#on account of avoidant attachment style and all that | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

obsolescent · 9 months

Note

i was half asleep when i initially wrote this, so i need to edit and rewrite some parts, but i tried to take his behavior and trauma and such into account. also there’s some nsfw in here !! and one last thing : this isn’t finished, so i’ll probably add more to the hcs later :DD

but vkvkv im so excited to discuss this with you!! i love hearing other perspectives, especially since im not as knowledgeable about his time in raccoon city (the game scares me. i’ve got 5 hours in the game and i haven’t even gotten the maiden medallion yet) and i haven’t finished re4 or even started re6. so please don’t hold back and gimme all you got ^^

—

leon wouldn’t want someone in his line of work. it would be a constant reminder of the horrors of his job, and while he would be able to share the burden of fear and pain, ultimately he does show avoidance traits.

i think leon would be a little hesitant if there was an age gap, but if said person was mature enough, was sure about themselves, and was independent he could overlook it.

leon would want someone independent and mature. he’s often away on missions and doesn’t have time to talk or even shoot a text to them, so they would have to be understanding, be able to take care of themselves, and not hold it against him.

leon would want someone kind and nurturing. when he’s away from the horrors of his missions, he dreams of domesticity and a family. he would want s/o to have the desire to have a family of their own, but if they don’t want to or are unable to, then that’s completely fine with him as well.

while he wouldn’t open up about his issues, i think he would want to be doted on and taken care of from time to time. he would want it to be the smaller things like cleaning up after him, writing him notes, holding him when he’s had a hard day, and so on.

leon is a bit of a hypocrite in the sense that he wouldn’t open up about his problems (mostly because they’re classified and he struggles with communicating his emotions) but he would take on all of his s/o pain and do everything he can to find solutions.

leon’s love languages would be gift giving, quality time, and physical touch. he’s a bit awkward with it but it’s endearing and he does try his hardest.

petnames leon would use : baby, sweetheart, darling, sugar, love — sweet names.

in bed, i don’t think he would be able to indulge in most hard kinks. the amount of times leon has been choked by an enemy and has been traumatized by it would prevent him from doing the same to you, but i think at the most he would rest his hand there and gently caress the skin. i think he would prefer sweet, soft sex. he doesn’t mind a fast pace, and would prioritize your pleasure over his own. he’s a giver, but won’t object if you decide to pleasure him of your own accord.

i can see leon having an avoidance or disorganized attachment style. while he is afraid of intimacy, he so desperately wants and needs it.

leon is extremely touch starved. when he’s fully comfortable with his s/o, he would be very touchy in the comfort of his home (or theirs). in public, it would be small things like linking pinkies or holding hands.

Ahhh I loved these!! Thank you for sharing with me, I’ll chat about some of the ones I really like to keep it short :)

(Also perfectly understandable, I’ve had my fiancée play some parts of the game for me due to how damn scary it can get 😭 no pressure to play any of them though, literally take them at your own pace and have fun!!!)

18+ for discussion of sexual activities

Leon would be big on avoiding/hiding his feelings due to the job. He doesn’t want you to ever have to know of the horrors he’s gone through, see what he’s seen, so it would make sense he would try to divert the topic when it comes to speaking about his feelings in regard to work.

He would definitely benefit from someone (like myself ahah) who actually needs their own space away from their partner, someone who needs time alone and I think if he found that type of person, their relationship would work out well!

If I say Leon is actually a hopeless romantic who desires domesticity and wants to have a big, nurturing family, like the one that was sadly taken from him when he was a child? What then?? Also Leon girl dad, though he would be happy with any and all the children he would have!!!

But speaking of that, he wants a big family. I honestly think it would be a criteria for his future partner, something that he denied himself for so long that now, he isn’t going to shy away from what he wants any longer.

Since he’s a hopeless romantic he would love to be doted on and would love to dote on someone else, he would take the time to sit down and listen to all that you have to say and try anything to help you with any problems you may have! Him sitting there with you with a hand covering yours and rubbing your thumb while the other props his head up on the couch and he’s just staring adoringly at you while you chat away 😫

Acts of service was what I pegged Leon’s love language to be, but yeah also physical touch. He’s probably touched-starved after all these years alone, the poor thing :( but yes he’s pretty awkward, but he doesn’t let that stop him from showing you affection and love!!

Yes those pet names are very cute, but I think his favorite would be ones he had given you over the years, ones that started from a joke between to two of you or one from a sentimental moment the two of you shared ♡ (Ex. I was thinking of a scenario of a time you were watching the stars and you were gushing about them and he was being cheesy and called you his star but that’s what he started calling you after that moment 😭)

I feel the same way that he would not be aggressive or use weapon play when it comes to sex. He’s been in too many situations that would just bring back traumatic memories if he were to try anything like that in the bedroom. He’s very gentle and loving, also definitely a giver, going at the pace you like and making sure you’re satisfied before himself. He loves to receive as well, but not before you’ve had yours. (My headcanon that getting you off gets him off 🫠😵‍💫)

He would have conflicting feelings, but knows he wants the intimacy and all that comes with it. While trying to stay with his newfound principles of no longer denying himself after years of doing so he will (try to) be fearless and open up to love and all that it offers ♡

(I did not keep this short, I’m sorry LMFAO)

#once again I’m consume by brainrot lmfaoooo you’ve got me started and now I’m like!!! RAHHH #o asks #o talking #o text #leon kennedy #leon s kennedy #leon kennedy x reader #leon kennedy fluff #leon kennedy smut #resident evil #resident evil fluff #resident evil smut

88 notes · View notes

thehollowprince · 1 year

Text

I've already said before how much I can't stand Screenrant, and yet I fall for this clickbaiting rage bait every time I see it among my Google recommendations. Seriously... every time.

And I don't make posts like this because I think it's going to change the minds of anyone who irrationally hates the Jedi because someone in the fandom convinced them too by using guiding terminology. No, I make posts like this so that when someone goes looking, they'll find opinions that differ from what's popular, as well as using facts from the source material to back up those opinions.

So we're just going to go through this, point by point, and highlight the flaws in this "argument."

The only question I have for this is Why?

Why would an organization dedicated to defending peace and justice throughout the galaxy not have a base of operations? This is a question I'll repeat later on for one of these other "points," but it just bears repeating. How is the populace of the galaxy supposed to reach out to these new Jedi for help if they can't find them?

And while it sounds nice on the surface to travel the galaxy and train padawans as she goes, it's totally impractical, considering she's the ONLY Jedi doing this. Like, do you have any idea how long it would take to train new Jedi this way?

Like, I'm all for Jedi traveling the galaxy to bring peace and all that, but to do that, you have to have Jedi to travel.

I know this point has been talked about repeatedly, but let's once again hash this out.

The Jedi did not forbid relationships!

Relationships happen all the time, from romantic to familial to friendship. The Jedi frowned upon attachment. And before anyone hops on this post or jumps into my inbox, please look up the philosophy of nonattachment as it pertains to Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy.

Also, look up the difference between an attachment and a connection.

A Jedi's whole purpose was to put the needs of others first. That's their whole schtick. And if a Jedi couldn't put their commitment to the Order and the Republic above their own wants and desires, they were always free to leave. There are plenty of other Force-based groups in the Galaxy that didn't frown upon attachment or relationships. I don't understand why so many people think that the Jedi should have to change their entire philosophy to account for a few selfish individuals.

Go back and read the books and comics from over the years. With very few exceptions, every time a Jedi tried to have their cake and eat it too, they fell to the Dark Side. So Rey's Order actively encouraging relationships (because that's what Fandom is about anymore) is just going to continue the cycle of the Jedi Order falling because "how dare this ancient organization follow its rules and not throw out their entire philosophy" and thus starting the cycle all over again.

Yes, because having multitude of voices with differing opinions and viewpoints is bad. They should all just do their own thing, Lone Ranger style, regardless of how such chaos defeats the entire purpose of the Jedi.

Side note: what movies was this author watching where they came up with the idea that the Jedi Council thought they owned the Force?

The ranking system was there for a reason.

Can you imagine a new initiate coming to Rey and saying, "Hey, I know I've only been training here for two weeks, but I deserve to look at that Sith holocron because I'm a Jedi and we're all equal members with no rank."

You want them to be vigilantes.

Just say you want them to be vigilantes.

