#our imperfect abuse victim

[runraerun]

🦋 • billy hargrove + billie eilish (BLUE)

[the-crooked-library]

Blurred Lines: Agency and Victimhood in Gothic Horror

Seeing as Robert Eggers' Nosferatu has just breached a cool $135M at the worldwide box office, it might be as good a time to talk about this as any. I believe I echo the sentiments of most diehard fans of gothic horror when I say this: while we are glad to see this masterpiece meet with well-deserved success, these numbers also mean that a significant proportion of its audience has been previously unfamiliar with the hallmarks of our beloved genre; and the resulting disconnect between the viewers and the source material has been the driving force behind the great majority of the online discourse that surrounds it.

The tools and conventions of the gothic, as a genre, are essential to Nosferatu's primary narrative arc. Its central character, Ellen Hutter, cannot be discussed outside of her literary context. Textually, she balances between heroine and damsel in distress - blurred, in many ways, from mainstream understanding.

That is done entirely on purpose. There are numerous reasons for it; I could go into heavy detail about it; and I will - under the cut, of course.

The main thing I must make absolutely clear (before delving any deeper) is that the gothic genre is fundamentally non-literal. It deals heavily in metaphor, allegory, allusion, obfuscation - and, indeed, the blurred lines that have recently caused so much controversy online. This is by design. It is not a flaw of storytelling or interpretation. The gothic affronts the rigid, black-and-white, mainstream forms of morality because that is what it has always been designed to do; and the newer installments like Nosferatu do the same, being built upon those traditional foundations.

The historical background is therefore essential to the understanding of a gothic narrative. In this, the film does provide the viewer with a relatively easy starting point; its period setting amplifies its connection to its predecessors, as well as the societal pressures and systemic violence that it aims to challenge. It allows the audience to perceive the story through a historical lens that comes pre-installed, as a sort of short-cut to the genre's original social context.

The context, in this case, consists of misogyny, queerphobia, xenophobia, and ableism - which, while rampant even in the modern day, were that much more blatant in 1830s German Confederation, where/when the story largely takes place. Every human character, regardless of who they are, is influenced by these oppressive aspects of their society; and Ellen Hutter is hopelessly entrapped within all four.

Her social situation, as we are given to understand, is precarious. Though she was originally born into wealth, she married down to escape her abusive father. She is an eccentric - her "wild" inclinations (such as having a sense of dignity or loving the outdoors as a child) are enough to cause almost vitriolic disapproval; but on top of that, she was born with a psychic gift, which manifests in a way that is not dissimilar from a mental (and sometimes physical) disability. She and her husband are also English immigrants, and thus perpetual outsiders in Wisborg (this is also one of the reasons Thomas is so anxious to prove himself at Knock's firm, and so keen to emulate Harding in all things); and, finally, she implied to experience queer attraction - which, though non-explicit, repressed, and never truly indulged, still affects her and the way she is continuously treated throughout the film.

Overall, Ellen's existence is perceived, at best, as an inconvenience - and at worst, a scandal. With that, she fits seamlessly into her story's genre.

The "immoral," the forbidden, the taboo is a cornerstone of all gothic fiction. It exists in the doubt between light and dark, harm and desire, love and abuse. It is the domain of sympathetic villains (e.g. Heathcliff, Wuthering Heights), of imperfect victims (Bertha Mason, Jane Eyre), of heroes who are deeply flawed, who cause their own tragedies, and often fail to save anyone at all (Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein). Within the gothic genre, there are no absolutes; and its contradicting balance of dichotomies provides a reference point - or, more accurately, a cultural triangulation - for exploring the same complexities that a binary puritanical mindset strives to eradicate. These include sexual desire, female autonomy, physical and mental disabilities, classism; in short, anything that gets people wincing.

The popular discussion of these topics is frequently cruel, often avoidant, and rarely straightforward or productive. As stated above, it makes people uncomfortable. It's not pleasant. However, for Ellen (and many people in the real world), it is, quite literally, impossible to avoid. It defines every aspect of her daily life.

What this means for her and for the story is that within a narrative that refuses to gloss over the imperfections of her surrounding society, her victimhood is not thrust upon her by a shadowy figure, emerging from the night. Instead, she is a victim - of an ongoing and systemic, rather than individual, abuse.

This aspect of Ellen's characterization lies at the core of her behaviour throughout the film. She is an unstable chimera of Brontë's Jane Eyre and Bertha Mason - in the sense that her actions are informed, in great part, by her acute awareness of her own disenfranchisement. She alternates between anguished raving and phlegmatic practicality, used to her pain but unable to entirely ignore it; and, the same way that Jane sees all the rage she feels (but cannot afford to express) manifested in Bertha, Ellen finds her counterpart in Orlok.

This is where the ambiguity begins.

Even though Orlok is most certainly a gothic villain, his relationship with Ellen cannot be interpreted as strictly adversarial. Naturally, it would be easy to ascribe their dynamic to grooming and PTSD; however, as previously mentioned, a gothic narrative is never surface-level - and the film itself never furnishes any information that would definitively limit it to that.

Firstly, to get the primary discourse point out of the way - yes, when Ellen and Orlok first meet within the ether, she is indeed young; and later, she is said to have been a child. However, at the time, the term "teenager"did not yet exist; Ellen's younger self is not portrayed by a child actress; and later, in 1838, she is referred to as a child multiple times - despite being an adult, married woman. Overall, within the film, the term is more often used to describe innocence and inexperience, rather than age; and her initial age is never specified. Granted, a multi-century age gap is not exactly "healthy" anyway - but this is a vampire story. It is per the course; and it complicates their relationship beyond a simple victim vs abuser narrative.

Secondly - and perhaps, most importantly - the overall impact of Orlok's coercion tactics falls flat in comparison to Ellen's human-world alternatives. Yes, he argues and threatens; but her social circumstances have never allowed her agency in the first place. Her father abuses, isolates, and threatens to institutionalize her; Thomas dismisses her concerns as "childish fantasies"; Harding and Sievers tie her down and drug her; Harding again kicks her out of the house. Her marriage, her friendships, are therefore all transactional; they grant her an escape from her father's house, relative financial stability, social support - on the condition that she represses her true self, pretends to be normal, doesn't threaten anyone's masculinity or heterosexuality, and acts like she's happy to be a deferring, obedient, settled wife. Being a daughter of a landed gentleman, she would never have been given a working woman's education, and evidently has no income of her own; and so, she has no options except to upkeep her end of the bargain - which means that her continued survival within mainstream society relies on constant background coercion.

Compared to this mundane, socially acceptable horror of her existence, the vampire actually offers her more autonomy than she is ever otherwise accorded. The terms of his covenant never threaten Ellen's own well-being; so on one hand, she has benevolence - and on the other, the dignity of choice.

