this is always existed on the planet, that it's biologically endemic, that it's inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it, etc., that's not true at all. Patriarchy is a relatively new institution, the last five thousand years or so. And you can find a lot of evidence for this in archaeology, in myth, in legend, things that are discredited by contemporary modes of knowledge which have to be understood as patriarchal in and of themselves.

The emphasis on rationality of this kind of direct evidence that myth is seen as just a fable, something that never existed. For examine, in the very area here, New Mexico, the creator of all is spider grandmother who thought, spun, dream wove the world into being. And there was a whole different system, that Allen writes about very eloquently in her book, The Sacred Hoop, which she calls a gynecentric system, in which the emphasis is not on competition, power over, domination, but rather on equality, harmony, balance, tolerance for a wide diversity of life styles, the centrality of powerful women, being absolutely necessary for society to function well, not any kind of belief in corporal punishment of children, extremely low incidence of rape, no idea of an institution of prostitution or pornography because sex as sacred and not associated with any kind of negativity. So, these systems did exist on the planet everywhere, in Europe. When I was a child all I wanted to read was myth, and stories of goddesses or I knew that this betokened another kind of reality, that this one that we live in now is not permanent and it was not here always forever.

Q: What causes men to be violent against women? Does it boil down to an underlying inequality between men and women? Does this mean that the answer is equality between the sexes?

What causes men to be violent then is basically an enforcement. That if you have a system of oppression, one group is being subordinated, in this case we're talking about women, and in some way you can propagandize and brain wash the subordinated group into agreeing to this. Well, I really am more passive, I really am subordinate. You know, we're given those messages all the time through the mass media, through religion, in which we're told that women are premordally evil, etc. But obviously, that's not going to work completely, we're going to resist. And we're not going to buy into all that ideology so the second level of enforcement is violence, actual violence. So I see the whole gamut from sexual harassment on the streets, in the office, through rape, through battery, through incest, through sexual murder, through a level of enforcement, to keep women in our place, to tell us that we can't speak out against atrocities and to serve as a lesson to all of the women. This is what will happen to you. You are prey in this culture, you are an object, you be obedient or you're off basically, so I see that violence serves an absolute function. It's not a deviation, it's not a monster from Mars. We have to look at it as absolutely functional to keeping the status quo going, to keeping the system of male supremacy working.

Q: You've said abusive men aren't abnormal or deviant, but the norm. Can you explain? What about rape in the home? You've made an interesting comment that these behaviors are not taboo, that it's talking about them which is taboo.

In that violence, it's not the norm in that everyone does it. It's just I think that there's some deception going on about it that we don't really want incest to happen. There's really an incest taboo. According to a 1992 government finance study, 36 percent of all rapes of women in this country are rapes by a family member. There's some deception going on. What is really taboo is speaking out about that, saying that the nuclear family is not really this haven of comfort and warmth, but that really according to the FBI women are nine times safer on the street than they are in the family. That's where you're most likely to be beaten, most likely to be raped. Eleven percent of all rapes take place of girls under the age, I mean, excuse me, 67 percent of all rapes are under the age of 18. About 29 percent of the girls under the age of 11 -- these are taking place in the home. Eleven percent of all rapes are rapes by a father or step-father. People who talk about family values, it's really a code word for a racist, sexist enforcement of family values, gender inequality, the idea that women and children are the property of the father. These are the values. It's really about control.

Q: What about the theory that violence is an inherent part of male biology?

I think the real stress on biological essentialism right now saying that men are born this way, women are born this way and we also see it in term of racism. For example, when something like the Bell curve, saying that whites or Africans are necessarily more, less intelligent, whites a little bit more so, the Japanese the highest. They put that in to make them not look like white racists. But, you know, all this kind of stuff is a backlash to thirty years of activism saying the culture is responsible for these kind of differences. That even I would argue that what we understand as biology is filtered through our cultural preconceptions. For example, think of the scenario that we all see, whether it be in a movie like "Look Whose Talking" or just what we've understood through education, of when a woman gets pregnant. The sperm is seen as this kind of heroic warrior, traveling up through this dangerous territory to penetrate and conquet the egg. We see that all the time. Really, why don't we look at that as the egg as this magnificent huge dominant fascinating force that draws the sperm to her, etc. We understand biology through cultural lenses. And what is, what was biology in the 19th century is now understood as scientific racism. The sciences of, for example, measuring skulls to prove that women of all races or Africans or Native Americans had smaller skulls and therefore lesser intellectual capacity. I would say that what's happening right now in all this emphasis on men are innately more violent and women are innately more passive and stuff like that is scientific sexism, nothing more.

Q: What sort of role has religion played? Does religion teach that men are superior to women, that female sexuality is linked to evil?

Religion is one of the most important sources of violence against, of the ideology for violence against women. It first gives us this idea of sex negativity. That sex in which women are really always implicated as the sex, we are the sexual ones. Be we mothers or prostitutes or temptresses or whatever. The whole story of Adam and Eve, that Eve was the one responsible.

Religion is absolutely fundamental in perpetrating violence against women. It is one of the key ways to communicate the ideology of male supremacy. First of all, God is male. There is no female principle. It was the people who demanded that Mary even in the Christian religion be given a place of honor. The cathedrals in Europe were built to her to recognize people's understanding that there is something feminine about the divine as well. But patriarchal religions would have us believe that all divinity is male and only male. And that coupled with the idea that female sexuality in women is evil, as for example in the Garden of Eden myth and that it is up to men to dominate both women and the earth, give us a script for all kinds of violence against women, which, of course, I connect up with violence against the earth in that the earth and women are seen as passive, as submissive, as out of control and thereby need to be controlled, dominated, etc. God tells Eve, "This is your husband, Adam, you will submit to him, he will lord it over you and basically you'll love it.” Yeah, right. That's the Bible.

So, religion often promotes an ideology of male supremacy, which as I said I see as the root of violence against women. We also get this whole idea of sex negativity. That sexuality is sinful, that the body is shameful. Then of course women are the sex, so it is our bodies that are seen as somehow contaminated, that we are seen as somehow kind of filthy. And so therefore you're given the choice to be this Madonna, this absolutely pure virgin mother or whatever or the whore, the one who epitomizes sex. These are of course both aspects of one persona. So it seems to me that therefore, it's also Christianity that even though, for example, fundamentalist Christianity rails against pornography that pornography is really Christianity's evil twin, to use soap opera jargon, that it's really the same thing. That both of them depend upon women and the idea of sex negativity, that the body and sexuality is somehow obscene, filthy and dirty. You don't have pornography without that, you don't have Christianity without that. On the submission of women, on a rather deadness, a kind of loss of the sacred involving sexuality that I see in both, in Christianity, the only kind of sex you can possibly have and then you're not supposed to enjoy it too much except as marital heterosexual procreative sex. No idea of ecstasy, of communing with the Universe, in any kind of sacred sexuality which characterizes what are seen as pagan cultures. So, pornography is of course the off-shoot of this terrible negativity, of sex as really just objectification, filthy, obscene, behavior.

Q: Doesn't this also lead to eroticizing the forbidden?

Okay, so what I see as happening in the Garden of Eden Myth is that sex supposedly was the sin that Adam and Eve committed. So then there's this injunction like that's considered to be the forbidden fruit. So we have this whole notion of the forbidden as being something that is also extremely desirable. And it seems to me that what patriarchal culture is about is about eroticizing the forbidden and therefore sanctioning taboo violation, making taboo violation itself an act of sex. An act that someone's supposed to get off on in a way which I see therefore as feeding, for example, incest. It's the forbidden that actually becomes more appealing, it's the violation of innocence. You're really acting out the culture's dicta. I mean, think of "Star Trek," to boldly go where no man has gone before. So there is no limit. No taboo, we just sort of march in uninvited and I think that's an injunction that is tied to this idea of the taboo. That rules are made really to be broken. It's thrilling to march in without invitation, justifying everything from incest to manifest destiny to all kinds of cultural imperialism.

Q: And so we have incest as an ultimate taboo?

Well, as I talk about incest in the nuclear family, obviously incest is not a real taboo. It's committed at an alarming rate. And that's just what is reported. We all know that these kinds of crimes are grievously unreported because of ideas of shame, because of pushing the memories so far back you don't have ready access to them, etc. So, incest in the nuclear family or child sexual abuse by priests, has been hushed up forever. You know, it's not really taboo. Everybody knows it's going on. But the taboo of silence is breaking up. That's what the feminist movement has been about. Breaking that conspiracy of silence: be it against child sexual abuse, wife beating, etc.