The entire point of the Jedi being such a prominent part of the Republic was to avoid bias in justice. We've seen how Senators and politicians and law enforcement could be bought off, but that wasn't the case for the Jedi. They were impartial peacekeepers and their place within the Republic was a vital part of that.

To me, this feels like the author wanted the Jedi to say, "Since you're mean to us, we're not going to help you," which is the complete antithesis of what the Jedi stand for.

"I'm sorry, ma'am. I know your toddler is Force-sensitive, and your house falls apart every time they have a temper tantrum, but I can't help you. We don't offer training until they're older and have already caused massive damage. Best of luck."

Yes, absolutely. Because the defenders of peace and justice throughout the galaxy who should strive to remain calm and keep a level head in the heat of the moment should have LESS training. We just want cops with lightsabers, right?

The Jedi did not join the Republic as a military unit. All the times they acted as military commanders throughout their history was at the insistence of the Republic. Hell, they were drafted to lead the clone armies during the Clone Wars.

The Clone Wars, which I'd like to remind everyone, were orchestrated by several Sith Lords over the span of a decade, after decades more of destabilizing the galaxy. The Jedi specifically tried to stop the Clone Wars from happening, but the deck was stacked against them.

All of this blame on the Jedi for the failures of the Senate and the direct machinations of a Sith Lord who chested his way to the highest office of the Republic.

I highly recommend these people look up what George Lucas has to say about the Jedi and the Force. He specifically says that the Dark-Side is unbalance.

I'd also like to point out that the first mention of "the Light Side" was in The Force Awakens. There is no mention of "the Light" in the Original Trilogy or the Prequels. The "Light" is the balance.

This has been discussed multiple times by multiple people, but apparently it bears repeating.

When did they not "pay attention" to Force visions?

Because in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith, when Anakin has dreams about his mother and Padme, respectively, he doesn't tell Obi-Wan or Yoda the full extent of them. If he had told Obi-Wan what his dreams were about, they probably would have gone to save Shmi. And it was Anakin's own actions that led to Padme's death, the very thing he'd been dreaming about.

Hell, even when Luke had his Force vision in Empire Strikes back, if he'd heeded Yoda and been more cautious, he wouldn't have lost his hand. I want to remind people that when Luke showed up, Han Solo was already frozen in Carbonite, and Lando was able to save the others without the Jedi. All Luke being there accomplished was him receiving an ass-whoopin' and the revelation that he was Darth Vadar's son.

I don't know why people are so dedicated to trying to smear the Jedi at any and every opportunity, but it's getting boring. Especially when all one needs to do to refute these claims is to just watch the movies.

Like I said in my earlier post, this author wants Rey to create an entirely new organization and just slap the name Jedi on it for branding rights.

#i hate screenrant #in defense of the jedi #pro jedi

319 notes · View notes

exsanguidus · 1 year

Note

Controversial opinion; I think Ascended Astarion is the true Astarion. In DnD lore, vampirism amplifies a person's traits for whoever they are at the time they become a true vampire. A Paladin wanting to save people will end up ruling a city with an iron fist to keep people safe. A mage wanting to heal those they love will hurt everyone else to heal them. Astarion was on a journey with Tav - one from being controlled, owned, and tortured to being free, curious, and even powerful. Becoming a full vampire and ascending just amplified that. It forced a self-actualization, not a descent into villainy. I think Ascended Astarion is cannon Astarion. He will always be a vampire, and vampires in DnD are always the amplification of a true self. Without ascention, he is still malleable - but I don't think its what he wants. He wants to be powerful (protected by his own power too - his power being a means to self-preservation), he wants to be loved, seen, and free. Free of hunger, free to walk in the sun, free of Cazador. All these things are true regardless of the path you choose. But, they are all only attainable through ascension. When you ascend Astarion - he gets everything he wants and becomes who he truly is.

I'm going to start this with a disclaimer:

I work in the mental health field professionally and majored in Social & Behavioral Science, which is partly why I felt drawn to Astarion as a sort of case study. Characters rooted in trauma are interesting to me and I enjoy picking them apart to judge how real it feels. I utilize my educational and professional background to essentially guide how I write Astarion on this account.

That said, despite me being a professional in the field, all of what I have to say is my personal opinion and interpretation of Astarion's character based on how I interpret the material Larian gave us and the material that can be found in DND lore. Even in real life, things have variation and not all mental health struggles (getting over trauma is part of mental health) present the exact same way. There are theories that exist to try and explain some trends in mental health studies, psychology, and sociology, but again they're called theories for a reason.

Now, my response to this question will be under the cut and will include spoilers.

I know what lore in particular you're referencing, anon, because I've been going back to it a lot ever since I opened this account.

Astarion very much has an insecure attachment style born from his abuse at Cazador's hands. Specifically, an anxious-avoidant attachment type that leans more towards avoidant when he's first met and then begins to swing more towards anxious as he begins to get closer to Tav and the other companions.

Anxious-avoidant attachment types (also known as the “fearful or disorganized type”) bring together the worst of both worlds. Anxious-avoidants are not only afraid of intimacy and commitment, but they distrust and lash out emotionally at anyone who tries to get close to them. Anxious-avoidants often spend much of their time alone and miserable, or in abusive or dysfunctional relationships. Anxious-avoidants are low in confidence and less likely to express emotions, preferring to suppress them. However, they can have intense emotional outbursts when under stress. They also don’t tend to seek help when in need due to a distrust of others. This sucks because they are also incapable of sorting through their own issues. Anxious-avoidants really get the worst of both worlds. They avoid intimacy not because they prefer to be alone like avoidants. Rather, they avoid intimacy because they are so terrified of its potential to hurt them (Mark Manson, Attachment Styles and How They Affect Your Relationships).

Typically, most studies of Attachment Theory focus on the relationship of parents-children or romantic partners, but it can also be applied to any significant relationship someone has in their lifetime. Attachment styles thus are capable of changing based on new relationship experiences.

If you end up giving him the "good" ending where he denies the Ascension, it's implied in his final dialogue that he's actively working towards having a secure attachment type due to the influences of his fellow worm-afflicted associates - particularly Tav.

I think that it's important to also note that, even if Tav doesn't romantically connect with Astarion, he shows hints of desperately wanting someone to care for him, support him, and love him. He does want to know what sex would be like as something other than a tool, and especially what it would be like to actually want to have it just for the pure sake of enjoying having it.

You have to understand that Astarion doesn't even understand the concept of casual sex or friends with benefits. All those times he had to seduce people for Cazador was not casual sex or a friends with benefits situation. All of them were transactions with a means to an end. He got nothing out of seducing those victims besides the possibility of not incurring Cazador's wrath that night - but even then, there was still a possibility because Cazador was an abuser.

Abusers are incapable of providing genuine safety, but can manipulate their victims into believing an illusion of safety. Often times, they manipulate their victims into this by using phrases like "you made me do this by being disobedient", "it wouldn't come to this if you just did what you were told", and then weaponizing basic needs such as shelter, food, and social interaction. The bare minimum becomes something the victim is expected to be grateful for and viewed as a favor, which means anything beyond the bare minimum is expected to be viewed as a theatrical showing of care and love.

In game, Tav has the chance to hear Astarion tell the story of how Cazador turned him. He basically states that he got attacked by a mob due to a ruling he handed down when he was magistrate and then Cazador saved him and offered him immortality. It can be inferred that in his pre-vampiric days, Astarion had no idea that Cazador was abusive to his spawn.

This is likely because it seems that Cazador is careful about his public image. He doesn't allow his spawn to drink from humans, very likely not just as a means to further oppress them and dampen their potential power they could get from drinking people's blood, but also as a way to ensure there's not just a bunch of people out in the city being bitten and left alive to tell the story - or left dead on the street suspiciously.

He has his spawn seduce and lure people, particularly lower class people that would be harder for general society to realize is missing or just that he knows people who could actually challenge him wouldn't care for (you learn that reading some of the books and notes in Szarr Palace). The only exception to this is the kidnapping of Gur children, but even then it seems to fit his MO as it seems Gur are considered somewhat outcasts from the rest of Baldurian society due to their cultural differences.

It should also be noted that he himself doesn't do these seductions or kidnappings. He specifically chooses spawn to be his lackeys and that's likely so, if shit hits the fan and the spawn gets caught, he has deniability since he wasn't there. It's methodical and thought out to keep as many eyes away from him so he can still obtain what he wants and keep sailing under the radar.