This contrast lies at the heart of her dilemma. Ellen is torn between what she believes she should be and what she knows - and Orlok knows - she is.

One is "correct," moral, Good; the other is "wrong," sinful, Evil. However, at the same time, the first is manufactured; it is artificially designed, and must be continuously enforced. The second is primal. Natural. In accordance with gothic tradition, the appeal of Orlok is that he is forbidden, yet instinctive. By design, he is a reflection of everything that Ellen is forced to repress on a daily basis. That includes her rage, her ostracism, her abnormalities; but also, her desperate need to be respected, understood, and desired. He is both grotesque and alluring, both a lord and a beast, both cruel and reverent.

"He is my melancholy!.." cries Ellen.

"I am Heathcliff!" whispers Cathy.

Still, while Cathy and Heathcliff are primarily divided by class and racism, Orlok and Ellen are separated by moral considerations. In the explicit sense, Ellen cannot choose the Evil that Orlok represents. Within the surface narrative, she is obligated by her society, her morals, and the story to choose Good - in this case, by nobly sacrificing her individual expendable life to save her husband and a city full of people. Her primary storyline, like everything else, has already been decided for her.

For the Trekkies among us, this is Ellen's own Kobayashi Maru. A no-win scenario. As such, within the context of character analysis, her destination does not matter as much as the little things she does along the way; and it is no accident that, as the film progresses, the subtler, seemingly insignificant choices she makes within that framework just happen to bring her closer - and closer - to Orlok.

All of them are just innocuous enough to almost pass. She places a lock of perfumed hair in a locket that she gives to Thomas - and upon his arrival to the Carpathians, the same locket is immediately claimed by Orlok, who recognizes the scent of lilacs. Before making her sacrifice, she puts on her wedding dress and finds a bouquet of the same flowers - which is the sort of effort she didn't have to perform, especially given that he cannot resist her blood regardless. When Orlok arrives, she chooses to undress them both, and leads him to the bed, even though her previous sex scene with Thomas was entirely clothed; and in the morning, she pulls him close and holds him through the sunrise - even though he was already dying, and would not be able to escape. There was no need for her to touch his rotting flesh at that point, much less caress it.

There can be a "moral" explanation for all these actions; but the lack of direct obligation involved in them becomes increasingly blatant over the course of the story, and the doubt festers.

This sort of lingering ambiguity is precisely where gothic horror thrives - and intersects, scandalously, with romance. Gothic horror, much like bodice-ripper novels, noir thrillers, or "dark romance," builds much of its romantic intensity on the dichotomy of shame and desire. Imagine it, if you will, as a loom; warp and weft. It may even be described as literary BDSM - a continuous, mutually-agreed-upon act of roleplay between the author and their audience, and sometimes the characters themselves (though that depends). The point is to create an outlet for female, queer, or disabled sexualities, all of which are still heavily medicalized and restricted, derided, or denied entirely; and within these often intersecting genres, the violent or coercive intensity of the dominant lead (be it a vampire, a mafia don, or simply a more experienced lesbian) provides their repressed, seemingly passive counterpart an excuse to act upon their demonized erotic urges.

Between the page and the mind, everything that normally complicates a romantic or sexual encounter in the real world (subliminal hints, aggression, repressed and involuntary responses) becomes set dressing - serving to place a particular scene or dynamic within its fictional universe. The resulting Watsonian uncertainty is, naturally, part of the appeal. It is what allows the viewer/reader/listener a sincere emotional and sensual immersion; and for Ellen and Orlok, it provides an appropriately dramatic pretext for a night of tender vampire sex.

The discourse around their joining is painfully similar to the same that drifts around online every winter - in regards to the classic holiday hit, Baby it's Cold Outside. The song, written during an era in which extramarital sexuality was heavily restricted, follows a couple brainstorming excuses for the lady to stay the night; this intention was explicitly stated by both members of the original duet; but that hasn't stopped thousands of people from interpreting it as a "rape anthem." It is unsurprising, then, that an element of horror (guilt, shame, repression, coercion) muddles the water even further.

It's oddly apt, considering that the film premiered on Christmas Day.

Granted, I am not denying that there is an abusive aspect to Ellen and Orlok's connection, romantic or otherwise. However, to reduce Ellen to merely his "victim" is extremely inaccurate to her actual portrayal - because, within the framework of the film, her interactions with Orlok are the few in which she is actually able to exercise some form of agency. She never defers to him, their wedding-death hinges on her free will, as coerced as it may appear; and, in a fascinating subversion of a popular vampire trope, she is the one who summons him.

In gothic media, "Come to me!.." is invariably spoken by a vampire (or a vampire derivative like Erik, Leroux's titular Phantom of the Opera); their counterpart follows helplessly, without question; and giving these lines to Ellen is a dramatic deviation from tradition that fundamentally alters the underlying context of their power balance. By maintaining this call-and-response dynamic throughout the story, Eggers asserts that Ellen isn't helpless; and neither is she "in over her head." She is intelligent, powerful, and she has a tangible influence over Orlok, who is her only equal - which is why, ultimately, she is the one deciding where that relationship is headed.

That is not to say that any alternative readings of the film are entirely incorrect. As I have stated above, the abusive/toxic narrative is definitely present, and even essential, in gothic media. On the Doylist level, it is the equivalent of a whip, or a solid pair of cuffs - essentially, a divestment of responsibility; though, to continue the metaphor, not everyone shares the same kink - and those who do might not all enjoy it the same way, so there's definitely significant variation. What I am trying to say, however, is that each story does come with a central conflict; and Ellen Hutter's victimization - much like Jane Eyre's, like Thomasin's (The Witch, 2015) - is systemic.

She is ostracized, disrespected - infantilized if her oppressors are feeling benevolent, demonized when they are inconvenienced - and still expected to always prioritize her husband/friends/community by default, regardless of how she is treated by them. Her surrounding society, morality, religion, culture all insist upon the same; and this is why, despite knowing that she has done nothing wrong by following her nature, she carries an enormous amount of guilt in regards to those "unacceptable" aspects of herself. It is also the same reason why Orlok - the sensual, cruel, utterly devoted monster - is the answer to her lonely call; and the reason why everyone around her is so eager to see her as his victim, rather than a victim of anything they may have perpetrated themselves. Ellen's is a rich complexity, fed upon centuries' worth of gothic tradition, and she cannot be forced into a flat, genre-inappropriate simplification.

Like The Witch, like NBC Hannibal, like Interview With the Vampire before it - Nosferatu (2024) is a story of self-indulgence being so unfamiliar that it feels like a sin; or, like dying.

I, for one, would not deny her that.