Think of what happened to Sinead O'Connor when she was on "Saturday Night Live." That time, I think it was in 1992, when she ripped up a picture of Pope John Paul II. And she was making a political statement. She was protesting the church's complicity in covering up incidences of child sexual abuse by the priesthood. She was excoriated for that in the press and the very next week Joe Peshi comes on and says, "I'm Italian and thank God it's Columbus Day.” And then goes into saying how he wants to smack her around and the crowd is roaring its approval of him smacking her around. So clearly here we see what I'm talking about -- about violence against women as enforcement of women staying in their place. Not speaking out and naming the atrocity, that's the taboo, not committing it. And I find it very interesting that when feminists are always accused of censorship, here's a real incident of censorship, in that when Saturday Night Live repeats these episodes, they censor Sinead O'Connor. They do not censor Joe Peshi advocating battery as a solution to women speaking out against abuses.

Q: What of the inherent differences between the sexes? Doesn't it all boil down to gender difference? Can we discuss these things without discussing gender differences?

I think absolutely we have these ideas that there are these genders, masculinity and feminity and that masculinity is something that all beings with certain kind of hormones and male genitalia have and there's this femininity. I think that differences between men and women, this whole creation of the opposite sex is a way to create male supremacy. You create difference and then you repress one-half of it and you create enmity, you create this kind of opposition. So, I really look at and then everybody says it's nature and it's innate. But why do we have so many cultural, so much cultural brainwashing to make it happen. Little boys, what you wear, how people can speak to you. You know the whole masculine or feminine conditioning which begins right at birth if not before. How you know now that everybody's finding out the sex of their child and probably even treating it differently in the womb when it's a fetus. But okay, what were we going on? I'm thinking, okay, the cultural construction of masculinity.

It seems to me that masculinity in all of the culturally approved avocations of masculinity is somehow associated with force and violence. That men are suppose to be identified by their bodily strength and that almost all the male initiation rights, all the whole culture of masculinity, the heros that we see be it Indiana Jones or Rambo or John Wayne or Charles Bronson, or whomever, they're all predicated on some kind of violent action. Therefore we understand that to be a man and that being a man, you're not born a man, you become a man according to how the culture says what a man is. The culture makes you into a creature who is ruled by a commitment to violence and that male heroes and male villains, be they cops, be they criminals, they're all bonded by their commitment to violence. And so I think what we really need to do is deconstruct masculinity, destroy notions of cultural masculinity and femininity. I would be much more in favor of a world in which we didn't see ourselves as opposite sexes but as existing on a continuum in which the feminine within men as well as within women was honored. And there would be women who be more traditionally masculine even than some men, etc. Understand that we're on a co-continuum, we have much more in common than we have separating us.

Q: What do you think of Robert Bly and his theories?

Robert Bly. I mean, I find him interesting in that I basically like his response of going back to the old tradition, but my liking of it stops about there. He goes back to an extremely sexist fairy tale in which the guy becomes a hero by basically winning in war and then capturing as his prize a princess. I mean this is absolute sexism. Violence initiation, and then you know the princess as object trophy prize. So, the women is a sex object. I think what he preaches basically is that women are inadequate. That men need to find themselves in a separatist community with other men. And I find historically that men having separatist communities, and even right now culturally male fraternities, male sports, etc. These are the sites of some of the worst violence against women. And that's where I think men are suppose to, the way in which one becomes a man in this culture is by rooting out the feminine within the self. By denying the mother, which Robert Bly is all about. Bonding with the father and rooting out all traces of the feminine within the self which he says you can only do in all male communities. That's completely the patriarchal root to manhood. And women are inadequate for this. What Sheri Hite's research shows is that boys who grow up in households run by single women are far more respectful to women, show lower incidence of violence, etc. So you know, I think that's absolute nonsense that women can't really create men. So what my problem with Bly is that I think he's profoundly misogynist. Women are again a lesser contaminating presence and need to be conquered or overcome in order to actualize manhood. That's again the patriarchal script.

Q: Hasn't violence against women been legally sanctioned for centuries?

It's been different throughout the history of patriarchal culture. For example, we talked about patriarchal religion in the early modern period, around the same time as the voyages to the new world, beginning with the use of Africans in slavery, you had the European and the whole enlightenment, the whole ascendence of rationality. You had the burning of women as witches, throughout early modern Europe, and some men. Probably anywhere from 300 thousand to a million. And this was completely legitimated by both church and state. So violence against women there was the law. You had to do it, it was absolutely approved.

Now a'days, we live in this time of that kind of pseudo taboo I was talking about. It's supposed to be taboo but we all know that on "General Hospital" when Luke raped Laura. It makes it glamorous, it eroticizes that kind of violence against women and it makes it appear consensual. As if women seek this out and want it. It makes it extremely normal as well. Let me just think of a few examples. I mean, we all know the notorious "General Hospital" where Luke raped Laura and then later married her, so it made it seem as though rape was some kind of courtship ritual (laughter). I mean Calvin Kline sells this obsession and gives us these very erotic images of a man, of a naked man carrying a naked woman over his shoulders.

It's underscoring both male dominance but also the idea that love is somehow synonymous with obsession. I mean that's what leads to four women in this country every day being killed by men who say they love them (chuckle) but most women in the country who are killed are killed by men who say they love them. That's really obsession and we should never confuse the two, obsession and feeling that the woman is somehow your property. But we're taught this all the time. And "Pretty Woman" considered a light-hearted flick and Richard Gere decides that he wants to marry Julia Roberts after he realizes that marriage is really ownership, he's not just renting her as a prostitute any more. He can actually own her. Remember the scene where he looks at the jewelry and says, "Oh, I don't have to just rent this, I can own it.” And he's talking about her too. So, I think in all kinds of ways it's made to seem either very normative, very happy and beneficial, or very erotic, a very heroic, be it these constructions of masculinity as violent enforcer, such as Rambo, etc.

Q: So, does the media contribute to these notions or merely reflect them?

Well, I think it's a dialogic process. The media both sells us what we want but also decides and conditions us to want what we want. So it's a two-way street. It's always going back and forth. And it's not just sort of an injection, but media puts these things in our heads. But it shapes what we want as well as then satisfying that want.

We all react differently to those messages. That's a real common theme in contemporary cultural studies, that people can negotiate meanings and take something out of it that somebody else didn't get out. For example, and you'll see that argument used to justify pornography all the time. Well, I read pornography and I haven't raped anyone, etc. etc. But what we need to do is take collective responsibility that, for example, the most common sexual activity of serial murders according to the justice department is using pornography. And that even if an individual can look at a particular type of pornography and not cultivate a desire to go out and sexually murder, we have to take responsibility for that a significant portion of the population does use this material to feed those fantasies and to provide a script for carrying out that kind of behavior. And so it's not a question, I think that a capitalist consumer culture always emphasizes, we have this kind of liberal emphasis on individual rights, my rights, my rights, my rights. How about cultural responsibility. Again I think that's a feature of a gynesophical or gynecentric system. That we really do have to look for a common good in some way and take some responsibility. Understand, set some limits. And again, we live in a culture in which limits are there only to be transgressed.

Q: Is the solution censorship?

I would veer away from censorship. That's why I like the law that Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnin drafted that would make it that a woman or anyone injured by pornography could sue in civil court. So I would never give the police power to seize materials and to prohibit because I think that we could go into the kind of society that Margaret Atwood describes in the Hand Maid's Tale in which you have what I talked about as the right wing side of the women oppressive agenda that sort of the Christian woman as object, woman as reproductive breeder and maybe whore on the side and that's it. Right, that kind of circumscription of women's freedom. But I don't want the purely pornographic libertarian you know, all the women getting raped and incested that we have right now either. So, we're allowed to swing back and forth between modes but never to get beyond them. I'd like to get beyond that. So no, I'm not in favor of censorship.

I'm in favor of one kind of collective responsibility, maybe suing in civil court, there's some legal remedies that have been proposed but I'd never give the police power to seize materials. That would be immediately abused. What I think we need is to really create an alternative consciousness and to create change in the culture through what I call in psychic activism, through generating alternative forms of eroticism, alternative forms of erotica, alternative myths, narratives, symbols, stories. And I think what I would call upon women to do is to reverse the kind of sex negativism. Part of our oppression has been to tell us that we're either these pornographic whores or we're completely asexual. To demand and exercise our sexual autonomy, to become what I think of as bawdy women. You know, were really to speak. I mean we're not really suppose to express our sexual desires outside of pornography. Its seen as some how very lacking in taste, a very unlady like or whatever. I think whenever we criticize pornography we have to do it in a bawdy way to affirm sexuality, to reverse the kind of sex negativism of that strain of patriarchy of the Christian side. To be vulgar in the sense of like bawdy, earthy, in touch with our sexuality. And therefore, I think we break those false opposites of sex negativism or pornography. And move into a new paradigm.

