#no one is entitled to biological children

[coochiequeens]

I don't like conservative "news" media like fox and this site but no one else is talking about how surrogacy gives pedos access to kids.

The fertility industry is handing designer babies over to men with zero vetting or scrutiny of their mental fitness or criminal history.

By KATY FAUST

Surrogacy is risky for children. Not just the risk of a primal wound via intentional birth mother separation. Not just the risk of identity struggles if their genetic mother is purchased from a catalog. Not just the risk of mother-hunger if they are raised in a home absent maternal love. 

Surrogacy puts children at risk for the worst kinds of abuse. 

That became glaringly obvious last month when YouTubers Shane Dawson and partner Ryan Adams announced the birth of twin boys. Dawson’s long history of sexualizing children is well-known and well-documented. Evie magazine detailed concerning incidents including Dawson pretending to masturbate while watching 11-year-old Willow Smith’s music video, referring to a 6-year-old fan as “kind of sexy,” justifying pedophilia as a mere “fetish,” typing “naked baby” in a child pornography search and remarking that the returns were “sexy,” and proclaiming, “I would rape all of you” when viewing a series of photos featuring young girls wearing his merchandise.

In one show, he instructed a 12-year-old to eat a “cocktail weenie” with the recognition that child molesters comprise a significant portion of his audience. Dawson and Adam have another 10 embryos in frozen storage should they decide they want a few more children around the house.

We hope no harm comes to the boys to whom Dawson and Adams have been granted (via surrogacy contract) parental rights. But other surrogate-born children were not so fortunate.

Contrary to what you may think, surrogacy isn’t just about helping infertile couples have babies. When we look at how surrogacy is actually practiced and promoted, we see surrogacy isn’t about babies, it’s about on-demand, designer babies shipped worldwide. And sometimes, those babies are shipped directly to child abusers.

We don’t know the raw numbers because, unlike organ donation, the medical wing of #BigFertility requires no tracking or follow-up of those who avail themselves of their services. (Apparently, there’s more concern about the survival of a kidney than a child.) And unlike adoption, which heavily vets and screens prospective parents and monitors the child post-placement, surrogate-born children are not known to social workers and often disappear across international borders.

Even when safeguards are in place, predators often go to great lengths to acquire children to abuse. In 2022, the country was horrified by the story of a suburban pedophile ring set up by two married men who raped and pimped out their adopted sons. 

That children created by a fertility industry with no mechanism (and no desire) to scrutinize intended parents for things like mental fitness, criminal records, or predatory history end up in the homes of dangerous adults should surprise no one.

Absent any kind of record-keeping or follow-up on these children, those of us who reject surrogacy on the grounds that it violates the rights of children, must piece together the risks when stories of child victimization emerge. 

These 5 Pedophiles Mail-Ordered Babies

Psychiatrist Jo Erik Brøyn held a high position in Norwegian social services responsible for child protection and was involved in several high-profile cases of child removal. He also acquired two boys through an Indian surrogate. In 2018, police discovered 20 years’ worth of child pornography in his possession — more than 20,000 images and 4,000 hours of videos — depicting child sexual abuse including “boys masturbating each other, fixed/sexualized violence against children, anal sex by men with boys or oral sex of children (including toddlers) on grown men.” He was sentenced to less than two years in prison. Some sources report that the boys have been returned to his care.

An unnamed German pedophile hired a Russian surrogate for €60,000 who birthed the baby in Greece. He then flew the child back to Germany. In 2020, a regional court found him guilty of child abuse and producing and possessing child pornography. His child was a subject of 16 of those cases between the ages of 2 and 3, and the defendant was in possession of 175,000 images of child pornography. He was sentenced to five years in prison. The child was removed from his custody. 

In 2013, Mark Newton and Peter Truong were convicted of subjecting their surrogate-born son to “the worst [pedophile] rings … if not the worst ring I’ve ever heard of,” according to one investigator. After paying a Russian surrogate $8,000 to carry the child, the pair began to violate the boy as a newborn.

“The abuse began just days after his birth and over six years the couple traveled the world, offering him up for sex with at least eight men, recording the abuse and uploading the footage to an international syndicate known as the Boy Lovers Network.” Police believe the pair created the boy through surrogacy “for the sole purpose of exploitation.” The child was removed from their custody, and the men are serving decades-long sentences.

During the height of the Indian surrogacy boom, it was revealed that an Israeli sex offender had procured a little girl via surrogacy. Had #BigFertility had any kind of vetting in place or required fingerprinting or simply character references, it would likely have been discovered that the man had spent 18 months in jail for sexually abusing young children under his supervision. The discovery shocked authorities in both India and Israel, but because they couldn’t prove that abuse had yet taken place, there was no ground to remove the girl from his custody. It did however validate India’s decision to ban single men and gay couples, who composed 30-50 percent of intended parents, from the Indian surrogacy market.

In 2014, intended parents Wendy and David Farnell commissioned twin surrogate children in Thailand, then a global hotspot for surrogacy. The little girl, Pipah, was healthy, but the little boy, Gammy, had serious medical issues as well as Down Syndrome. A scandal erupted when the couple took the little girl back to Australia but abandoned Gammy to be raised by the Thai surrogate.

It was then discovered that David had been jailed in the late 1990s for sexually molesting two girls under the age of 10, and was charged, convicted, and sentenced again in 1998 on six counts of indecently dealing with a child under the age of 13. When his criminal record was revealed and investigated, a judge determined there was “a low risk of harm if Pipah stays in that home,” and she remained in the care of Wendy and David until his death in 2020. The “Baby Gammy” case was one of several scandals that prompted the Thai government to ban commercial surrogacy altogether. 

Many of the above cases are older, the results of contracts that were drawn up when surrogacy was less common. Since then, the surrogacy industry has grown exponentially with a projected 1,000 percent increase by 2032. In addition, there are entire organizations devoted to delivering custom-ordered babies to men, none of which will have to submit to background checks or fingerprinting. So expect more cases of surrogate-born child exploitation in the coming years. 

Whether or not the child ends up abused, whether it’s paid or altruistic, whether it’s traditional or gestational, and regardless of the intended parent’s household composition, surrogacy always violates the rights of the child. It is not a problem that can be solved through regulation. The only way to protect children is to ban surrogacy worldwide.

[honey-minded-hivemind]

OH MY GOD imagine platonic yandere adults, find out that the reader is their biological child somehow. Maybe from one of the scientists while doing some test and yans find out they need all of there reactions, especally if Wanda and peitro find out they have another sibling.

Ooooooh, yes! Yeah, that WOULD make things different. Because now the adult/s in question feel more attached (or entitled) to Reader, especially if they were someone who turned out very different from them (as in, saner and maybe a bit nicer)...

If it was Magneto who was Reader's biological parent, surprise, he's now doubling his efforts to free himself, his kids, Charles, and the rest of them out. And those who harmed his kids? They'll be dead when he's done with them. Of course, he is going to try and get closer to Reader, attempt to tell them what he now knows. Hopefully they believe him...

If Charles Xavier is Reader's biological parent, oh, what's this? A few guards mysteriously ended up in a coma? Oh, some head scientist who saw him went insane? That's nothing to worry about, but let's talk, try to calm down, and enjoy a bit of peace, shall we? Yeah, Xavier is ready to keep Reader safe, be it by incapacitating their abusers or simply helping calm his kid down. He wants to badly tell them their relation, but he's aware that it might not be a good time. But on the other hand, he doesn't know how long any of them have...

If Logan is Reader's biological parent, he's scared. He doesn't want them to get hurt, and he doesn't want them to be used as a weapon. He also doesn't want to hurt them. But he also wants to be close to them, wants to protect them. He's worried even more, because they could get hurt just for being related to him. He feels like he can be a bit more feral around them if he's their parent, because it's just as likely they're feral, too, and neither one of them would hurt the other when they're like that, would they? He'll be by their side as long as he can, and he'll try his best to keep them safe. He just hopes Reader survives long enough so they can escape...