[medusas-daughter]

In the case against Amber Heard, Depp's team went to great lengths to hide evidence against their client, they spent millions of dollars making sure it stays off the net, and his fans spent a shit ton of money afterwards to uncover that evidence in the greatest bamboozle I've ever seen in my short life. It would have been hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. They rode so hard for their childhood hero and paid so much money to get that hidden evidence uncovered only to find hospital records of every thing they said Amber Heard lied about. Meanwhile Amber Heard and her team barely had peanuts compared to the wealth of resources Depp had.

Baldoni's Team, which are the same people btw, aren't even doing that. Because they've learned that the people are frothing at the mouth waiting for the chance to rip a woman apart. They know that even with Blake's and her husband's billions of dollars, and Baldoni's far far lesser status than Depp, she's still just a woman. They don't even need to come up with a strategy or hide evidence or bribe judges. They just need one or two people to say "uhm that d list actor i saw on like one cw show and maybe heard about his podcast like once is like soooooo hot I'd also throw myself at him and then destroy my reputation my career my family my image and chances of future employment when he rejects me because I'm just a dumb blonde, an aging dumb blonde" and the Internet just runs with it. I am disgusted and so fucking disappointed.

The number of women who were told "that man isn't harassing you, you're projecting your little crush on him" or "he's not catcalling you he's giving you a compliment you're obviously fishing for and when he doesn't compliment you anymore you'll start crying because it will mean you're old and ugly" or "that man didn't rape you, you just regretted sleeping with him because it makes you a slut so you're crying rape to save face" is heartbreaking. I can say with certainty that every single one of us either knows one of these women or is one of these women.

And to all the pick mes going to war for Baldoni's ego while his team pops champagne for the easiest money they've ever made, you are either one of these women or you will be at some point in your life. Especially with the way the patriarchy is taking back control right now.

This is why I never liked dunking on girlbossism or imperfect feminists. Because the patriarchy used very valid criticisms to roll us all the way back to just hating women. Feminists were looking for a better way to do things. The rest were just hating on women.

"Blake Lively is the epitome of white feminism and girlboss feminism therefore I hate her and don't believe her when she's been abused" do you fucking hear yourself? Women don't owe you a perfect record of activism to be worthy of human decency.

Is Blake Lively a perfect self aware social justice warrior? No. Is she a victim who deserve justice? Yes.

Was Amber Heard the perfect victim who took every assault lying down then cried a single aesthetically pleasing tear before stoically forgiving her abuser and rapist and embracing him one last time because he's just a hurt man an she's the jezebel that pushed him to anger? No because she's fucking human and she did not deserve any of what was done to her during her marriage or after.

It is disgusting. And all the accounts tearing Blake Lively appart then complaining about Trump's presidency, I beg you to ask yourself why it has become so easy to discredit a woman. It's not a coincidence. It is sinister. And I am not exaggerating when I say it's an omen of a very dark future for women.

Celebrities have always been a microcosme of society. They're mirrors we project our beliefs on. And if the first thing people see when they look at the mountain of evidence against Baldoni is "an aging white woman trying to hide an emotional affair from her husband by ruining a poor hard working man's life" then the 1950s that the far right promised really are here.

[officialfoxsquadron]

i’d like to talk about padme. i’d like to talk about padme and anakin. and i’d like to talk about padme as a victim/survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of anakin.

there’s an almost…victim blame-y aspect to padme discourse, both in fandom and in the mainstream. “well I wouldn’t have done that” “didn’t she see the signs” etc. look yeah the signs of anakin’s downfall in aotc are not exactly subtle. (he massacres a village for crissakes)

but here is a key fact: you are not padme. you (the audience) possess knowledge that padme does not; you know that anakin’s dark turn is not a possibility but an inevitability, because you’ve seen the movies that came out before the prequels. even if you haven’t, vader’s reveal is so culturally ubiquitous that you just know anakin skywalker is darth vader.

padme is a woman who as a child became the queen of a whole planet. her only friends were the guards who wore her face, in some instances became her, and were trained to kill and die for her.

when she reconnects and falls in love with anakin as an adult, he is acting in a similar capacity as the handmaidens-he is a protector, a bodyguard. yet he is the first person to truly see padme as not a symbol or a figurehead but as a person. the only genuine smiles padme gives in the trilogy are to anakin.

so of course she falls in love with anakin. and of course she hopes that his goodness will win out, that light will conquer dark—because padme does not know her fate is inevitable. her seeing goodness in anakin, even after he commits what lucas frames as his ultimate sin (choking her) she is still able to forgive him. this is not a moral failing.

reactions to abuse and violence are not a given. it is not a one to one situation and each case is different. it is very easy for us to sit in our comfy chairs with the foreknowledge of the original trilogy and judge padme. what’s harder is trying to empathize and understand her as an imperfect woman who is doing her goddamn best.

[mercymaker]

i feel like a lot of people who write astarion's character off and refuse to engage with his story and character arc are missing out on a very important aspect that is incredibly real and devastating in our world.

it's the existence of an imperfect victim.

which is an unfortunate reality for so many people. and that's why so many of us keep running into this cognitive dissonance where we can't connect the two.

in a way, through media, as well as real life examples, we're constantly being shown this image of a perfect victim, the target of suffering. often completely innocent, there to be tormented and to be weak and to suffer and cry. it's almost... palatable? they're there for us to feel one emotion or another. pity often being at the top of the list. they're at the bottom of the line when it comes to control, authority, aggression. they did nothing wrong. they're there to be brutalized, to fit a very particular role in the narrative. a passive role.

but more often than not, in real life, victims aren't these perfect, meek, quiet, passive figures. especially when it comes to sex trafficking (sex work being looked down by the society and the law surely creates a brutal trap where you're the 'bad guy' even when you ARE a victim). there's no escape. you learn to play by the rules of that world. for so many, there's no 'fairy-tale' ending where you're going to escape by remaining passive and hopeful and continuing to suffer.

there are so many cases where trafficked people end up committing crimes. for some it's just theft, battery, assault. but there are cases where the victims end up brutally murdering their abusers, or their 'clients', or both. and that's when society, as well the judicial system, stops seeing them as a victim altogether. as if they never were one. all of their absolutely horrific suffering gets pushed away, nullified in the eyes of the public. now they are the perpetrator, the criminal. and worst of all, some use this to justify their horrific abuse.

i can't even count how many times i've seen comments where people say 'well, they didn't have to kill them, they could've xyz' or 'why go out of their way to be so brutal?' etc. etc. which yet again... erases sympathy for the victim.

as if committing immoral acts somehow retroactively applies 'punishment' through previous abuse. and the mob's moral craving for 'justice' gets scratched. resolves the cognitive dissonance. it's much easier to connect the two dots, if the person was 'evil' all along. perhaps they were never a victim to begin with? perhaps they deserved it?

and that's where, to me, it loops back to astarion's story. and one of the key points portrayed.

no one deserves such horrific abuse. it doesn't matter if you're an asshole or if you're a sweet girl who had her trust exploited.

and it's not to say that a victim's crimes are suddenly justified because they were a victim to begin with, no.

it's more about our inability to tackle the nuance when someone is both. the one inflicting the suffering as well as receiving it. their 'crimes' are not justified by their suffering. yet, their suffering is also not justified by their 'crimes'.

it is certainly a difficult situation to navigate, but i wish some people would engage with those uncomfortable topics and step out of their comfort zone sometimes instead of writing something off because of some surface details.