Q: There's some controversy as to whether rape is a crime of violence or a crime of sexuality? How are violence and sex intertwined?

I think it's really specious to separate violence and sexuality. I would disagree with some of the early feminists who you know we all change our minds as the theory gets worked out, who would say rape is a crime of violence, not a crime of sex. Because unfortunately in this culture, sex is completely interfused with violence, with notions of dominance and subordination. As I said, I believe our gender roles are constructed so we have these two constructed genders, masculine and feminine that are defined by one being powerful and one being powerless. And so therefore, powerlessness and power themselves become eroticized. And in that violence becomes eroticized. Domination, subordination become eroticized so that whether you know somebody is actually exerting dominance in a sexually explicit way as in pornography or doing it in a mainstream way, for example. That's seen as somehow sexual. Because the domination itself, the violation itself has become sexual according to this gender hierarchy system.

I realize that there are some biologists that would say that violence is just a means men use to get sex as if sex were just this sort of innate thing that we're all born knowing what it is and wanting. Rather I see sex as a culturally constructed in the way our sexuality is expressed. For example, the idea that intercourse between a man and a woman is sex. Right? Preferably with him on top penetrating and thrusting and her lying still. Right? I mean that's a cultural notion and one induced by male supremacy. So this sex that he's getting is really a model to justify, that he's saying is innate, is a model to justify a very oppressive male dominant form of sexuality that is completely culturally conditioned. Rape is sexual, yes in that force and domination of women has been sexualized. That's how it's both violent and sexual at the same time. We need to recognize how they work in tandem.

Also, I mean, some theorists who I would see as whether consciously or not in complicity would rape would say, "Well, it's just that there's this very attractive woman and rape is the only way I can get her or something like that,” that this justifies. But that in no way speaks to the reality of rape in which extremely old women who are seen in this country or in this culture again in a patriarchal culture as completely undesirable are raped, in which little babies are raped, in which it's just a question of which woman is most vulnerable at a particular time, is most easy to be preyed upon. That theory doesn't jive at all with the way that rape is actually promoted. It's based on there's an available victim that I can intimidate and conquer at this particular point.

Q: What do you think about developing alternate notions of eroticism?

Anything that I talk about with pornography, I stress the needs of developing an alternative notions of sexuality alternative notions of erotica. I think we have to have a counter culture. I know Newt Gingrich has declared war on the counter culture. But that's because I think that's the reason he does it, I think is because that's where the most powerful force is for change. If we change cultural attitudes, behaviors, desires, I mean, all these things are culturally constructed to begin with. Male dominance is a cultural construct. It can be deconstructed and changed and we do that through every day acts, through subversions, as a title of a book by a woman I don't know but it's a good title, Every Day Acts in Small Subversions. That we don't believe them that it's inevitable. And that power is only exercised from the top to the bottom. That we recognize that creation is ongoing every day.

There's a social construction of reality that we participate in and that we can become the creators of an emerging alternative reality. It's happening now. Thirty years ago you would go to medical journals and find no references to wife beating. Not its they're trying to put it back they're trying to say incest is all false memory, etc. They can't completely put it back in the box, we have broken that conspiracy of silence and we're not going to shut up. And not only do we have to tell the truth about the abuses that are heaped on us, but we have to articulate a new emerging consciousness in reality and practice of sexuality that is not based upon that sex negative norm of what the heterosexual monogamous procreative couple, etc. We have to encourage sexual experimentation, the wiring and production of erotic materials, the infusion of the resacrilization of sexuality. Understanding that is why I really hate porography because it teaches us that the life force can be commodified, packaged and sold.

There has been a division in the feminist movement between feminists who are opposed to pornography and feminists who say we shouldn't concentrate on that because it's antisexual. But I see and I think they have a point but I think we need a medium ground here and I understand that pornography is anti-sexual, its about destroying packaging containing exploiting, abusing the life force. Pornography teaches us that the life force can be consumed, used and abused. Then women, children can be consumed, used, abused, the planet can be consumed, used and abused, etc. I see pornography as paradigmatic of other kind of abuses that are taking on. So I think some of the solutions would be to treat, to teach notions of respect for other life forms whether they are human or not, to understand that if you don't treat the life force with respect, understand that you cannot take without giving back, that you have to respect limits, boundaries. The life force will strike back at you. We're always told that there's no limits, that we can boldly go where no man has gone before, a dictum that I see justifying both incest and manifest destiny. I might have said that already.

Q: So how do we begin to change things? How do you inculcate a sense of respect for all life?

This notion, celebrated on "Star Trek," that we can boldly go where no man has gone before, recognizing that's a dictum that justifies everything from incest to manifest destiny, and that what we really need to understand is that we can't go everywhere, that we need to expect an invitation, to understand that you can't take something without giving back in equal measure. That we need to respect, not only other human beings, but all creatures in the land, the land, I would say herself. And then if we don't, the life force will strike back. We talk about with such arrogance that humans can save the planet or not. I mean, you know, we'll only destroy ourselves if we go on in this way. I see all this violence against women as very apocalyptic in some way. I mean it is about destroying and contaminating the future and the life force itself and it's folly. An absolute folly!

Some people say that for things to change the punishment for crimes against women must be severe. What do you think?

Oh, punishment. I have to say in terms of punishment, I mean yes, I think that some abusers are so far gone they're just going to keep doing it and they have to be kept away from the rest of the population. While I certainly agree that we have to say this is not allowable, you know clearly many rapists get off, I mean, it's not a highly prosecuted and convicted crime rate, etc. Batterers continue to do this, people see it as just a lover's quarrel. We do have to change cultural attitudes about that. I'm not in favor of any kind of police state idea of avenge, punish, torture, etc. I'm much more in favor of a model that if somebody cannot change, if somebody is really a danger they should be banished in some kind of segregated way. They have to be, and all modes should be put toward prevention. I mean, I just see sadomasochism and even like punishment itself has become so sexualized under the parent of patriarchal pornographic role view that I'm seeing, that I think we need to really break with all those kind of attitudes.

Q: So how do we break with all those attitudes?

Remember I talked before about grandmother spider creating the world through telling stories, story-telling is what creates consciousness and through consciousness reality is created. And, so the media is our contemporary story teller, and it's in a way, very much like religion. It gives us parables, it gives us values to live by, it gives us role models to emulate, saints or whatever. If you will, new deities almost whom we worship, as in celebrities. So the media has to be recognized as the cultural story teller and understand that it is there to enforce the status quo. We can resist it occasionally. For example, in horror films are where you'll see the most vehement critique of family values. I mean, families are always insane and the father's always out to kill everybody in families, if you think about it, he's like the step father.

I think some people talk about teaching media literacy and I would completely agree with that, that we need to be able to critique the advertising , recognize when there's pictures of little girls posed like Marilyn Monroe when they're four years old. Recognize that images of rape in the ads selling us jeans or something like that so we are consciously aware of them, and I think they lose some of their power over us. But I think on the other hand, we have to get beyond that because these images are meant to appeal like cocoa, he says, they're going to the back of your mind, to your subconscious and we are programmed by our culture to respond to certain things, to react in certain ways and what we as activists have to do is reprogram, recondition, create, and that is through generating what I talked about before, these alternative myth narrative. If we give people an alternative erotica which I see in some women's communities, a lot of lesbian erotica. There's something like Four Fat Dikes, and it's this movie in which women, fat lesbians, who are despised by this culture, right, who are seen as everything a woman should not be, celebrate their bodies and their sexuality. That to me is fabulous and it is also erotic. And it is about celebrating the life force. So those are the direction I think we need to move in as well.

Q: Tell us about your book, The Age of Sex Crime.

The Age of Sex Crime is my first book in which I analyze the phenomena of how serial sex killers have become hero figures in this culture, which goes back to my argument that these are not deviants, these are not monsters from nowhere, they're actually performing a cultural function in enforcing misogyny in showing that women are prey, etc. and acting out masculinity in totally dominating the feminine. So that's the base, and what I mean by that is that the characteristic act of the serial sex killer like Jack the Ripper, sort of the founding father of the movement was the mutilation of a woman's body. And leaving her out for display and it seems to me that the mutilation, particularly of the sex organs is a paradigmatic, a model for the other kinds of abuses that are going on. Be it splitting the atom, be it raising an entire old growth forest or whatever, that kind of again destruction focused on the life force, the generator.