Cazador is this methodical and purposeful as a result of his own trauma, which we learn about from the skull of his master in the dungeon of Szaar Palace. There's one interaction in particular with the skull in which Tav can learn that, at one point, Cazador attempted to rebel and usurp his master. Cazador failed and his master punished him via impalement. Not because Cazador had the audacity to try and usurp him, but because Cazador tried and failed. Cazador's master punished Cazador via torture because his master was disgusted by the fact that his spawn was too weak to succeed in such a plot.

Which brings me to my next point... it's not uncommon for victims of abuse to later become abusers. Hence the term Cycle of Abuse exists. Many abusers who were once victims often have the mentality of either "I'm not nearly as bad as my abuser was, they should be grateful I care enough to not be so bad" or "I survived and it made me tougher, they need to suck it up and let it help them build character" or both. They often fail to view their abuse as abuse and fail to recognize how their experience as abuse victims contributes into making them toxic and abusive to others.

There's many peer-reviewed scholarly articles you can find about the cycle of abuse, but one I particularly find useful is Editorial: Dissociation, and cycles of abuse across generations by David P.H. Jones. It talks specifically about parents and children, but I believe some of the general points made can be applied to Cazador and his spawn, as he crafts a very family-like setting that can be seen in the way that his spawn refer to one another as brothers and sisters.

This would thus make him the father figure, a role exponentially made important by the fact he denies his spawn education on things that could serve to give them ideas or the ability to leave him (for example, Astarion mentions that none of the spawn were permitted to learn about the language of the various symbols around the palace) and he consistently chooses his Golden Children (Favored Spawns) as a means of providing more false security. Do what he says, when he says, exactly how he says and don't complain then you will have benefits. You will be Favored, and to have his favor is the highest honor you could achieve.

Torture is clearly presented as Cazador's primary go-to for discipline. Research has also concluded that trauma has a way of affecting the brain and memories.

Trauma can prevent information (like words, images, sounds, etc.) from different parts of the brain from combining to make a semantic memory. The temporal lobe and inferior parietal cortex collect information from different brain areas to create semantic memory (The National Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine).

Astarion mentions a few times in-game that he can barely remember his life before Cazador, if at all, and a huge part of that is likely because of all the trauma Cazador inflicted upon him that exacerbated the natural occurrence of memory loss from aging (if vampires experience natural memory loss from aging, that is). This is most likely true for all of Cazador's spawn.

I say all this as a set up to truly answering you, anon, specifically where you say: "from being controlled, owned, and tortured to being free, curious, and even powerful. Becoming a full vampire and ascending just amplified that. It forced a self-actualization, not a descent into villainy."

I can argue that Astarion did not feel free up until after a decision to Ascend or not was made. And I argue that stance due to some dialogue he can have with Tav here he basically states that the power Ascension could guarantee that no one, even someone after Cazador is dead, could ever come in to oppress and hurt him again. Even with Cazador dead, he has such an intense fear of being enslaved and used that he turns to catastrophic thoughts as justification to why he needs to Ascend.

Catastrophic thinking is a cognitive distortion that occurs when people have a hard time weighing the likelihood of certain outcomes and believe that terrible or catastrophic outcomes—which are highly unlikely—become, in one’s mind, salient and extremely likely. (Tom Zaubler, MD, MPH).

Aside from the Gur, whom Astarion can manage to evade and even kill perfectly fine as just a spawn, we're not presented with any hints of another big bad in the vampire world that could possibly want Astarion. As such, there's not really any tangible threat, but rather a perceived threat that he believes is destined to darken his doorstep at any time.

His catastrophic thinking is a trauma response. His belief that he needs to be the most powerful being in the room as a way to be truly free is a trauma response. Cazador broke him down emotionally, mentally, physically, and sexually to make him believe that he was weak and trapped. Furthermore, that he remained trapped because he was too weak to do anything about it.

You see how this goes full circle into how Cazador's master punished Cazador for not being able to successfully usurp him? It places blame on the victim, allowing shame and helplessness to root that the abuser can manipulate. We know that Astarion definitely feels shame because he tells Tav that. For most of his dialogue until the boss fight, he's constantly bringing up that he did what Cazador wanted and acted obedient because he had no choice.

This is true, he had to act in self-preservation to survive and unfortunately that meant he had to be subservient. A few dialogue choices you can have your Tav pick can challenge Astarion and say he could have still tried, to which he'll rightfully tell Tav that Tav has no right to judge him for the choices he made to survive.

When Astarion encounters Sebastian in the dungeon, its made pretty obvious how much guilt and shame he truly feels. Furthermore, that for all Astarion's protesting and exclaiming that no one has the right to judge him, a part of him did believe that he didn't do enough to try and escape enslavement. A part of himself blamed himself and believed he allowed himself to be abused when, in reality, he was put in a horrible situation with very limited options. He did the best he could in the moment, with what information he had in those moments.

I also want to argue that who Astarion is when we meet him isn't his true self. It's who he had to become in order to survive Cazador. Astarion doesn't even know who his true self is because he didn't have the opportunity to explore his own likes and preferences. Cazador molded all of his spawn because he had a specific purpose for them.

Not only that, but since Cazador would have to more directly deal with these spawn since he used them as lackies, he also would have molded them to behave in ways to his preference so that he wouldn't find their presence unbearable and feel inclined to murder them out of annoyance. This is also where the Favored Spawn being separated and set on a pedestal comes into play. Those who could please him and play to his wants and needs had better benefits. If all of the spawn are acting in self-preservation, they would want to be favored and thus would want to adapt themselves to things Cazador liked and approved of.

This would mean learning to be cruel to those less fortunate and not doing anything as charity. This is the reason why Astarion approves of some questionable decisions Tav can make. Astarion learned his ideals and morality from Cazador because he had to so he could know how to please Cazador and stay in his master's good graces. After a while, even if you started off disagreeing, forcing yourself to act a certain way can become a habit that sticks with you. You convince yourself to enjoy it too so it's easier to swallow.

Astarion craves power because he knows that power is the quickest, easiest, and - what he believes - most effective way to prevent him from having to use that method ever again. It's logical to want power to solve that.

You said in your ask: "He wants to be powerful (protected by his own power too - his power being a means to self-preservation), he wants to be loved, seen, and free. Free of hunger, free to walk in the sun, free of Cazador. All these things are true regardless of the path you choose. But, they are all only attainable through ascension. When you ascend Astarion - he gets everything he wants and becomes who he truly is."

In the most literal of terms, yes, Ascension gives him all of those. However, since the basis of him believing he needs power to be free is rooted in fear, that's not actually really freedom. That is still his fear ruling over him.

There's a stark difference in what someone wants versus what they need. He wants power, to be seen, to be loved, and to be free. What he actually needs is security, stability, support, consistency, empathy, and autonomy. The things he wants is what he believes will solve the empty cups of what he needs, and he believes that because the only example he had on how to act to get what you want - until the events of the game - was Cazador. He literally had no other example of how to get your needs met except through selfishness, cruelty, force, manipulation, and abuse.

Again, I reiterate. The Astarion we first meet is not Astarion's true nature. Astarion's true nature was corrupted by his abuse from Cazador and the subsequent trauma that followed. If it had been his true nature, he would have happily been Cazador's subject because their true natures would have been in alignment.

It only becomes his true nature if he allows that trauma to define him and decides that he needs to embrace it rather than fight it. That is then what gets amplified because that fear that roots those wants becomes amplified.

Honestly, it's impossible to say what would be canon for Astarion because there's too many factors.

Studies have shown that having more supportive and positive influences, even if its later in life after leaving the abuser, tends to work in favor of the victim breaking the cycle of abuse. As such, I think that if you make a Tav who's core values are autonomy, consent, second chances, and redemption and somehow manage to get high enough approval that he'd even consider caring what they think; then its more likely that Astarion would reject Ascension due to observing how much softer, kinder, patient, and merciful Tav is.

But if its a Tav that has no interest in getting to know him beyond the surface or Tav doesn't exist at all, I honestly think he would end up going through with Ascension. Mostly because, to me, it seems like he didn't really bother to have more than surface level interactions with the other companions and the other companions really only ended up getting to know him better as a result to Tav managing to get past his masking. He does not lower his mask on his own accord, only after certain things are done and said by Tav.

Unfortunately, I just don't really think any of the other companions you can pick up in-game would really be able to provide support and determined consistency in the same way that players can make Tav. Hence I don't think he'd end up caring enough about any of them to ever start to think that perhaps freedom can be defined differently than the way he initially believes, and would view Ascension as the only right way to get his needs fulfilled.

