#obviously i can't blame all of this on society as I'm not being Forced to play crk or imagine about rm

[foodtruckery]

Your abo idea is so good and you mentioned the idea of ford obsessing over who else has helped stan with his heats but what I'm wondering is if ford would obsess over /him/ helping. Wondering what wouldve been different if stan presented when they were younger (then probably dismissing it thinking how their father wouldve blown a gasket) or if stan had called him and told him when it happened or if he had known even when he came out of the portal

I think abo stancest has potential for some fun dynamics and your characterization of those too would make it soooo good omega old man stan who's still just as much of an ass as he usually is and it both drives ford up the wall and makes him a little bit more crazy with his scent

oho you've activated my "i haven't stopped thinking about this idea and have more to share than you asked for" trap card! (and you've given me an excellent excuse to step away from halloween party prep for a minute, so thank you, anon!!) btw this is. so much fucking longer than i meant for it to be, i'm SO sorry.

but absofuckinlutely ford would be as haunted by that thought as i am by this whole premise. i'm putting this behind a cut JUST because i managed to ramble for 1,000 words about this because it is eating me alive. please know that if i hadn't been forced to spend the last several days locked in on party planning, there would already be something more coherent in the works for this lol.

i like to think that when he was younger, ford would've been just. obsessed with the fantasy of it all, right? when he's still heavily embedded in that society and wrapped up in the expectations of how alphas are supposed to be, how omegas are supposed to be. how could he NOT think about the ways things may have been different. what stan would have smelled like with that sweeter omega edge, or how much different, how much wetter, it may have sounded when he overheard him masturbating in the dark when stan thought he'd fallen asleep.

and what a perfect excuse to finally act on those less-than-acceptable feelings he's had about his brother. sure, it's not the done thing, but they're already so close, and they share all their space, and who would really blame him for being completely overhwelmed by all those pesky new instincts when stan went into heat for the first time?

but that's fantasty land, and older ford is the universe's smartest boy, so he knows that's obviously never going to happen. instead, i like to think our super intelligent idiot goes and develops a thing for betas instead, which he blames on the FWB thing he has going on in college with fiddleford and never inspects anymore closely than that. he's entirely too much of an intellectual to be fussed with all that secondary instincts nonesense, after all, and ford is NOT a natural caretaker/pack leader sort, can't stand the idea of some simpering omega expecting him to handle everything for them all the time, so it makes sense that he gravitates towards betas on the blessedly rare occassion where he seeks out a partner -- usually to get over a rut or something similar.

and then....well, there's the whole portal thing. and wouldn't you know it? not a lot of secondary genders in the multiverse! well, multi-genders, absolutely, but it's surprisingly rare to come across anyone else with the specific sort of secondary gender alignments from his universe. but that's even better, because it just separates him even further from the expectations he was always outside the lines of anyway.

of course, when he gets BACK, it's....hard to adjust to finding out that stan did, actually, present after he was kicked out left. but as an alpha. which...that makes sense! it's what they expected after ford presented, right? twins and all that. explains why they brawled right after he got home -- stupid, useless alpha hormones vying for dominance. and because smartest boy ford is so separated from all this by the time he comes back, it doesn't ever occur to him that stan would have to be feigning more than just his name and an ID card to impersonate ford for 30 years.

and why would he think stan was anything else, after all? sure, ford is a little rusty with identifying scents like these nowadays, but he isn't incompetent. stan smells like an alpha. and he sure as hell acts like one -- the worst kind, even. cocky, loud, physical, brash. ford definitely doesn't spend any time at all disappointed by this turn of events. and he certainly doesn't spend any other time fantasizing about bitching stan to make a point about reclaiming his home and his territory. he doesn't strip his dick to that idea at all.

needless to say. by the time things...settle down, ford's made some peace with the situation. he's found enough middle ground with stan that he isn't willing to fuck up rebuilding some kind of (loathe though he is to admit it) pack with his brother over a fleeting fantasy.

having all of that upended again, though? it's like turning a tap on full blast after you just got the damn thing to stop dripping. hard to hold on to the "i prefer to fuck betas" and "i am over this obsession with my brother" mentality when you're face to face with the bedrock of every lewd, overindulgent sexual fantasy you had between presenting and college. and how could he not consider all the things he missed, that could have actually been within reach?

where the hell was stanley when he went into heat for the first time? he wouldn't have known to start suppressents or pheremone drugs before that. did he ride it out alone in the back of that damn car someplace, getting slick all over the upholstery and his hands? did he think about ford to get through it? or did he find somebody to help out? to give him a door to lock or, worse, a bed to share. if he was fucking a stranger through his first heat, did he think about ford to get through that?

what if he'd said something the night he came to gravity falls? hell, by that point, ford can't even remember how stan had smelled that night, not in the midst of the torture and the paranoia and the insomnia -- if he hadn't been in the middle of bill's psychological warfare, would he have noticed that stan had presented? or would he have fallen as easily for whatever drugs stan may have been hiding behind then as he did when he came back?

but if he had noticed, would it have changed anything? it probably would have made things worse if it had, of course. bill knew all about stan and, worse, the fantasy of stan of ford held on to all those years. realistically, it would only have been horrible if stan had shown up on his doorstep halfway being dragged into a heat. but the idea of it -- of fucking stan through it in the basement instead of fighting over the portal and his journals. well, that's a nice thought.

it does beg the question, though: if ford can't remember how stan was presenting that night, there's a chance he hadn't been masking as an alpha yet. and even if he was, ford knows enough about the illicit drug trade to know that it's never a sure thing. did stan ever lapse? 30 years is a breathtakingly long time to be on those sorts of drugs, and they can't have all come from reputable places or been easy to get a hold of. especially in the woods in oregon.

it's clear with the situation now that being off those drugs has pointed and rather immediate consequences. does that mean that stan went into heat in the shack at some point? maybe multiple points? if it happened early on, would he have nested in ford's room, with whatever might have still smelled like him? or did he find someone in town to help? worse, was there someone in town who helped regularly when this sort of thing came up? and most importantly if so, who?

ford has QUESTIONS to say the least, but he is taking all of this QUITE WELL GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, thank you very much.

[unreadpoppy]

bg3, infographics, misogyny and you

Preface: this is a long ass post that I wrote some many weeks ago, and that because of some stuff I've seen, I'm compelled to finally post it. It's very like a spurn of the moment thing, not extremely well thoght out but I still think it's relevant.

.

Recently, a few people have posted some, in my opinion, really insightful infographics showing the difference in content to how many works (in AO3) there are to the female characters vs the male characters of BG3 and I've been thinking about how it relates to fandom in general, but also...everything.

As a quick rundown, what happens is: almost all of the female characters have a lot less content when compared to their male counterparts (at least writing wise). And I think this is a great moment to stop and think on why is that.

There's a lot of point to begin with but I want to begin with something larger and that is the society most of us are raised in. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's fair to say that most people grew up in places that had its fair share of sexism and give it or take, that does shape how we view the world.

I'll speak from my own experience. Even thought I had a mostly liberal upbriging, I went to a very conservative school and when I was growing up, I saw a lot of videos on youtube that anaylized media in what i can only describe as "god forbid women do anything". Video after video, I saw people commenting on how x female character was a mary sue, how she made no sense and ruined the plot, so many video essays on the """strong female character trope"""" that would end up just enforcing gender roles again. And I'll be honest, this DID affect how viewed female characters.

The best example I can give of this is with bg3 itself. There was one day that I stopped and realized that Minthara was the first time I ever obsessed over a fem character as much as any male character. And the second thought I had after this was 'oh my god why???'

Why did I always cater more to the male characters than I did to the female ones, when most of the times, I liked a lot as well?