I think particularly in native American philosophy, we're taught that you can only go so far with that before retaliation sets in, that the life force will not let you, the life force does strike back. So do women. Can I say something about "Thelma and Louise?" Why was that movie hated so much? It was one movie in which women bonded, and in which women fought back. They killed one man, who had initiated the violence. But it was seen as this terribly violent movie. And I think that shows about the power of the kind of narratives that I'm talking about. The power to just as Jack the Ripper has become legend, we hear that "Thelma and Louise" live forever on the T-shirts or the bumper stickers. So we've projected into that legendary realm and are able to fight at that level too.

Q: Not all men obviously are violent and they all grow up in the same culture. So, why do you think some men are violent?

As to why individual men are violent, there isn't just one cause. I mean patriarchal science would tell us there's cause and effect and you have to be able to scientifically study it and link it, well experiment on all these college students and see if after watching pornography they'll go rape or something. That's nonsense. That's not how it works. Listen to the anecdotal stories of narratives of people who have lived through violence and abuse and there's always different kinds of reasons. I mean, we can all watch a beer commercial and some of us will go out and drink beer and some of us will even become alcoholics, so there's complex reasons - what happened in the boy's childhood, how much violence he was exposed to. How susceptible he was to images from the media, how strong an influence his mother was in his life, etc. and I mean usually the influence of the mother is a good one generating respect for women as opposed to what movies like Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock's patriarchal narratives, would have us believe. Does that answer it well enough?

What of the media? How does its portrayal of women reinforce certain notions,particularly in advertising?

We see these kinds of advertisements everywhere. I mentioned Calvin Cline's Obsession. There are adds for jeans in which women are shown licking the floor. That's a common technique in domestic violence, not just hitting the woman, but humiliating her. Either with words or through making her perform demeaning acts, etc. Lots of images of couples seeming to tussle and the woman on high heels ready to topple over which we're told again. It normalizes violence, it makes it seem as just a love spat, etc. What other ones did I talk about? Movies? Movies, even if you go back. "Gone with the Wind” is of course classic in that we do see a scene of marital rape and the woman is made to smile as if seeming to enjoy it. Now, hopefully race, consciousness of racist oppression has made us realize that the slaves weren't really enjoying life on the plantation as "Gone with the Wind” shows. I think we should also recognize that Scarlet would not in actuality have enjoyed being raped.

Another movie I love to hate (and I found profoundly distressing because so many children see it and see it uncritically), it's Disney, it's "Beauty and the Beast." If you look at that movie, a young girl, no mother, there's never any mothers in these movies. She lives alone with her father, she ends up getting taken prisoner by the beast. She's literally a prisoner, all the household help conspire to hide the fact of how violent he is and then he actually turns violent on her, breaking furniture, threatening her, a scene of absolute domestic abuse, but we're told that she just loves him enough, he can change and the beast will turn into a prince. That is an extremely dangerous myth to give young girls. That if you just love a man enough you can change him. It also says that it's men's nature. They're beastly. The bestial nature. Not a cultural construction that makes men violent towards women. So I think the movie is deceptive on all these counts but also in particularly in telling the young girl, if she just loves the beast enough, he'll turn into the prince and that keeps a lot of women waiting around, hoping, hoping he'll change. And he keeps telling her that.

We see this also graphically in an adult movie, "Internal Affairs,” in which the character played by Andy Garcia, and both these movies are very racist. The beast when he turns into the prince changes from being bestial into being like Apollo or something like that. This blonde god and the darkness and the bestial is associated with I think people of color very graphically. Andy Garcia in "Internal Affairs” beats his wife in public. And then, he breaks into Spanish right after beating her in public which makes it seem as if you know this hot Latino kind of thing. So again, it's somehow associated with race here, not with just male supremacy and privilege. And then he goes home the next day and she fights back. She's angry at him for beating her in public and he tells her he's jealous of her and he's seen her with another man and he's saying....He goes and spends the night drinking and with women of color are whores, so again the racism and I mean whores, oh, I'll have to start again. He beats his wife in public and she of course is a blonde, white trophy kind of desirable woman in a racist-sexist culture. He goes and then spends the night with the so-called despised women, women of color who are then whores. He then goes home the next day and confronts her and starts accusing her of sleeping with other men, etc. and tells her if you ever do that I'll kill you, I'll kill you!. At this point they fall to the floor and make passionate love while he keeps reminding her - I'll kill you, I'll kill you. This is not foreplay, these are not words of endearment. When women hear that they should get out and not be told by the movies that this is a prelude to the greatest sex you're ever going to have.

Q: What about portrayals of women in music videos and elsewhere?

Guns and Roses in, for example, Axl Rose has been accused by two of his former wives and/or girl friends of beating them. And he shows women being beaten and murdered by himself, by him in many of his videos including "Don't Cry,” "November Rains,” etc. So, very clearly there's this idea that it's completely normal and acceptable for a heroic figure like Axl Rose to beat women. What else on MTV? I know because I've done some of these.

Q: It goes all the way back to Shakespeare. Think of "Othello."

I've never read "Othello," so I can't tell. Again, you know you're getting into this where it's so much easier for a racist culture to select out men of color and say they're the ones who are doing this. They're the rapists, they're the beasts, etc. And I'm saying that men of color don't abuse women, they do. I'm just saying they're given disproportionate attention in a racist media. And its all, they're scapegoated. It's all put on. They're the ones who are doing it. And then women we're told, we're sex objects, white women particularly young, blonde white women are said to be the trophy objects, the objects to claim and of course, the most common reason men give for abusing and/or killing women is the jealousy and the idea that if I can't have her, no one can. She's my property. There's a T-shirt that's actually sold that says, "If you love something, set it free, and if it doesn't come back, gun it down and kill it." Yeah, which I see as like the mantra for the abusive generally femicidal man.

But think how often in the media that when we're taught that when a man begins to show jealousy, that's when he's in love, no that's when he's obsessed and use you as property. And you should get the hell out. But you know "Pretty Woman,” that's one where the minute Richard Gear begins showing jealousy, the audience says, Oh good, he loves her. You know, that kind of thing and that's again one way we're seduced to these attitudes that condone, legitimize and endorse in this case wife beating.

Q: How does the mass media make women sex objects?

Women being sex objects and what we mean by that is that we're reduced to things. Property, objects to consume, to use, to abuse, to own. Which is related obviously to the issue of jealousy. But if you look at the mass media you'll see an endless supply of women being portrayed as what I call fem-bots, these kind of sex robots. For example, there's a very famous, not famous, it's famous on college campuses because it shows, it's up so much in the men's dorms. It's an ad for a motorcycle that just shows a woman's body fused into the motorcycle. And her rump is where the man sits and drives her. So woman as the object that you can own and use at your pleasure, at your will, that image says it but all the kind of rituals in which women are -- the cheese cake things. The cultural rituals or the images that show us as objects, that we are there to be looked at, that we are there. Let me think of some other images I have that show this kind of objectification going on. But see when I'm saying that, I can give you some images of women as that motorcycle image -- the woman as yeah, that we are therefore, we're not recognized as significant human beings. We are rendered soulless when actually it's the ones who are soulless who are trying to portray women as like these kind of simple dolls, objects, puppets, and it's very curious. Ted Bundy, and many people think that he wasn't, that he was just copying this idea that pornography made him do it the last minute. He talked about that since he was caught in 1979 how pornography, not just pornography but Coppertone ads in which women were just shown as display items, were used, you know, draped on cars, that he became identified with the car. That women were literally sex objects to them. He says he never talked about the women as she but as the object, the puppet, the doll.

Q: Can you think of responsible portrayals of women?

"Thelma and Louise" Let's see. It's harder to come up with responsible portrayals of women I think that we can certainly find some. I think Allison Anders film, "Gas, Food and Lodging" is a very complex, it's a female initiation story. It's a female coming of age story. There's a movie called "Desert Bloom,” that's again interesting. I think "Thelma and Louise” is genuine feminist art. "Daughter's of the Dust” by Julie Desh which is, she the first African-American female filmmaker to make a feature film. You know which shows the combined racism and sexism in the system that thus far there have been, she was the first just 19, just three years ago I believe. Ah, the responsible portrayals of women.

Roseann. I think Roseann is marvelous. I mean, you know obviously I'm going to quibble sometimes, but Roseann proclaims her autonomy, her power, her sexuality. The show deals with complex issues. I love it.