If Victor was Reader's biological parent, he's ready to break out even sooner. He has a cub? And they're hurt? And they're sweet? And they're his blood? Ooooooooh, he's going to be goring those lab rats when he's free. He can share his kid with Jimmy, Logan, his runt, but the others? ... He'll think about it. He gets more possessive of them, more protective. If Reader is his by blood, then he feels he should have a say in how they handle them... And he won't hurt them, he'll try not to, but they shouldn't run if he goes to collect them. They don't need to be scared of their papa, right? He's keeping them safe, getting rid of their enemies and freeing their friends and uncle...

If Ororo was Reader's biological parent, she'd be very loving and motherly towards them. She'd happily accept them, and she'd be happy to take care of them. She's sorry they're in this situation, and wishes they could have found this all out some other way, but she hopes that they can move past their trauma and heal together, along with Evan and their friends. She will be electrocuting anyone who lays hands on them, and will be keeping Reader close once they've all escaped. She just has to break the news to them first, that they are related... Hopefully it won't make things worse, finding out about all of this...

Mystique would feel happy about it. One of her kids actually likes her? And this child is friends were her other two children? It's perfect! Perhaps she can finally reconnect with them, the way she's wanted to for a long time. She however hates that they're all stuck in this death trap of a place. She'll get rid of the ones who did this to them, and then they can all go home. She has to do this. If not, she could very well lose them all before they've got the chance to leave. She just hopes she can tell Reader about this newfound information next time she sees them...

Hank would enjoy knowing this, while also being bewildered. He, has a child? Him? When did this happen? And with who? Where? Why? It doesn't matter, he supposes. It just matters that he tells them, eventually. And that they survive, and get out. He knows his team, his family, will accept Reader, they already do, so knowing Reader is his kid will only make him more able to have a claim over them, to truly parent them. He already has ideas, and he's so ready to be done with this awful place. All they have to do is make it awhile longer, and it will only be a bad memory...

(I'd gladly discuss each possible parent option further, but I myself like any of the feral guys as possible parents for Reader. What can I say? They're my comfort characters! But I would find it fun if Reader were someone's hidden kid/clone... What do y'all have in mind over this?)

[cyren-myadd]

Nobody talks about Kiri's role in Neytiri and Spider's bad relationship...

I know Neytiri and Spider's relationship has been talked about to death already, but there's one important aspect of it everyone seems to overlook that I want to write down all my thoughts about: Kiri's role.

(Just FYI The High Ground comics are explicitly confirmed to be canon by Avatar's creative team, so please don't try to tell me something's not true because it happened in the comics)

With everything Neytiri has been through, it's understandable that she'd feel uncomfortable with Quaritch's son spending so much time around her children to the point where he starts calling them his "siblings." Contrary to what I've heard others say, Neytiri does not have a "blind hatred" towards Spider. She doesn't want him to be hurt or killed, she just wants him to stay away from her family and mind his own business. From her perspective, an "invader" is acting like he's entitled to being around her family and claiming them as his own, the same family that has been hurt so badly by other "invaders." This perceived entitlement coupled with the fact that he's the son of the guy who thought he was entitled to destroy her homeland is what gives her such strong feelings about Spider compared to the other Na'vi-allied humans.

But is Spider's behavior towards Neytiri's family really entitlement like Neytiri thinks or is it something else? Let's look at why Spider does the things he does:

Why does Spider spend so much time with the Sully kids? Kiri and Lo'ak invite him. From what we see in the movie and the comics, Kiri and Lo'ak don't seem to have any friends before meeting Tsireya and Rotxo, which means Spider is not just their best friend, but their only friend. There is nothing about Spider, Kiri, and Lo'ak's dynamic that implies Spider is the only one seeking them out. They mutually seek each others' company because they all feel like outcasts among their respective species.

Why does Spider call the Sully kids his siblings? Kiri started calling him her brother first. In vol 1 of THG, Kiri tells Spider he's like another brother to her. Shortly after this is when Spider starts referring to the Sully kids as his family. Since Spider has no biological family and a bad relationship with his foster family, it's understandable he would latch onto the people who actually care for him and explicitly say they feel like he's their family member.

Why does Spider insert himself into the Omaticaya? Kiri insists he joins them. in Vol 1 of THG, Spider is present for a Na'vi celebration and Neytiri asks him to leave because he's not a part of their family. Spider is perfectly okay with this and he starts to excuse himself, but Kiri stops him and insists he stay because he is a part of their family. Later, in Vol 2 of THG, the Sullies and the Omaticaya are evacuating to High Camp while Spider's foster family and most of the other humans choose to surrender to the RDA. Spider is initially upset and begs Jake to come with them, but after Jake scolds him, Spider accepts the adults' choice and willingly stays in Hell's Gate, waiting to surrender to the RDA. Kiri, on the other hand, insists Spider come with them to High Camp and goes back for him. This results in Kiri, Lo'ak, and Tuk getting captured by Spider's foster dad and Spider needing to rescue them. In both of these instances, when Spider is told he's unwelcome somewhere, he is okay with it and backs off, but Kiri is the one who fights for him to stay. The only instance where Spider insists he has a right to stay of his own volition is when Jake asks him to turn himself into the RDA soldiers hunting them after Spider helped the Sully kids escape his foster father. Since the RDA likely would've imprisoned, tortured, or even killed Spider for helping the valuable hostages escape, Spider's insistence he stay with the Sullies is completely understandable.

Why does Spider paint himself blue and emulate the Na'vi lifestyle? Kiri again. The only time we see Spider applying his stripes on screen, Kiri is right there helping him. From this we can assume that Kiri and possibly also Lo'ak regularly help Spider apply his stripes since he wouldn't be able to paint his back without help. And while we don't have exact information on when Spider started wearing a loincloth and behaving like a Na'vi, I think we can safely assume Kiri and her siblings are the ones who encouraged this behavior.

After analyzing the origins of what Neytiri perceives as "entitlement," it becomes clear it's not really entitlement at all. Spider never does something he has not been "invited" to do by Kiri or Lo'ak. Spider is not trying to cross any boundaries and he's not trying to hurt anyone; he's just a lonely orphan who has latched onto the only people who show him real care.

From Spider's perspective, Neytiri hates him for no reason other than his dad. In actuality, Neytiri's strong feelings aren't just about who is dad is, but moreso about the way he behaves on top of who his dad is. Neytiri doesn't have a "blind hatred" for him like Spider believes, but she has a deep trauma-rooted discomfort with his proximity to her family in the context of his heritage, and this discomfort makes her lash out at him. But of course Spider doesn't understand this because he's A. a teenage boy with limited emotional intelligence and B. has no reason to think there's anything wrong with his behavior because Kiri and Lo'ak encourage it so enthusiastically. With Spider's limited understanding, it makes sense that he chalks up Neytiri's behavior as "she hates me!"

So we have these two wildly different perspectives. Neytiri views Spider as an entitled invader and she doesn't understand why he can't just leave her family alone, and Spider views Neytiri as a cruel woman who judges him for his heritage and he can't understand why she can't just let him hang out with his "siblings" in peace. When these two different perspectives clash, it gets ugly, and leads to scenes like the time Neytiri lunged at Spider (to attack him? shake him? it's unclear) and Spider yelling at Neytiri and blaming her for his situation (which is really Quaritch's fault for making his postpartum mother fight).

