#roles: symptom enjoyer

[headmate-ideas]

Hi! Could we get a vampire alter, one who preferably goes by Vampyr! Masculine but in a nonbinary way if that makes sense😭 You can absolutely lean into the stereotypes of vampires!

Emojis: ♥️💤🌒🩹🕸️🌌🗝️

[Brought to you by: Mods Capriel and Vyvian!]

🌒 HEADMATE TEMPLATE 🗝️

✦ Name(s): Vampyr, Darian, Spiderweb ✦ Pronouns: he/him, they/them, vamp/vamps/vampself, vi/vir/virs/virself ✦ Species: vampire ✦ Age: 130 (became a vampire at 30 and appears that age) ✦ Role(s): socializer, gatekeeper, love holder (optional), symptom holder/enjoyer (optional), phobia manager, caretaker ✦ Symptoms experienced: intrusive thoughts ✦ Labels: agender masculine, GNC, xenoman ✦ Xenos: love, sleep, the moon ✦ Interests/likes: gothic literature, horror movies, cemeteries ✦ Dislikes: going out during the day ✦ Music taste: goth rock, post-punk, symphonic metal ✦ Aesthetic(s): Victorian gothic, new romantic, lovecore ✦ Kins: spiders, galaxies, moonlight ✦ Emoji proxy: 🌒🗝️ ✦ Details:

Vampyr is a vampire who is sociable and romantic and likes presenting himself as impressive to others. He can control who fronts in the system by magically summoning a door in headspace that he can unlock and whatever headmate is wanted or needed steps out. If the system have any partners, Vampyr holds love for them and enjoys planning dates or other aspects of the relationship. Vampyr is fond of dark topics, and if the system have any intrusive thoughts about topics the system find unsettling in some way, Vampyr is subject to those thoughts, but he enjoys them and has a level of distance from them. Vi also generally lacks fear and is not subject to the phobias the system may have, rather helping headmates cope with those phobias. While Vampyr is not as warm with strangers, vamp is caring to vamps system members and helps take care of them.

[These can be edited and changed as needed, and headmates will almost definitely not turn out EXACTLY as described.]

[ix-c-999]

phobia manager

a headmate whose role is to mitigate the symptoms of a phobia for a system. the subjects of phobias other system members have do not bother a phobia manager, and they may even actively enjoy those subjects (such as a system with a phobia of dogs having a member who is interested in dogs). however, all that is required is for them to not have a phobia that the rest of the system does or for a member whose phobia they are managing. this could be considered both a form of symptom neutralizer and/or symptom enjoyer.

simplified flag

this post has no DNI other than not to start discourse on it

[quixotical-lymbo]

You saw my post, you saw how I’m obsessed with Bee there’s literally no way of hiding it

Headcanons with bee with a gn or fem reader (whichever you want) who’s sick? Idk if transformers can get sick or not but uuuuuhhh let’s just pretend!

If this isn’t getting your creative juices flowing up there then no worries! Don’t feel pressured to write it!

Pairing: B-127/Bee x gn!sick!Reader Rating: SFW Summary: Getting sick isn't a breeze, but with your honeybee beside you it's easy.  A/N: More Bee content because a certain someone is a simp/j Warnings/Tags: Cybertronian reader, sick!reader, brief mentions of vomiting and general stuff involving sickness, happens after the movie, fluff.  Word Count: 850+ words

Feeling iffy 

🐝 For some reason, you've been feeling off ever since you got a cog

🐝 You worked in lower levels with your conjunx and eating enough energon to be half full was a rarity.  

🐝 Now with Iacon entering a new era, having a cog and having a conjunx 'working for the government' as he put it, you had all the energon you could ever want.

🐝 Of course, you weren't scarfing down on it, but it was definitely an improvement than before you left the mines.

🐝 Your symptoms ranged from overheating, sneezing, to even feeling nauseous to the point you couldn't walk straight. You couldn't even keep down the energon you'd consume in normal amounts. 

🐝 One thing was for sure, something was wrong.

Finding out 

🐝 You figured trying to deal with the issue by yourself before Bee found out would work.

🐝It didn't. 

🐝 Bee could tell something was wrong with you after a few cycles of your symptoms persisting. 

🐝 He cornered you in your shared home and that's when he found out you were sick.

🐝 Of course he was upset that you didn't tell him, but more so upset at the fact you were still trying to do daily tasks (whether that was doing your job or helping Elita-1 and Optimus along with him) despite being sick. 

Taking care of you 

🐝 He had to physically drag you to a med-bay to get checked out

🐝 Turns out your condition wasn't too serious, but you needed to get some rest so your body could get used to the fast transitions of having a cog + surplus of energon. 

🐝 Bee heard 'rest' and ran with it.

🐝 He plucked you up from where you sat and carried you out in his arms while yelling about getting you to bed quick. To say you were as blue as, well, energon was an understatement. 