I'd like to point out that I've seen the topic of "Most fic authors are cis straight women" being brought up a lot and frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of it. First, because I think it's overall a very...heteronormative way of seeing stuff and it's assuming a lot of stuff that puts a sour taste on my mouth (as a queer woman myself, I really don't like that implication but that's on me). Second, because saying that 'obviously women are going to write more about men' feels very...weird. Third, I just think that this argument fails to really question the why of it all and gives too simple an answer to something is anything but.

One can make the argument that these female characters are written differently than the men, and yes that is true and it's even historical (I wrote a whole project on the invisibility of women in theater through the ages and a lot of it has to do with how women were written, but that's a story for another time).

But I don't think that's true for all cases. It's easy to blame an imaginary writer's room than question that you might have internal biases.

Because at least it's what happened to me. I grew up hearing how female characters were inferior to the male characters and it affected how I viewed them. It's something I had to stop and reevalute and it led me to appreciate characters I once loathed.

And it sucks to realize that. It sucks to realize that even as a woman myself, I was not immune to commiting sexism, that I hadn't fully outgrown the shit I saw as a kid. Does that make me a bad person? No. You're not to blame for being raised in a way that leads you to have certain prejudices.

But it doesn't mean you can't do anything about it.

And no, the solution is not to suddenly go write a bunch of femslash. Because no one is saying that you should feel ashamed for writing more for men, or forcing you to like female characters. But, I ask you to do something much simpler.

Think on the why. Why, even when we love female characters, we don't show them as much love as we do to the male ones. Why we might feel more compelled to write for the men than for the women. Because sometimes it's questioning ourselves that we can find something about us we didn't know and change how we engage with media.

And you can brush this off as just fandom stuff, but I think it does, in some ways, also reflect a bit on how we act as whole as a society. Hell, writing this whole thing made me think of how the way I was raised still interferes with my own sexuality (which is a very personal topic for me to get on here but it was worth mentioning). What I'm trying to say is that sometimes something small is an easier way for us to understand the bigger, systemic issues around us.

I know that it sounds like there's nothing to be done cause fandoms have always been like this. But, personally, this sort of conformity to the norm causes more harm then good. Things won't change unless you decide to do something about it. And the good thing about fandom is that it's small enough that doing literally anything can create some impact than, I don't know, trying to solve big, real life societal issues.

This is getting long so I'm gonna try to wrap this up quickly. No one is shaming you if you write or obsesses more or even care more about male characters than you do female ones. I just ask you to think about it and be honest with yourself. Because then maybe, just maybe, next time you engage with another media, you might end up enjoying a female character much more and obsessing over them just as much.

[savourysaltysweet]

I would also speak more on RM but unfortunately my thoughts about him and the reasons for my fixation on him aren't very fun

I would reblog more RM art but a lot of it is a bit older and I don't want to disturb artists and the ones who Are still RMposting are few and I don't want to continually disturb artists

[atlas-plugged]

Atlas Shrugged Read-Through: PP 14-20

Our first introduction to the primary antagonist of Atlas Shrugged, Jim Taggart, is with him sitting at his desk saying "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me."

The unpleasant task that Eddie Willers has been facing is coming into Jim's office to tell him that a delivery of steel that has been delayed multiple times will be delayed again. Jim ordered the steel from his friend, Orren Boyle, who runs Associated Steel. Jim insists to Eddie that he won't hear of ordering the metal from the competing company, Rearden Steel, run by Hank Rearden. Taggart Transcontinental needs the steel because their Rio Norte line is too damaged to keep safely running trains on, and they are being outcompeted in the region by a small, local railroad called the Phoenix-Durango. Eddie is telling Jim to make a decision because the regional line supports the oil operation of Ellis Wyatt.

All of these are important characters and business that will come up a lot but they're not the real focus of this scene. The real focus of this scene is making Jim Taggart look like a big throbbing asshole, which is how you're supposed to think of him.

Here are a few of his lines from this brief scene:

"Who's thinking of giving up the Rio Norte Line?" he asked. "There's never been any question of giving it up. I resent your saying it. I resent it very much."

"Orren is my friend." He heard no answer. "I resent your attitude. Orren Boyle will deliver that rail just as soon as it's humanly possible. So long as he can't deliver it, nobody can blame us."

"Ellis Wyatt is a greedy bastard who's after nothing but money," said James Taggart. "It seems to me that there are more important things in life than making money."

"I think he's a destructive, unscrupulous ruffian. I think he's an irresponsible upstart who's been grossly overrated." It was astonishing to hear a sudden emotion in James Taggart's lifeless voice. "I'm not so sure that his oil fields are such a beneficial achievement. It seems to me that he's dislocated the economy of the whole country. Nobody expected Colorado to become an industrial state. How can we have any security or plan anything if everything changes all the time? [...] Yes, I know, I know, he's making money. But that is not the standard, it seems to me, by which one gauges a man's value to society. And as for his oil, he'd come crawling to us. and he'd wait his turn along with all the other shippers, and he wouldn't demand more than his fair share of transportation—if it weren't for the Phoenix-Durango. We can't help it if we're up against destructive competition of that kind. Nobody can blame us."

Jim Taggart is aggrieved. He is whiny, he doesn't accept responsibility for his actions, he resents people who are more active than he is (at least if they make demands on his time or cost him business by shifting their purchases to his competitors).

Jim is not written well, but the way that he is poorly written is interesting. Rand's big bad guy is an industrialist who doesn't take responsibility for his actions and who wants other people to do all of the hard work.

I'm going to get right to the big reveal in the middle of the book: Jim and the Moochers force through a law that means that nobody can compete with them. Other railroads shut down, new innovative companies have to give their capital to older businesses.

On the one hand, I think there's something clever that Rand is doing here. Jim and the Moochers use what is essentially "weaponized wokeness" (mealy-mouthed speeches about collectivism) to place themselves at the head of state-backed monopolies. They're not evil just because they're whiny and don't take responsibility, they're evil because they can use the power of the state to crush competitors, which also allows them to exploit workers and consumers.

On the other hand: I can't tell if Rand is being stupid or malicious in attributing the motivations for these actions to a collectivist impulse.

She clearly, obviously, deeply hated collectivism. But when each of her characters are revealed down to the nastiest, darkest parts of themselves it's revealed that their collectivist talk was meant to cover up personal greed. So I can't tell: stupid or malicious? Is she being stupid, and genuinely doesn't believe that anyone who talks about or works toward communal goods and shared resources actually wants those things? Or is she being malicious and suggesting that all people who claim to want to do things for the benefit of everyone are actually greedy and are trying to burn down the rest of the world so that they can stand on a slightly nicer bit of the ashes?

I haven't read much of Rand's non-fiction, or watched too many interviews with her, but I know that at one point she discussed the evils of altruism by saying that the Nazis were motivated by altruism. That seems like it's pulling a pretty bullshit rhetorical trick and defining "nationalism" as "altruism." And that's what she does with the evil characters in her books - makes them do terrible things while saying that they're doing so for the good of mankind when everybody knows the score. It's a bullshit rhetorical trick.

And this is how we're introduced to Jim Taggart. He's a wealthy industrialist who is whining to his sister's assistant that he can't be blamed that his friend is late with a delivery of steel. And I think Jim Taggart is a pretty good example of Rand being more malicious than stupid. We're going to learn a lot about his motivations and desires throughout the book and they come together to make a laboriously crafted strawman of an evil capitalist.

Anyway. Eddie walks out of their meeting after Jim insults his own sister; Eddie at that point finds an old clerk repairing a typewriter (one that has been repaired before and is made of inferior materials - planned obsolescence; a subject that I will have to yell about somewhere else) and asking Eddie if he knows where anyone can get woolen undershirts. Jim's office has been a break from the most visceral reminders of the bleak, slow-motion collapse of the economy that Eddie is confronted with as soon as he's out of the room again, and he is once again bothered by the question "Who is John Galt?" - the question that opened the novel in the mouth of a bum - as the introductory scene of the novel ends.