#hc ; in one's blood #long post #bg3 spoilers #cw: trauma #cw: abuse #penned by grim ;#askbox ; blood oath

141 notes · View notes

endlesscolddreams · 10 days

Note

Why don't you ship usuk?

Because there are many types of love, and I honestly think familial love applies much better here.

That is not to say I don’t understand why one ships them or that they don’t fit, because that would be a lie. They are similar and different in equal measures, which makes them a great pair, and the gloomy vs. sunshine trope is appealing, but I can’t really ship them because there is a certain unconditional love between them that’s familial and not romantic in my opinion.

Familial bonds are foundational, providing a sense of security, identity, and history. Romantic bonds are more fluid, passionate, and dynamic, built on mutual attraction and emotional connection. Romantic love can be fleeting, can come and go, can destroy you and resent someone so much you want to destroy them because of the risks of change and heartbreak, but only a familial bond is enduring and eternal despite conflict or distance.

Take it with a grain of salt because, and I will repeat, this is just my opinion, and I’m sure someone must have put this into better words before, but I never talked about it, and I feel like developing this question.

America is the boy who grew up admiring England, doing everything to please, and while England felt this huge unconditional love for him because he was his boy—the best thing that ever happened to him really—he is a messy person who has trouble opening up, and each time he tried he would say the wrong thing or just dismiss America entirely. He was a strong empire with bigger problems at home, many places to be from one corner of the world to the other, and his guilt was enormous because he could see that America was just like him: a small, unruly thing who was lonely and unprepared, which meant toughening him up. It was exactly what made him become what England became, but obviously the situation is much different, times are different, and America may have many similarities to him on the surface, but deep down he is a completely different person.

(Sidenote: I headcanon that his avoidant and anxious attachment style is more like Francis than like England's avoidant tsundere, which makes Arthur astonished and completely out of his depth. Another thing to take into account is that, just like Francis, America is his own person and much more resilient than England, something England doesn't fully understand. England is sensible, prone to hold onto traditions since they give him control, and his youth was such a mess he was never his own person and suffers from a chronic identity and woes.

Not that England shows that side of him; like all nations, his mask was carefully built to make him look unfeeling and cold, a preventive measure that creates a distance that is very common between parents and children. It's very difficult to read old nations properly; they have a flair for theatrics and meticulous rules and etiquette that only they still follow. America doesn't understand it, but he's not interested in knowing it either since he willingly prefers to be seen as a fool, his own facade, and basically ignores it, which only increases that distance.

France uses his dramatic nature to overexpose and act out emotions that blatantly hide his real feelings, and I get the feeling that sometimes Alfred does that just to infuriate England.)

Now, America indeed needed to get rid of England, not only for his country but because of Arthur himself.

Arthur, the person, was emotionally dependent on him. He controlled everything to fuel up that dependency, and Alfred was finally enlightened enough to see that while he loved his father figure he was being caged in. He is his own man; he is strong enough, and he aims higher than he’s allowed to, so there is only one solution: freedom.

France plays a huge part in this by telling him about the days of his own captivity, days spent locked in palaces, forced to be the ideal 'representative' his bosses dreamed of a nation like him when all he wanted was to be a pirate like Spain, a missionary travelling the world, maybe dress prettily like he always loved without being forced to forgo certain colours or fashion, and most important of all: mingle with his lovely humans instead of sitting in his gilded cage. France is petty, and his resentment fuelled his words, but at the same time he saw promise in America, even if that promise was mainly to undermine and distract England from his goals.

(I will always hc that Francis dreamed of a world in his image and truly thought that having it all would bring peace and beauty for all these unfortunate souls who are less civilised.)

I digress here, but America looked up to France too because while England likes to trash talk his enemy, he respects him and even admires certain parts of him, which led to America's willingness to meet the blasted frog who makes England so angry he shakes like a flustered puppy.

This is to say that the fallout of the relationship between father and son was a mess because they wouldn't communicate. It doesn't mean the fallout wasn't needed—far from it. England was always too proud to back down, unwilling to conceive that he was not completely right and righteous in what he did for America because ultimately he was doing his best and loved him more than anything else.

But as soon as the war was over, they sat together and made new agreements that completely neglected all the others who helped America in the war. True story, it's like the kid who finally leaves home yet needs the parents help to make his new house presentable and functional. I imagine England would give him a proper trousseau, something he never gave anyone else because this was his heir and greatest hope/disappointment.

Still, there was a strain. Arthur was truly hurt, felt abandoned, and blamed everyone and himself for what happened, and Alfred was also hurt because all he wanted was Arthur’s support yet all he got was stiflement.

I think Alfred was always sure of Arthur’s love (unlike Matthew with Francis), but because Arthur can’t properly show it in a reasonable way (everyone has different needs and Alfred’s love languages are way different than Arthur’s in the end), their relationship was strained for that wretched century. It didn't’ help that Arthur was still trying to meddle in his business when he was growing and proving himself. Most of all, Alfred wanted to impress and show the world his valour, something Arthur didn’t think he needed to do because his worth was always very clear to him.

They only really begin speaking when they are forced together by the wars. The first one showed them how similar their interests and ways of working are, which opened them a little for proper communication, and the second really made them sit down and talk because enough is enough and America is a superpower in his own right and England is not as mighty as he once was, but he is still respected and finally begins to learn how to let Alfred go and trusts him to come back safe.

Nowadays, they're more in tune than not. England reluctantly let's America do his thing despite being the first to run across the world just to point out he warned him as he bakes him a treat (he's a lovely baker), and America, despite it all, keeps sneakily asking for England's advice because he's old and lived too long, and America secretly will always look up to him as an example and moral compass.

The thing with love and parents is that the relationship will never be easy.

You don't really communicate; the parents always see you as a small kid who keeps fucking up; you see them as obsolete fools who try to keep relevant despite the world being completely different, yet you still love each other and behave a lot like one another despite it all.

Alfred truly resembles Arthur in certain things (just ask Russia who will tell that he did the same thing during both the great game with England and the cold war with America, or maybe France, who has a certain fondness for America because he reminds him of the enemy across the channel. You can even ask China, who will tell his memory, sometimes mixes them both together, greedy children who can't play nice and enjoy disturbing his sleep. The only ones who refuse to see the semblance are indeed Arthur and Alfred, yet I think Alfred is more aware of it than Arthur, king of denial) and is almost a truly different version of England in others, but in the end it's pretty much clear that they’re related, or at least love each other unconditionally in a way a romantic love would destroy.

#aph america #aph england #ratdad and ratson are finally talked about here #aph france #america golden heir and ratson #england the empire of rocks #the loving french menace #usuk #I guess

20 notes · View notes

sk-lumen · 11 months

Text

How to go from Anxious/Avoidant to Secure Attachment

One big obstacle in the dating process that holds us from finding a healthy, fulfilling relationship is our limited beliefs and childhood traumas. One prominent way this manifests is through our anxious, avoidant or disorganized attachment style. We all just want love, right? But our ubringing irrevocably marks how we relate to the world, both romantically and platonically. Most often, it is women that exhibit anxious type due to the social programming that expects females to be nurturers, and monitor the wellbeing and behaviour of others. Another reason reason women exhibit anxious attachment is the father figure that is often physically or emotionally absent, thus creating a “father wound”. Meanwhile, men gravitate towards avoidant type due to toxic masculinity and how it pressures males into being self-sufficient and emotionally independent (or cold). It’s not easy to navigate either extreme of the spectrum.

Anxious attachment style

The anxiously attached individual is often faced with severe anxiety at any perceived or real distance that forms between them and their partner. This can be a late reply to a text, or no reply. It can be inconsistent communication, or behaviour in general. The reason this triggers their anxiety is because it also triggers a core wound, that of the “abandonment wound”. This is why, even in a toxic relationship where they may know on a deep level that it’s not okay anymore, the anxious individual might still choose to stay because they’re afraid they will be left with nothing (scarcity mindset) in the absence of the toxic partner. They are actively choosing someone else, hoping desperately to be chosen, even though by doing so they are literally self-abandoning (ironic, right?). And so what works as a soothing balm for the anxiously attached is: reassurance, consistency, communication, clarity — these are key behaviours of the securely attached. And ultimately, prolonged exposure to healthy, reassurance behaviour and communication is what helps the anxiously attached evolve to a secure type.