🐝 Now in your shared berth, Bee has taken over the role of being your nurse. 

🐝 He servo feeds you, refuses to let you lift a single digit, and even began reading berthtime stories or what he and Optimus done for the day to get you to fall asleep faster (we all know how much he loves to talk). 

🐝 He could drone on for a longggg time and when you'd eventually drift off into recharge, he'll kiss your helm before he'd leave to give you the time to rest. Sometimes you held on too tight to his servo and he couldn't leave, comm'ing Optimus that his conjunx refused to let him go was a...interesting conversation.

🐝 As much as you appreciated his efforts, you had to remind him you could still function by yourself. 

🐝 He looked confused.

🐝 You offered to get out of the berth and moved to get up, but Bee coaxed you to lay back. 

🐝 You gave him a look. 

🐝 He returned it with his own smirk and a "...don't you dare." 

🐝 You jumped off of the berth and ran off laughing with Bee yelling behind you who gave chase. 

What he does to comfort you

🐝 When Bee is away and not there to 'tend' to you, it gives you a breather to do what you want, but still the symptoms make it harder to find enjoyment in anything

🐝 You could be enjoying a nice energon cube, hurling it back up again until you're pissed and exhausted. 

🐝 When Bee comes back to seeing you in this state, he'll help you back to the berth and cuddle you for the rest of the time he's free.

🐝 Expect to be sung to and him using cheesy nicknames (my sweetest of sparks, energon of my optic, the light of my spark, andddd you get the picture). 

 

🐝🐝🐝Drabble🐝🐝🐝

Your optics fluttered open and the first thing you noticed was a pede in your face. You blinked back the drowsiness and reeled your helm back. Lifting your gaze you noticed the haphazard position your conjunx was in, sleeping next to  you while the upper half of his frame hung off of the edge of the berth. 

You held back a giggle and used one digit to push the bottom of his pede away. Bee's snoring paused as he abruptly woke up and screamed as he fell off of the berth. 

"Huh?! Wha-?" Bee looked up to see your laughing face peeking from the berth. "Ha ha, you think you're very funny, huh?" 

"Oh, I know I am," You coyly retorted as you watched him rise to stand on his knees. He leaned close and stared into your optics, you raised an optic ridge wondering what he was going to do until he lowered his gaze to your dermas. 

"Ah, ah," You moved your helm to the side as he attempted to swoop in. "Not until I'm better." 

 "I know," Bee pouted as he reached over to cup the side of your face. "Can't blame a mech for trying." 

 

"You're adorable and stupid at the same time." 

"Hey!" 

"You're my adorable and stupid mech." 

"Now that's more like it….wait." 

😼 - I do not give permission for anyone to translate, copy, republish, or plagiarize any of my written works. I provide no permission for any of my literary works to be used in artificial intelligence. like my writing? consider buying me a kofi :)

honeycomb banner(s) by @thecutestgrotto!!

[mareastrorum]

As a known villain-enthusiast, I figured I’d write up how I assess them as storytelling devices. Like, whether they’re enjoyable characters is up to taste, but whether they’re good writing requires critical assessment. This is a rather long post, so here is a summary:

Learning how to critique villains is a great way to identify skilled and passionate storytellers. They embody the ideas and decisions that the writer feels are incorrect. While some narrative devices are more subtle (local politics unfolding in the background, color or song cues, scene settings, etc.), villains are dramatic. That is a person designed to be wrong! They intentionally draw the audience’s focus for important steps of the story. When a writer stumbles on that, it reflects poorly on the entire work precisely because of that focus.

This post is going to get into the following key components of an effective villain:

They highlight the wrong conclusion about a key issue in the story.

They should be a symptom of either a larger issue in the narrative or the one they fixate on.

They don't need to be evil, and, in many cases, that label is a hindrance.

As the average age of the target audience and/or the length of the story increases, villains should be more frequently correct in their beliefs and choices.

They evoke strong emotion appropriate to the genre.

They don’t need to be antagonists, and antagonists don’t need to be villains.

They raise the stakes: the world will become worse if they are left unchecked.

Their strengths and weaknesses should be directly tied either to the central theme of the story or their opponent's character arc.

Their ending is consistent with the theme of the story.

If included, a villain redemption arc must have 4 components: (1) an external stimulus causing (2) a choice to deviate from their plan and (3) a corresponding shift in their worldview, and those result in (4) action that matches the strength of their new conviction.

They should not be included in a story if any of the above causes distraction or discordance with the main plot line.

Of course, there’s spoilers to follow, so reader beware.

First, some definitions. These are definitely not perfect, but they're how I keep these narrative issues separated in my own head.