[palant1r]

Between light and mikami, who would u say is worse

ooo interesting question! "worst" is a metric with such a wide variety of interpretations, so i'm gonna put forward a few definitions...

Least fun to hang out with at a party: Mikami, no doubt. He's the most boring person alive. Light is a charismatic person who's very good at acting personable and feigning interest in others, so I feel like he'd be a pretty fun acquaintance to have, even if he never lets anyone beneath the surface

Least fun to actually be close friends with, at least for me: Light. It would be like being friends with an incredibly sophisticated chatbot — all the right responses, but you can't get a peek at what actually makes him tick without a 400 IQ and 3 separate terminal degrees, plus years of hannibal-level psychoanalysis. But I could be friends with Mikami. I'm actually a bit of a law nerd — the kind of person who got tickets to a conference about public document requests for fun — so while we wouldn't be able to make small talk, I feel like once we got to know each other we could have some autistic ass conversations about court precedent. Also I could use a gym buddy.

Most net negative impact on the world: I mean, Light, obviously

Most pleasure taken in atrocities: Light. Mikami doesn't actually seem to take much personal pleasure in killing beyond his worship of Kira. Light, meanwhile, despite his self-justification of just wanting to make a good world, looooves to vindictively gloat over victims, even those that aren't those he thinks of as "criminals." See: L, Raye Penber, Near

Least coherent moral code: Mikami. His moral code is just like. Some religion he duct taped together out of a bunch of coincidences and terminal cop brain, plus a heavy dose of inexplicable cultural christianity despite not being culturally christian. Which makes it all the more baffling that he's apparently able to hold coherent conversations about politics. Light's own situation may be a middle schooler's first introduction to deontology and consequentalism, but at least it's something

Most aggravating moral code: Light. Man, I fucking hate the way this guy thinks about the world, because it's eerily similar to shit I see IRL. It's the idea of a moral code that exists fully to justify oneself as Good, cruelty justified through hatred of a so-called "evil," assuming that bad people are an ontological class that can be eliminated with no consequences and society will improve as a result. There are people who deadass believe this shit. I've compared Light tongue-in-cheek to Republicans in a fic before, but honestly I see it in leftist spaces all the time — just replace "criminals" with "billionaires." Hating the "bad people" and wanting them gone is such a convenient way for people to deny systemic injustice and their own role in it. And of course, as long as one defines oneself as "good," one gives themself free rein to eliminate opposition with righteous vindication. It's a mindset that's not unique to Light Yagami, he's just unique in the power he wields to enact it. It's the reason that, while as a Light Yagami Enjoyer I would never judge someone for loving Light Yagami, I tend to side-eye the side of the fandom that unironically argues Kira was right. I need to cut myself off before I go on my full anti-Kira rant...

Worst in bed: I'm not entirely confident Mikami knows what sex is.

Worst at being Kira: Light, by default — it was his own damn fault they lost, though he tried to blame Mikami. Hell, if he hadn't insisted on gloating in the warehouse, he might even have talked his way out of that situation. After all, it made sense for him to be the owner — someone in the task force had to be, and I'm pretty sure it's actually a plot hole that Mikami could see Aizawa's name. It wouldn't have convinced the SPK and Aizawa, but it would have given Ide and Mogi hesitation and Matsuda would certainly have been convinced. "But Mikami should have checked the notebook again before coming to the warehouse and it's stupid that he didn't—" HE WAS BEING CONTROLLED OK I 100% THINK MATSUDA IS RIGHT ABOUT THIS because otherwise both near and mikami's characters are assassinated in the final chapter more brutally than JFK and i do have a bit of respect for O&O as writers lmao. Mikami played his part perfectly. If he'd been the one to find the first notebook, I think he would have lasted longer than Light, simply because he wouldn't decide to do all the galaxy brain plays to get close to L.

[wolfspidersystem]

Sometimes the worst thing in the system is the person that makes all the monsters we've come across, experienced, and witnessed- normal. Because somewhere along the line we became profilers of our life and those who had a hand in forging ourselves.

Someone (A teacher) once said to us in our freshman year, "what are you going to do to not let the cycle repeat?"

And in that moment I think we realized we would never be seen as anything more then broken, traumatized, or a monster in society's closet.

As if we had a choice in something that happened along the way, or there was some great sign that was our fault.

Victims are victims not because of anything they did or DID NOT do, or wore ,or did or didn't say.

Victims are victims because of methodology, criminology, and ideologies - Victims are the first key to making sure patterns DO NOT continue.

Victims/ Targeted groups are not the ones who blame them selves but end up being forced to believe they have been in the wrong by a number of things none of which are anything other than social constructions that prevent those who have been hurt from sharing their experiences with their peers.

Obviously there are more details I could add, but I am choosing not to as this is mostly an educational rant vs one of needing the upmost detail.

Victim blaming was never something that started from a victim, but something that was created to punish those who had stronger wills than most, to shut down and isolate them. Victim's can not blame one's self when they will in theory always hold some form of regret, guilt , hate , or fear. All which are valid feelings to have after anything horrible that's causes psychological/ physical symptoms and or trauma.

Most people do know this but I'm noticing , that lately people are lashing out rather then coming together. In one way or another

We are all victims, we have all fought monsters and won. We don't need to fight each other, and we definitely don't need to invalidate those people who have experienced hardships we can't explain or understand.

If you can't understand, sometimes it's for the better, other times researching and asking questions helps.

I'm not sure if anyone will find this useful, or helpful but I guess this is my 4 am thought.

-S.Reid

[atopearth]

White Album 2 Part 8 - Coda (Normal End & Kazusa Normal End)

Coda Normal End

You can't tell me to not cheer for Kazusa when the reason she was running in the snow barefoot in France was because she saw Haruki and tried her best to chase after him. She's willing to give up her life for him, she loves him so much, how could I ever want Kazusa to back off? Kazusa agreeing to go all the way back to Japan just because Haruki said he wanted to hear her piano is so sweet yet saddening to think about. She's been at a standstill for 5 years, unable to move forward emotionally, and unlike Setsuna and them, she didn't have any friends beside her except the piano. I honestly don't blame Setsuna for being hurt about Haruki lying and not telling her about his meeting with Kazusa for the interview. I don't know how he thought he could hide that. I know it's difficult for Setsuna to ask whether Haruki is lying/hiding about something but I guess what irks me the most about Setsuna isn't that her main concern doesn't seem to be that she's scared of her question ruining this relationship but instead she's scared of her "true self" leaking out. As partners in a relationship, it always irks me that Setsuna always feels like she needs to be perfect and never really reveals herself properly so I feel like we're stuck only having the cute and positive side of her "at the end" when she's so much more than that.

Anyway, I can't blame Haruki for desiring Kazusa because they are both so obviously obsessed with each other, I feel like it's impossible for them to not be drawn to each other. It doesn't help that Haruki uses Setsuna as a sexual outlet sometimes so he can avoid the guilt of his feelings towards Kazusa. The normal ending for Coda is pretty saddening. I feel bad for Kazusa. She came all the way back to Japan for Haruki but things ended up like that and her reputation in her home country got hit badly, it's terrible. As for Setsuna and Haruki's relationship, I guess it's the same as before but with Haruki much more resolute in his understanding that he will love Kazusa the most forever even if the one he'll stay beside and give his love to will be Setsuna. To be fair, that's not an uncommon thing to happen in the real world and I guess it's fine if Setsuna is fine with it, which she is, and Haruki does love her after all and has decided to be with her so I think the fact that he chose her in the end is something to be happy about because he's not indecisive anymore.