[randomlonelymusician]

Mental Health in Media - Lacey

The Lacey Games series is an interesting webseries, first presenting itself as a lost flash game upload, then presenting itself as a horror series, and finally showing its colors as a heartfelt piece about trauma.

*Heavy topics below, proceed with caution.*

Through mainly Lacey's Diner and Lacey's Petshop, it is shown that Lacey has suffered CSA and neglect from her uncle, starting at a young age. But this is found under a layer of 2000s-style flash games, presenting the perfect looking Lacey in a upbeat 2000s girl life. But of course, with this genre, the deeper you get into the game, the more the truth is revealed.

In other series following similar formats, this transition is used to amplify the feeling of the unexpected; taking something innocent and turning it into something horrific. But the Lacey Games series adds many more layers to this. You see, Lacey is an in-universe stand-in for the creator of the fictional games, Rocío Yani, who like Lacey, is a survivor of this trauma. In the cases of both Rocío and Lacey, they've already escaped their abusers. Lacey is a chef, a pet shop owner, and goes about her day to day life within these flash games. But despite escaping her physical situation, her past always leaks into the present. In Lacey's Petshop, she returns to the house she grew up in -- the house she was abused in. Just because she has escaped her abuse doesn't mean she's escaped her trauma or the ways that effects every other aspect of her life. And so, so many pieces of media don't recognize this.

Lacey also isn't the "perfect victim" that media likes to portray abuse survivors -- especially CSA survivors -- as. The whole climax of Lacey's Petshop is that she killed her uncle, her abuser. Not because she was actively trying to escape, but because he killed her dog. Lacey's Diner also implies that Lacey (and by extension, Rocío) deals with substance abuse, another thing that media discussion mental health loves to demonize. After she escapes her uncle, she still has these destructive habits, she still deals with self-h4rm and su1cidality. She wasn't just some innocent girl, she was a human being who had everything taken from her.

I believe the Lacey Games series can be powerful to people who have survived what Lacey has. Society and media recognize and accommodate victims until they break the mold of a "victim". Trauma doesn't go away with the situation, it persists throughout one's life and seeps into aspects that could otherwise seem normal. And the thing that makes this worse is the constant demonization of the "imperfect victim". We may not be killing our uncles or baking various health-violating items into food like Lacey does, but feeling like shit and going through shit doesn't make you a horrible person.

Thank you for reading. I wasn't quite sure how to end this, so I just did. If I got anything wrong, please make sure to tell me!

References below the cut:

Some info on long term affects of CSA

Ghosttundra's Channel

Sorry I had to use alternate letters for some words, I didn't want this getting overly flagged.

[icarus-phaethon]

So umm geniune question because its been kinda straying me a bit from the radfem community

Do you support female abusers? (Women who abuse their partners,children,ect,ect) because ive seen some radfems on here defend them because "patriarchy caused them to do that" or because it's revenge for the years of abuse men have put onto us. I was bullied in school and sa'ed by my mom so id like to know what the general belief on female violence is before getting back into it. Thanks ♡

I don't support them. And women are allowed to be imperfect. It is part of destroying the halo misogyny. That results in punishing women worse. There's a complex dynamic at play where patriarchal and sexist beliefs both idealize and oppress women. The notion that women are inherently pure or incapable of wrongdoing ties into traditional gender roles, which cast women as nurturing and passive. While this may seem to elevate women, it paradoxically punishes them more harshly for any perceived deviation from this ideal. Feminists have criticized this "angelic" stereotype as another form of control, arguing that it reinforces the idea that women must conform to societal expectations of purity. This halo effect tho also intersects with the reluctance to acknowledge female violence on females, males, and kids. Since society often views women as non-threatening or incapable of violence, victims can be dismissed or not taken seriously, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and harming feminism as a movement. If we are not just in our cause, we give others a case against it.

[gordontheengineswifenirmal]

Absolutely LIVID. FUMING.

A few days ago, I shared that I had talked with another Tumblr user about our similar experiences of being harrassedn falsely accused of things in the fabdom. Much of the false accusations, and subsequent hsrrassment ocvuredwhildt I was in the hospital, nearly dying. I had surgery to save me life. I recuperated.

Ok, so another Tumblr user (and former friend on discord) went quiet. I have been busy moving into a one bedroom in basement of the place I currently stay in, n haven't really gotten to keep up as much. Today, I finally check in on the person. This is her -

Ok, sooooo this is the conversation -

Now, she even asked other people if I had done anything inappropriate with other members. They said NO. Mind you, she’d been active in two discords I run. She saw the messages. I didn’t hide anything. I’ve discussed the situation many times. Even here on tumblr, I do not flirt with anyone. if anyone tries, I report n post about them. I’m NOT interested. Why the hell can’t ppl get that in their head? I’m ESPECIALLY not inappropriately interested in minors. I will b friendly n b a mentor if they r friendly, but that is it.

This is what I got when I DMMed her - (names blurred for privacy)

She had REAL evidence right in front of her bloody eyes. The term ‘staying neutral’ means u secretly have doubts. U secretly still have some shred of belief for the troll who harassed several of us (which was why I created the servers to begin with, as a safe space!)

It’s THIS mentality that allows the real predators to go free. This mentality that allows fascist, convicted felon perverts to rule us. U take power from the victim n give it back to the abuser. No. SOD THAT. I’m speaking out, because I’m bloody sick of people thinking that’s ok to do. U either grow the feck up, or sod off either this behaviour.

U add to the trust problem when u pull this shite. Young ppl can’t trust adults, n then put their false hopes in other minors, thinking that they’re the same age group, they will never hurt me. This is WRONG and DANGEROUS. ALL age groups r equally potentially dangerous. Look, if u want to be friends, cool. If u dont, fine. Leave me alone. It’s that simple. I’m not interested, n will NOT be flirting with u. U need to respect me, not only by not flirting, but also, by not going behind me back n pulling stupid stunts. If that’s how u operate, I don’t want ur friendship. I don’t need your friendship. Go play games with someone else. It’ll cost u in the end anyway when ur ignorance catches up to u. This is also why id often rather talk to AI than real people. Because I’m at the point where I can trust ai over people. I know ai is imperfect, I’m not going to abuse it, but I can’t trust people, because they keep being stupid bloody cunts. I even have friends on here who know people in me actual life. They can verify I’m innocent.