A villain is someone whose wrong actions/beliefs are relevant to the plot/themes. An antagonist is someone who acts in direct conflict with the protagonist. The protagonist is the character that the audience follows in a story. Sometimes villains are protagonists, sometimes they're antagonists, and sometimes they're neither. This post addresses villains regardless of their other roles in a story.

I am intentionally using a vague word like “wrong” in that definition because villains are versatile tools. What is the core message or theme of this story? What is the wrong conclusion? What did the villain get right before they fucked up? At what point did this take a downturn? Can this be fixed before it’s too late? How can it be fixed? A well-designed villain can be used to answer most, if not all, of those questions without any reference to another character. When a villain is included in the story, each of the topics below is a point where the writer should be using that character to bolster the narrative.

Villains highlight the wrong conclusion about a key issue in the story.

The point of a villain is to be a bad example. A job well done requires the author to have a thorough, intimate understanding of the themes, plot, and other characters, and then showcase each of them through that villain.

In other words, the villain cannot be conceived before the protagonist's arc is decided. The author needs to have a plan for the protagonist's character arc and plot because that is going to be the audience's focus for the entire story, and the villain is meant to emphasize a key problem for that character. Even when the villain is the protagonist, their purpose as the protagonist must be determined first before any villainous aspects should be addressed.

That said, villains should be minimized or omitted for any issue that doesn't culminate in a climax. Villains are dramatic: once outed as a villain, the audience will watch everything they do. That level of focus is difficult to match with other narrative devices, so the optimal use is to direct it at key issues. For other topics, antagonists are a better fit (discussed further below). If the writer does not intend to address some core aspect of the story or worldbuilding, then it shouldn't significantly involve the villain.

A poorly done villain often reveals how the author failed to grasp something, either as a concept or in execution. Again, by definition, a villain is someone the author disagrees with. People are usually much better at making themselves and their own opinions look good than they are at portraying people with opposing viewpoints. A skilled storyteller commits to giving villains a good faith dissection rather than merely attacking a strawman.

Of course, more complex stories may warrant the use of minor villains, an ensemble, or a Big Bad Evil Guy standing above the rest. The depth and time spent on each villain should match their overall importance to the main storyline. Perhaps a lesser villain will feature in a particular episode/chapter addressing their connected theme, but they shouldn’t be emphasized by the writer outside of that relevance.

Villains should be a symptom of either a larger issue in the narrative or the one they fixate on.

This is one of the more common flaws that I've encountered. Most villains believe they are solving a problem. A lot of stories fall short of answering, "what is a better conclusion?"

Caveat: this isn’t necessary for all genres. Genres that rely on gaps in understanding don’t need to supply answers. Comedy, horror, short fiction, and any other story focusing entirely on a plot about “stuff went wrong” don’t necessarily benefit from telling the audience what the problem is. Eldritch horror stories, for example, are specifically about encounters that the characters and audience do not understand, but they may still feature villains.

This facet is more noticeable in stories about problems that affect large populations. Whether it's a social heirarchy, a government structure, a natural disaster, resource shortages, etc., it's something that requires more than removing villains from seats of power or ending a plan. The nature of the solution will vary widely, especially across genres, but the writer should be concerned with the exact thing the villain had been.

As an example, in a lot of contemporary stories involving revolutions by lower classes against an oppressive upper class, the key conflict of the story is that the revolutionaries have resorted to an unconscionable option for the sake of success. Whether it's genocide, biological warfare, nuclear escalation, etc., the climax is about stopping a villain from successfully employing that option. However, a solid number of those stories end with the status quo or with minor concessions by the upper class. Each of those is a problem. If they stuck with the status quo, the story is that the oppressed should accept their station, even without hope or promise of improvement. If there were minor concessions, then the message is that drastic threats of violence are necessary for even the smallest concessions. Neither of those is a very satisfying story, and in most cases, neither were the writer's intended takeaway. Unfortunately, that sort of message often gets baked in because the unspoken implication of “don’t resort to these tactics” is “accept your place”—unless an alternative is presented within the story.

Of course, the challenge for these sorts of stories is how to convey a better option without getting on a soapbox in the narration. Villains are an efficient option to challenge the protagonists (or their opponents if they're protagonists) on these issues. “If you're so determined to stop me, then what are you going to do about [XYZ]?” It's a great way to weave in the author's intended message through some exposition or by seeding internal conflict for the protagonist to grapple with after the two separate again. This can even be brought up by other characters in discussions about the villain, without requiring a direct confrontation. Whether the opposition achieves that goal isn’t necessary either; it’s enough to introduce it and start the path toward it, letting the implication become “that’s not happening yet because that would be the next story.”

While stories don’t need to answer every question, ignoring the villain’s concern conveys that the writer doesn’t care about that issue. In that case, why include it as the villain’s motivation? What benefit did that complication bring to the story? Useless or unintended elements should be cut from a story to avoid muddling the themes, and failure to do that with a villain demonstrates subpar storytelling.