Kazusa Normal End

Haruki really likes to drive himself into a corner doesn't he? He guilt tripped himself into proposing to Setsuna but prioritises Kazusa too much, and now he's begun to be unable to live without Kazusa. The more he betrays Setsuna, the more he can't face anyone in society aside from Kazusa and the further he digs himself into this self-made hole of his. It's honestly depressing to watch. I feel so bad for Kazusa that she had to be the one to break it off with Haruki despite her being the one that wants to be with him the most. Haruki is just spiralling downwards in this hole, unable to get out, unwilling to get out, and if Kazusa doesn't let go, he'd basically destroy everything in his life to continue this toxic relationship with Kazusa where he numbs himself from everything and forces himself to not think about anything through sex. It's sad that it had to come to this but I'm glad that Kazusa recognised how detrimental this all was to Haruki's wellbeing as a person and said she wanted him to be happy and that's why she's letting go, since the only one who would be happy from all this was her. I think the worse is that Kazusa loves him so much, but having to admit that Haruki will only be in pain if he stays with her is just terrible. I can't imagine having to part with the one I love because my existence makes their life difficult and toxic and that I'm destroying their life.

Why is this considered a Kazusa ending when Haruki doesn't even end up with her?! Not gonna lie, I think it's a great Setsuna ending but not a Kazusa ending. It's just depressing for Kazusa. Yeah, she gets the fame and conviction to leave Haruki but other than that, her life truly is nothing but piano and her mother. Setsuna's forgiveness knows no bounds and sometimes I wonder if it's humanely possible to be that strong and forgiving but also love someone so much that you can forgive all these things about them. I mean it's a great quality to have, for Setsuna to bounce back after one week and even acknowledge that she will never be the only one he loves and will never be the one he loves the most but still be okay with it. But I'm not sure how long something like that can truly last since if Kazusa appears again or they meet coincidentally overseas, will everything just go downwards again? However, I do feel like this ending in a sense is quite 'realistic' because I do feel like Haruki will always inevitably choose Kazusa.

Overall, these endings were just more painful endings for Setsuna in that she's forced to face she'll never be Haruki's number one. Maybe she already knows that, but for these endings, it's shoved in her face and she can't avoid it. I think Kazusa's normal end was disappointing in that it felt just like, was it Chiaki's route in Closing Chapter where all they did was just have sex and be dead to the world until the girl snapped out of it and told Haruki that this can't go on anymore. However, I do admit that this time around, it was especially painful because it was Kazusa. She loves him to a debilitating extent, so her giving up on him to allow him to function again as a normal human being and acknowledging that her existence beside him will only bring him down unlike Setsuna's which will raise him up just hurts, I hated watching it and I felt terrible for her. I'm looking forward to her true end now because can we just give Kazusa her happiness now?

[t1nfoilorigam1]

I have some Thoughts about episode 5 s2 of jjk

I think part of the reason jjk is so good is that they show charecters as people with emotions. And they dont hesitate to give us bad endings (i cried when junpei died). Obviously this is most prevalent in Geto's charecters arc. But I'm here to talk about how geto's charecter arc makes so much sense. Like, objectively what he's doing is wrong, but he is so real for it. From a general sense, it seems so sad that so much tragedy happened just because Geto didn't like go to therapy or something, but when you think about it from his perspective, I really can't think about anything else he could've done. And, in a general sense, he caused death because he had experienced death and also to prevent death.

Starting at the beggining, Geto was always super strict in his morals. He was adamant that the strong protect the weak because that is how a humane society should work. Gojo is the exact opposite(- people that are strong are just strong and they should get to do whatever) which is basically their argument in the gym. Back to the main point, the reason geto's ideals switched so suddenly and drastically is because he held himself to such a high moral standard. Gojo, despite going through the same thing (different in the ways that he killed toji (geto bears the feeling of not being able to do anything) and also didn't see riko die) was able to remain fine because his morals didn't contradict what he experienced (also his morals are a little iffy but that's another topic). For Geto, who's whole reason for being a jujustu sorcerer was because he believed that his role was to protect non-sorcerors, this caused a moral crisis. After seeing what the star religious group did, he no longer could fully fundamentally believe that non-sorcerors had an inherent right to be protected.

He has been swallowing curses to protect non-sorcerors, an activity that he hates. If he has another cursed technique, something that dint require him to do something so disgusting, than it might’ve been a little different. But he has been self-sacrificing for a while now, and after the star plasma vessel event, he's now forced to do missions and absorb cursed spirits (by himself) all for non sorcerers. Hes presumably going on a lot of missions, as the show mentioned there being more cursed spirits around that time. He's seeing less of Gojo because he's also going on missions all the time.

Also, he hasn't been able to admit to himself that he no longer values non-sorcerors lives. I mean, that was his whole ideology, and he still holds it as the "correct moral standard" in his mind. Basically, he feels like he's betraying himself by no longer valuing non-sorcerors, and is still trying to make himself adhere to his former morals.

Then, he's visited by Yuki Tsukumo. She provides him with the validation that it's ok to have the thoughts that he's having, and far more importantly, a goal: eradicate curses, by killing all non-sorcerors. Before, when talking to gojo about the star plasma group, he said they couldn't kill them because there was no reason. His life has operated around a reason. His reason for being a jujustu sorcerer was to protect the weak, but now he doesn't agree with that reason. Thats why he latches onto that idea later. He knows it's probably impossible, but that dosent matter so much as having a "moral" reason for his actions.

Then, Haibara dies. On a mission that's fundamental purpose was to protect non-sorcerors, from a curse those same non-sorcerors has created.

Then, the catalyst. He goes on a mission and finds Mimiko and Nanako. They are locked in a cage for being sorcerers, and are being blamed for the actions of a curse, which was created by the non-sorceror villagers who are blaming them and trying to kill them. This is when he decides (also they did a really cool thing w the shadows that I only realized in my rewatch). Basically, he snaps. He no longer can keep telling himself that it's his duty to protect non-sorcerors, and that combined with the idea he already had about killing all non-sorcerors to eliminate curses gave him the perfect reason to kill all of the non-sorcerors in that village. And then he went and killed his parents, to show to himself that he didn't just kill those people because he wanted to, that he had a moral cause for this.

After he does this, he is noticeably a lot happier and calmer. He has a "moral cause" that allows him to kill the people he wants for a reason, but mostly that gives him a cause to work torwards. And also he has daughters now.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that Geto is fundamentally wrong, but his actions are completely understandable.

[ileftherbackhome]

maroon sampling a song from the rep era, an era where the word "fake" was prevalent and frequently used, and being a kaylor song and the ending of the great war being fake and a kaylor song is so ow (obviously taylor couldve just sampled a rep era song bc a lot of rep is about karlie and that was probably one reason but i feel like a lot of her production decisions are deeper than having only one reason)

Yeah, it is so ow you're right anon.

Like, let's add to that that she starts the song with her before switching to you and it's so painful. Like, I do think she is saying in part that the good parts of her relationship with Karlie weren't real love, it was fake love masquerading as real love because when you're in the lavender haze, everything looks good and amazing to you.

And so you can't really see the signs that this relationship is going to burn up, I think the choice of using maroon as the color is so interesting. I've spoken before about my many different interpretations of maroon, and like one of them is a fun one where I think she did it because maroon is more complex than the entirety of red. I can really do a lot of fun lit stuff with red and maroon because just the difference in how surface level red is versus how deep maroon is- I think it was motivated by the difference in the genders partially. Like, her heartbreak with karlie was deeper than with Jake for sure and it shines through the differences in the songs and like... in red- the lyrics they're all cliches. I think she did that on purpose.

I know ur talking about rep and I'm over here on red sorry anon but this is what ur getting right now lol but yeah red is on purpose all cliches because I think she is saying that relationship was a cliche to her- after all, she had already been groomed and abused once. I think it's very self-blaming and it was written in a self-blaming manner and so for me, maroon is also self-blaming but like in a real way?