This is also a form of aphobic prejudice. I’ve told her that I’m sex n romance repulsed. She’s asked me about bfs before, which is fine. I gave her solid advice about not rushing, n focusing on other things, u want to then be a sketchy twat, go behind me back, n believe the harasser? No. We’re not doing this. I’ve blocked her. She can learn that this isn’t cool. N she can suffer the consequences.

I will continue love me Thomas, Gordon n gang. I don’t give a rats funky arse for fake friends who want to play games. I don’t need them.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

About your Amity's post, I get some of the points but there are some constructive points I want to bring up.

Amity doesn't stand up against her parents for Luz only, she also does that for other people on the Boiling Isles. In Clouds on the Horizon, at the first scene, she and her siblings try to find ways to tell Odalia and Alador that they're unknowingly helping Belos. “Someone has to tell Mom about the draining spell, or else she and Dad are helping Belos hurt people.” The people in Amity's saying don't include Luz, because the draining spell only hurts witches with sigils, while Luz doesn't have one. Even when she's captured in a shield, her first thing she says to Odalia is “Don't you get it? You're helping a witch hunter destroy everything.”

In Reaching Out, Amity wants to reconnect with her father through the Brawl champion. Abomination is Amity's personal interest since she dyes her hair purple because it's an Abomination color. In the Brawl matches, it can be seen that Amity has unique fighting skills with Abomination, she can use it to fly, move it from one place to the other and turn her hands into Abomination like Darius. She trains magic a lot so she can improve like this.

Luz's trauma is focused at the end of the episode, but in the first half, Amity's father issue is more focused. He never listens to her and underestimates her, he's also controlling in some sense. He also destroys her book by cutting it in half. Also, the bond Amity has with Edric and Emira is overlooked as well. They give Amity the concealment stones, and are willing to show their ‘imperfect’ real selves. Emira even tries hard to heal her sister. They cheer for Amity from the stand and they get protective of Amity when Alador grabs her and throws her down. The Blight siblings play an important role in Amity's growth and development, and it's not just only Luz like how the fandom flanderizes.

Amity is only 14, and an abused victim. She only gets out of her mother's influence and she struggles to find what she wants. What Amity wants is the ability to decide for herself. Amity is in her transitional period, her biggest wish is making decisions herself, that's how she connects to Ghost. When Alador underestimates her and wants her to stay back, she still stands up to fight alongside with him and proves that she isn't weak. “I'm gonna make my own decision from now on.” Before knowing what goals or dreams she wants, she has to have the freedom to decide first.

And Odalia does more than bugging Amity about her hair color. Odalia still forces her to join the Emperor's Coven, something that she doesn't want. She was manipulated to believe that it was her dream at first. She treats Amity unfairly compared with Edric and Emira. In the first scene of Clouds on the Horizon, only Amity is criticized and grounded, they only get grounded later on because they try to burn the factory. When the twins try to save the Hexsquad from the shield, Odalia blames it all on Amity, that Amity is the one telling the twins to act out. Odalia even destroys Amity's tamagotchi, her personal belonging. Both Blight parents destroy her belongings like nothing, like a child whose phone gets destroyed by their parents.

Some are too harsh on Amity because she's 14 and they're older than that. They can somehow know what they want for our future. But as a 14 year old, Amity only wants to be a teenager studying and living to the fullest of her life without any pressure. Volunteer to read books for kids, baking, watch Azura and draw, or cosplay her favorite character. She likes Azura way before she even meets Luz. She's still a good student like Season 1 because her magic is much stronger than before. In Sunday momocon panel, Dana confirmed that Bump would have a hard time choosing between Amity and Willow to take to the "Instructing Future Witches of Tomorrow."

When Amity grows up, she can does figure out her ambitions. She becomes an Abomination engineer to create inventions based on her creativity and interests. She's also an explorer, as she travels long distances on the hot air balloon she creates to get Lilith a book. She wants freedom and chances to explore outside after years of being controlled and abused.

first off, thank you for being civil about your argument. you made a lot of points, so i'll address them one by one.

1. yes, amity stood up for the people of the boiling isles, but that was after she already broke free from odalia's influence and got with luz. i was specifically talking about s1 when amity stands up to her parents. at that point, she had no personal goals other than the fact that she liked luz.

2. abomination seems to be amity's personal interest but it also aligns with her parents' goals for her. she was excelling in abomination when she was still under odalia's control. so it doesn't really count as going against her parents' wishes.

not to mention, apart from the scenes where she fights and her hair color (which, i didn't even realize was meant to be inspired by abomination until alador mentioned it), there's not much focus on abomination as amity's special interest. if that was really the goal, they could have put more focus on it.

3. yes, that episode was about amity's relationship with her dad and her siblings. i did acknowledge that. but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's more about interpersonal drama than amity's personal goals. it starts off that way but there's so little focus on amity choosing her own path.

also, luz's trauma isn't only mentioned at the end of the episode, it was the bigger conflict in the entire episode. it starts with luz getting a reminder on her phone and throughout the episode, there's more focus on luz trying to ignore her worries and appear happy, than there is focus on amity.

4. i agree with what you said about amity needing the freedom to do what she wants before she makes a decision. the problem is that there was only one episode centered around that, and that was the episode we just talked about.

i just wish there was more focus on her healing from her trauma and discovering her passions and goals. she is the main character's love interest after all and for a show that's as progressive as toh, i would expect them to know better than to write a love interest whose sole purpose is being a love interest.

if there were more episodes surrounding amity, i wouldn't be complaining so much. and the show being cut short isn't an excuse because there were so many filler episodes that really weren't important to the main plot. the least they could have done is use one of those filler episodes to focus on amity.

5. i understand that amity was still very young and she didn't need to have her entire life figured out at that point. but given that characters like eda and king was given a lot more focus, i just wish they had done the same for amity.

my point is that i would have liked to see the process of amity figuring out her interests and discovering her identity, instead of just getting the end result. yes, we see her volunteer at library (though again, she did that way before her redemption arc and sure, she does seem to genuinely like doing it, but it's still not going against her parents' wishes) or cosplaying (which was done, in part, to comfort luz) but i wanted to see more of the arc that led to amity discovering her own interests, especially after her redemption.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Canellecitadelle @Canellelabelle

The British public is a hard public to win over. We judge harshly first and are cold and guarded first. But once, you have earned a spot in our heart, you have earned one in our home; and this is exactly what Catherine has done with 2 decades in the spotlight.