Villains don't need to be evil, and, in many cases, that label is a hindrance.

Evil is a moral label. Some stories aren’t concerned with addressing how to be a good person, what should happen to bad people, etc. That is certainly a most common framing for a villain in Western media, but it’s not the only one. Stories don't need to convey a moral to be great.

Sometimes the villain cares deeply for others, is motivated by saving people and doing good, and checks all the boxes for a hero, but the means they resort to are absolutely fucked up. Their arc often involves realizing a terrible act is “necessary” to achieve their desired result, and because they believe that result is worth the travesties, they commit. The audience can debate whether that means the villain is good or evil, but that is beside the point; the problem is that they’re doing something they shouldn’t, regardless of the moral label attached to it. Stories like this often include a message that there aren’t good/bad people, only good/bad acts, which also means that people cannot attain a moral label, and therefore the villain cannot be evil. (The Dune novels are a fantastic example of this.)

Sometimes the villain is someone dedicated to a cause that has long since careened into villainy. Their personal morality doesn’t match with what they do because duty or honor requires them to act this way, and to forsake that obligation is also failure. No matter what they choose, they will be trampling their moral ideals. Pretty much any story about well-meaning military, police, government, or other duty-bound characters following a chain of command after the bad guy takes control is an example of this. Some stories focus on the interpersonal conflict arising out of that, and others stories might focus on the internal cognitive dissonance and psychological fallout of such circumstances. These stories often posit that there is no such thing as pure good, and since everyone must commit evil on some level in the course of pursuing a moral standard, we cannot assess anyone (including the villain) on morality alone. These also tend to be stories that include a redemption arc (discussed below), though they very frequently involve some sort of dramatic sacrifice in the process.

Other stories ignore morality entirely because it just isn’t the point. These villains tend to be more subtle because their presence isn’t as offensive to the audience. Bureaucrats ruthlessly enforcing the rules in spite of unique circumstances, then getting overruled by a superior after a big display by the protagonist, are a fairly common villain trope in media aimed at children and young adults. It does happen in media for adults as well, though most often in comedies (My Cousin Vinny, Ghostbusters) or legal/political/professional dramas. These stories usually criticize overzealous commitment to systems, not because the systems or villains are inherently evil, but because excessive enforcement can unhelpfully inhibit good, health, fun, freedom, etc.

Villains can absolutely be moral/good/neutral people in the author’s perspective, framed as such in a story, and still be the bad guys.

As the average age of the target audience and/or the length of the story increases, villains should be more frequently correct in their beliefs and choices.

This is such a frustrating thing when writers muck it up. As stated, villainy highlights a wrong conclusion. Do you know what would ruin that effect? If they’re wrong about everything.

The thing about highlighting is that it’s only useful when done sparingly or with clear methods of differentiation. Highlighting a single line with one color or multiple lines with different colors can each be effective methods of focusing attention, but highlighting an entire page is a waste of effort. The audience doesn’t know what to look at anymore. The purpose is lost when it's overdone.

So too with a villain. A well-constructed villain needs to get some things right. That is a signal that those aren't the parts the audience should be concerned with. That works both for focusing on themes (if indeed that side issue isn’t important) or as obfuscation for a reveal later on (related to plot, motive, identity, etc.). This wealthy villain pays his taxes without complaint, donates to charity, and tips generously, so the story message isn’t about whether businessmen pay their fair share to government, give back to the people generally, or pays people for their labor. Instead, when the businessman turns out to be a financier of a warlord plotting a coup, we can ignore the question, “should the wealthy use money to help people?” and instead focus on “the harm of using wealth to enable oppression far outweighs any generosity that coincides with it.”

In most media, I prefer main villains to be correct on so many things that, at some point in the story, they would have been capable of swaying me to their position if not for a key theme. That is the gold standard because it points the audience right at the villain’s narrative purpose and explains why no one has managed to stop the villain before this plot line. After all, if a person is tolerable, useful, or personable except for this one thing, then they are likely to have many allies and defenses to prevent anyone from stopping their plans. While not every villain needs that level of honing, it is vital that the villain associated closely to the main theme is the one with the most clarity.

When a villain is wrong about most things, that clarity is lost. That extremism is only expected in children’s fiction, comedy, and short form fiction because those genres usually don’t explore any other facets of the villain anyway—the audience rarely gets a comprehensive look at that character. A villain is a portrayal of a person, and people are complex. Any longer forms of media require more time spent with the villain, and a two-dimensional character doesn't hold up well in those circumstances. When an author decides to structure a villain who is incorrect at every step of a story, there is meaning there: this villain is intended as an extreme example of everything the author dislikes. This story is intended to be propaganda.