Then we have Kiri's perspective. Kiri loves her mother and her best friend, but doesn't seem to understand why her mom doesn't want her best friend around and she also doesn't seem to understand why her best friend thinks her mom hates him. In vol 1 of THG, she even tells Spider that Neytiri loves him. Ironically, even though Kiri clearly wants her mom and her best friend to get along, she is inadvertently the source of most of their issues. In all the instances where Spider's behavior makes Neytiri upset, we can trace the behavior back to Kiri as outlined in the bullet points above. The more Kiri pushes for Spider to stay close, the more it triggers Neytiri trauma, the more Neytiri lashes out Spider, the more Spider thinks she hates him, and the closer Kiri gets to Spider to comfort him and try and prove him wrong. It's a vicious cycle.

And just to be clear, I'm not trying to say Kiri is at fault for Neytiri and Spider's relationship. Kiri and Spider are just kids with little understanding of the trauma Neytiri has been through. They just know they enjoy spending time with each other, and neither of them fully understand why it makes Neytiri so upset. Neytiri, on the other hand, is not a kid... she is not responsible for her trauma and for her negative feelings towards Spider, but she is responsible for her behavior towards him.

The one thing I don't understand is why neither Neytiri nor Jake nipped Kiri's behavior in the bud before it got to the point where it is now. If Kiri keeps calling Spider her brother and insisting he stay for family celebrations, and it's obviously very upsetting to Neytiri, why did neither of her parents sit her down and let her know its inappropriate? Spider was clearly okay with being left out of the events. If they'd talked about it with Kiri, they would've avoided all that strife in the first place. Hell, Spider wouldn't even be around them anymore because he would've surrendered to the RDA and lived in Bridgehead if not for Kiri insisting he come with them!

And actually, why didn't they stop the kids from spending so much time together in the first place? Neytiri was telling Jake she didn't like Spider around her kids since they were very little. Why did they continue to let them play together if it made her so uncomfortable? Was Jake letting it happen behind her back? Were the kids sneaking away to play with Spider? Did Neytiri let it happen because she thought they would grow out of it or something? At that age, parents have a lot of control over their kids lives, and I don't understand why Neytiri didn't just redirect her kids to play with anyone other than Spider if it upset her so much. In THG, Neytiri threatened to ban Spider from seeing Kiri, but she did it way too late. The kids were teenagers at that point and already saw each other as family, so if she tried to separate them they would've just snuck out and seen each other anyway. If Neytiri is okay with putting a "ban" on Spider, why did she wait until they were teens and much more difficult to control to do so?

I know the "real" answer is because James Cameron wants ✨DRAMA✨ but I'm wondering if there's an in-universe explanation cause it just doesn't make sense to me. I guess the most realistic answer is that Jake let it happen knowing full well Neytiri didn't like it, but he let it slide anyway because he didn't want to say no to the kids. Jake had two choices. He could've A. honored Neytiri's wishes and separated the children before they bonded or B. sat down with Neytiri and let her know Spider is here to stay and that she can't lash out at him. Either choice would've resulted in a much better outcome for everyone involved, but then again, it would've had a lot less drama so I understand why the writers didn't have that happen instead. Actually, now that I'm typing it out, it is pretty in character for Jake to ignore a giant problem right in front of him and hope it'll go away on it's own (that's how we lost Hometree, Eytukan, and Neteyam rip). I guess we're going to see this situation blow up in Jake's face in Avatar 3, just like his other ignore-the-problem-and-hope-it-goes-away situations did. I just hope that this situation will have a better outcome for everyone involved.

It just frustrates me because I feel like all this could've been resolved years ago if Jake and Neytiri had sat Kiri and Spider down and had a discussion about boundaries, but there's too much bad blood between Neytiri and Spider for an easy resolution now...

Anyways, if you made it this far, thanks for reading, didn't mean to turn this into a whole essay lol. Please share your thoughts with me if you have any!

[meleys-the-red-queen]

The amount of blood-purity comments I see in HOTD discussions is honestly wild to me because it’s like. There’s legitimately people saying Rhaenyra can’t or shouldn’t be queen because she’s trying to put “bastards” in the line of succession.

1. Who. The hell. Cares. Who their actual biological father is? Why do we care? What difference does it make? Laenor, Corlys, Viserys recognized them and reaffirmed them in the line of succession MULTIPLE TIMES. No one *who is actually important to the issue* cares who the boys’ biological father is, and their claim comes from their mother, the named heir, the Queen, who can then decide who her heir is, just like Jaehaerys did, and just like Viserys did. Laenor was a gay man, they said they tried to conceive. They couldn’t. What other option was there? Laenor seemed to have no problem with Harwin helping them sire their children while he went off and enjoyed himself.

(Also, the plot to usurp Rhaenyra came long before the three Velaryon boys were born because *she was a woman.* The appearance of her three oldest boys was just another convenient excuse)

2. Would a child in modern day conceived through surrogacy or sperm donation be considered illegitimate/a bastard if one of the parents dies but still has that child in their will? Can the other family members contest it on the basis of “well they’re not blood related so they can’t inherit anything.” Nope. Because that child is recognized and legally theirs, therefore entitled to whatever the parent/family says.

[lushthemagicdragon]

Today's random thought about my main man Tommy Shepherd is about how much of him is due to Wanda's Magic. Normally, people are like their parents because of a combination of genetics and nurture, but Tommy (and Billy) have neither of those things from Wanda (and Vision, theoretically, but let's be real he's barely involved). Everything the are is due to Wanda's cosmic worldbuilding, subconscious or intentional (and then the factors of nurture from their bio-parents, trauma in Tommy's case and positive nurture in Billy's).

My big headcanon is that Wanda made Tommy and Billy in the image of not only herself but of both Pietro AND Erik. Retcon about not being Erik's biological children be damned, because Pietro, Tommy, and Billy all have a substantial amount of Erik in them. Billy has Erik's righteousness, Tommy has his rebellious spirit, and they're both intense when crossed in a very House of Magnus way.

But also, I headcanon that they're both SHORT and will be bordering on twinkish for their whole lives because Wanda subconsciously wanted them to be her babies forever. So they remain youthful, petite, hug-sized for mom, in spite of Erik and Pietro both being tall.

Whatsmore, while Tommy is very intentionally the Pietro to Billy's Wanda, he's the best traits of Pietro, without any of his worst traits, the ones that have hurt Wanda over, and over, and over again. It's like she passive-aggressively created a version of her brother who is the idealized version of him, the parts she's loved in him since he was a boy, rather than the cantankerous, entitled, and controlling man he became. And this is why boy!pietro versions like XMCU Peter are more Tommy-like, because that's Pietro before he became a grown ass man and an all around dick.

And then that best-version-of-Pietro had to live through a series of abandonment issues and came out weird and different on the other end of it, and yet resilient in the face of all of that, because his base-coding is Best Version of Pietro.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The Harris campaign kicks into high gear

July 26, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Kamala Harris has the Trump campaign on its back foot. Whatever Trump’s advisers expected from V.P. Harris, they were wrong. Although Trump and his surrogates have tried several lines of attack, each attempt backfires as Trump offends important constituencies he needs to win. In attacking Kamala Harris, Trump is offending Black Americans, successful women, mothers raising blended families, couples trying to conceive, young people, and more. The Harris campaign has responded forcefully, using a pointed sense of humor that is refreshing and attractive to younger voters who see the internet as a battlefield of ideas.

On Thursday, the Harris campaign released a powerful television ad that was a “no-holds-barred” look at the threat to democracy posed by Trump. See The Guardian, ‘We choose freedom’: Kamala Harris campaign launches first ad. The ad is embedded in The Guardian article; I urge you to watch it. If you don’t, here is The Guardian’s description of the ad:

Released on Thursday morning, the ad opens with shots of Harris’s smiling face behind a podium, the word Kamala, the word Harris, and the American flag. The soundtrack is the beginning of Beyoncé’s song Freedom, to which Harris entered and exited her first speech to campaign staffers after gaining lightning speed momentum on the road to becoming the presumptive nominee. The ad is narrated by Harris, whose first words are, “In this election we each face a question. What kind of country do we want to live in?” She continues: “There are some people who think we should be a country of chaos. Of fear. Of hate,” she says, over shots of Trump and JD Vance. “But us, we choose something different.”