For a Commoner marrying the Heir of the most high profile Monarchy in the world, the task of adapting was a matter of survival. Yet, she looks, sounds and acts with more elegance, more dignity and more alacrity than Blood Royals themselves. And yet, this kind and honest young woman, who has never put a foot wrong in 20 years, was still viciously crucified this week by the world press; led by the British press and by haters online, all the while recovering from major surgery

If the worse crime Catherine has ever done, after spotlessly behaving for 2 decades is editing her OWN mother's day picture, with her OWN children and taken by her OWN husband, so she could post it on her OWN social media to surprise the world on Mother's day with her health improvement and say "thank you" to us for our support; a "thank you" the world violently spit back in her face out of rabid jealousy and bitterness; then I would like to hand her her sainthood in the house of Windsor: she is truly perfection in a very imperfect world judging her and in a very imperfect Royal family watching her

As bad as her vicious enemies try to break her, Catherine always comes back on top. Life challenges taught her to make the sweetest lemonade out of the most bitter lemons

Today, after all the targeted hate campaigns, she still comes on top as the Nation favorite and most loved Royal, in both the YouGov poll in the UK and Ipsos poll in the US

Her Influence has only become even more massive, worldwide. Catherine is cultural Icon of our time. The name "Kate Middleton" is now a very marketable brand that stands on its own and even, has the power of affecting Stocks

The Adobe stocks were trending at 552.45 on Monday morning. After rumours trended on X that she used adobe clouds to edit her picture, by monday evening, adobe stocks were trending at 561.42, adding $3 Billion in value to adobe stock in half a day

This morning, they were up to 579.14

Catherine's name alone is now a powerful Royal Warrant on its own

Her first official return picture on X broke the internet for almost a week straight and was viewed 82 million times in 48 hours on X alone. The biggest account on X, elon Musk with 175 mil followers got on a highest viewed tweet this year of 66mill views

Her Haters did not hurt her, they made her stronger. Bullied her whole life, first by female classmates at age 12 in school, then harrassed nationally by the british press and paparazzi in her 20s for being prince William's girlfriend, to now being viciously targeted internationally by the world press and haters in her 40s as prince William's wife, Catherine is very familiar with mental abuse and bullying. Yet, she has never embraced the victim mentality, she is a victor. She is confident enough to publicly take accountability for her own mistakes, and confident enough to calmy get on with it; In that, she is British to her core

The commoner they snobbed and despised has now taken over the House of Windsor, Her soft power unmatched; She has now inserted the generations of Coal miners and working class brits, who worked slave wages to build this country into the veins of the most privileged royal family in the world. Her son, Prince George is the first Heir in history with working class and coal miners ancestry in his veins. And in that Carole middleton, who was born in a condemned council flat in southhall and still became a self made millionaire; the one the world mocked and bullied for decades for being too low class for Royalty; The one who is currently in windsor caring for William, Catherine and their children with unwaverring love and loyalty; she at last won the last laugh

12:51 PM · Mar 13, 2024

[urlocallesbiabs-reblog-sideblog]

it's interesting how comedy shows will have early-series horrible characters blame all their horribleness on some stupid thing, thus appearing shallow and blame-shifting, and then later series come out and it turns out that actually the character was right and that thing did fuck them up in the most serious and life-affecting way, it's just that they didn't know how to talk around their trauma and it came out all jumbled, and no one around them took any looks further because hey, who wants to mess with a messed up person?

like, rimmer's entire deal of "my high-class parents weren't high class Enough and didn't send me to the academy and that's what stopped me from success i so rightfully deserve" is just his best, albeit terribly distorted, way of saying that throughout his entire childhood he was unloved, uncared for, repeatedly demeaned and lowered and abused and physically tortured by his very own closest family, and that left him terminally uncapable of processing failures or emotions or human relationships in a normal way.

or eleanor shellstrop from "the good place" (warning for spoilers ahead): there was a bit in season 1 when she still thought this was the good place, where she had an awkward dinner with a demon and "the real" "eleanor", and that girl told her the long-winded story of how she went through every earthly suffering imaginable and still came out kind and righteous, so that prompted the demon to ask just what could've happened to our eleanor to render her so callous and egoistic and a terrible person, and all that she had to say was that her parents got divorced, which sounded like the worst most pathetic excuse ever heard.

well, so. later it turned out that it Was her parents who fucked her up. but not only the divorce — it was the neglect, the utter lack of care and love, the honest to god mental and physical abuse through them ignoring the needs of a literal small child; it all ran so fucking deep, it genuinely harmed her. but she was unable to articulate any of that, because she had to convince herself that her childhood was normal in order to carry on. she gave them her best, working, lacking-any-self-empathy version of events, and no one asked her further. some people are just bad because they're bad and making up excuses to hide it, so what of it?

if you're not a perfect victim, if you're ugly and struggling and hurting (yourself and others), if you can't articulate your trauma in a logically consistent, easily processable, emotionally touching way, no one's gonna listen to you. but also no one owes you any listening when you're being a difficult, horrible person, causing problems for everyone. who's to say that the people who hurt you weren't imperfect victims, hurting themselves and others?

there's no coherent moral to this post, tbh. life's just unfair, innit? and comedy shows have a good way of portraying that.

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

I love how Stede and Ed are allowed to be imperfect.

On the surface, Stede sounds so unsympathetic. He's some rich guy who abandoned his family to become a pirate. His self-esteem is so lousy that he genuinely believes other people could never value his prescence, and because of this he hurts them when he leaves. But we get to know him so well, and he's treated with so much care by the narrative. He's allowed to be bitchy and and make bad choices, but he's also kind and sweet and smart. He's our romantic hero and he's imperfect.

And Ed. There's often a temptation with less thoughtful pieces of media to depict characters like him as one-dimensional victims. Ed is a victim of abuse and is in a very intensely depressed and suicidal place at the start of season 2, and he's allowed to be something other than the perfect victim who people who've never been in those situations imagine. When people in real life are deeply depressed and suicidal like Ed was, they do often hurt the people close to them. It doesn't make them irredeemable, but it happens, and I love how the show never tries to make Ed into the perfect image of long-suffering silence, or completely excuse his actions, or villify him for them. He wasn't in his right mind and he shouldn't be treated like a monster, and he needs to apologize, and those two things don't contradict.

I love how they're allowed to make mistakes and take steps back. I love that Stede tries to cling to the image of himself as a "real, proper pirate" to get attention even though we know how much kiling Ned freaked him out, and I love that Ed has trouble trusting that Stede will choose him over piracy. They're messy and complicated and they're allowed to panic and overreact.