Propaganda invites heavier criticism: What ethnicity did the author choose for this representation of someone getting everything wrong? What gender? What sexuality? What nationality? Social or economic class? Level of education? How does that compare to their opposition? If there’s someone who does everything right, what differences are there between that one and the villain? Those choices are just as intentional as the decision to frame the villain as so egregiously wrong about everything. Writers don’t get to pretend such decisions are meaningless. More often than not, when this happens, the writer's bigoted views are put on display. The villain absolutely did its job, so it's not an ineffective villain: it told me what the writer disapproves of and that the theme of the story is that type of person is inferior. It just turns out that now I have an entirely separate reason to dislike this writer and their works.

Villains evoke strong emotion appropriate to the genre.

I expect that most discussions about villains will include something about making that character entertaining or fun, but that isn’t quite the right mark. A proper villain is evocative in a way that matches the genre. There’s a lot of flexibility in this, so entertainment value is a safe bet. Some stories need a villain that raises tension in every scene, and others just need a laid back asshole to quip at the hero and be an obstacle. That said, sometimes a villain would be better if they aren’t fun.

For example, in Pan’s Labyrinth, Captain Vidal (played by a well known Spanish comedian who had never previously ventured outside of comedy) in fascist Spain confronts a potential spy who claims that he was hunting rabbits with his son. Indeed, the man was carrying a weapon and a bag of supplies, and he has a younger man with him. Until that point, the Captain had been presented as extremely strict and hierarchical in every facet of his life, even with his new wife, but not necessarily bad. In full view of the man’s son, the Captain personally kills the hunter, declares him to be a traitor to Spain, then discovers the dead rabbits in the pack and ignores that he may have been wrong. The son is taken away without apology or aid—not even the food and supplies they had been carrying. Any audience expectation of mercy is shunted out the window because fascism involves seeing common people as either resources or threats, and nothing else. It’s a brutal, terrifying way to establish Captain Vidal’s role, that this character will not be fun or comedic, and what type of story the film will entail. We know without a shadow of doubt that if Captain Vidal discovers what the child protagonist has been up to, he will kill her. He would kill that little girl without remorse for the slightest infraction against his control. An unavoidable dread surrounds Captain Vidal’s presence through every subsequent scene, even when he isn’t shown on screen. That brought the terror of fascism to a personal level in a horrifically efficient manner. Excellent use of a villain.

Because the core purpose of a villain is to highlight aspects of a story, stoking the audience’s emotion is a surefire way to guarantee everyone is paying attention. The most commonly used options are anger (unjust acts), disgust (socially unacceptable traits), and fear (unflinching violence). Regardless of which emotion it is, it should be something either unexpected or more extreme than encountered otherwise. These cues should be in contrast to the emotions evoked by positive developments. If the rest of the mood of the story is somber, inappropriate lightheartedness is an excellent contrast. If the rest of the story is tense action, an eerie calm is incredibly upsetting. There are many options for creating a discordant tone, and doing so not only emphasizes that this villain is wrong somehow, but also ensures that any dialogue or narration in that scene carries that same sense of wrongness.

Obviously, some stories involve villain reveals, so those high-intensity scenes shouldn’t occur until the right moment. In those instances, the method and circumstances of the reveal are a great vehicle to emphasize the villain’s narrative purpose, especially when done close to or during the story’s climax. That said, a shocked audience may have difficulty parsing complicated dialogue; sticking to a simple, overarching topic is a much better option for those particular circumstances. That’s why a villain monologue is such a common trope: it works.

When this sort of emotional turmoil is absent, I get the sense that the writer doesn’t know how to structure a scene to reinforce themes. This sort of narrative device isn’t necessary for every villain scene, but if only one scene in an entire story were to stoke the audience’s feelings, it should be the scene where the villain’s conclusion is front and center. Denouements and moments of triumph also obviously warrant strong emotional responses, but I prioritize the villain for a simple reason: why would anyone add a villain to a story if they weren’t going to demand the audience’s attention? If that type of scene takes away from the story’s purpose, then the villain does too, and they should be removed.

Villains don't need to be antagonists, and antagonists don’t need to be villains.

This might seem contradictory to the preceding points, but the fact is that protagonists cannot be expected to fix every problem they encounter.

Villains are supposed to reach the wrong conclusion about something core to the theme or plot. Antagonists are just people who work against the protagonist. For a lawyerly analogue, my opposing counsel is the antagonist (working against me, a plaintiff litigator) and their client is the villain (that fucker did Wrong, even if they never interact with me and haven’t done anything since). The lawyer isn’t wrong for simply being on that side; they’re doing their job, and their job is to be in my way. I’m not right for simply being on my side; I’m just the one telling the story. When assessing a villain and protagonist, we look at both characters in those conflicts. In comparison, an any conflict with a non-villain antagonist is entirely focused on the protagonist; the antagonist’s values, beliefs, etc. don’t really matter.