On social media, the Harris campaign has been even more aggressive. The Harris campaign took a clip of Trump imitating Kamala Harris, saying, “I’m the prosecutor and he is the convicted felon.” After Trump admits that he is a convicted felon and Harris is a prosecutor, the ad immediately cuts to a picture of Kamala Harris with her voice saying, “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message.” The Harris campaign is showing early signs of social media savvy—just as Barack Obama’s campaign did in 2008.

The Harris campaign also went after JD Vance, who described Kamala Harris in 2021 as a “childless cat lady” who should not have an equal voice in the future of America because she does not have biological children. (Harris is a stepmother to two children with Doug Emhoff.) Thursday was “In Vitro Fertilization Day.” The Harris campaign released a statement saying, “Happy World IVF Day To Everyone Except JD Vance.” See HuffPo, Harris Campaign Wishes Happy World IVF Day To Everyone Except 1 Person.

The confidence and swagger of that ad was reflected in the Harris campaign’s immediate acceptance of debate with Donald Trump, set for September 10. But as Kamala Harris demonstrated an eagerness to debate, Trump began hedging his bets, saying he “did not like the idea” of a debate on ABC. See CNBC, ‘Let’s go’: Harris agrees to debate Trump, accuses him of ‘backpedaling’ on Sept. 10 date.

The Harris campaign also used social media to troll Trump's morning appearance on Fox News, during which Trump called Kamala Harris “garbage.” The Harris campaign issued a press release entitled Statement on a 78-Year-Old Criminal’s Fox News Appearance. The press release said,

After watching Fox News this morning we only have one question, is Donald Trump ok? Trump is old and quite weird [and] this guy shouldn’t be president ever again.

For their part, Trump and his surrogates were reduced to claiming that Kamala Harris is a “DEI hire,” a “failed border czar,” and a socialist who will destroy the economy of America.

Luckily for Kamala Harris, economic growth and border security both improved in the second quarter. On Thursday, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the gross domestic product grew at a 2.8% rate in the second quarter, well above the consensus prediction of 1.9% by economists. See USA Today, US GDP report: Latest data shows economy grew 2.8% in Q2 (usatoday.com)

At the border, crossings by immigrants dropped to their lowest level since 2020 (under Donald Trump). See CBS News, Migrant crossings continue to plunge, nearing the level that would lift Biden's border crackdown. Per CBS News,

July is on track to see the fifth consecutive monthly drop in migrant apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border and the lowest level in illegal immigration there since the fall of 2020, during the Trump administration, the internal Department of Homeland Security figures show.

My point in noting the responses by the Harris campaign is not to revel in the “zingers” and “smackdowns” that are long overdue. Rather, it is to highlight the nimbleness, swagger, and professionalism of the Harris campaign. The lightning-quick responses would be exemplary for any presidential campaign; they are stunning for a presidential campaign that is four days old.

Although it is still early, it seems clear that the Harris campaign will focus on Trump's criminality, incoherence, age, and hateful agenda. And it is doing so with a satirical edge that transfers easily into internet memes—which is an effective way to create viral messaging that reaches young people. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign has been caught flat-footed, trying to ignore the awkward creepiness of JD Vance and Trump's part-time approach to campaigning.

All of this should give Democrats confidence that Kamala Harris will run a strong campaign against an opponent who will wage a vile and hate-filled counter-offensive. If the first few days of the campaign are any indication, Kamala Harris is up to the task.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[daeneryspilled]

so i don’t understand what is *so* hard to get about the idea that rhaenyra being crowned as queen *peacefully* would’ve at least introduced the baby-step process that women can inherit the iron throne, even if it doesn’t automatically lead to absolute primogeniture and prompt benefits being established for -all- women.

book-wise we have one (ONLY one) inkling of how rhaenyra feels about the succession, and it’s that she doesn’t wish to alienate any more allies than she already had:

show-wise we have a vague and contradictory line of jace and baela’s sons inheriting the iron throne followed by luke and rhaena’s children inheriting the driftwood throne, which just seems like an inconsistency in the writer’s room, but why is that *such* an issue for those that support aegon’s claim to begin with? rhaenyra only has sons (biologically) at this point, so we really don’t know whether or not she would’ve named a daughter as her heir over a son, but this thought process derives from real history. eventually female heirs were allowed in certain circumstances but male children were *always* preferred (until recently). this still doesn’t change what her reign would’ve entailed had there not been war. rhaenyra is allowed to fight for the right her father granted onto her when she was 8 years old, aegon was not entitled to it simply because he was born with a penis and his mother raised him to believe that made him special.

jeyne arryn, one of her staunchest allies, point blank states what will happen to women heirs and ladies in their own right if the greens are allowed to repudiate the succession, because it’s something she -personally- had gone through:

“in this world of men, we women must band together,” the green council states that they cannot rely on the eyrie for support due to is presently being ruled by a WOMAN. they knew what this would mean for women moving forward.

if we were to look into the history of english monarchs the first (official) queen regnant of england was mary i, who ruled for five years, and didn’t make any changes to the rules of succession during her reign (any that involved gender, any battles she faced mostly had to do with religion). she was followed by her sister elizabeth i, who ruled for 45 years, and made no changes to the rules of succession. both of whom ascended as queen because there were no male relatives alive at the time, but each obviously proved that women were just as capable of men ruling, releasing at least some of the stigma surrounding that subject during their time alive. it wasn’t even until recently, during the reign of elizabeth ii (in 2013, specifically), that absolute primogeniture was enacted into law, ending the system of male-preference cognitive primogeniture. mary became queen in october of 1553, so it took 460 years for this change to occur.

rhaenyra is based off empress matilda, daughter of henry i, who would’ve been the first queen regnant of england had she not been challenged and deposed by her cousin, stephen of blois, in a war known as the anarchy; with it ultimately ending when a peace treaty was signed by both stephen and matilda, with her son henry ii named as stephen’s successor upon his death (which happened a year later). this war began in 1135, which was 878 years before the succession was formally changed and 418 years before england would actually see a queen on the throne. this is just to put it into perspective how one queen is not going to immediately enact change for the betterment of all women whilst attempting to rule an age-old abhorrent system, but saying that they had no bearing on succession laws and gender equality moving forward is wild.

not only did rhaenyra only reign for six months, she was in the middle of a civil war that had resulted in the deaths of four of her children (as far as she knew) at that point. among that the treasury had been depleted and sent to green loyalists, so she was taking over a country with virtually no money at hand. her reign was damned from the start, and her near broken mental state led her to make some bad decisions. from the beginning of her heir ship she was looked down upon for being a woman; her stepmother spread vile rumors about her virginity when was in her early teens, her sworn shield groomed and took advantage of her, her siblings were raised to hate her and view her as a threat to THEIR birthright and lives, her father was nigh on useless in protecting her against any of this due to his pacifist and pushover nature. she was usurped because she was a woman, and ultimately killed because she was a woman. denying the tragedy of her life is refusing to understand the deeper components of the story being told.

if women aren’t even able to hold offices of high power how is anything supposed to change for those in even worse circumstances? women didn’t gain semi equal rights by being silent and subservient to the men around them, they gained them by fighting back against the status quo; by marching, lobbying their politicians, lecturing those willing and unwilling to listen to their plight, causing civil disobedience, etc. we shouldn’t condemn those that do not have the will nor the ability to participate in these events, but refusing to understand their opposites and overtly criticizing how imperfect they are or blaming them for their suffering is not the way to go.

once again, rhaenyra is not a feminist, but she should be seen as a proto-feminist figure by us, the audience, for her will to stake her claim as the first woman to sit the iron throne. her usurpation and subsequent murder leads to the death of all dragons, a catastrophic consequence considering her parallels to the amethyst empress and the dire stakes at hand in regard to the second long night.