The fact that she is taking accountability for hurting her lover in maroon, it contrasts to how she took on the assumed accountability that society was forcing on her through attacking her as a slut and a bitch and a villain but not turning their fingers towards the men in the situation. I also think it's a tell on the men being cliche and difficult to write meaningful lyrics about in a real way because they put up a facade with her precisely because it was predatory but this relationship with Karlie. This one hurt more and harder because they saw each other and still fucked it up. Like, they were good until they weren't type of deal and like sometimes being good individually doesn't mean ur good together and that's really what taylor had to learn with karlie and that's what shines to me when you take all the songs about kaylor and put them together.

Like, even maroon itself, it's specific to details and inside jokes and all the references mean something to the two women in that relationship that we will never understand because we weren't there with them and maroon feels like you're looking inside of kaylor with taylor in her mind whereas red is more of a outward perspective looking in- more like she wrote red about "oh no, I've done it again what will people say" type of way?

Like maroon is so special to me because it's the complete opposite of red in every way and that to me is indicative of it being queer alone but then you get the literal gay lyrics and I think it's fitting that she used maroon as the color. It's literally a shade of purple and you know, purple is also the color of fresh bruises. I think that's interesting, because in the great war it's definitely a retrospective years down the line changing of the narrative but maroon, you're right in the relationship and I think you can tell because the production alone is terrifying. Idk when I listen to that heavy thud, it reminds me of when I hear my blood rushing to my ears. It's so heavy handed in production, I can't help but feel like it's intentionally done to showcase how when ur in love, even the red flags can seem romantic or like a good sign.

And it's like, maroon is so heartbreaking to me because she is painting herself as the bad guy in the song. She's watching her lover sob with head in hands as they fall apart, that's so sad to me because it's an admission of guilt. Of knowing that the reason that your relationship cannot work is deeper than any of the fights you've been having. It's a deep incompatibility between the two of you that was always inherent but like fools in love, you rushed in and ignored the warning signs.

[fairlyqualityanon]

Howdy there, partner. Tips hat.

I read that you have two original verses at the moment, how do you think your OC's would act if they switched? Are things very different in one than the other? If they're not too different, do you think any of them would notice any subtle differences? (Basically the first reactions you can think of from each). (Bonus Question: What is some of their secrets that won't spoil anything to important to their respective stories? It doesn't have to be anything dark.) It seems like I got to make a AO3 and read some of this stuff! AND HAVE AN AMAZING DAY!

Thanks for the ask! I'm in the process of moving everything over to my AO3 but all of it is still on Tumblr atm.

Oh wow that's something I hadn't thought much of. Hmm.

Rikard and Karla would have a pretty rough time of it; while he can eat anything, she can't, and while she'd be safe from environmental exposure (weather in Simael's world is gnarly), he wouldn't be; Karla would probably be forced essentially into "endo" vore for the bare essentials, and being in Life Studies she would know enough to try and treat Rikard's ailments.

Simael and the unnamed 2nd person protag (let's call them "Twoey") would fare even worse. Sapients in Rikard's world are incredibly varied, but nagas and the like don't exist. Tack on that his human torso is giant size-class and he'd probably be hunted down out of fear or curiosity. Meanwhile poor Twoey would be overwhelmed: they'd started to reframe their concept of nature based on what they learned from living with Simael and now even that has been upended?? :(

... Oh, you meant First Impressions lol. Rikard would immediately blame Karla and she'd counter that she's not studying spatial/temporal magic but didn't George mention something the other day...? The air feels different, a hard-to-place scent-that's-not-a-scent; Karla correctly pegs it as some weird magical disturbance. Everything feels flat, smothered, and Rikard gulps Karla down only a few hours later out of protective urges.

We'll say Simael and Twoey get dumped in the Wyldelands. Simael is very confused because this is not what was supposed to happen, he was just teleporting some reference texts from the library, why did they get moved? Depending on how far along in the story they are, he might not want Twoey to leave his sight, potentially not even out of grabbing distance, though he'd be hard-pressed to identify exactly why. Major culture shock.

Non spoiler secrets:

Simael would be in DEEP shit if the rest of society found out what he did, and not because he ate a human; the Familiar thing requires certification and such, which he obviously didn't apply for. Whoops. He'll actually be in bigger trouble for not digesting the intruder than if he'd made sure word naga existence didn't leak out.

Not a secret from readers, but I believe I've said that Rikard is ace and Karla is bi (and crushing on Rikard). They have codenames for when they need to pretend to be each other's S.O. - "honey" and "sweetheart" - and there's a nebulous idea floating around for a situation of Karla regretting a first date and sending a quick "HALP D:" text to Rikard.

[alltheotherblogs]

It's hard to write some times.

I was writing a few short stories, writing a book, doing creative writing... Yeah, I do a lot of writing. Probably too much. Sometimes I get stumped, or in a slump, sometimes I just don't want to write a specific story and I get sidetracked with another. Polluting a story with too many themes is a recipe to a bad book. I just wish it was easier to drink a cup of coffee, and get writing consistently.

Dead Poet Society, fantastic film. I was writing a story about a school which doubled as a prison for children deemed dangerous, where the principal was a lumbering giant monster who would kill students that broke rules. It's a fun sci-fi fantasy about the horrors of being forced into a system that doesn't work, which damages the kids, and traumatizes those who actually survive it. My thoughts on the school system aren't exactly secret, 1) School is a scam. 2) School teaches you nothing. 3) It's a broken system where everybody loses, especially the children.

Of course I never went to school. I have no regrets, I got my entire high school education done in three months, and I don't remember a single lick of the useless knowledge it imparted upon me. I've always been quite the firecracker, and from the stories I have heard about school, I don't think it's the right place for me. Let me just say, a lot of people would be very hurt, and rightfully so. I could get darker with this but I'll avoid that. To say that school actually helps anyone is nothing but a lie fabricated by greedy corrupt fools. More self-teaching programs less regulations that make it difficult to actually LEARN anything.

Back to writing. I am constantly having tons and tons of ideas, but they don't all mesh into the same thing... It makes me wonder, what if I could channel that into something? Could you imagine how many books I could write in a week?! If each idea was coherent and cohesive to the previous, I'd have a bookshelf full of my own work. As of right now, I can't even finish one book before thinking "Hey this would be a cool idea." Makes me think I should just write a book of short stories and try to get that published, and if that works, I'll actually put my mind to writing a full book. I can easily imagine writing as a job, writing book after book like Steven King or R.L. Stein. I've had those creative kicks where everything makes sense and it flows. But I never had them about my writing, it has always been something stupid...

Some say that knowledge is something sat in your lap. Some say it is something that you never have. Wise lyrics from a clever lady. I relate to this song quite a bit, because right when I have the flow and I think I'm ready to write ten chapters in a row! ... Everything crumbles. I want to do a lot of things in my life, I'll never get to do most of those things, just by virtue of not being qualified and having to do other things first. Not only that but my life circumstances are quite grim. I wasn't exactly given a fair lot, and I now live in a time where being an adult feels helpless and most of us cannot afford housing or vehicles. Thanks, I know exactly who I blame, I know exactly why I blame them, they are all incompetent and corrupt. Hint, it's the United States government.

Can you tell that I don't like the government yet? I'm very much against all modern politics to be honest. They not only bore but appall me. The fact that most people are ignorant to the things they vote on makes me sick. That never would've been the case hundreds of years ago, in places like Ancient Greece. Imagine an entire group of people who are terrified of a boogieman, and they call to outright ban it because they are scared of it, but in fact this boogieman is only a puppet and cannot act on it's own, has no sentience, and the boogieman isn't half the things that people are being told it is. Not only that! But there are more of this boogieman, and the cartel has millions of them, which obviously they aren't going to get rid of. Meanwhile gangs have just about as much, and organized criminals find it very easy to just ship in these boogiemen from out of the country, resulting in only law abiding citizens (The people who weren't causing any trouble in the first place) to lack protection against the actual monsters who use these boogiemen. I'm talking about guns. Guns and politics don't mix, just let everyone have them, it's their right regardless of what you'd like. And no, you can't limit what a civilian can have, track it, or anything. Seriously, it doesn't work, we've proved it doesn't work. MAYBE some times tracking firearms works, but rarely... We often forget that criminals aren't as stupid as the government. It's like watching the Road Runner cartoon, criminals are road runner, the government is Wile E coyote.