All that said, villains are usually antagonists. It’s a very efficient way to structure a story, so it is a preferred option for shorter or simpler narratives. That isn't a flaw. It's a completely valid way to handle these roles. Whether the villain should or shouldn't be an antagonist depends on the themes. Is a person versus person conflict necessary to resolve the problem that the villain is highlighting?

For example, if the key theme is about the catastrophic damage caused by climate change, a direct conflict with the villain could distract from that. Many disaster movies focusing on climate change feature villains that ignore or exploit it, and rather than meet their end through conflict with the protagonists, they usually end up ruining themselves. That makes sense given that climate change is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped by an individual and that it doesn't discriminate as to who is affected. There's plenty of other themes where similar story structures are more effective than the protagonist causing the villain's downfall. Those stories don't benefit from direct conflicts with the villain, but that character added to the narrative regardless.

Sometimes a character is necessary for the protagonists to have a concrete victory at a certain point in the story, but there’s no thematic conclusion yet. Villains would distract from that, but antagonists wouldn’t. For example, a middle point in the story has the culmination of a coming of age arc for a main character, but the final conflict is still on the horizon: a sports competitor has to end their growth arc by winning at regionals before shifting to the main rising action involved in going to nationals. Introducing a local rival with no significant bad qualities would allow the audience to focus on the protagonist’s growth, and the villain in the later arc doesn’t lose any presence or effect by having a predecessor.

All that said, some characters shift over time, especially in serial media. An antagonist of the week in a superhero comic might be the dastardly Big Bad villain in a special release and then back to a background problem in the next. Villains should only be used to extent that they will help the audience understand the full scope of the themes. Regardless of genre (except maybe satire/parody), the villain shouldn’t be causing problems “on screen” beyond the scope of their purpose, so unless the dramatic brawl between villain and hero adds something other than cool visuals, antagonism is just wasted time.

Villains raise the stakes: the world will be worse if they are left unchecked.

Any villain that fails to raise the stakes is an example of poor writing. Why should the audience care about a villain if there is nothing to lose should they succeed? It is a complete failure to use such a dramatic narrative device to highlight a non-problem. Even if a villain is not an antagonist, they need to be a threat.

In order to achieve that, the villain needs to have strengths necessary to achieve their goal. When villains don't have a skill or a resources necessary for their plan, there should be a relatively straightforward method for them to fill that gap. For example, a warmongering monarch might lack the manpower from her own lands to continue conquering neighbors, so she has her army conscript soldiers from annexed territories to put on the front lines. Of course, these power gaps are also excellent points for conflict with the opposition, and that can be worked into the plot. By shaping the villain into a formidable power in the world, the protagonist (or their faction, allies, etc.) has to step up and find a solution to the plot problem before the villain ruins everything. It adds time pressure to the protagonist’s goals and allows for logical opportunities to foil the villain’s plans.

When the villain is incompetent, that tension is lost. Within the story itself, of all the possible characters in this made up world, this was the one the writer focused on. Why hasn’t someone already stopped them, and why should the audience care what they’re up to? Why is the writer wasting the protagonist’s time on this character? That reflects poorly on the story because that conveys that there’s not a real a risk of failure or a bad ending; if there was, the writer should have focused on that instead! So, why include the villain at all?

Unless the story is parody, nothing is as disappointing as a story where a villain succeeds or fails because of something stupid. It can be funny, it can be an oversight or mistake or gap in knowledge, but it should never be because of stupidity. That tells me that the writer couldn’t up with something clever because they’re stupid—they used a complex narrative device without thinking it through—and they expect me (a member of the audience) to applaud. Absolutely not.

Villains' strengths and weaknesses should be directly tied either to the central theme of the story or their opponent's character arc.

Building off the last point, a villain should be competent in a narratively convenient way and have convenient weaknesses. In many story structures, a villain antagonist is a wonderfully efficient option for the protagonist hero to grapple with a key character development or plot climax. The best villains are those whose weaknesses are ones that the protagonist is capable of exploiting; it helps establish the protagonist as an appropriate perspective for this story. However, that logic needs to work both in the direction in which it was planned, and backwards from the opposite view.

First, the writer needs to choose a villain that suits the protagonist and the plot. I’ve lined out plenty of reasons for that above, but in short, the villain should be actively engaging in behavior or building to a turning point that will impact the ending that the protagonist desires. It doesn’t need to impact the protagonist directly, but there must be a clear motivation to interfere with the villain’s plan. Thus, the villain’s strengths should be relevant to the theme or opponent’s arc—it’d be a waste of opportunity otherwise.

Once the protagonist’s needs are established, the writer needs to change perspective: the villain needs to make sense within the narrative whether the protagonist does anything or not. Generally speaking, any person would prefer a plan with requirements they would not struggle to complete. People like to do things they’re good at. A mad scientist is going to prefer mad science over politics. A corrupt politician is going to prefer bribery over a ray gun. If the plot demands a particular course of action, the villain should be designed to be someone who prefers that method and is damn good at it. Even in situations where a villain is forced to resort to something they don’t excel in, there should be a logical explanation for how this arrangement came about. Failure to achieve this breaks immersion.