They just feel like real people, complicated and beautiful and layered. It's what makes their struggles and their love feel so relatable.

[shipping-isnt-morality]

I was frankly shocked the first time I discussed the Shoah with Israelis (rather than American Jews). There was a level of… I don’t know what to call it but victim-blaming, that I wasn’t sure how to handle. That’s of course not universal but the very fact that that’s an accepted viewpoint in Israel is kind of telling I think. For example there was even some scandal on the right in America when Ben Shapiro suggested that arming the Jews (more) would have prevented the Holocaust. In Israel that viewpoint is quite common.

There’s a kind of scorn among some Zionists for victims of the Holocaust, and if you really understand their point of view it’s easy to see why. If anti-Semitism is inevitable and incurable, if the very presence of Jews brings it about, then they should have fought harder, or at least left sooner. They should have known better than to ever think they could be welcome or safe in their home. It’s almost an exoneration of the anti-Semite; like a force of nature, he is inevitable and inexhaustible.

Not to always bring everything back to what I know, but it reminds me of how we talk about abusers and victims. These posts about protecting yourself from attackers in your car, in a parking lot, in your home, on a boat, whatever: They take for granted that you can not and should not feel safe in these places. They treat the danger of sexual predators the same as the danger of wildlife. Zionists talk about anti-Semites in a similar way, I’ve noticed.

Lord knows in many cases these are born from trauma. It’s no surprise that victims of serious violations would like to know how to protect themselves from it ever happening again and would want to protect others from the same.

The problem is that this trauma-informed response cannot actually fix the root of the problem. Neither anti-Semitism nor male sexual violence are forces of nature. They are byproducts of exploitative and imperfect systems run and populated by highly imperfect humans. Different systems have had different outcomes, though, some better than others, and recently some quite well indeed. Systemic solutions to these problems - at the least, to greatly reduce them, and to make justice more accessible - do exist. Humans can and have built them.

A systemic solution to the problem cannot start with the victim, though. It has to start with the perpetrator. It has to ask why the system keeps producing people who can and would do this. It has to ask what the perpetrator wants, why they want that, and why they think harming someone else will get them what they want. Simplistic, spiteful, or dehumanizing answers to these questions aren’t helpful; neither are trite or fatalistic ones. Only truthful, consistent, verifiable, rational answers will allow us to change the circumstances which lead to these crimes.

The victim is rarely in a position to change that system, or even to change the circumstances of a single abuser; on a personal level it makes sense to treat the threats as inevitable. On a societal level, though, it is essential that we recognize the perpetrators as rational actors who are fully responsible for their actions and whose excuses must be challenged.

Ideologically it is completely backwards to start from an assumption that it is up to the actions of a victim to avoid victimization. It is infinitely easier for perpetrators, who are after all themselves rational actors and members of our society, to choose a different action which does not victimize someone else. And where possible it is our role as a community to make better choices more accessible, and to punish exploitative behavior.

Because a victim-led initiative, at worst, would result in avoiding victimization through in turn becoming victimizers of a different, even more marginalized group. It recreates the problem: the victim cannot feel safe because the only defense they can conceive is one which never puts them in the position to be victimized ever again, but there is no battle to be won against the entire system. So a smaller battle is chosen, and a weaker opponent singled out (and rhetorically aligned with the systemic danger and hostility), and the exploitation dance happens again, one level down.

I’m hardly the first to observe this. This is probably a clumsy rephrasing of common philosophy examining human exploitation.

But the point is: all of that makes sense as a protective coping mechanism for the victim, but as a society it must not be where our analysis begins or ends. On a societal level this exploitation is not omnipresent, inevitable, or inexhaustible. The perpetrators are in our society as much as the victims are; an uncomfortable fact that I think people need to grow up about.

Our solutions can, should, and must look at why this happens and what we can do about it. The answer is not “nothing”. We have accomplished extraordinary things as a species. We have concepts of justice, of empathy. We have written documents of shared humanity, we have demonstrated shared humanity - for better and for worse. It is possible for us to find answers to these brutally difficult questions.

Palestine must be free, and Jews must be safe. These imperatives are not mutually exclusive. Those who tell you otherwise have something to gain from your fear.

[yanderomantic]

as someone who used to identify as antiship & took all of that shit too seriously, it is genuinely incredibly rewarding to selfship without fear now. to actually explore the dynamics I want to explore, dynamics that feel therapeutic for me & allow me to process traumas and those victim mindset desires I ignore in my real life, (yknow--those internal "I miss being abused" complexes victims will often feel.) exploring these dynamics without fear, without repression or reworking it to be "less problematic" & guilt free--it's rewarding. it's therapeutic. it's actually helpful in processing aspects of myself. nothing about my f/o dynamics are truly different, they're just more honest--and in that vein, less romanticized. less apologized. less glorified. I know antishippers view shameless "problematic" self shipping as romanticization/normalization/apologization, but it's the reverse. when you're holding an imperfect dynamic but you have to reword the circumstances to yourself and others to make it healthier/less worrisome, that does more for normalizing the unhealthy aspects than anything. being able to go "yeah, this character who is a millenia older than me being manipulative in our relationship IS grooming, actually" does far more for undoing normalization than "rewriting" it to justify the manipulation as unrelated to existing power dynamics; ie. "oh, it's just toxic yaoi, not grooming lol"

no, actually, a portion of my F/Os would be considered groomers in their relationship with me and that's ok, it's fictional, I'm exploring dynamics I've experienced with characters I adore, processing things & having an outlet for the ugly desires a victim will be left with. it's helped me process myself and process how this shit actually works, the dynamics at play, structural violence, I'm much MORE educated on the circumstances of abuse now that im allowing myself to explore these circumstances in fiction. it's no longer something untangible caused solely by the mythical "Bad Person" , which is what these "wholesome us vs problematic them" mindsets get us to internalize

[lovelytayforce]

@playful-level4366 Hey sorry I didn't reply like normal but I knew this wouldn't fit down there, considering how long I thought about this question and how to word it. It's kind of a weird dynamic to explain because it's not just about Tai Lung because he's intrically linked to Shifu and Tigress as an abuser, and in a sense I don't think the fandom wants to go over that with him at all. They believe him to be a victim and nothing else. It's true he's a victim, trust me I agree with a lot of Tai fans on that aspect (Hell, I relate to his need to prove himself and also hating who he is, hoping some magical spell will change all our imperfections but I know it won't...) but also he's a terrible abuser to his own Father and Tigress. And that ruins a lot of their fluffy hcs of a soft family learning to come together because that's too realistic for the fandom perspective and view on him. God, I don't wanna be mean but it always seems like when I see discussions on the character its as if we see two very different sides of a burnt piece of toast and see two different types of images, one skewed more by the lighting than anything. Listen, this isn't me telling other Tai fans they can't have their soft hcs for him go ahead but remember you need to stop blaming other characters for who he is, he choose his path. A person even said I was "too harsh" on Tai Lung after explaining all the horrible things HE DECIDED TO DO, that's not harsh. That's the truth and no one wants to go over it because its uncomfortable and I get it to a point but you all also picked the most uncomfortable characters who mirror our very dreary reality when we close our laptops and see the imperfections of our loved ones and ourselves. Tai Lung is a personification of the favored son in many Kung Fu flicks of the past and even the present, how the Father uplifts them to the light of heaven themselves before they ultimately go too far and let them down whilst ignoring the daughter. aka Sexism in the fam. Neat. You latched onto the man that was not only neglected by his own father but the man who abused his father back, both physically and emotionally TWICE to gain what he wanted because he knew Shifu would never hurt him.