I'm going to surprise you with this, but I think that sometimes in soap operas, because they are pitched toward a women audience, that you will find, for example, on the "Young and the Restless,” more responsible treatments of date rape, battery. For example, in movies like "Sleeping With the Enemy,” we see a woman stranded. She's being beaten by her husband and she has nowhere to go. She's completely on her own. There is no social system to support her. On the "Young and the Restless” there are friends who intervene. She goes to a battered woman's shelter and talks about her problem. They all give her the support to leave her husband. So that I consider that to be a genuine feminist portrayal. And another instance of a treatment of a date rape on the "Young and the Restless,” the sexual harassment, excuse me, an episode of examining sexual harassment on the "Young and the Restless,” which again has a lot of problems. I'm not portraying it as pure feminist intentionality or anything like that, but there was a very interesting treatment of sexual harassment in which the male lawyer harassing the younger female lawyer at the end tells her, "You know, just between me and you, you really wanted it, you really desired it. And you know you secretly were yearning for it.” She faces him down and says "Absolutely not. You were trying to use your power to dominate me. You get off on power. I don't get off on powerlessness.” something to that effect. I'm not quoting her exactly. Again, these kind of shining feminist moments on soap operas. Which is, of course, seen as a degraded women's kind of form of amusement.

[earlgraytay]

if you have the time, could you explain what you mean by JKR's heroes being British feminists in the 60s makes it not surprising she's a TERF? I don't know anything about that and would be interested to learn more, and you're always a good explainer

so I’m not like super informed about this, I actively avoid rad//fems and have read, like, one book by dw//orkin.

but uh from what I understand:

- Western 50s-60s feminists were dealing with a much more repressive and sexist society than the one we’ve got now. They tended to adopt a philosophy of “men bad, women good”, because they were dealing with a world where, in a lot of places, women were still basically chattel. There were still a lot of places where women were legally not allowed to own property, for example.

“Men inherently oppress women” looks much more true when a woman’s only ways to support herself are “marriage” or “illegal sex work”. Or when a woman can only get a divorce by claiming adultery, even if her husband is hitting her. Or... well, you get the idea.

- When most cis feminists in the 60s and 70s became aware of trans women, they tended to continue to apply this same framework to them. A lot of trans women back then still called themselves crossdressers, after all, and had to stay in guymode most of the time for their own safety. This was bad and wrong, don’t get me wrong, but it’s what the feminists did.

- The rad//fems we know and icily tolerate today get most of their philosophy from these feminists. They are still working off a paradigm that says men inherently oppress women. This is blatantly untrue now. we do not have nearly as much legally enforced sexism in most western countries. but they’ve continued to believe this, because they personally benefit from it.

-   For reasons I don’t entirely understand, British feminists are way, way, way more likely to be TE//RFs than American feminists. You can see anglicisms all over the place in TE//RF rhetoric. for instance, TE//RFs often use the phrase “not my Nigel!” to refer to the way that many women will say “my husband is a good man, he’s not oppressive or scummy”. “Nigel” is a very very uncommon name in the US, but it’s still pretty common in the UK.

- So yeah, AFAIK, most of the really prominent TE//RFs are British, and many second wave feminists - IE, feminists who grew up in the 60s- are TE//RFs.

- J//KR has always, always, always been a feminist. It’s one of the causes that’s nearest and dearest to her heart- she donates a lot of money to feminist orgs. furthermore, she’s always thought of herself as being a bit of an activist- she’s outright said Hermione’s whole SPEW thing was based on herself when she was younger.

- the combination of these things, and the fact that J//KR survived an abusive ex-husband, means that... if anyone was primed to think TE//RF rhetoric is reasonable, it’s her. she got radicalized by the internet, just like a lot of other people have, and now she’s being... flagrantly evil. :T

maybe I’m just making excuses for someone who was one of my childhood heroes... but like... yeah. I’m not surprised that this happened. just deeply, deeply, disappointed.

[janiedean]

Isn't it funny how the whole "stop caring about those evuhl men in wigs and start caring for real wombyn problems more!"-crap comes from those who don't really care for women once they disagree with them. If they really did care for women, they'd not force them to "choose" the pseudo-freedom of having to agree with them. Being freed from one oppressor but then only having one option isn't what being liberated is.

^^^^^

no but like... the thing is: never mind the whole transexclusionary bullshit, these people are a menace for any kind of woman they don’t agree with anyway and are also in themselves exclusionary in general *and* actually perpetuating more patriarchal ideas than they think because sorry but:

the fixation they have on genitals defining you for them is basically penises = anathema vaginas = empowerment, but like.... wow as if societal sexism wasn’t based on the contrary presumption, so you’re basically saying that whatever’s between your legs determines your social status, which...... is exactly what patriarchal societies do so what the hell are we even discussing here

the fact that with the whole vagina = empowerment narrative they have going on they also move ahead the whole ‘having children is a fundamental part of your womanhood™’ which is meant to a) exclude trans women b) saying surrogacy should be illegal means that basically they’re not only discussing the basic principle of bodily autonomy (ie: surrogacy can be a goddamned choice and a woman should be able to do whatever the fuck she wants with her body that included so maybe work in order to legalize/normalize it so no one is forced to) but basically says that no one who can’t have children biologically or won’t have them is Not A True Woman, which excludes any sterile cis woman and any cis woman who doesn’t have children from Being A Proper Woman, which is fucking ridiculous, but like... who the fuck only sees women as good for having children/said that a woman’s #1 role in society has to be having children? wow, patriarchal societies :))))))

(btw: last time I was at a feminist march and a terf organization ended up giving me a flyer with the above bullshit printed on I went up and left and never attended that one march again because I don’t want to share space with anyone who thinks women who say that shit care about women’s rights period so like... sorry I don’t want to share spaces with terfs ever, bye)

this whole obsession with penis = anathema brings to political lesbianism ie faking being attracted to women while pushing the narrative that being attracted to men is bad/brainwashing which means invalidating the sexualities of any single category who’s into men which wow includes people who aren’t straight women (see the amazing ‘bi women into men are dirty with male residual’ takes) *and* at the same time pushes the idea that women’s sexuality has to be what they say it is which lmao

meaning that since most of these idiots aren’t actually attracted to women but fake it they most likely don’t have sex where they’re proactive but at the same time they keep on bitching about how kink and bdsm and so on are misogynist in nature because if it’s a straight relationship either the guy is abusing you or fetishizing you depending on your role and if it’s not then it’s wanting to relieve those roles and if there are dicks involved SHAME SHAME SHAME so like... who has always been on the forefront wanting to dictate what women should or shouldn’t enjoy in bed? ah right, patriarchal societies and various religions/religious cults that preach women’s submission and say that you shouldn’t have sex outside having children/masturbation is bad™/sex is bad™/kink is bad™, so excuse me if this shit isn’t imvho feminist since policing what women want or don’t want in bed is inherently misogynist

this also shows they have a rather phallocentric idea of sex since it’s all about dicks dicks and dicks...... ah, wait, same as your regular misogynist dude who thinks that he doesn’t owe you an orgasm when you fuck but okay then :)

never mind this idea that women are inherently superior to men which automatically brushes under the rug the fact that women can be abusive to everyone either other women or men, that internalized misogyny exists and all the crap that it entails and excludes criticism of what women have to say on account of just being woman, which is ridiculus bc if another woman is sprouting bullshit maybe I should be able to point it out

also again... yesterday I disagreed with them about the trans women issue? I got hours of rape threats and death threats, which is exactly what I’d have expected out of the worst kind of redpiller incel, so where’s the difference? ah right the redpiller doesn’t pretend to care about human rights

also their crusade against FINDING OUT WHERE ARE THE INFAMOUS TRANS WOMEN actually hurts gnc cis women lmao because they go look at ‘BUT DO YOU LOOK SUPPOSEDLY MANLY OR NOT THAT MEANS YOU’RE NOT A TRUE WOMAN’ with all the peace of gnc cis women who happen to be tall/with muscles/whatever and the peace of some of us with pcos and extra testosterone who most likely would not be women enough because of having too much body hair or whatever else *shrug* like.... sorry but that also means that to them womanhood = also presenting in a very specific certain way according to beauty standards/societal attractiveness standards which automatically excludes every single woman that doesn’t perform femininity according to those standards, so again, fuck them because it means you don’t care about women, you supposedly care about a very small number of cishet abled standard attractive non-kinky most likely rich women who agree with your worldview only and if that’s feminism miss me with that bullshit 

and like... this isn’t probably 20% of the worst of terf ideology but tldr: those people are exactly as misogynist as the patriarchy they’re supposedly fighting and I don’t see why I should gaf about a group that pretends to care about all women and then actually doesn’t and as you said perpetrates the exact same rhetoric and societal bullshit that sexist/misogynist societies do. *shrug*

[itsclydebitches]

Why do you think it is people can't accept or view woman as abusive? Whether it's mothers, wifes, girlfriends, or just friends? Is it because men are usually the abusers in media and therefore accepted as the abusers in real life always? Do people out there really not think woman can be both physically or emotionally abusive to men in their lives just as men can be?