The difficult part of discussing this facet is that it is the most versatile aspect of villain characterization, so there aren’t any rigid requirements. I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that a villain should be a foil because that limits them to mirroring a specific character. They don’t need to be foils! Sometimes, a villain should be bigger than that: Sauron in The Lord of the Rings trilogy could be compared to numerous protagonists, but he is not a direct foil of one, while lesser villains (Denethor, Steward of Gondor) in the books are.

For a vague example, let's say I want to write a story about a slave who is leading a revolution. The obvious themes would be the necessity of violence to wrest freedom from oppressors, that legal systems are always biased in favor of those already in power, that most people will accept oppression of others for the sake of economic benefit, and so on. There are many potential villains, but the best ones would be the owner, the lawman (chief of police, sheriff, judge, etc.), and/or the head of government (mayor, governor, etc.). Regardless of which one I choose, their respective strengths (color of law, weaponry, support of the ruling class) will require the protagonist to address his own weaknesses (lack of legal authority, resources, and social capital), which gives the plot shape. Those are the parts that will be addressed in the rising action of the story. In addition, the villain's weaknesses (over-reliance on demoralized slaves, personal immorality, bigotry, cruelty, apathy, etc.) each give options for what strengths to give the protagonist. Perhaps the protagonist's unfailing courage and camaraderie stokes the other slaves' will to resist and fight back, and it becomes a story about greater numbers overcoming the villain's strengths. Another option is that the protagonist stoops just as low and has no moral or social high ground, and the point of the story is that freedom should be achieved by any means necessary by anyone willing to fight for it. Yet another option is that the protagonist makes contact with a third-party, and they cooperate to overthrow the villains, because the villains' institution of slavery could not be tolerated by anyone with an unbiased view (outsiders with no stake in it). Whichever possibility is chosen, the strengths/weaknesses of the villains put a tint on the overall message: the owner would focus the story on individuals and allow for more intimate exchanges between characters, the lawman would be more of a philosophical story with impersonal distance, and the head of government would focus on social values and how to change the will of other people. I need to choose the villain that allows me to explore my preferred protagonist arc, and I need to choose the plot line that matches well with that conflict.

But that’s a bit cerebral. A simpler example: Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. He’s sexist, only wants Belle because she’s the prettiest girl in the village, and his ego demands the best of everything. There’s literally nothing else he finds attractive about her. He’s charismatic and appeals to the toxic masculinity culture of the town. He does not value intelligence or kindness, so many potential options for getting what he wants are closed to him. In the climactic conflict, Gaston whips the town into a mob by using his charisma to deceive them, has Belle and her father imprisoned in their own home, and goes to kill the Beast so that he can claim the mantle of hero and Belle for himself. Belle uses her intelligence to improvise an escape, and her kindness spurs the Beast out of inaction after it was established that nothing else had ever swayed his heart. While there may be other things to criticize in this story, Gaston is an excellent example of making strengths and weaknesses relevant to plot, themes, and other characters. Everything he did was as bad as, if not worse than, the Beast, his conflict with Belle allowed her agency and traits to shine, and his devotion to violence and ego caused his own death rather than Belle resorting to his methods.

When that doesn't happen, it feels like a plot hole. Why hype up a villain to excel at worming his way into powerful social circles and then he never attempts to manipulate anyone in any scenes? Why make a villain so egotistical as to ignore security flaws in a key scene and then never have anyone take advantage? I’m not talking about trope subversion; I mean when a strength/weakness is added and then ignored. It's such an intrinsic part of the process for constructing a villain that failing to flesh it out demonstrates poor writing skills.

The villain’s ending is consistent with the theme of the story.

I truly do not care if villains get “what they deserve” in a story. Can it be satisfying to see villains contribute to their own failure? Yes, but they don’t deserve anything. They’re not real. Even if they were, people don’t deserve anything. You can’t earn an ending. The world doesn’t work that way, stories don’t work that way, and that line of thinking isn’t interesting. Catharsis is not about a character getting what the audience thinks they should, it’s about evoking emotional satisfaction, and limiting that assessment to whether characters get what they “deserve” is narrow-minded.

Because stories are not real, everything is on the table. The writer can do whatever they want to every single character. The most important issue is whether the outcome makes sense for what issue the villain was highlighting.