[butterflyrocks]

One of the things to say about surrogacy [there are a lot of things to say about this topic], is not only that it commodifies women's bodies, it also denies body autonomy to every woman, by using the argument of the right to have a family (in this case a biological one).

Let's start with the basics. Having a family is not a right. It's a desire.

Having a family is something that happens if you have the means to make it happen (you and your partner are able to have kids, neither of you are infertile, you have enough money to take care of a child...), and everyone involved is okay with it {you and your partner want to have children and are okay with it}.By no means having a family is something anyone is entitled to.

But using this rhetoric of the right to have a family makes men think that they are indeed entitled to form a family (a biological one), and that makes them entitled to women's bodies.

And entitlement to women's bodies has consequences [rape, anti-abortions laws (that deny body autonomy to the woman), emotional manipulation...]

Surrogacy is using the body of another woman, usually one without resources to have a biological child, because you think you are entitled to it. But this rhetoric used here, like I have said above, not only hurts the women in surrogacy, it hurts all of us.

What happens with women that are fertile but don't want kids? If their boyfriends want kids, they feel entitled to them too. It isn't uncommon to hear stories of boyfriends emotionally manipulating their girlfriends to have kids instead of being reasonable human beings and realizing that their expectations of the future are not compatible and they should part ways.

[coochiequeens]

If critics are unhappy with surrogacy bans making it harder for gay men to have children because in Italy gay men can only have a civil union and not marriage which makes it harder to adopt then maybe advocates should work on marriage equality and adoption rights instead of......exploiting women

Italy’s new law classifies surrogacy as a universal crime on the same level as terrorism and genocide

Our expectations were low but oh my God.

By Benedetta Geddo Published: Oct 18, 2024 7:13 AM EDT

On Wednesday, October 16, the Italian Senate approved a proposed bill that was already passed last year by the lower house of the Parliament, making surrogacy “a universal crime” punishable according to Italian law no matter where Italian citizens are in the world when committing it.

This new law, whose creation and promotion were carried onwards by members of the Fratelli d’Italia party that is the current government majority, expands on an already existing law dating back to 2004, which bans surrogacy—usually referred to in Italy as “gestation for others” or “renting a uterus”—throughout the country. 

The ban is now placed on Italian citizens no matter where they are in the world, and that technically should go for both the aspiring parents seeking surrogacy as well as any medical staff who facilitates it—who would all face steep fines and even jail time. There remains the question of the practical application of several aspects of this new law, which are fuzzy at best according to several legal experts and even some politicians behind the bill and would present quite the challenge for Italian lawyers and judges during a potential court case.

While statistics reported by The Washington Post show that most of the Italian citizens who travel abroad to have a child are heterosexual couples dealing with infertility issues, this new law would disproportionally affect same-sex couples—particularly gay couples, who would have a harder time explaining their return to Italy with a newborn infant than other couples would. Same-sex couples, in general, are already banned from adoption in Italy—and from marriage since the only union available to them is “a civil union”—and this furthers narrows their chances at becoming parents in a feel that feels very much targeted and could very well be.

This new law is one of the West’s most restrictive ones on the matter, even in Europe where surrogacy is much more constricted than in the United States, and it does certainly send a message about the stance Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party have on “traditional family values” and reproductive issues—which were already quite clear to begin with. Meloni herself called it “a law against the mercification of the female bodies and of children,” in a post shared on her X (formerly Twitter) account.

Then again, this is ultimately yet another step in a considerable effort to control the culture about reproductive rights—something that isn’t exclusive to Italy but is happening all around the world as policies tend to shift towards the right everywhere. While abortion is firmly allowed in Italy thanks to a law that dates back to 1978, accessing it is often a hard, frustrating, and emotionally painful trial thanks in no small part to the intervention of several pro-life groups right down to hospital’s waiting rooms

This law is another signal in that same direction. One that implies that even though the State doesn’t have any rights on a person’s organs even after their death—since organ donation must be agreed upon by either the person who would be doing the donation or their next of kin, in Italy just like in many other countries around the world—the only exception is a woman’s uterus. On that, apparently, the State has every right to interfere. And that is ultimately the real issue, independent of one’s own personal feelings and opinions about surrogacy.

[pers-books]

Liz Truss’s bid to ban trans women from sports runs out of time after MPs discuss ferrets instead

Left: former PM Liz Truss. Right: two domesticated ferrets (names unknown) Getty/Wikimedia Commons

Former UK prime minister Liz Truss’s recent attempt to ban transgender women from female spaces ran out of time and will now not be debated after MPs joined forces to “talk it out” for five hours, including discussing ferret name choices.

Truss, the UK’s shortest-serving prime minister, sponsored the bill – entitled the Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill – saying it would define sex in law as biological and, in her view, end the “absurd and dangerous situation where biological males self-defining as females can access girls’ and women’s toilets and so on – as well as sports competitions”. 

In recent months, Liz Truss has become increasingly vocal over trans issues and has aligned herself with hard-right groups and figures, even appearing at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the US state of Maryland last month, where she claimed that “trans activists” had infiltrated the UK’s civil service.

One of Liz Truss’s allies, Secretary of State for Trade Kemi Badenoch, slammed the “filibuster”, saying that Labour MPs had used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices instead of “protecting children.”

Champion said: “I am interested that my right hon. Friend is keenly mentioning ferrets at every opportunity that she can get in this debate, so let me just put it on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar.” Eagle replied: “My hon. Friend now has that on the record. I do not really know what else to say about that, except that I am sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy.”

Conservative MP for North Devon Selaine Saxby also joined in the Animal Welfare debate after she was asked by Ms Eagle whether she had ever owned a ferret, “and if so, what was that ferret’s name?”

Saxby replied: “That is an excellent intervention. I will come to ferrets, but unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of one at home myself.”

At one point, the Animal Welfare debate segued into a discussion of the soap opera Coronation Street, with Labour MP for Chester Samantha Dixon saying: “Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent Coronation Street storyline on precisely this issue? It involved the indomitable Evelyn, who is, of course, played by Maureen Lipman, and covered the issues around puppy farming. It was a strong, educational storyline.”

A bill aimed at ban conversion therapy failed to move through Parliament on Friday 1 March for the same reasons, after a debate on it ran out of time: with anti-conversion therapy ban MPs, including gender-critical Labour MP Rosie Duffield and several Conservative MPs, similarly accused of ‘filibustering’.

Were it not too early in the morning for it, I'd be HOWLING with laughter at this!

Here's a suggestion - instead of hounding trans people, do something about the number of children being groomed online!

[niiwa-angel]

I have so many questions about this comic it isn't even funny.

1. How is recognizing ones biological sex dehumanizing and cruel?

2. Does the artist know it's very obvious what sex people are? Nobody is being outed when they have to use the bathroom assigned to their biological sex. If anything, they're outed by using the bathroom assigned to the opposite sex, since everyone can see by looking at them that they do not belong there.

3. Not a question but I think it's absolutely hilarious that, just like in their real life arguments, this trans activists comic completely bulldozes over the very real concern about women's safety with a bunch of incomprehensible word salad. If they're one thing, they're consistant

4. So having a male student use the men's bathroom is humiliating and cruel, but forcing little girls to expose themselves in a space that should be safe isn't?

5. Again, not a question but this comic talks about trans students "hating the world if someone asked if they deserved to live a quiet life at school mind their own business" and I have a few thoughts on that. For one, nobody is saying trans kids can't live a quiet life at school, we're saying males can't go into the girls rooms and girls can't go into the men's rooms. Two, parents are entitled and should be encouraged to raise concerns about their children's well being. Three, this once again glosses over the rights and safety of little girls. Why are boys who identify as girls allowed more protections than actual girls?