Avoidant attachment style

Likewise, the avoidant faces their own challenges. How this develops is that one or both of their caretakers were overbearing in their childhood, or they were neglected and expected to handle things on their own. This develops a very independent personality, where the avoidant feels that their identity and wellbeing is closely tied with freedom, (having) space, and independence in general. In a relationship, they will crave intimiacy and closeness like any other person… but their avoidant attachment creates an inner conflict, where by facing that sort of intimacy and closeness, they feel simultaneously suffocated, panicky, feeling on some level that their sense of self is in danger. This is where it gets messy. Depending on the person, the avoidant can handle this in a very hurtful, toxic way, or in a transparent, accountable, “take it or leave it” way.

Toxic behaviour includes: ghosting, shutting down, silent treatment, being conflict avoidant. Generally, the avoidant pulls away, disconnecting mentally or emotionally, and findsit difficult to process their emotions at the time. It is only with space and time that they are able to process and reconnect with their feelings. That also explains why during breaks, break-ups or no-contact situations, avoidant types...

🌸 Read full article here 🌸

#glow up #anxious attachment #toxic relationship #relationship tips #level up #growth mindset #relationship advice #high value relationships #writings #blog #articles

55 notes · View notes

michelleelizabethtanner · 2 months

Note

Do you think Rio has an avoidant attachment style? I wish we knew more about him and his history. What do you think he'd be like as a serious romantic partner?

Hi anon! Thank you for the ask. 😘

I can see why Rio may seem like he has an avoidant attachment style. He’s kind of a lone wolf. But I actually don’t think that attachment style is his problem. He isn’t the first man to be defined by one single bad thing he did when he was very young. Six months in juvie for petty theft and his ENTIRE life is ruined? He is now forever branded a criminal? Like the show’s theme professes – there’s always a choice. A lot of who Rio is, is who he believes himself to be. He believes he’s a criminal, so he’s a criminal. He believes it’s his duty to provide, especially for the women in his life, so that’s what he does. He believes himself not worthy of a conventional life, of full-time parenting, of being someone’s actual partner… so he is none of these things. Society has formed him. His life circumstances have formed him. Culture, machismo, pressure, emotional immaturity… All these things have formed his deep loneliness, and his resentment of Beth for not having to pay the same price for being who she is.

I think he would be a terrible serious romantic partner unless he was partner to someone who understood and accepted his limitations. And idk who in their right mind would. He wants to come and go all hours of the day and night, put himself and, by extension, his family in danger, tune into his parenting duties when he has time and when it’s fun and when it’s convenient, and he would want no questioning about any of it because he’s “the provider” and “has no choice” and “who do you thinks pays the bills around here…” He’s very intense and very charming and charismatic. He’s even empathetic. But most of all, he’s selfish. If he wanted to, he would. He would not be lonely. He would not be Legoland Dad. He would have an apartment where his son has an actual dedicated room. He would not just disappear from his son’s life sometimes and leave his co-parent to pick up the pieces. He would hold himself accountable to his conventional responsibilities, and he would support people in more ways than just superficial or financial while expecting their full emotional commitment to his interests. He isn’t afraid of intimacy or of being dependent on others. He expects that others will pick up his slack and give him endless excuses and passes because they owe it to him. He’s lonely at the top because he chose “the top” over everyone who’s ever cared about him. He wasn’t emotionally incapable, he just didn’t want to. Or… didn’t see himself as worthy of that kind of life. And while he resents it sometimes, and thinks it isn’t fair that Beth gets passes in life that he doesn’t, he is a grown man who’s made his choices. People don’t change. He wants to be alone because he’s too selfish to not be.

#Rio analysis #lonely at the top #good girls nbc #asks

17 notes · View notes

hide-in-imagination · 8 months

Text

Simón and Ámbar are two very contradicting people and that's why they work so well. I'll elaborate:

Starting with Ámbar, she's someone who seems a lot, but isn't actually that much. With that I mean she seems very happy and in control and determined and like nothing ever gets to her, but as we get to know her, we start seeing she's actually incredibly lonely, comically indecisive when it comes to the simplest things, and has no real idea of who she is and where she belongs beyond striving to be number one at everything (because it's the only way she learned she can be loved.)

Ámbar, due to her childhood trauma with her motherly figure, is very independent, assertive, perfectionist and controlling. With these qualities, people usually go after romantic partners that they can 'control'-- that are subdued, sweet, gentle-- all the things their mothers weren't with them. The problem with that is that then these women can never relax (which is what they truly want deep down) because they are the ones who end up doing all the problem-solving in the relationship, the ones who always take the lead. Therefore, they should actually go after someone with more masculine energy instead.

We could say Ámbar did this by dating Matteo, but the problem is that Matteo was also too independent, perfectionist, and detached from the relationship, so neither of them really developed a deep emotional connection. (Which, let's be honest, neither of them was seeking, so it worked great for them.)

Then we have Simón, who at first glance would fit the 'feminine energy guy' thing perfectly-- He's sweet, gentle, easy-going, he puts other people first, etc.

BUT, turns out, Simón is the very embodiment of "Get yourself a guy who can do both." Because man does this guy can do both.

Simón might be a pacifist at heart, but he will not hesitate to fight for those he cares about, and he will call you out if you mistreat him because he has a very strong definition of what's right and what's wrong, and he will not allow people to purposefully behave badly. He might tend to go with the flow of what other people wanna do, but he is brave enough and independent enough to leave his country and fly across the globe with nothing more than a suitcase and a guitar.

He also has the drive to go after his dreams even when they seem impossible, and he declared his feelings for Luna the moment he realized he had them even when it could endanger their friendship-- He did not stay passive. Even in Season 3 when he was the most passive (aka staring at Ámbar from afar 24/7 but doing nothing about it) this inaction was not due to lack of confidence or drive (after all, he had the confidence to ask her to dance from the very beginning)-- It was because he knew Ámbar was not in the same place as he was. Ámbar at the beginning of Season 3 was having fun playing with Simón, even tried to manipulate him with the feelings he harbored for her more than once-- She was not in an honest place of "I want us to be together." Even later, when she was getting into that mindset, Simón kept his distance but he was clear about what he wanted if she wished to be with him. He had the assertiveness to say "I'm crazy about you, but I'm not gonna play into this if you don't put in some effort."

So what do we have? Someone who is empathetic and kind and chill enough for Ámbar to get that security and love she didn't receive as a child, but also someone who's strong enough, determined enough, and driven enough to allow herself to relax every now and then and let him take the lead of things. Our girl hit the jackpot and I am jealous every day.

By the way, let me just mention, for someone who by all accounts should have an Avoidant Attachment Style, Ámbar sure as hell lets Simón in a lot. This might be because the script needed it, but I wanted to point it out because it's very curious to me. (If you don't know what Avoidant Attachment Style is, you can click here to read about it.) I mean, she went from a superficial relationship with Matteo to basically crying in front of Simón every day-- That's huge! Sure, you could argue that she couldn't help it since she was completely destroyed inside, but even then, I think it speaks very highly of him that Ámbar considered him a safe space to vent to during those tough times. We got another example of that in Season 3 when she was upset after her phone call with Sharon and then Simón walked into the lockers and she hugged him, seeking comfort. It's like she can't stop herself from wanting him to 'catch her', if you know what I mean;) But of course, she didn't want to admit she was that 'weak', so she completely shut him out the next day (the infamous maracuyá juice scene, ugh, don't even remind me, it hurt.)

Anyways, I realize I focused too much on Ámbar's side of things in the relationship instead of what both get out of it, but I already wrote in a post once what Simón gets out of it, so I'll let that speak for itself.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk, I wrote this instead of writing Roads✌🏻

#simbar #simbar meta #I've just been watching too many videos about relationship dynamics and stuff-- sorry about this😂#the psychology behind love fascinates me #(probably because I learned to rationalize everything as a defense mechanism OOPS🙊)#c speaks #My Post

29 notes · View notes

anotherramblingfangirl · 6 months

Text

Dresden Files fans book rec:

This one I have read along with its sequel and thoroughly enjoyed!

Imagine if someone set themself out to study the Nevernever, to document all of the creatures which resided in it and seek to map what they possibly could of its domains and doorways.