As with all of these topics there’s no one reason why such thinking comes about, but rather a complicated intersection of ideas, teachings, assumptions, personal experience, culture, etc. Part of it is that statistically men (in the US and UK anyway) are more likely to be the abuser and the media does reflect that, so some people tend to conflate “usually” with “always.” Even though those are obviously two distinct situations. Which is how you get antagonistic responses to those who advocate for men who suffer from abuse. Some see it as a means of drawing attention away from the ‘real’ problem of women victims, rather than acknowledging that both things exist simultaneously: a predominance of one gender being victims and the other gender facing a unique hurdle because of that predominance. When we teach - overtly or implicitly - that only women can be abused, we set up a scenario where men must first prove that what they’ve suffered can and does exist at all, let alone that they as an individual suffer from it. We see this with rape as well. Women must navigate a world that acknowledges that they can be raped, but tends to deny that it happened to her (she was asking for it, she should be grateful, etc.) Men, meanwhile, often hear that they simply can’t be raped, full stop. Because that’s something that only happens to women, because men always want sex, because a man could have put a stop to it, etc. And if this seems at all confusing, contradictory, complicated, and other difficult ‘c’ words, it’s because it is. Different genders who experience abuse simultaneously have commonalities that should inspire solidarity among the groups as well as individual circumstances that have to be taken into account. There is no one size fits all explanation here, which is precisely why intersectionality exists. 

Thinking about those individual factors though, gender norms absolutely come into play and feed those broader ideas about who can and cannot be abused. To put it simply, the concept of (toxic) masculinity does not provide room for men to be victims of abuse via women, simply because they are supposed to be inherently stronger and thus protected from assault. I experienced a perfect example of this bias while discussing Caroline Flack’s assault arrest. To be clear, we had almost no details about the case and were speaking very generally about abuse as a whole, rather than what actually happened between her and her boyfriend. This was also prior to her suicide, so take this as a conversation pretty much entirely removed from her specific situation. Basically though, the conversation revolved around the utter disbelief that a girlfriend could assault - let alone consistently abuse - a boyfriend. This person was grudgingly accepting of emotional abuse, but physical was off the table. After all, he’s a big strong guy and she’s so tiny. You’re telling me he can’t catch her arm when she goes to hit him? Or just hit her back? When I began to point out the problems in this thinking, the lack of understanding as to how abusers work, and begin to introduce the concept of victim blaming, they responded with, “I’m not blaming the victim, I’m blaming his inability to defend himself!” Which is a response that made me stare into an invisible camera like I was on The Office. Frustration aside, this conversation does a decent job of demonstrating the biases at work here: 1. Men are pretty much immune to abuse because abuse is almost entirely physical. 2. That immunity stems from clear-cut ideas about how man and women develop: he will be big and strong while she will be tiny and weak. 3. Abuse is not a complicated form of conditioning but a one time thing that anyone with the correct tools (strength) can stand up against: just stop her from hitting you. 4. If you somehow fail to stop her you can (and will instinctively want) to get revenge by hitting her back. That will demonstrate dominance and put an end to things. Problem solved. Obviously there is a lot to unpack there and that’s coming from a liberal, progressive, otherwise empathetic person. This kind of thinking runs deep. 

I want to emphasize that people get degrees in this, write books, spend their whole lives studying and working through such a nuanced subject... so a blog post response does not a perfect answer make lol. Nor does a BBC vid with a clickbait-y title, but experiments like this - simple as they are - can help to demonstrate that thinking: 

“My first thought was... he looked a bit soft... he looked a bit soft letting her hit him like that... I wouldn’t let a girl hit me.” 

“I think the man must have done something to the woman” 

There’s such a pervasive idea that men, as men, are the dominant gender that any evidence of abuse is automatically reframed as a) something he secretly enjoys, b) something he brought on himself, or c) proof that he’s not a “real” man and is defective for suffering from this. It’s a view that is perpetuated in fandom as well as real life. When Salem kills Ozpin it means he obviously did something to deserve it (trying to escape with the kids) because only guilty men suffer like that. When Yennefer takes control of or invades Geralt’s mind it means he secretly liked it because only weak men would stick around to suffer through something they were uncomfortable with - and Geralt is the opposite of weak. Then these stories - as stories written by an author who controls all events, responses, and outcomes - further paint these assumptions as correct: Ozpin is condemned as a horrible person (see, he deserved it!) and Geralt’s true love is shown to be Yennefer (see, he secretly doesn’t mind!) because these are characters who adhere to the whims of fallible authors. That doesn’t represent reality, but it can help perpetuate our perception of it. The author who fails to acknowledge a man’s abuse that they’ve written is no different from an author who fails to acknowledge a woman’s abuse that they’ve written. How the audience responds to those relationships, however, is very different. We’ve reached a point now where we can say stuff like, “Just because fictional Anastasia Steel has been written to think the way Christian Gray treats her is sexy and healthy doesn’t mean it is,” but we often fail to apply that same fiction/reality distinction for men. Instead, women abusers of all varieties - from genocidal Salem to “just” insults/threat of magical retribution Yennefer - are painted as badass or secret victims because the alternative would be acknowledging that men have the capability to be victims at all. Especially powerful men who (supposedly) have every means of defending themselves. 

As one woman in the video puts it, “the stereotype that women have less power than a man” is ingrained in our culture and it hurts men and genders not on the binary as well as women. It’s just that the damage to women is the most obvious and, as said, at times much more common. But that doesn’t mean these other impacts don’t exist. This is why feminism is inclusive and anyone who tells you it’s only for women hasn’t done much research. There’s a difference between people who may use such situations as a means of erasing all the shit women have to deal with (Men’s Rights™) and those who acknowledge that the limitations put on women and the abuse they suffer has the added concern of negatively impacting those around them. They’re baises that don’t help anyone. 

[therealkatekane]

My Journey through Yuri, Part II

So, to be fair, this is the first anime that kicked off my midlife discovery of anime. And while Symphogear holds the top spot in my heart, Valkyrie Drive: Mermaid is a very, very close second. Symphogear fulfills my need for warm fluffy fuzzies and adventure. Valkyrie fulfills my need for... everything else: lesbians, sex, lesbian sex, humor, over-the-top-ridiculous premises, zero male characters, and just... literally everything. If Symphogear is comfort food, then Valkyrie is my favorite meal that is hella bad for me, but I just don’t care.

I don’t even remember how I stumbled onto this anime, but I thank the fucking gods that I did. I found it, watched the entire series one night, and again the next two nights with the girls. Also, thanks to this show, Diana taught me two important anime terms: ecchi and oppai. We’ll start here:

And so it begins...

Let me start here: you best be grown for this post. And you best be grown if you’re watching this show because damn they is a lot of sex.

The whole premise of this show is that girls infected with the Arm Virus are quarantined on islands away from the rest of the world. Infected girls can be either Extars or Liberators. Extars transform into weapons (”Arms”) that Liberators use or “drive.” And in order to transform, Extars must be sexually stimulated by a compatible Liberator. Yup.

I was actually concerned at first because I thought this setup had a lot of potential to have all the attitudes and ideas I find super squicky in anime (and in media in general): questionable consent, objectification, toxic relationships, etc. But I was pleasantly surprised that consent is actually addressed really well in the series, and overall, I thought it handled excellently so I wasn’t squicked out at all.

So, onto the characters:

Above you see our two main characters: Mamori, the red head, is an Extar. The blond, Mirei, is a Liberator. And as is seen above, they were meant for each other. That being said, bless Mirei and her heart of gold, because Mamori is real simple. If I have one complaint about this show, it’s that Mamori is that annoyingly innocent and oblivious and simple protagonist. You know the one. She’s that dog you have that can’t figure out how to push open a door with its nose even though it’s already mostly open anyway and whines until you get up and cross the room and push it open the remaining three inches so she can come in. Lord love her, she’s adorable and sweet, but just... not bright.

But Mirei is phenomenal. Despite Mamori’s obliviousness, Mirei is immediately staunchly devoted to her. All she wants to do is protect Mamori. She is tall and mysterious and proves to be a badass fighter in her first thirty seconds on screen. You can’t help but fall in love with her strength and stubbornness. And I’m a sucker for the strong but silent and awkward types. 