Like I had a whole Tai stan block me for daring to remember this scene of a father with a broken hip crawling to his son and mourning what he allowed him to become. Shifu could have died but he still loved that boy despite everything he did to him and what he would continue to do to him. Like if we wanted real redemption arcs of Tai Lung we would go over how he haunted Shifu's consciousness and led him to close himself off to his next child, Tigress, whom is always left out of the conversation cause no one wants to talk about the woman neglected and abused by her father and older brother. A popular fic even admitted to not even wanting to touch Shifu and Tigress' dynamic, do you see the problem here???? I know many of you may not know or even care but I write fanfic for this fandom focusing on that aspect of Tigress' character along with Shifu, its not always fun and I've probably stumbled and made mistakes but its a story worth telling. Because in the end, Tigress is still alive and so is Shifu! Tai Lung isn't he had his chance and ruined it. Most Tai redemption fics are easily consumable because they don't want to go over the unsavory aspects of Tai Lung's character; The fraud, the continued abuse of his own father because everything he does is to hurt Shifu personally so he can get what he wanted in the end. Po was just another piece to hurt him (Shifu) as stated on the bridge. No, in the end, they want to go over how Shifu hurt him as a child and try to lure Tigress to his side, despite the fact he belittled her when they first met. But you know, how else are we supposed to get hehe bickering siblings. Cause that's easier to consume than realizing she'd want nothing to do with him after hurting her friends and her father. There's just an overall lack of autonomy given to the characters that the movies relish in. The fandom is too scared to allow them to be themselves because pointing the finger at Oogway who allows people to grow at their own pace is easier than realizing; Tai lung and Shifu never listened to him. Like think of a person this week who did exactly what you told em to do? and did they do it? Probably not, people are fucking stubborn. Me, included. People love learning the hard way, that's just the truth! Even toddlers take a min to listen to one task! So, I wouldn't even call it whitewashing, it's this desire to ignore canon to support their own hcs because if they told his actual story all of their concepts would fall apart to the wayside to see, the only true victim in the end, was a woman. Tigress. No one wants to go over that, that's a lot of work, that's a touchy subject but it's why I love these characters, there so raw and horrible which makes their stories compelling enough to stand beside the likes of Seven Samurai. It's that good!! So, to end this all, no they don't. Even Traces of Spring which I still follow because I love the art falls into this safe way of going about telling his story and sidelining the character who mirrors who he could have been, Tigress. Because she's not that cool to them despite the fact she controls herself better than he does. And had the opportunity to be a hero as great as she was if he set aside his selfish, obsession, and toxic views. But you know he's hot to some people, so he's a good boy deep down.

Yup. Uh huh.

[kariachi]

Midnight Rant #5 billion and 12 on Charmcaster and Kevin- That woman's fucking AF premiere.

Because we have Kevin, very obviously in a very bad place. He's being retraumatized, his girl's cut back hard on spending time with him with no explanation, our boy is going through it. And then he makes a friend, according to WoG over the course of a few months, in a grown woman. And it's great, it's fine, and then she starts macking on him. And then she plants a kiss on him despite him shutting her down. And while doing that she literally takes control of his damn mind, just fucking harpoons that poor boy's bodily autonomy, forces him to turn against his loved ones. All because she never actually gave any sort of shit about him and from the very start was using him to get to and hurt his girl. This relationship that he thought was forming for months was all a ruse, her using him and then abusing him. And this is

So painful for poor Gwen. Can you believe that Kevin didn't have faith that her pulling back with no explanation meant she was working hard to fix him, after the whole three-odd months they'd been together? And to have Charmcaster come back starting problems. Oh poor Gwen, everyone is so mean to her.

And it's not just in the fucking show, it's in the fandom as well, this idea that the shit Kevin goes through matters in how it affects Gwen and not in how it would have to affect him. Just, that had to be such a fucking painful if not straight up traumatizing event. Charm fucked with his goddamn mind. She made him think she cared about him only to hurt him.

Congrats, Charm, I'd say you were only a few steps below Servantis but he at least let the kids have a degree of autonomy and wasn't on screen macking on them. Slow clap, you're even keel.

Just, I sometimes remember that we have a whole episode surrounding Kevin, already openly in an awful headspace, being groomed and straight up mindcontrolled, and the big take-away is how much the situation hurt Gwen and how bad a boyfriend he is for not reading her damn mind. And it drives me up the fucking wall.

Especially when you remember that he spends that season in his underwear, I'm sorry but the parallels to the treatment of imperfect SA victims write their damn selves.

And when you also keep in mind that when Mike is pulling the 'charm them and thrall them' bit it's treated, by the show and fandom, as him being an irredeemable predator and his victims have every right to hate him forever and wish horrible things on him, but Charm gets to have the 'oh poor Charmcaster' treatment and Kevin's thinking she can go fuck herself is treated as a flaw in his character by the show and ignored by fandom.

Because in the end the disparity comes from the same place as the repeated physically abusive acts Gwen commits against Kevin, as Looma's threats being treated as humor, as Gwen's thinking they're romantic being treated as humor- plain old misogyny. Mind the misogyny isn't all of it, but the age old belief that this sort of shit committed by women against men isn't a concern, and in fact may even be treated as ridiculous, because women are too weak to hurt men plays a big role. Doesn't matter if it's a grown woman grooming a mentally ill teenager or a teenage girl shoving her boyfriend into freefall- she's just a girl so of course what she's doing isn't actually dangerous or harmful, because women aren't capable enough for such things. Which then plays into the age old sexist bullshit that men are simply too strong and rough to be hurt, and to be hurt by a girl especially- physically, mentally, however- is funny because it means they're weak.

And that's not even getting into the 'a guy is always eager' bullshittery.

Just, for the love of fucking christ...