This is what Emily Wilde seeks to do, the premise of the book being an expedition to a far North village attempting to find evidence of some elusive folk said to exist there. The books being journalistic style of her time there, including some interesting world building footnotes. As for her herself -

“Emily Wilde is good at many things: she is the foremost expert on the study of faeries; she is a genius scholar and a meticulous researcher who is writing the world's first encylopaedia of faerie lore. But Emily Wilde is not good at people.”

Something that is no exaggeration, the no-nonsense woman having the same sort of disposition and grace to social contact as a feral cat. Don’t take no-nonsense as entirely “logical” however haha, she is absolutely one of those academics who would strive into a marsh or lick something questionable. Along with one of those people to get herself into a situation for motives, she doesn’t necessarily always reliably account to herself in their entirety.

Foil and contrast to the ineffible Wendell Bambelby, ever the charmer who has attached himself onto who also doubles as an absolute laze. Her one and only friend who has decided he is coming with her. That said while I cannot say much to avoid spoilers, I will say right from the start of the book Emily is convinced that…well perhaps I could strike somewhat of a comparison to DF’s Thomas and say no more there (I’ve seen other reviews strike a Howl comparison).

The book itself is described as quite charming and it definitely is in a good way - but don’t let that make it seem like this is an entirely light low stakes reading. The fae here are oft nasty, there are those who feast on humans, rob their children, steal and return people hollow. They are said to be elemental forces in themselves, bound to stories akin to the rules of the mantles in DF.

There are also various lingering supernatural mysteries to be solved, pieces coming together, but I shan’t say more there.

I know this is perhaps selling it way too high but I really loved it and look forward to the third one! So sharing this here in case anyone else may love it too.

#dresden files #the dresden files #emily wilde’s encyclopaedia of faeries #emily wilde #post by me

16 notes · View notes

anislandofmyown · 1 year

Text

thinking about the last five years again. how most men i’ve talked to side with jamie and most women side with cathy. how every time i listen to the soundtrack i come away feeling less like jamie even loved cathy at all. how jamie just wanted tomorrow and a non-jewish girl and cathy wanted forever and miles and piles of jamie. how fundamentally different they both were. how jamie assumed cathy was jealous of him and she probably was, but not in the way he thought. how he came into his own success with the speed and velocity of a hurricane and subconsciously assumed that everyone else would too. how cathy probably consciously avoided thinking about his success in those terms. how jamie closed the bank account just in time for cathy to come back from ohio. how cathy’s life and financial stability were immediately upended. how jamie dumped cathy in a heartfelt letter. how neither of them did better than that. how jamie talks about all women, including cathy. how cathy talks about him, constantly giving him the benefit of the doubt, constantly reassuring herself that it’s not wrong to let him have his moment, she’s a part of that. how they were both so young, and jamie came into his success at 23 while he was with cathy and so had no time to explore what being famous and successful might do to his dating life. how cathy’s need to be seen triggered jamie’s need to be alone. how they are textbook anxious/avoidant attachment styles. how talking about their relationship frankly when they got engaged would have solved so many tears. how while getting engaged cathy says “i will never be alive” before jamie says “i will never change the world/until i do.” thinking about how they were doomed from the very start. thinking about how alone cathy must feel. thinking about how the entire musical is a loop, like they’re just destined to keep going in circles over and over again. thinking about how jamie needs therapy BAD and cathy needs a hug and a cry.

#rant #the last five years #words #thinking #media criticism

30 notes · View notes

littleeyesofpallas · 1 year

Text

Not to be a weirdo and go all anime tiddy detective(again...) but I've been seeing my awkwardly salvaged Gigi/Senjumaru post getting notes, and among other issues i have with how that post wound up I do feel like I didn't actually articulate my characterization of Senjumaru's design very clearly.

Kubo's got certain sensibilities about his character design. Usually i get fixated on his love of dramatic "crazy face" and the fandom at large fixates on that one big breasted body type he knows the fans love, but he also has a pretty robust cast of modestly proportioned girls. That being said, he walks a line on that, and is very deliberate in making sure to always remind everyone that his small breasted characters do still have a noticeable chest. It's a little weird but it's pretty specific because you'd think it would be easy enough to let their silhouette flatten out for the sake of simplicity, or speed, or just because sometimes a camera angle won't naturally emphasize the bust, yet time and again he stays consistent on it in a way that predicates intent.

Also worth noting in the context of things here, Isane sort of implicitly binds on account of otherwise conflicting omake details vs her strict canon appearances. Unohana implicitly binds due to her traditional style of dress that fundamentally includes flattening out the chest silhouette. AND YET in the face of those facts they're still drawn to show distinct curvature to the chest line. Rukia, Hinamori, and Shino are all generally infantilized as a part of their design aesthetic, Rukia passing as a 15yo, Hinamori being demure and doll-like(ala her name), and Shino being part of an expressly younger generation than the heroes when she's introduced. They're still drawn with noticeable breasts: moreover there is every opportunity to just entirely lose their silhouettes to the featureless blackness of the shinigami uniform, and Kubo goes back in with the white ink anyway. SuiFeng and Hiyori actually both nearly dodge this by wearing clothes that do actually obscure their body shape, but then Kubo seemingly compensates for that modesty by giving Sui Feng her sideboob outfit when she throws off her haori(and its apparent attached sleeves?), and giving Hiyori almost out of place cleavage(well, that and almost constant midriff shots)

Point again being that these are characters with distinctly small breasts, for whom one should imagine no one would be up in arms about being drawn without some subtle bumps in theri chest line, and yet Kubo still does not miss the detail...

So with that intentionality in mind, the fact that he then went out of his way to... I don't want to call it "cleverly"... but eh... """cleverly""" avoid drawing attention to Giselle's chest by putting her in an oversized top, and even changing its design around the sleeves, and subsequently part of her silhouette(she was slightly curvier, and her outfit was less fluffy in her early appearances?), as her "reveal" chapter got closer, becomes a noticeably meaningful choice. In particular in proximity to the "reveal."

And you know who else he seemed to have taken similar care in how he drew? Shutara Senjumaru. And granted, as i prefaced this whole post with facetiousness, not as insulation but as disclaimer, this is a ridiculous angle of approach. it's a ridiculous premise. the evidence and logic underpinning every step of it is dumb, but in spite of any of that, Shurata's silhouette jumped out and grabbed me from her very first appearance. The line from her neck/shoulder down to her waist is unlike how he's drawn any other flat chested/small breasted shinigami. And that comes in conjunction with the rest of her aesthetic:

She is dressed like something between a Geisha: high class personal entertainer, a Tayu or Oiran: a high class prostitute, or a Kabuki actor who could likely be playing a character styled after or explicitly in the role of either.

Obviously her most striking feature is the bizarre headdress, which appears to be made of kanzashi[簪]: a rather broad category of hair accessories typical of geisha and oiran.

She appears to be wearing two exaugurated pins to create the shape of a crescent moon with what look like they would be the sort of hanging elements of a bira-bira kanzashi; meaning that each of those vertical bars hanging from the underside of the moon would be free to swing back and forth from a connecting link or chain(s).

The radiating golden bars from the top I assume would be a kind of hanagushi hair comb, again with obvious exaguration given its size.

And the under hanging radiance being something like miokuri.

It also gives off super distinct vibes of an art movement that I hate that I cannot for the life of pinpoint right now... I want to say it was Spanish colonial(???) that used to specifically carve halos in this style, not as a round solid disc, but as a series of geometric rays... I hate to say that the thing I always think of is how Death Note borrowed it for its pseudo religious imagery. (although I guess the French did it too a bit during the reign of King Louis the XIV, but i always associate it with the mexican art of catholic saints, but I'm not even sure if I'm thinking of the right thing.)

In any case those are motifs or themes that we never get to see explored. boo...

Shutara is however kind of unexpectedly underdressed for a super powered clothier. Her one exterior cloak thing is as bas I can tell not anything real, even ignoring its defiance of gravity. If she were an oiran you would expect more layers, and the distinctive thing i don't know the name for that they hold in front of them and conceals their hands... She does however have the unmistakable oiran raised shoes.

And finally her makeup is a little vague but with relative consistency she's been depicted as extremely pale, which strongly suggests white makeup, typical of unfortunately all three aesthetic culprits, thus not actually narrowing the reference down at all.

Taken then with her theme of clothes and costuming in proximity of theater, the power of clothes/costume and thus presentation and roleplay, Kubo's super distasteful conflation of Giselle's transgender identity as some kind of "disguise" or "deception," kabuki using onnagata --male actors specifically trained in female role performance and upheld and even coveted at times throughout history as an apex of femininity, even above and beyond that of ciswomen-- the fact that Senjumaru is just straight up a masculine name, etc...