This post was originally about writing.

I have a few OC's in the continuity of this perpetual canon I'm always adding to. I like to play lots of different characters and improvise what they'd do in situations, so I've kind of ended up with more than a hundred misc. OC's that are getting difficult to fully keep track of. I'd like to apply each of these characters to their own story... But I'll be damned if that isn't going to be a herculean feat. It's like having a bunch of kids and not wanting to play favorites, but the fact is some of them just aren't success material. You know, one of them actually is a corrupt politician...

In summary. I'm finding it hard to keep writing even though I love writing so much! What makes it all worse is that I know if life would just take a break from beating the shit out of me, I'd actually be able focus and write. I have all these problems that limit me from being fully ME. And none of it is my fault, I can't control any of it. I have to go day by day reminding myself that it isn't my fault that these years of my life are being stolen from me. I'm sure many can relate.

[pinkportrait]

I held onto life so many times when I should've let go.

Now I just want to rest.

I did everything I could. This including asking for help.

Sometimes people will refuse to help you. Sometimes people just don't get what they need in life.

Sometimes people life a misrable existance and then die. People then talk about them like they knew them like they cared. Like they didn't ignore their pleas for help while they were alive. Like they didn't notice a rapid decline in the person.

That just happens.

On top of it all everything I have been through will be presented as something it is not. From today to tomorrow til whenever.

But I'm letting go of it all. There's no hope. So there isn't even hope of being understood. If I tell someone I need help and I'll die without it and they say "I can't help you" when they quite obviously can, then there is no hope of anything. If the people who are supposed to care the most care so little.

That was my ending to the day. That there would be no comfort in the world for me to feel.

If the horrors I've been through can be reduced to simplistic terms where I can always be blamed for everything then so be it. People think in such simple ways. It just occurred to me. The very massive disconnect. I'm not saying I'm smart I am lacking in many mental faculties. But the way people talk to me. Or even interpret what I say or do it is in such simplistic fashion that I am guaranteed to be misunderstood. It's why the things people say and do sends me reeling because I can't comprehend the thinking behind it.

This only brings clarity. I cannot force people to think outside of the box.

What else is there to say? I know people put me in a box and label me however. Judged and sentenced without so much as a public defender. I cannot defend myself I cannot explain myself it's all done in the blink of an eye.

It is flawed it is unfair. It is all unfair. But nothing in life is going to change about anything.

It is all alone here.

Sometimes someone says something not so funny and I break out laughing too much and too hard bordering on hysteria. I can feel the sobs threatening to escape.

Fuck I hate people.

I fucking hate it in this world. I was only allowed to feel play for like a year and a half? Out of my whole life? I'm not waiting another 29 years to feel ok I'd rather just fucking die I'll say it again I WOULD NEVER HAVE KEPT AN ANIMAL ALIVE IN THIS CONDITION

I think it's selfish to have a selfish self centered society and then demand that people stay alive in it

Fuck you

[snapheart1536]

Bad Arguments

Elizabeth I

Girls Could Marry At Twelve

Freaks portray this wickedness as an oh-so noble concern for historical truth.

And YOU wouldn't object to Duh Twoof, would you now?

Oh! Ah! Well! It may seem like abuse to us But We Must Remember that Girls Could Marry At Twelve...

I love being implored to Remember the lies they've not told me yet.

Notice how it always begins with a feigned nod of empathy:

Hah! Yes! Of course. I hate it too. I really disapprove of This Sort Of Thing. Honest!

Before introducing the actual message:

But if you were A Reel Intelleckchul, like me, you would Understand that It Was Like That Then, and Perfectly Normal.

Besides the unsaid conclusion:

That means I'm right to blame Elizabeth.

The endless counter arguments to this have all been said before, and are near-enough a waste of words, for this isn't silly, muddle-headed ignorance but open malice, and agendas don't care about facts.

Because really, how would the customs governing matrimony apply to this situation?

Where does marriage figure in a middle-age man breaking into his stepdaughter's room to molest her?

Well here's the distraction technique:

Soon as we get to incestuous pædophilia, start wittering about wedlock and how it's ackshully alright to touch kids...in the time period, of course.

WHAT?!

If I believe Tudor society took a lax view of preying upon children, then by this very argument, that attitude could ONLY ever exist with regards to marriage.

They want me to accept Seymour Did Nothing Wrong, because his era allowed him to marry a girl of twelve.

This implies consummation followed immediately, although they never say as much, precisely as it is too big of a lie, hinting at it instead to let your subconscious join the dots.

BUT, if his entire defence is nothing better than blabbering about how he can sleep with a twelve‐year-old bride if he wants to, then he needed to marry Elizabeth beforehand for this to be alright.

But not only had Seymour not married her, he already had a wife, so his behaviour alone is a simply lovely mix of fornication, adultery AND incest.

And last time I looked, the Tudors came down hard on all three.

Oh yeah. They killed Anne and George for less. But ten years later? Totally normal!

I hate this Bad Argument with such deep, boiling fury I'm about to rip it apart, so no one ever can ever sew its tattered chunks together again.

It is absurd to the point of evil, as just think about what they are saying.

Seymour forces his way into Elizabeth's room to grope and spank her.

Me: That's abuse, that!

Them: Oh you thick, detestable pleb. Girls Could Marry At Twelve, doncha know.

As when Seymour molested Elizabeth, he wasn't really molesting her, because she was old enough to marry him.

And you can't sexually assault adults.

...

Once a gal can get married, it's every fella's sworn duty to come at her, for she wants 'em.

She wants 'em all.

She does, man! She's just being difficult!

You know how it goes:

6th September 1545: Little girl.

7th September 1545: WAHMAN!!!

Soon at that clock struck midnight, a switch flicked in Elizabeth's brain, and ever after she had a hunger...for MAN.

And Seymour just couldn't bear to see her hankering and not go providing like a true hero.

It would've been cruel NOT to do it.

Of age? Well say no more.

Come one, come all. Open for business.

And if she complains, well that's just playing hard to get, innit?

No escape now, love.

Legally capable of marriage? Well you want it whatever you say.

Stop struggling.

Same with Elizabeth. I mean, come on, Girls Could Marry At Twelve.

So obviously, if she hadn't really wanted it, she would've stayed eleven forever.

Is that so much to ask?

But oh no, she just so happened to have thirteen birthdays beforehand like a slut.

Ah-hah! Gotcha now! That little innocent routine don't fool me!

Then she has the nerve to play the victim as if it isn't all her fault for growing.

And then idiots blame Seymour for taking his rights when she made herself fully available by not dying in childhood, the selfish bitch.

Look at her, not being dead! Tempting him!

This Bad Argument is ONLY ever used by women to defend men attacking other women and girls, so please remember it's composed of three lies:

1. Seymour Did Nothing Wrong, because she was over twelve.

2. Elizabeth clearly loved every minute, because she was over twelve.

3. Sleeping with children was Perfectly Fine for most of human history and it's our prissy, overreacting modern hysteria about it that's the The Real Problem.

Why? Because if they can push you to accept it was normal then, it's the first step towards pushing you to accept it's normal now.

[hard--headed--woman]

Okay I don't mind explaning what I meant if you didn't understand my post but don't blame me for your inability to get my point. It's totally okay if you didn't get it but do not say it is because I didn't phrase it well. Your fault not mine.