6. How is it child abuse to make the boys use the boys rooms but forcing girls to share their intimate spaces isn't?

Anyway, fellow Radfems, I'd love your thoughts.

[joyish-little-boy]

One Backstory to Rule them All

Anyone else think about how Sanji's backstory parallels every other Strawhat's backstory?

1. Luffy - Luffy is the most obvious, as they quite literally flashback to Shanks losing his arm right after Sanji explains how Zeff sacrificed his leg for Sanji. It's interesting the parallel here - because Shanks sacrifice is what took Luffy a step further in his dreams and made him determined to be the captain of his own pirate crew rather than simply joining Shank's crew, which is what he wanted to do previously. Now, for Sanji, Zeff's sacrifice had the opposite effect and Sanji chained himself to Zeff and what remained of Zeff's dreams rather than being pushed forward by it.

2. Zoro - I find it interesting that all of the Monster Trio parallel each other in their backstories in that all of them constantly lost when they were kids. Zoro lost 2001 times to Kuina, Luffy lost 50 fights to Ace and 50 to Sabo every day, and Sanji was constantly being beaten by his siblings. Each were called weak by those beating them, and each grew past that. What's also interesting to me is that there's the specific method of losing in Sanji's losing montage that's a direct callback to Zoro's backstory, as Oda includes multiple scenes of Sanji being beat at fights with wooden swords.

The difference being that Kuina is a decent human being and doesn't abuse Zoro. She calls him weak, but ultimately respects him as a rival and Zoro respects her in turn. Luffy also eventually earns that respect, though Sanji never does which leads to a noticeable difference in how Zoro and Sanji see themselves and their places on the crew - Thriller Bark I think being a perfect example of how Sanji believes that he's replaceable in a way that Zoro doesn't.

3. Nami - Nami and Sanji were both kids that found themselves in abusive situations, though at different ages. For both of them, their abuse centered around a man who's belief in their own superiority led them to a sense of entitlement to what was theirs. Arlong believed in his own biological superiority and Judge believed in the superiority of the Vinsmoke name, as well as genetic superiority which led him to experiment on his own children. Arlong values the lives of fishmen, the lives of the rest of his crew over the lives of Nami and the rest of her village. Judge values the lives of his other children over Sanji, seeing him as a failure for the way he was born (although it's also mentioned he blames Sanji for what happened with Sora). I think another very interesting parallel in their stories is the role of their respective older sisters. Nojiko and Reiju both privately support their younger sibling but both cannot stand up to the abusive figure in their lives. Nojiko gets tattoos to match Nami's to help her feel less alone, she listens to Nami, and does her best to try and support her through the 8 years of hell (8 years being another parallel to other members of the crew including Sanji). Reiju for her part laughs along with her brothers, but never lays a hand against Sanji and does her best to patch him up after everyone is gone. Their actions are indirect and discreet, save for the final fights, and that muted care is a very interesting part of each of their characters and it's why, I think neither of them felt it was their place to accompany their siblings on their journey. When Nami leaves, Nojiko lets her go, like she's always let her go. And Reiju pushes Sanji to leave, just as she pushed before. That regret of not being able to help more will stick with them forever.

4. Usopp - Usopp's backstory is all of 5 seconds long and still manages to parallel Sanji's somehow??? If I had a nickel for each strawhat who's mom was sick and died from illness when they were young, I'd have 2 nickels-

5. Chopper - HOO boy the parallel of your biological family hating you for the way that you were born and neglecting/abusing you for it hits right on Chopper's blue nose. Now, it's not all bad for either of them, though - considering they each had someone that accepted them for who they were. Chopper had Hiraluk and Sanji had Sora. Hiraluk inspired Chopper to be a doctor, emphasizing he had the most important qualification - a big heart. Sora meanwhile cried about how kind Sanji was to Reiju and her nurse, when he told her to "get better soon", calling him the "sweetest boy in the world". That kindness - that caring nature, is something that Hiraluk and Sora would do anything to protect and it's so evident that these two cared deeply for their kids. It's why Hiraluk ate that poisoned mushroom and encouraged Chopper to become a doctor and Sora ate the ruined food despite her fragile constitution and asked Sanji to cook for her again! This is love, baby!

These two kids were willing to risk so much to bring nourishment and care to the ones they loved, BOTH standing up to their biological families - Chopper fighting through his old herd of reindeer to get the mushroom, and Sanji sneaking out risking his father's wrath and braving the storm and wild dogs to deliver the food. Hiraluk and Sora are Chopper's and Sanji's source of encouragement which kick start each of their passions. And both of them tragically die which is honestly just heartbreaking. But all hope isn't lost, and both Chopper and Sanji find a new mentor, ones who are strict - but do care a lot for each of them, and help them develop the discipline they need to learn their respective crafts. Kurehara and Zeff are interesting parallels, both tough older mentors who are sharp of tongue and strict with their new apprentices. They can be this way without discouraging Chopper and Sanji, because the passion has already been ignited and so it's easy to see how they're good fits for helping these two live up to their full potential.

6. Robin - the big parallel with these two boils down to these two scenes and I sob about both of them.

Saul and Reiju, telling them to set out to sea, placing faith in the vastness of the world, knowing that they've done everything they can for now and planting that seed of hope that someday Robin and Sanji will meet people that can give them what they deserve is just such a touching moment. While this parallel is interesting, what's also interesting is the ways in which these two characters differ. The danger that Robin runs from is something that chases her, whereas the danger that Sanji runs from is his family and once he's made it onto the boat he's free. Robin thought she would never be safe, Sanji thought he was safe up until the wedding fiasco. And precisely the thing that hurts Sanji - the fact that his family wanted him gone - is so different from what's hurting Robin - the fact that she'll never be left alone by the government. Robin is wanted for the skills she and only she has, her story is (wo)man vs world, her bounty set at 79,000,000 which is the literal value on her head. Sanji is unwanted for the skills he, and he alone (in his family) lacks. There's no bounty, no one goes after him. His story is man vs self and undoing the damage that was done to his psyche as a child. It's so fascinating to me the way that both of these characters are saved by the crew in similar but such different ways, the way that each of them wanted to die, but for different reasons. Robin wanted to sacrifice herself because she's been betrayed and hurt by the world so many times that she couldn't trust in the strawhats' love. She loved them too much to risk being hurt like that again. Sanji wanted to sacrifice himself because he'd rather die than inconvenience the crew. Rather than not believing in their love, he doesn't believe he's worth that love, preferring to solve his problems on his own. And I think that it's so fitting the way that both of their stories intersect in Wano, with Robin being able to protect Sanji and Sanji finally believing in his own worth enough to ask for help. They're such different characters, with Sanji wearing his heart on his sleeves and Robin holding her's close to her chest and such interesting mirrors of each other.

7. Franky - they're cyborgs, what else can I say? The difference here is clear - Sanji's body was modified without his consent, whereas Franky modified himself. They're also both unwanted children, with Franky's parents abandoning him on Water 7 whereas Sanji's father was happy when Sanji left.

8. Brook - the parallel here is in the loneliness that both of them experienced, and really Sanji just got a taste of what Brook went through. Sanji and Brook were both parts of different crews before they were on the strawhats, albeit Sanji as a child and for a very short time, whereas Brook was with the Rumbar pirates for a longer time as an adult journeying very similarly to how the strawhats are now. Both were the sole survivors of their respective crews after being attacked, and though Sanji had Zeff on the rock, neither of them communicated with each other for the first 70 days after their initial agreement. Sanji felt a taste of the 50 years that Brook had to go through, with no food or water or way to escape off his abandoned pirate ship.