Like i said in the other post about all this, which i'm reluctant to even link back to, without any further elaboration it's impossible to say what this actually means for shutara as a character, and any inworld logic that applies. I don't think she is supposed to be a literal actress, like she has some personal history of professional theater training and performance.

That feels like it should be obvious. But understand that while all of this was a pain in the ass to try and lay out explicitly, it's something that, knowing all these disparate factoids already, I didn't actually have to think about at all when I first saw Shutara. I just clocked her as a queer woman immediately. It felt super obvious.

But now for my due diligence.(i actually totally thought there woudl be more of it at first...) Because as confident as I am in my theory, even I can recognize that it is not without holes. For one, entirely outside this pattern is Liltotto, who is actually very consistently drawn without the otherwise ubiquitous indication of AFAB breasts I point out otherwise. And she is certainly given no particular trans coding the way I associate with Gigi and Shutara.

i was going somewhere with this and i forgot... i think i though there dbe a bigger string of tangents to go off and when there werent my brain just kinda fizzled out without drawing a conclusion...

#no im not tagging this one #no one really needs to see it #its just me griping about my old posts #instead of editing them #because my compulsion is fickle in its methods #okay no i lied #bleach meta #if only so itll actually show up in my archive correctly later

29 notes · View notes

digitalprophetsworld · 14 days

Note

Not gonna lie, I actually have some new headcanons and questions I wanna ask about legacy since y'know, I'm very fixated on him! It's gonna be long so apologies for how much you have to read through this.

• He doesn't like it when people take photos of him. (Or force to get his picture taken.)

• Because of the room I made for him in acnh, I imagine that he once captured a trespasser in his room and force them to sit down on his chair and interrogate them. He would grab his flimsy old lamp he has in his room and point the light directly at their face while demanding answer alongside asking invasive questions in a furious manner. (Basically, he does not give them the chance to breathe as he goes all out on them and is hostile. He thought he could deal with the person himself during the interrogation without the help of his siblings)

• He can be petty sometimes. He can throw an temper tantrum and get bitter when things doesn't go his way.

• Out of both of his siblings, Lawrie absolutely hate his guts. He obviously the most harsher one, but he can take it too far where he can kinda make Legacy upset and have a mental breakdown afterwards. Larry, on the other hand, is more easy on Legacy, but even he has his limit with him and bluntly tell him to get up and leave his room in which irritates Legacy after his patience weigh thin. Overall, legacy can get too stressed out and have a massive outburst that end up hurting his vocal (idk how to say that it hurts his throat despite not having any) and slammed his door after having to deal with his siblings that fail to help him.

• He kinda has an avoidant attachment style. He's used to being on his own so being around other people makes him awkward and confused.

• Despite him not liking either of his twin brothers, if legacy were to choose which one to be around with, he would pick Larry. Lawrie hate him and would sometimes even bully/pick on him simply because he's upset over the amount of efforts they put into helping him and he doesn't do anything in return. Not to mention, he's a pushover so Lawrie could simply make fun of him and he won't do anything about it. He's the big brother after all. That and he's kinda scary so legacy would always do what he tell him to.

• He is physically unable to cry. He's been so numb to it to the point where he couldn't let out his emotions even if he wanted to. He can only shed a single tear and that's all he can basically do since he has been pushing it down for years.

I wanted to ask this one question that's been on my mind lately and I wonder what the pre-version of legacy was like? (Like how his old self was before he became the way he is currently.)

Also, also, not that I'm planning on doing this rn cause idk if I'll activate enough for it, but would you be okay with the idea of someone making a fan account centering around legacy? I have a couple of doodles I made out of him and want to post them, but idk if that will be okay. Again, not that I'm planning on doing it right away cause I was only thinking about it, but I would understand if you don't want that! (Again it was just an idea I had lol.)

NEW HEADCANNONS LETSGO

I think he would try to interrogate someone once on his own, but because he was so hostile and didn't technically get an answer out of the person he just angrily kicked the person out of the park. Like rare occurrence of leaving his room just to drag someone out and shove them out of the park 😭

Lawrie and Legacy definitely have a HEAVY hatred for each other. It's hard to tell who starts a fight between them because it just seems to spark so suddenly without proper context, and Legacy has definitely tried to avoid Lawrie a lot. I wouldn't necessarily say Lawrie would bully him, though. He'd just point out a lot of things that irk Legacy and make him more and more pissed. Larry is usually more gentle, so he'd definitely prefer to be around him more. He still doesn't like either of them too much though

I could see him with an avoidant attachment style! He tends to just like his own company rather than anyone else's, so when he doesn't feel up for talking, he just locks himself away

He's also definitely had some bad breakdowns from his brothers. Sometimes, he just tears apart his office to let off some steam before cleaning it up. It tires him out enough to finally calm down

I wouldn't mind a fan account of him !!!! It'd really mean a lot tbh, I didn't think my character would be so liked like this .... /positive

ALSO, I'VE BEEN DYING TO SAY HOW HE WAS PRE-CAMERA SECURITY (INFODUMP UNDER CUT)

Pre-Legacy was honestly pretty similar to Larry. A more gentle and generally joyous guy, just probably way more socially anxious. He wasn't too big on talking, but he was very passionate about his job and being able to work alongside his family. The only issue was that he was not as strong as his siblings at the time, both with his baton and being strict on visitors. He couldn't beat down criminals, let alone tell park goers they were breaking any rules. Again, he has pretty awful social anxiety. So he was given a different job and was told it would give him time to improve, that's how he got his job as a camera guy! He observed the park and would report to his brothers over a radio/walkie talkie if someone was breaking rules, and in his spare time, he tried to learn how to actually use his baton properly. He was making significant amounts of progress and assumed he'd be back in the park with his brothers in no time.

But that time never really came. Despite his obvious progress, he was never sent back out, Legacy was just essentially benched permanently. He still tried to be his best self in hopes of becoming a security guard with his brothers again. But the day never came. This resulted in how he is now. He has worse social anxiety, is hostile, and is simply used to being alone 24/7. Sucks bad, man

If he were offered the position back, he would probably try his best, but he would still be a bit reckless. He'd think he'd just be "benched" again and find no point.

#answer #brawl stars oc #brawl stars #larry and lawrie

5 notes · View notes

avpdpossum · 2 years

Note

Hi and thank you for making this blog! I have avpd and I have been wondering a lot about why. Why did I develop a personality disorder. So I wanted to ask you what your thoughts are? Is it genetics, the environment, trauma? My avpd is making it very hard for me to accept my diagnosis and not turn it into a critic of myself. “I’m born wrong/weak or I’m so weak that I went crazy and traumatized from nothing”. I’m trying to tell my negative thoughts that “I’m just a sensitive person, and the environment and people around me have affected me in a negative way so this is how my coping strategies and view of myself and the world have developed” but it’s hard to believe because I don’t know if I know enough about avpd to be sure of that. Also, not referring to the common misconception that avpd is avoidant attachment, do you think people with avpd also have some sort of unsafe attachment style? And if so, which one is most common? And are unsafe attachment styles an inherent part of avpd?

i’ll answer the easy part first — avpd is most commonly associated with a fearful-avoidant attachment style. if you read descriptions of it, you’ll definitely see the similarities to avpd. not all fearful-avoidantly attached people have avpd, but as far as i can tell it’s for sure the most common among avoidants.

and i would argue that yeah, people with personality disorders in general are pretty much guaranteed to have an insecure attachment style of some sort. of course, not being securely attached doesn’t automatically mean you have a personality disorder, but i think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone with a secure style and a PD, including avpd.

now, onto the question of how someone ends up with avpd. i’m actually working on a longer post related to this right now, so definitely look out for that! but i can summarize my thoughts on the subject here:

the short answer is, avpd seems to be a combination of genetics and outside influences.

as far as the genetics go, there are a lot of factors indicating that a predisposition to develop avpd can be inherited. avpd more common in first-degree relatives of people with social anxiety and people with schizophrenia, avpd traits are associated with personality traits which are believed to be particularly heritable as far as personality traits go, and avpd traits have been found to be somewhere between 30% and 65% heritable (depending on which study you look at). so it’s very very likely that some sort of genetic vulnerability is involved in developing avpd.