What I like best about their relationship is how Mirei automatically does whatever she thinks is in Mamori’s best interests or aligns with her desires from word one. She sees Mamori under attack, she places herself between her and her attacker. Mamori complains about a character being cruel to another, Mirei moves to put a stop to it. Mamori asks Mirei not to hurt some one, so she doesn’t. I’m not a big fan of “love at first sight” type shit, but I can’t help but just fucking adore Mirei’s instant devotion to Mamori. Not just her, but to her thoughts and feelings.

Next up, we have the dynamic duo referred to as “Lady Lady.”

Oh, I cannot say enough about these two. Lady Rain and Lady J. Both are both Liberators and Extars, able to switch between roles as the situation dictates. SWITCH, get it?? One transforms into a sword/gun and the other a badass motorcycle. They claim it isn’t the sex that allows them transform but the strength of their bond. It’s actually quite beautiful how dedicated they are to one another. Former members of a paramilitary government organization, they chose exile and quarantine over being tools of others.

Next up, we’ve got Meifon. Meifon is a schemer obsessed with making a buck. What I adore about her is that she is an asexual/aromantic character. On an island where everyone is fucking everyone all the time. It is such an interesting idea of how someone who doesn’t experience sexual arousal/stimulation in a “typical” way functions on an island where sex is so highly prioritized. It was a really neat idea that I was surprised to see the show tackle. While it isn’t addressed in a super deep or meaningful way, it is an unexpected and nice touch.

The “Governor.” Normally, I am all about avoiding spoilers, but I was surprised that we were supposed to think the governor is a dude. I know sometimes it can be hard to tell in anime, and I am guilty of more than once being like “What a super hot lady!” and it ended up being a fella and cue disappointment. But Akira was clearly a woman from the first time we see her. It wasn’t until the fourth episode that I learned she was supposed to be a “man.” She is so clearly a lady. If you can’t figure that out in ten seconds, you’re as simple as Mamori, bless your heart.

I feel it’s a missed opportunity for Akira not to be trans, but she’s not. She’s just pretending to be a fella for power, to stand out on an island full of women. It would have been a lot more interesting and compelling in my humble opinion. But whatever.

I could go on and on about all the many fantastic characters on this show, but there are a few other things I want to talk about.

1. I usually prefer the original Japanese voice actors, but this is one of the rare times when the opposite is true. The English voice acting is on point, very well acted, and an utter delight. Mirei in particular has a fantastic dead-pan delivery that I adore.

2. This show is hysterically funny. I laughed so hard so many times. Especially during the episode “Giant Girl, Little Heart.” I mean... just look at this:

The giant girl’s name is Nimi Minimi. I can’t even. Dear god. It’s so funny. I have a great appreciation for anything that can make me laugh. There are a lot of jokes about pitching and catching. And this is an actual quote from this episode: “Nimi, you’re the only one who can catch my fastball. Only you can catch my body and soul!” It’s classic.

3. The power and relationship dynamics are very interesting. Poly seems to be a pretty readily accepted practice. Platonic “driving” seems to be a thing. Consent is approached several different ways, and each is very interesting. Another thing this show does well is examine the problems inherent in such a system. It isn’t all girls kissing girls and touchy touchy fun times. There is a lot included on how that power can be abused and what corruption may look like in a hyper-sexualized state. So, maybe trigger warning? I’m pretty sensitive, but I did not find it trigger-y. It was actually nice to see such abuse of power highlighted as abuse without a veiled attempt to make it okay because it’s sexy times between two (or more) women.

4. Story/plot/etc - I’ll be real. The bar was really low when I initially started this. I mean, I didn’t expect much given the premise, but ended up being very pleasantly surprised. The story is reasonably compelling and more thought out than expected. There are more complexities than I anticipated, and it all wraps up neatly at the end of the series in a satisfying way. 

So, I guess that wraps up Valkyrie Drive: Mermaid. Conclusion: Watch it. It’s beautifully NSFW and unashamedly queer. There needs to be more anime like it. I think next I’ll write about Flip Flappers as it was recommended to me on my last post, and it currently holds the number three spot in my heart.

Today marks the fourth week of working from home, so please please please keep the recommendations coming. I have literally nothing to do but work and watch anime, and I’m super grateful for the recs I received already. Thanks. :-)

[nona-gay-simus-main]

Top 10 Worst Tropes in Romance - Part 2

Disclaimer: This is MY opinion, you do you.

Part 1: Here

1. The Child Partner

I’m not talking about literal children, because duh. What I mean is the a person who needs their partner to emotionally parent them.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like the whole point of a romantic relationship is to be with an equal. You’re supposed to be teammates, best friends, and lovers.

Of course, I'm not including cases where one partner is disabled or chronically/mentally ill and needs the other to take care of them - that’s an entirely separate thing. 

I'm referring to people (usually cishet men), who constantly need their partner to manage their moods and emotions. They always have some ~trauma~ to manipulate the partner into staying in the relationship in order to keep reassuring them, confirming their self-esteem, and even doing their cooking and cleaning, as if they aren't abled adults with two functioning hands.

That shit sucks!

Imagine doing that for someone all the time and then also trying to have a kid (or multiple kids) with that person. Not only will you be taking care of your actual child; but also - your partner-child. Stop normalizing lazy, emotionally stunted men. That shit ain't cut no matter how hard his abs are or how big his dick is.

2. “I’ve been in love with you since the first moment we met.”

I don’t know what it is about this trope, but it shows up in many romances and it always makes me uncomfortable. How the hell are you supposed to react to that? 

Oh, you’ve been in love with me since the first time we met? Yikes, my dude.

You can’t even fall in love with someone that fast anyway. You're not in love with the person, you’re in love with your idea of them!

The only acceptable version of this is the one where it’s more along the lines “I thought I might fall in love with you if I spent any more time with you.” But other than that, I really don't understand why this is a thing?

3. Lust = Love

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a prude. I’m perfectly fine with couples who have loads and loads of sex. I’m also perfectly fine with casual sex and friends-with-benefits and any other consensual arrangement between adults.

I just get tripped up when pretty much all a couple does is have sex. They have little in common outside of sex, spend little time together when not having sex, and don’t share any hobbies, interests or even conversation topics. Or worse, when they aren’t having sex, they’re fighting. 

If you want your characters to get laid, that’s cool. But if you want me to believe they are also falling in love - you’re gonna have to try a little harder.

4. BDSM = Abuse

Yes, abuse happens under the pretense of BDSM, but BDSM is NOT inherently abusive. It only happens within pre-established boundaries and safe words and with explicit consent. The only people who claim it's abuse, are people who have a vested interest in controlling what women and queer people do with our bodies.

So I really, really hate it when people use “It’s just BDSM, don’t be so uptight” to justify their rapey, abusive love interest’s actions. If the submissive has not already consented, or their consent was obtained through manipulation or intoxication - it’s not meaningful consent.

BDSM is a lot more complex than some of the simplistic catchphrases we use to explain it to the vanillas, and we can discuss those complexities for hours, but at the one thing is definitely true - the Dominant only has as much power as the submissive is willing to give. If they (knowingly) cross a boundary or take power without the consent of the submissive, it’s not power exchange, it’s abuse, pure and simple.

5. "All women want him. All men want to be him"

Really? ALL women? Are you sure?

I hate to tell you this, but some women are exclusively attracted to other women. And some women aren’t attracted to anyone. Some women have low libidos, and some women just don’t prioritize sex and relationships for whatever reason. And some women are in happy, fulfilling monogamous relationships already.

And all men want to BE him? Did you know that some men are attracted to other men? They might want a piece of that too. Or perhaps, they just don’t value being some alpha douchebag and are happy to be their much better-adjusted self. That's a thing.

Can we let this cliché die already? Please?

6. Giving up your dreams for ~love~.

Oh man, this is the worst! And why is it nearly always the woman, who has to make a choice between her career and ~~~LoVe~~?

So many books/movies etc. start with this powerful career woman and then by the end reduce her to nothing but a trophy to her man. That’s not feminist, it just keeps perpetuating the same tired gender roles.

And I can’t help but think about the future of this relationship. What if it doesn’t work out? Then the partner who the dreams were given up for looks like a jerk, even if they never asked for this.

And even if it works out, the partner who gave up their dream job, or opportunity, or whatever, will always have this “what if” at the back of their mind. Over time, they may even end up resenting their SO, especially if things don’t work out for them career-wise.

Just such a bad trope all around. It’s not romantic, it’s toxic, and co-dependant and I want it to stop.