9. Jimbei - honestly I don't really have a good comparison for these two, other than they're both people who when confronted with the cruelty of others chose irrational kindness. Jimbe eventually learned how to live with and respect humans, and Sanji wouldn't let his family die, even after everything they put him through. They're both people who derived their codes of honor from others - Jimbei from Fisher Tiger and Queen Otohime and Sanji from Zeff. Idk maybe there's more there, but i don't really have too much to say about these two

Anyways, idk i just think they're neat 👉👈 and the way that Oda threw in parallels to all the other character's when completing Sanji's backstroy is so fascinating to me

[unfortunatetheorist]

Could Beatrice Baudelaire II have The Sugar Bowl?

In a Verifiable Former Discourse of mine, entitled "Why did Beatrice Baudelaire II go to the Hotel Denouement?", I proposed that Beatrice II knew of the existence of her father's secret sub-basement...

...but what if she knew more?

Some things are for certain:

1. Beatrice II was 1 when The Beatrice was shipwrecked.

2. Beatrice II was 10 by the time she wrote to, and eventually met, Lemony Snicket - her biological uncle. She reached out to him in order to re-unite with the Baudelaires. This means she was already with them, but she... lost them, somehow.

This leaves a gap of about 7-8 years at least, during which the Baudelaires told Beatrice II everything; this breaks the cycle of secrecy kept between adults and children in the ASOUE universe (e.g. Widdershins' "There are some secrets in this world too terrible for young people to know").

Well, they told her everything they wanted to tell her...

Beatrice II has clearly done her own research, else she wouldn't have known about the secret sub-basement.

The Baudelaires knew that the lock was a decoy, and they knew exactly where the sugar bowl went when it fell into the laundry chute. They didn't tell Olaf for the safety of the bowl, but is it possible they told Beatrice II, in the hope that it may still be there?

If they did, though she would be young, Beatrice II would know exactly how to get it. Hinging off of @snicketstrange's theory of the Baudelaire memory superpower...

Beatrice could've inherited this power (because, after all, VFD is one giant family) and used it to retrieve the sugar bowl; Lemony would've known this - or could've at least inferred it - from his extensive (as he never fails to mention) research and her letter, causing him to risk his life (because he's still on the lam) to get it, just as he did so many years ago, that night at the opera.

Not my best work, but not my worst either [I think],

~ Th3r3534rch1ngr4ph, Unfortunate Theorist/Snicketologist

[kaeyachi]

Hey not going to lie, it's kinda reductive and insulting to say that signora would have healed from her traumas if she had a kid, even an adopted one. It falls into the idea that women are incomplete until they have and raise children, which reduces women into babymills at worst and biologically mandated to rear children at best. I know this is a fictional character, but real-world women are told time and time again that having kids will fix their problems, be it personal issues, relationship issues, or mental issues. Please have some sensitivity surrounding perpetuating bioessentialist concepts.

Right. Long response. Read the full thing if you guys can handle my opinion on this matter.

First off, anon, please be careful with your words. I understand your concerns, but your message enraged and hurt me unnecessarily when I saw this, especially with what I am still going thru with my personal life. Also, please know that my HC was not meant to be harmful in any way, shape, or form to IRL people. I usually ignore disagreements because people are entitled to their own opinion, but I felt the need to defend myself this time from you specifically. I will not be doing this again.

Kindly check the post thoroughly please. I mentioned it would make her "somewhat healed," not make her fully recover from her issues. There is clearly no such thing as a complete healing from trauma. There is no miracle cure involved at all. I'm not even saying Signora would turn 100% good after adopting a child. She could still demand the downfall of everything around her while having a child to care for. A child is not, and never will be, a fix-all. I do not subscribe to such a thought.

Additionally, I am fully aware of this problematic mindset against women. I am an AFAB southeast asian with a family pestering me to get married and produce whilst I continue to hide in my aroace closet, fearing the thought. At most, I have told my family that I do not need a child to feel fulfillment. This has led me to so many arguments throughout the years, so seeing your message was honestly like a punch to the face.

To demand sensitivity from me would have been fine had my goal been to say that women should be treated like cattle and/or caretakers, but in this specific topic, I think people should be allowed to yearn and heal thanks to children that come into their lives. Kaeya himself is a person under this trope with him admitting that Klee's innocent outlook on life helped him. Several other genshin characters also have experienced this specific trope. This trope does not imply that a child fixed their lives or that they are now reduced to caretakers. That being said, I think it is my turn to demand some self-awareness from you and to everyone else out there.

A fictional character is a thought- an idea- and does not have the same autonomy as a living being, so a headcanon for one SHOULD NOT harm those who do not want children or be treated as a baby machine or a nanny! I sure do hope that people here are capable of separating fiction from reality. With this mindset, people should also refrain from making headcanons like "this character is trans!" or "this character is clearly gay!" because these are harmful assumptions IRL too.

Additionally, to bring back the actual cause of your message- I actually read a voiceline that made me think Signora could POTENTIALLY benefit from adopting a child. This is where the idea came from:

Anon, if you, anyone else for that matter, are not happy with my response, kindly block me. I do not wish to see any response over this topic again. I am drawing the line right here and right now.

[gegengestalt]

Some thoughts on how Dmitri Karamazov and Pavel Smerdyakov are perfect foils

*Keep in mind that this contains spoilers for the entire book and that in order for this comparison to work, one must assume that the rumour about Fyodor being Pavel Smerdyakov's biological father has to be true.

While there is a lot written on the theological debate of Ivan and Alyosha Karamazov, I have yet to see a comparison of Mitya Karamazov and Pavel Smerdyakov. Perhaps I haven't explored enough, but these are my two cents (dare I say 3000 rubles) on the matter. Both taken care of by Grigory, both suspects in the murder of Fyodor Pavlovich, yet two men couldn't be more different from each other. I will write down my thoughts in this order:

Different from their birth (social circumstances)

Contrasting the individuals (their descriptions and characterization, side by side)

Brotherhood (relationships to Ivan and Alyosha, preparation for the next point

Narrative (their place in the narrative)

1. Different from their birth

From even before they were born, their paths are opposed. Mitya is born out of the union of Fyodor Pavlovich and Adelaida Miusova, an aristocratic, beautiful and educated young woman who married Fyodor against her family's wishes and was no innocent victim of his. Even when he left her son, it was her choice, though a hard one (and probably the best one, considering her fate.)(BookI,chapter1). Stinking Lizaveta didn't have much of a choice. She was a poor and mentally disabled woman who suffered violence from Fyodor shortly after Adelaida left, and died in childbirth (BIIIch2). Mitya keeps a connection to his mother through his inheritance, but for Pavel, it's a curse. He is "the stinking son of Stinking Lizaveta", and ironically the child that remains in his father's home for the longest time.

From these circumstances, the children grow up to be a firstborn who feels entitled to what he feels is owed to him, and an illegitimate son whose work as a servant is taken for granted. Yet, even when Mitya is of a good social position and Pavel is of a lower one, Mitya is the one who seems to sink below what is considered to be how an aristocrat should act in public and is compared to a beast, and he has often surrounded himself with peasants in his parties. Pavel is the one who takes small steps to strive for more than what he's given, he likes to dress well, he learns and has aspirations beyond what he's expected to do. (For this whole paragraph, BVch2)

2. Contrasting the individuals

Their differences come down to individual characteristics as well, and it's evident even in how they present themselves. Mitya is described as muscular and sporting signs of masculinity like a moustache that is often seen in military men (BIIch6) He walks with long strides, he's loud, outwardly emotional and often gesticulates in exaggerated manners. Pavel's main physical feature is his weakness and sickliness. Compared to Mitya's masculinity, Pavel is portrayed as emasculate, as he is compared to an eunuch. He has a silent and discreet demeanour, and he's not very expressive. (BIIIch6, BIXch6)

Mitya is impulsive. This causes him to have a temper and not be very smart in the way that requires focus, patience and forethought (seeing him as completely stupid leaves out so much of his character). What Pavel lacks in the physical strength that Mitya has, he makes up for with a more calculated and patient approach. He's neat and meticulous even in the night of the murder, while Mitya runs around stained in blood. Speaking of meticulousness, it's interesing to me how Pavel's behaviour could be described as effeminate, while Mitya's masculinity is overdone through several masculine stereotypes at once (the knight of honour, the brute, the sensitive and tortured artist).