that being said, the research i’ve read pretty unanimously agrees that the genetic part can’t account for all of avpd on its own, and most conceptualizations will attribute that other piece to trauma. if we do think of it as being at least partly caused by trauma, there are two main reasons you might feel like you were “traumatized by nothing”.

the first is experiencing harder-to-notice forms of childhood trauma. the research i’ve read repeatedly identifies two kinds of traumatic parenting as being related to avpd: neglect and overcontrol. both of these are hard to spot — neglect (emotional or physical) because it’s very hard to see what’s not there, and overcontrol because it tends to be normalized as “just how parents are supposed to act” (think lack of privacy/boundaries, high expectations, general lack of freedom). both of these (and combinations of them) are super hard to spot, especially when you’re the one experiencing them, so it can feel like the trauma comes from nowhere even if you’ve experienced a recognized form of childhood trauma.

the second reason has to do with that genetic component of avpd. one theory about what the specific inherited aspect of avpd is (which i personally tend to agree with and base a lot of my own theories about avpd on) is that we naturally have a lower autonomic arousal threshold. put more plainly, that means it takes a lot less for us to go into fight-or-flight mode than the average person. in situations where the average person would be a healthy amount of stressed/concerned (or not at all), someone with this hypersensitivity might already feel like it’s life or death. and at least in my opinion, that sure as hell sounds like it could turn common situations which most people come out of fine into trauma, right? i’m sure plenty of people also have that sensitivity and don’t end up developing some sort of neurodivergency as a result, but some of us do and that’s through no fault of our own. it’s already widely recognized that literally any stressful situation can become traumatic if you don’t have the resources to manage that stress, so when you’re already at a disadvantage like we are, it’s not hard to believe some of us would end up traumatized by things most people see as normal, manageable stresses of life.

so my theory on how avpd develops is that we’re born with this natural hypersensitivity, and then over the course of our childhood and adolescence, we go through some sort of trauma — maybe super obvious trauma, maybe less commonly recognized trauma, maybe trauma that most people would never even think of as trauma, maybe some combination of the above — which causes us to retreat into ourselves to manage how the trauma heightens that hypersensitivity. our brains go from being very easily activated to being pretty much always activated. we want to avoid things that could overwhelm our nervous system just like anyone else does, but because our brains have reached a point where nearly anything can overwhelm us, we just end up avoiding almost everything.

i’m sure plenty of people have other explanations and will disagree with me on this, but this is what makes the most sense to me based on my own experiences and the research i’ve done.

and i can assure you that, at least from my perspective (and i’m sure from the others too), developing avpd doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with you — the fact that that’s the conclusion your brain jumps to is, i would argue, literally just an avoidant trait in itself and not a reflection of reality at all. you’re absolutely right to tell yourself that you are just sensitive, not “weak” or “wrong”, because i believe that’s a very real part of it and a lot of work on avpd seems to agree. our brains just naturally work differently and given the wrong cocktail of early life experiences, we end up avoidant. your brain’s just doing the best it can to protect you from a world that it perceived as genuinely life-or-death dangerous.

#i’ll expand on a lot of these points in the posts about avpd and complex trauma that im working on #but this is the gist of it #poss.answers #discussion #theory #avpd #actually avpd #actually avoidant #avoidant pd #avoidant personality disorder #cluster c

79 notes · View notes

greatqueenanna · 1 year

Text

Cinema Therapy - Psychology of a Hero - Anna

youtube

Naturally, since I posted Elsa's video from this account, I had to post Anna's as well. An older video that I believe was already posted many times here, but I wanted to highlight this video because it shows an actual therapist reviewing Anna's character. While they recognize that there are flaws in both films, Johnathan Decker (the therapist) and Alan Seawright (the filmmaker) (color coded for the quotes below) still give a very good analysis of Anna's character that many fans tend to overlook.

Here are some highlights -

"Then the parents die and Anna's just spent years and years and years (alone). The first time watching Frozen thinking: come on Anna you're naive and your desperation for love is a little much. And then we all went into quarantine for a year. Wow. Turns out that was maybe underplaying it."

"Anna is so in a perfect place to be manipulated. Because she is insecurely attached. Her attachment style, both from being shut out from her sister and from the death of her parents and being alone so long she's landed on anxiously attached. Now, some people, they land on avoidant attachment style, which is what Elsa does. But for Anna, she's anxiously attached, meaning, she wants so desperately to be connected."

"But Anna has incredible strength as well. I mean, they're kind of a mirror image of her weakness. She's so open. She is loyal. and she's incredibly brave."

"Anna's loyalty is both a virtue and a vice. It is a strength, loyalty is a beautiful thing, but on the other hand, its directly tied to her anxious attachment, her need for connection, and fear of being alone. So she will do anything to keep people close by."

"Without Anna there to perform that last act in both films, it wouldn't have unlocked Elsa's ability to do the final little touches that she needed to do."

"Just like Elsa, Anna's growth in the first film was not a complete 180-degree change. She still wrestles with insecurity. She still wrestles with fear of loss and fear of abandonment. And she still wrestles with prioritizing, like when...she straight up cuts Kristoff off because she's so worried about Elsa. She prioritizes Elsa over her relationship with Kristoff and over herself and her own well-being... But there's also some character work there where Anna's still very insecure and prone to take things in the worst way possible."

"What I like about her arc through the two films is she goes to a place of independence here. She still loves people, needs people, she doesn't close herself off to people, but she's not in this codependent place where one person needs another and the other person needs to be needed. Which is...which is where she's been before."

#Frozen #Frozen 2 #Anna #Cinema therapy #opinions and commentary #Youtube

24 notes · View notes

crankycalcifer · 3 months

Text

What is good therapy? (part 2/?)

Therapy should be more than worksheets and "homework" assignments.

Sometimes, high quality therapy involves exploring and practicing a particular skill or set of skills (like coping strategies or new ways of communicating). This is good. We have lots of research that shows that changes in behaviors can positively impact emotional experiences, physical health, relational satisfaction, etc. However, changes in behavior are not a panacea; there are real limitations to what changing behavior can accomplish.

For example, many of my clients have childhood histories of trauma. These usually involve their parents/primary caregivers and they usually have lasting and far-reaching impacts on how they form and keep relationships (attachment style, level of physiological arousal in stressful situations, beliefs about self-worth, etc.). Changing behaviors, like increasing self-advocacy, is good. It could even help someone to feel like they are the kind of person that is worth self-advocating for. They might even be surprised at changes they see in others as a result of their changed behavior. However, this is rarely sufficient to create new beliefs about oneself or about how relationships work.

Often folks need a combination of new information/psychoeducation, changes in their behavior, and new experiences to help activate their emotional selves.

For example, I often assign my clients a thought project or behavioral experiment in between sessions. Sometimes I ask them to do something that I am pretty sure they are not going to do (e.g. "I want you to consider buying yourself something from the store that you really love, not because you need it or it has a practical function, but because it brings you some amount of joy and bring it in next week). We talk about how they are not going to do it and I give them permission not do it. I assure them that if they don't do it, I will not be mad and it will not change the way I feel towards them or interact with them. They usually come back the next session and want to avoid talking about it, because they didn't do it. When I ask them about it, they get uncomfortable and don't know how to respond. They feel bad, maybe even guilty. In the therapy relationship, I am often seen as the authority figure and they have let the authority figure down. Am I going to get mad? Am I going to apply more pressure? Will this harm the relationship in some way? All kinds of past relationship patterns can suddenly rush to the surface and start to clamor for attention or rush in to protect some vulnerable emotional part of the client. I see this happen and use my role as the therapist to provide a different experience. I channel a nurturing energy and remind them that their value as a person is not found in their productivity, that I am not mad in the slightest, that I completely understand that they may not have had the information or skills they needed to complete this task. I am warm, compassionate, kind. I demonstrate with my body language, my word choice, my level of attentiveness that our relationship is safe and that they are allowed to say no to things or not complete things without fear of punishment. Sometimes client's get angry with me, an experience that I welcome. I often apologize, ask for more information, take responsibility for what I did or didn't do and model holding myself accountable.

Therapy is at its most powerful when the therapist and client have a genuine relationship. For this relationship to be genuine, you need more than worksheets and behavior modification. You need care and the ability to take risks in ways that are safe.

#queer #gay #gender #trans #lgbtqia #therapy #mental health #relationship #secrets #mental heath support #boundaries

3 notes · View notes