What I meant was that many trans people do performative things to imitate the opposite sex (more like the idea they have of the opposite sex, based on stereotypes most of the time). Of course people can change but isn’t it weird how they change suddenly when they decide to call themselves trans ? Isn’t it weird how they used to like many things, that they suddenly don't like anymore, just because they think it isn’t feminine/masculine enough ? I'm sorry but I am not blind enough to think that every single trans person suddenly becoming masculine/feminine and hating everything that society associate with their birth sex does it because they changed without any pressure and not because they want to imitate the opposite sex. This is not their new clothes and taste that I criticize here, it's the fact that it is performative. They don't dress like they want to dress, they dress like they think they have to dress to look like a man/a woman.

Take dysphoria for example. Many trans people really are dysphoric, sure, so they are not concerned by what I am going to say. But many of them aren't and use the term "dysphoria" anyway. My friend for example never had any problem with wearing makeup, but she told me that she couldn't do it now because it makes her feel dysphoric. It doesn't make sense. If she had dysphoria, she wouldn't have been wearing makeup in the past. Dysphoria doesn't appear right after you decided to call yourself trans. It is here or it isn't. Well the trans people I know all do the same things : they used to like/do something, suddenly they say they are trans, and now it's over, they can't do it anymore. All of this is just because they decided to call themselves trans, so the problem is very obviously that all of this is performative. They do this just because they are trans. It isn't that they stop liking it, it is that they don't wanna do it anymore because they are trans. See the thing ? I am just criticizing how performative the trans community can be.

You can be "feminine" and then becoming "masculine". As you said, people change. You can realize that you've been wearing "feminine" clothes because of societal pressure while you actually want to wear "masculine" clothes and feel more comfortable with these. It happened to me, for example. It's not what I am criticizing. I am criticizing the fact that trans people force themselves to stop doing/wearing the clothes they used to like, the things they used to do, just because they are trans and want to imitate the opposite sex.

I know it is what they do because 1) it's obvious, and 2) they say it. My friends for example literally told me they'd still wear/do many things if it wasn't for their trans identity. One of them told me "I wear feminine clothes when I am with people who do not know I am trans, I don't care because they're gonna see me as a girl anyway", the other said she regrets not being able to wear makeup anymore. (Two examples but I have many others).

And how many people on the internet are like "huh i'd love to wear that skirt but it's too feminine". Like wear what you want to wear ? What's the problem ? Appearance, this is the problem. Because this is performative.

It's okay to grow and change, it's not what I was saying. I was criticizing how performative what trans people do can be. They are not the only ones of course, but I find it very dumb from a community that claim they just want to be "themselves". If you really just wanna be yourself, then why do you try so hard to be someone else, to opposite the other sex, instead of just doing what you want and like to do ?

i know a lot of trans people IRL, i hang out with some of them everyday, and something that really annoys me about their "identity" is that everything about it is 100% fake and performative. i have seen pictures of my TIF friend two years ago and she was wearing makeup and skirts, she had long hair... but now apparently she can't even wear pink or let her hair grow a bit longer than it is now because it makes her feel "dysphoric". she's very young, even younger that i am, so i do not blame her, she just grew up in that internet cult but still. how is it possible for her not to notice how dumb it sounds ? for years she's been wearing feminine stuff but now thinking about feminine shoes is a torture and seeing a bra makes her want to die ? that's not what dysphoria is, and the way the trans community nowadays talks about gender dysphoria is so disrespectful. same with another trans friend of mine, a trans identified woman. she's some months younger than the other. she "realized" she was trans and now she hates long hair and crop tops after years of liking them, but of course it doesn't bother her to wear dresses and crop tops when she's surrounded by people who don't know she is trans because they don't know she's actually a boy, so they were always gonna treat her like a girl anyway so it doesn't make her feel dysphoric. but of course all of this is just about being their true self ! they've always liked "feminine" stuff but now they CAN'T wear it because it makes them feel dysphoric ? just because they "realized that they were boys" ? first of all this is fucking sexist, but it also doesn't make sense. it's not about becoming their true self, it's about playing pretend and trying to perform boyhood. it's the same thing with 60% of trans people nowadays. they don't know what gender dysphoria is. they do things for years and years without any problem (being feminine/masculine, wearing some kind of clothes, seeing their bodies...) but suddenly, they "realize" they are trans and oh, they can't do that anymore, it is a torture! well that's bullshit. and this is ridiculous. it's different than trans people who have always been feminine/masculine etc and are then convinced to adopt the label trans because of that. it is so fake

[dizzeeflower]

I guarantee you there is one manifestation of disability that almost everyone on this planet has actively laughed at and made fun of. yes, even you

can you guess what it is?

it's something there are constant gags about in media, something people mention in passing as a joke

something that if it presented itself in a public space i guarantee in most situations would be openly and loudly mocked (and if not humour, most people would at least express disgust)

don't believe me, do you?

✨ incontinence ✨

yep, it's incontinence. (get your giggles out now folks)

I am partially incontinent due to a fun cocktail of mental and physical disabilities and i know for a fact this is where people will stop reading, have a little laugh, and move on thinking this isn't worth the read anymore

but please, if you want to be a true disability ally, stick around and listen.

5% of the world population is estimated to be incontinent to some degree. 1 in 20 people (and no, that is not just elderly people)

so yea when you're in the grocery store, or at the gay bar, or seeing your college theatre's rendition of Grease - chances are there's a good handful of people in the crowd who struggle with incontinence.

it might be just someone who has minimal stress incontinence - something very common in people who have been pregnant - or someone who has adhd and forgets to go to the bathroom, missing the cues from their body that they are desperate, or yea it could be the 85 yr old grandma who wears diapers.

the point is, all of these people deserve respect for their bodies. everyone does. and this includes bodies that malfunction sometimes.

'omg thats so funny im gonna pee myself' 'reddit boys can go piss in ur little baby diapers' - great comeback bestie, but can we move on from them now? im gonna be honest these don't offend me personally, but it's worth being aware of where the humour of these comments comes from. its rooted in ableism

but something that does offend me and something that genuinely triggers me to have panic attacks and can push me into an anxious depressive state for days at a time, is when a character wetting themself is used as the butt of a joke on screen.

i'm thinking season one of stranger things. yeah, most of us know the scene right? when eleven forces a bully to pee his pants in front of the whole school? yep, triggers my ptsd right good that one does. and my siblings ptsd. and im sure many many many more ppl with incontinence (or even ppl without it who had the unfortunate experience of an accident in school)

if you found it funny, i dont care at this point. keep doing you. i dont blame you, okay? but i just want to ask that you reconsider WHY you laughed. 'because he pissed himself' okay but WHY is that funny? 'older kids and adults arent supposed to piss themselves' yea well it happens sometimes to most people at least once, and to 1 in 20 people much more often than that. so WHY is that funny?

keep asking why why why... and if in the end you can't think of WHY, then maybe there isnt a reason for you to laugh at it except that you've been taught to by osmosis. because everyone else laughs

dont give up here, because this is where i want you to really think. is it worth it?

is it worth laughing at something just because everyone else is, and risk 5% of the population going into a self conscious spiral, a panic attack because of your mocking, making them think they will never be accepted?

obviously u making a "im gonna piss myself" comment while laughing does not put 1 in 20 ppl into a panic attack, but u get where im coming from now i hope

so if you're still reading, im guessing you want to reconsider some of your behaviours and comments about this subject. thank you! now that you've realised where these jokes are rooted, you're going to start noticing a lot more often just how much this disability is mocked in society.

but what else can you do to help?