When it comes to women, God, their country and poetry, their opinions are comically different. Mitya enjoys the attention he gets from women and returns it, he expresses love for God and Russia in the text and he's very fond of poetry, quoting it often and even speaking with rhymes and wordplays at times. (BookIIIchIII&IV, Epilogue 2). Pavel happens to disdain all of these. While he holds contempt for both men and women, the suggestion of marriage digusted him. He rejects God, claims to hate all of Russia and declares that poetry is rubbish ("who ever talks in rhyme?" well, it seems like Mitya does)(BIIIch6, BVch2).

3. Brotherhood

Ivan and Alyosha, the children of Sofia Ivanovna, have contrasting relationships with their half- brothers. Mitya, who quickly grew fond of Alyosha, puts him in a moral high- ground and pours out his heart to him. Alyosha accepts it and reciprocates his brotherly love, even if he isn't as outwardly enthusiastic. Pavel, on the other hand, looked up to Ivan on the basis of thinking they could be alike and shows great interest in Ivan's displays of intellect. Ivan is increasingly scornful of Pavel as the story progresses. Ivan and Alyosha's contrasts extend to their half- brothers as well. Mitya and Alyosha are the life- affirming pair of half- brothers, while Ivan and Pavel are the pair with the ideas deemed destructive by the narrative.

Two fun contrasts I noticed, as a side note:

Mitya and Alyosha are two sides of not working for money, and Pavel and Ivan are two sides of work.

Book III ends with Alyosha and Mitya parting ways and Book V ends with Pavel and Ivan parting ways.

4. Narrative

While Ivan and Alyosha carry the theological and philosophical discussion in the heart of the book, Mitya and Pavel are the main players in the world that puts the theories and ideals to the test. Dostoyevsky's narrative attempts to make the reader sympathize and have faith in the greatly flawed human being that is Mitya. Those who believed in his capacity for spontaneous good will never believe that he murdered his father, while those who didn't would have a harder time believing in his open- ended redemption. Pavel's case is a little more complicated. His inner thoughts aren't as exposed as Mitya's, and his motivations aren't explicitly nor reliably stated, so it's harder to consider his importance unless one pays attention to how the narrator presents him as an outsider, a shallow presence. Not even his relationship with Marya is explored. I have my reasons to believe this may be a deliberate choice, since a theme in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's work is the suffering of the lower classes. Mitya is a great character, but Pavel isn't, not because he's badly written, but because perhaps his conflicts aren't Mitya's intense and paradoxical angst and passion. Perhaps there is a lot of boring and unromantic pain in the world.

Mitya and Pavel execute Alyosha's and Ivan's respective positions, even further. Mitya's religious fervor surpasses Alyosha's, his faith is a simple and unwavering affirmation even when he's drowning in the guilt of sin or Rakitin pesters him to dissuade him from his faith. His religiosity goes so far that he overdoes one of the core ideas of the book: while he embraces Zosima's idea of guilt for all, it doesn't just mean that he should be guilty for everyone, but that everyone is guilty for everyone else. Those are fundamentally different things. As for Pavel, he dared to do what Ivan doesn't, he put his ideas in practice (BXIch7-8). However, I don't believe that he was directly inspired by him. I think he adapted the ideas to his own interests. Sometimes people love to realize what they already knew, and wait until they find a justification. One of my favourite things about Dostoyevsky is that we see the philosophical content happen in the world of his stories.

From their birth to their fates, two men couldn't be more different. Mitya, who acted or expressed himself in a suicidal manner well over ten times, ultimately stays away from the pistols and declares a sense of responsibility for a crime he did not commit. Pavel, who was shown to feel attachment to his own life and save his own skin, destroys himself out of his own volition after tormenting Ivan.

Thank you so much for reading if you made it all the way to the end!

[anime-pencil-drawings]

The Paris Olympics and Homophobia

I just got into an argument with my family over this, so I am going to explain things a bit more elegantly on here.

My parents were super offended because of the Drag Queens posing for the last supper photo during the Olympics. They said it was disrespectful and they were tired of having things "shoved down our throats".

I asked how it was disrespectful, and why they thought it was disrespectful compared to other people/media doing it. They said it was all offensive (despite never having criticized anything else before), and they said it was making a mockery of Christianity. And I'm over here being like, how!? Literally nothing was disrespectful.

They were referencing a famous painting, which wasn't even how the real Last Supper would have looked like. Jesus and his followers were all young twenty-somethings, middle eastern, and Jewish, it would NOT have fucking looked like that.

They then said they were entitled to their opinions, and the problem with the 'woke' crowd is we demand to be present and respected while 'not respecting other people's opinion'.

If your opinion threatens my existence, and over all compassion and humanity, then yeah, I'm gonna argue it!

When I asked how it was shoving it down our throats, they said Drag Queens have nothing to do with the Olympics. And I just- tell me you never understood the point of the opening of the Olympics without telling me you never understood the point of the opening of the Olympics.

It's about art, and the hosting country's culture! What is France well known for? Fashion, which was present throughout the opening. Who is well known for their distinct and outlandish sense of fashion? Drag Queens and Kings! What is, arguably, the most popular form of expressive art of the modern day? DRAG!!

And minutes before, they were happily talking about how, when Britain hosted, they had Mr. Bean and James Bond. Talk about hypocritical! What in the fuck does Mr. Bean playing the piano have to do with sports? What does James Bond rendezvousing with the Queen have to do with sports? NOTHING! But because that stuff wasn't queer, they were a-okay with it.

My step-mother said we (the queer community) were purposely trying to piss off conservatives by having a child present in the show, which was 'pandering to their fears about drag queens'. HOW!? She said we know exactly how they would take it, but were still gonna cry when they got pissed at it. And what I wanna know is, why should we let conservatives' over reaching and fear mongering control us? My mom and sister were going on and on about we can't change their minds, SO WHY SHOULD WE PANDER TO THEM?? That girl wasn't being sexualized in ANY way shape or form. A big part of that fashion show was that people of all races, AGES, and physical abilities were represented. And children often go underrepresented! Non of the clothing on the Queens was sexual to begin with! It's not like she was around adults wearing lingerie, thongs and jock straps!

My step-mother also said not wanting things shoved down her throat does not make her homophobic, and she pointed out (as she always does when being homophobic) that she is friends with gay people and went to a gay wedding (she loves using that one). My sister then asked if telling racist jokes makes us racist. And, EXCUSE ME??

I obviously answered, yes, it does make you racist. My step-mother then said I was being racist by not respecting her opinion (mind you, she is a 100% Mexican woman, so she knows damn well what racism is). When I asked how that makes me racist, she said that I am not respecting her opinions, so that makes me racist. When I told her that, no, that is NOT racism (and yeah, I said it with attitude because she was being a bigoted dumbass), she proceeded to tell me 'fuck you' and if I was going to be woke know-it-all, then I could pack my bags and go live with my biological mother (my rapist :)(she likes to use that line a lot) and that no one was begging for me to stay.

She said I base all of my opinions on what I see on the internet, and like to argue, but don't know jack shit about life. She asked me if I thought I would last a day out there, and yeah! I think I would, considering I have a job, a phone, and coworkers who I don't think would mind helping me out. But I kept quiet because by this point I was done.

Overall, I hate this fucking dumbass family, and does ANYONE have any tips for getting out? I wanna get my GED but my dad says its better if I get my diploma (I'm homeschooled, so I have to stay with this woman ALL THE TIME) and I know schools will prefer a diploma, but I'm kinda at a breaking point here, and have been for a while