7. He treats everyone like crap ***but you***.

You know the limitus test to see if someone’s a good person? Look at how they treat people who are “beneath” them. Their servers, the cleaning lady, etc.

If this guy treats servers like crap, treats his friends and family like crap, treats everyone like crap, except for the person whose pants he wants to get in (or wants to keep getting in for the foreseeable future), why are we romanticizing him? He’s a selfish jackass.

You can have a grumpy (but ultimately caring and good-natured) character, that's fine. But if he only treats people like humans when it benefits him - that's not sexy, that's sociopathic.

8. Love Cures All

Ahhh, the worst of them all. Truly, having a character who suffers from mental illness or has a major trauma, but oh look, they got some cuddles from the love interest and now they are all good!

Just stop, please. It’s so damaging to the people who are going through this, to tell them that all they need to feel better is ~~~LoVe~~~. And if they aren’t getting better? Well, they just haven’t gotten enough ~~~LoVe~~~!

It’s also damaging to the partner - no one should have this much responsibility on their shoulders.

Obviously, the love of a partner, friends, and family can HELP with the healing process, but it’s not enough by itself. Get them some goddamn therapy, please.

9. Accidental Pregnancy

I don’t know about you, but for most people I know, myself included, accidental pregnancy would be an absolute nightmare, not something romantic.

Do you know how bad my entire generation is doing financially? And people use this as a plot device to strengthen the relationship?

Also, relationships get weaker after having a child, not stronger. Babies are cute when they are sleeping, the rest of the time they are crying, screaming messes. Yeah, why wouldn’t sleep deprivation and constantly hurting everywhere strengthen your relationship? ����🙄🙄

10. Violent Men

IRL, violent men are scary, not sexy. Even if the violence is never directed at the love interest, chances are that over time it will be. But even if it’s not, why would you ever want to date someone who has the emotional maturity of a pre-schooler?

Because after pre-school, kids tend to learn to solve their problems with their words. But I guess your love interest hasn’t matured past the age of 6, which coincidentally also leads back to the first trope on this list. Charming.

[heat-riser]

Some weird analysis of when you knew me.

I’ve thought about doing this for a while. One part screaming into the void, one part for anyone who was on tumblr in it’s heyday and watched me be strange and into- frankly- the worst characters and really terrible ships. I’m 26 now and understand a bit more about myself after finally finding a good therapist who specialized in sexual trauma and delving into the deepest darkest parts. Maybe it’s part insight for people who were friends with my at the time- and by ‘at that time’, I guess I mean any point in my life up until a couple years ago. From around 5 years on- I was in a constant state of incredibly deep sadness and anxiety but was too numb to even really consciously feel it. I learned some of the worst things about people and became acquainted with some of the worst things a person can feel at 5, and then again multiple times around 9 due to rape by two different boys. The first, my family and people around me knew about pretty immediately. The second was completely unknown to people until recently. It’s not an easy thing telling your parents another neighbor boy who was a ‘friend’ raped you too. I can’t really explain properly how deeply this effects a person and how people don’t really understand it. Things as little as not being able to be outside my house without a jacket and full pants to cover my whole body because I internalized that showing your body is vulnerability opened up the possibility of sexualization and therefore- attack. All the way to now with everything being resurfaced and having nearly no sex drive and being unable to feel arousal without more anxiety coming in and overpowering the arousal feeling. It was recently recommended to me by my therapist to not play horror games because the feelings of arousal and fear are so tightly linked. I’ve been with the therapist for three years and anticipate at very least another 3-5 and she has clients who have been seeing her 10+ years for having experienced childhood sexual abuse. I can’t remember if I’ve talked publicly here about any of that but most of my friends are aware of the first one (it’s not really something I want to throw out there randomly and conversations in covid time are strange). I was only aware of the first one up until a couple years back. When talking about buried memories, how they come up, how to tell if they’re legit, I halfway thought “what if there was more” and felt sick to my stomach. One of the sure signs of a memory being true is an emotional response. I’m in the process of reclaiming the memories of the events involving the second neighbor boy. But point being- I learned the world was awful very early on and it became the background for all future development (sexual, social, self, etc. etc.). I began to numb myself after the first event and went through half of elementary school and middle school angry, sad, and hateful- I especially hated men, but also just the world at large. By high school, I had learned to shove all of that down. I can’t really recall feeling much of anything in high school. So the people that knew me at the time really only knew a weird ghost of a person. Then there’s this thing called trauma reenactment- where victims are drawn to things relating to the trauma situation. So this is what takes me to explaining the characters I was interested in. 1- Adachi. I now see as little more than a sad incel but it does say a lot about where I was at the time to be so fascinated with him. He shared my resentment towards the world, the idea that anyone who wasn’t depressed simply didn’t understand, and saw more of a problem with the world than his current state of being. Of course that was relatable. I very clearly remember in middle school believing people that weren’t depressed simply had no idea what was going on around them. Of course I thought that and still struggle with that mentality. All I had really known was deep despair and numbing myself from the world. I didn’t understand how other people didn’t realize that but now know what the emotional world I was living in was not typical of children. So here was someone that knew how bad everything around was and how bad the world felt and I clung onto him the same way I did my own idealizations. With what I’ve been processing more recently, the dude needed therapy and to unlearn that depression was cool and correct but had shown multiple times he was unwilling to challenge any of his issues and just started killing people. There were a lot of favorite characters through this but one that sticks out as another really fucked up example of where I was was Damon Gant. I look back at liking him as the ultimate symbol of trauma reenactment. He’s older, he had power, he was creepy, intimidating, unsettling, and controlling. Everything my predators had been to me at the time. So- all of those things were in a way intertwined with my own sexuality as they’re what I first learned with anything ‘sexual’. Some of my favorite ships are due to the same reasoning. Gant and Lana- again, kind of inherently controlling, imbalance of power, and ends horribly and tragically. I always found something intriguing and beautiful about the most horrific and sad feelings. And I’ll touch on it just for the record. Cyrus is big fucked up- but I think he is, though maybe incorrect, well intentioned with his main goal being what he believes will actually be better for everyone cause of his projection of the awful things he feels on everyone. He doesn’t go out of his way to hurt anyone and certainly doesn’t enjoy other people’s pain but rather wants to eliminate what he sees as the reason for people hurting others with and end justifies the means mindset. His numbing/attempts to numb, hatred of emotion, and hatred of people inflicting pain on others is all incredibly familiar and I’m certain a part of me in middle school knew that when picking him as a fave. As I progress, I’m more interested his potential to relearn people and start opening up to feeling. (Pokemon Master’s definitely more than hinted at him changing and I’m hoping that means they’ll go that route with remakes.) I should note that during my most ‘numb’ parts would sneak out and I would be very- and increasingly over time starting with 6th grade- suicidal and became addicted to cutting and self harm (which I realize now are both just further numbing techniques). I described the feeling at the time as a parasite controlling your brain and a part of yourself knowing you had to fight against it. There was a period I was certain of how I would die, it was just when I would finally snap. I should also say how much people are able to numb themselves. I can remember getting so anxious that my heart would race and the world felt fast- I would get to the point of gagging but can’t remember ‘feeling’ any ounce of anxiety consciously. When first becoming sexually active, I had extended, horrific anxiety that would have hospitalized me for a couple weeks if not for my mom being able to stay home with me (also out of work for a couple months and left addicted to xanax for a bit). And still didn’t quite believe her all the way when she suggested it was anxiety. And I sure as hell didn’t make any connections to any possible mental issues around sex. So I’ve ranted enough but saved this bit for the end cause it hits kinda hard. People tend to feel the same things they felt in locations. Curiosity got the best of me and I drove around parts of my childhood I spend a lot of time at and specific routes I would take. (It’s called state dependent memory if anyone’s interested). I’m learning just how much I was numb to everything and wondering just what it was I was covering up my whole life. This isn’t easy to really type out cause of how fucked it is with the realization that I didn’t really experience childhood to a degree. During my drive, past my high school, up near my friends houses, the route I would take coming back from college- I was deeply, and very profoundly sad in my core. Nothing near what a person should have felt through their childhood. I missed so much. And I’m sorry to my friends at the time who only got to know a strange, numb, trauma reenacting, ghost of myself. I’m not going to be able to relive those times in a better light but I can at very least do some work to prevent a future spent numb and profoundly sad. But my brain is finally allowing me to remember some things because it’s deemed that I can handle it, I’m learning more about myself and my past, learning how to listen to what my brain and body are telling me and why, and getting better at expressing grief and real, raw, sadness and a touch of deep-seated anger so I think I might be starting to turn this around.