consider sticking up for us because understandably incontinent people dont tend to stick up for themselves lest it out us as incontinent. because admitting that is still met with laughter and disgust. help us jumpstart the incontinence acceptance by speaking up for the silent minority whenever an incontinence joke comes up in class/family gatherings/general conversation (this is my opinion, any other incontinent folks are v welcome to challenge this if u would rather ppl didnt for whatever reason!)

another thing you can do is - you won't like this - dont call ppl disgusting for buying adult diapers with silly animal characters on. unpopular opinion here on tumblr dot com, i know

but listen: incontinence products are disability aids! pullups, incontinence pads/pants, adult diapers, these are all disability aids. not products of k!nk, not things to snigger at in the pharmacy.

and would you complain about someone putting hello kitty stickers on their walking cane? would you think it gross for someone to doodle little stars and affirmations on their wheelchair armrest? is it wrong if someone wants pink hearing aids instead of a nude coloured ones? no?

then don't laugh if someone wants lil hearts on their pullups, and don't fake gag if you happen to see purple patterned adult diapers on ur dash. sometimes humans just like to decorate their bodies and extensions of their bodies. this is just that. and lets be real, plain white nappies just aren't the vibe sometimes

~ while we're at it, ppl with stoma bags are beautiful and deserve to wear whatever they want to feel comfortable and handsome as hell 😘 ~

and let me address the elephant in the room. yeah, some people have a f3tish for this stuff (just like anything can be made into a f3tish). whatever. if ur against that stuff then idc pls dont talk abt it in the tags and comments. anyway it is NOT an excuse to find actual disabled ppl disgusting for needing these aids.

and heres the funny thing: you usually can't tell if someone uses diapers for a f3tish or for their disability, or possibly both!

so you're gonna have to not attack random ppl on the internet bc you don't know what their life is like (what a shocking new hot take)

if a 46 yr old balding man with a beer belly and chest hair who isn't visibly disabled mentions he uses diapers, don't assume he's a creep and its a k!nk. it might be, sure, but it might be a condition or disability that you have no right to comment on or judge him for.

so if youre squicked by it just block and move on, don't send anon hate, dont make a post about how these types of people make you sick. you might just lose a valued mutual who was secretly incontinent and thinks you hate them for it now (whether this is right or wrong, its often how these things come across)

(btw if anyone fuckin talks abt k!nk on this post im going to scream directly in ur ear :) make ur own posts and don't bring any f3tish discussion onto mine)

had to get that out of the way unfortunately because this is a condition that is so unfortunately overrepresented by the f3tish side. i wouldnt have to talk abt k!nk on many other posts about disabilty aids but this one unfortunately was necessary

it's exhausting

imagine having a disability that requires aids thats almost EVERYONE winces at, laughs at, mocks loudly. and then to come on tumblr, the place that is meant to be full of acceptance from strangers in similar circumstances, queer and disabled and poc - but the moment your aid is brought up in discussion its seen as something disgusting and the property of freaks and creeps and people who are evil and want to do children harm

it's exhausting, like i said

i dont have much else to add honestly, im shit at writing cohesive posts (especially when im physically shaking with anxiety bc woohoo announcing to possibly thousands of ppl that im incontinent) but if anything i just hope you will question yourself if you laugh at this stuff in future

im going to go back into my little anxiety hibernation hole and never open up about this condition again ✌🏼

as for the incontinent population, we’re pretty silent about this condition so it’s easy to forget abt us. but please just keep us in mind and stick up for us when u can

— for clarity: incontinence is not ALWAYS a disability, it is a condition that can affect ppl on a sliding scale. for some it is a mild inconvenience, for some it severely impacts daily life. for some it is the only physical condition their body experiences, for some it is a symptom of a predetermined mental or physical disability such as generalized anxiety disorder or paraplegia. whether or not it is considered a disability, acceptance of ALL incontinence is a good step to eradicating this source of ableism —

no one has to reblog this but pls consider it if this has opened ur eyes a lil and u wanna open some more

[faelapis]

not to be back on my restorative justice bs but it annoys me so much when you watch some kind of true crime content and the person says something like "they ONLY got 20 years in jail!" essentially to make you go "doesn't that make you mad? doesn't that make you wish the criminal justice system was even more punitive?? we all agree they deserve worse right?? cuz thats how it works when you think someone is guilty. you must want them to rot in jail forever cuz thats what justice is. yes i'm american in case you can't tell."

ok. lets take like twenty steps back.

it does make me sad that the crimes in question happened. its sad that someone died or got hurt or whatever the case may be. that's not in dispute.

however, no, i really don't think putting a perpetrator in jail fixes things, especially not for inhumanely long sentences. it doesnt help victims in any tangible way, and life doesnt work like a hollywood movie where the world becomes safe when the evil is defeated. socioeconomic, cultural and psychological circumstances reproduce themselves over and over again. no one is born some kind of supervillain. massive structural change to everything from economics to families is the only way to truly make crime less desirable from the perspective of the criminal.

like. you have to believe crime comes from either internal (psychological) or external (environmental) factors, or a combination, and neither is solved by a punitive system. if you believe crime is primarily a psychological issue - genetics and such - then doesn't that make jail cruel by default? you're essentially saying that this was something inherent to the person's very biology, and they obviously did not choose to have that be inherent to them.

and if you believe crime is primarily about external (environmental) factors, then i feel like i shouldn't even need to say this, but that does kinda make things society's fault, at least partially. people don't choose their environments or upbringings or socioeconomic castes either. desperate people will remain desperate under desperate circumstances.

and i know free will advocates in the "free will vs determinism" debate will argue that at the end of the day its what you "do" with the circumstances given, how you interact with them without making "excuses" for yourself, but once more - you have to believe those choices are based on something. some become criminals, some don't. either its based on learning from your environment, or its based on some kind of inherent psyche, or a combination - in which case i'd refer you to the options above. even free will absolutists dont think choices are based on nothing whatsoever or that external factors dont matter.

the point being, even assuming everything is the individual criminal's "fault" still forces you to dig deeper and think about why they're doing what they're doing. in both a psychological and societal reading, you can't really just blame the person "in a vacuum", which puts a wrench into the logic of punishment as inherently just.

also, it just... doesn't solve things. look at reoffending rates. countries with lighter sentencing with focus on rehabilitation tend to have less people commit further crimes, almost like people dont automatically get better when you punish them more harshly. and if you punish them harsher anyway, you're not doing it for any constructive reason, you're just angry and want someone to hurt.

in a punitive system, a criminal is likely get worse, because they have it reinforced that nobody cares about them. the system isnt here to help them, they have to look out for themselves. vulnerability and seeking help is not rewarded, because the people in charge have already decided to focus on punishment, not healing. therefore, no psychological issues can be solved, nor coping strategies developed to deal with societal ills that affect them. its all just about "deserving" punishment, for its own sake. who cares what "helps!" if they don't "learn" from being punished, they were "clearly" a lost cause anyway!

at that point, its really just a circlejerk to validate your own anger. like. i understand true crime shit is just entertainment on some level, like its all a story being told, and people having the audacity to form punitive opinions on how if they were in charge they'd just kill the son of a gun... or whatever else makes them feel better. whatever allows them to express their anger uncritically. but thats all affecting how this shit works in the real world. its still deeply politically unpopular in america to even allow criminals to vote, much less lower sentencing.

culture doesn't control everything, no. but a lot of true crime shit is copaganda (in the sense of protecting the existing system by focusing your attention on how depraved evil criminals "have it coming" and giving you a "happy ending" when the prosecutors get them jailed).... and there's so many gen z leftist winged eyeliner cool kids churning out that content. with no self-awareness.

sorry but if you're like a youtube leftist or feminist or whatever, it is patently insane to me to be on the side of pumping out agitprop encouraging people to hate criminals more and more without any deeper examination of that impulse. jfc.

ok. done venting my own anger now. will go pet my cats. here's some random internet cats to help you with whatever bothers you.