For example, if the villain is meant to be a focal point of corruption in a government structure, and the highlighted problem is that this person was tolerated by others because of the benefits they provided, deposing only that villain doesn't really fix anything. The people that let this happen are still there, and they'll find another person to do it the same way. Instead, a better resolution would be to turn that villain against their enablers, whether by threat or force or agreement. Maybe the villain is willing to testify against co-conspirators in exchange for a lenient sentence in a court of law. By definition, leniency means that the villain does not receive a fair punishment, but the problem is resolved and won't happen again. That demonstrates that the writer actually understands the issue they chose to address and that they're telling a story about a solution to a problem rather than fulfilling a base desire for punishment.

Of course, sometimes a key point of the story is wish fulfillment for punishment. The Count of Monte Cristo is probably the best revenge story ever written, with every single villain getting their comeuppance due the machinations of the wronged protagonist after returning from imprisonment and exile. Even better, the protagonist orchestrated the events so that each villain ultimately causes their own end through willful greed, ego, and cruelty. However, the key question is whether or not the protagonist is a villain too: at what point will he stop? When is it no longer justice? What about innocent bystanders? When faced with the decision whether to legally kill the only son of both his hated enemy and his former lover, Edmond Dantes finally decides to stop. This differentiates him from the villains, and the story allows the audience to determine whether to attribute it to morality, love, duty, etc. The story includes wish fulfillment because the ongoing audience consideration is “How many more times are you going to wish for this?” It felt good, it felt just, they “deserved” it, the world was better for it, but the point was that Dantes had other needs that he was ignoring by focusing solely on revenge. A core theme was that a desire for revenge is not inherently wrong—it springs from injustice and a desire for equitable results—but it isn’t the right answer to every problem. The villains’ ends fit in perfectly for the characters individually, the themes of the story, and the cultural backdrop of France before, during, and after the tumult of the Napoleonic wars.

Further, sometimes the “end” is just a pause. Many serials need the villain to remain a threat for future use, so that thread is left unresolved. This isn’t necessarily poor writing. However, those villains shouldn’t be intricately tied to a theme that requires a definitive resolution by the end of that phase. This type of arrangement requires extra planning because bringing back the villain will evoke those old themes, so either reviving the question or tying it into a new one is vital to a good story.

If included, a villain redemption arc must have 4 components: (1) an external stimulus causing (2) a choice to deviate from their plan and (3) a corresponding shift in their worldview, and those result in (4) action that matches the strength of their new conviction.

A proper villain redemption arc always has the same core message: people can change. It has absolutely nothing to do with earning anything because change comes from within; as soon as external approval comes into play, it’s no longer about change, it’s about relationships. The quality of a redemption arc has nothing to do with anyone other than the person being redeemed. If this type of arc doesn’t suit the story, it should not be included.

The four points listed above are necessary because they tie the villain’s arc to the plot. Why is the villain changing during this story? What does the writer believe is needed to correct course? Does the writer actually believe that people can change?

The external stimulus is necessary because of the above point that the villain should make things worse if left unchecked. That check doesn’t necessarily need to be the protagonist, an opponent, or even a character; it could be a sudden change in circumstances, like war breaking out or a new faction coming into play. Maybe the villain achieves their goal and something goes horribly wrong. Regardless of the specifics, the cause should something other than internal rumination. A villain coming to a sudden epiphany in a moment of daydreaming is too convenient, to the point that it lacks any dramatic effect. That tells me the writer doesn’t actually understand why the villain would choose this course of action in the first place. Demonstrating what would shake them out of it is not easy, but it is vital to a proper redemption arc. Something new needs to break the villain’s intentions apart.

The next two parts can happen in any order: shifting perspective first and then a choice, or choice first while ideas solidify, or both at the same time. Maybe there’s multiple steps along the way for each. Any of those can be believable.

The shift in perspective means that the villain understands that they had made the wrong choice. Whatever the new problem is, they couldn’t stop it, can’t fix it, or need something they had discarded, and the reason for that deficiency is their current course of action. The new development is undeniable proof that they were going to fail or already had failed. They don’t need to accept this psychological change immediately—the timing and fallout should match the genre—but it should happen in response to that external stimulus. In addition, even if they grapple with it as the story progresses, the villain should not fall back into old ways over minor problems. They can ruminate or even obsess over inconsequential issues, but actions should be taken only for something significant.

Once the dramatic revelation has occurred, the villain needs to have agency for how to deal with this dilemma. Maybe the story even involves the villain fighting for that agency before they exercise it, and that may happen in tandem with coming to terms with their shattered perspective. There should be at least one moment (perhaps several) where the villain has the opportunity to revert to their original plan or take a new path. That said, making such a choice under threat of death or harm isn’t very effective. Choice also requires more than one option, so I don’t find “you’re going to die anyway” circumstances to be powerful redemption arcs. They can be suitable for tragedies, but they carry the implication that villains have to face death before they will change, which is not going to mesh well with many themes absent some other redemption arcs in the same story to compare it to.

Finally, there needs to be action that matches both the villain’s new beliefs and the theme of the story, and the scale needs to be appropriately comparable to the villain’s prior intentions. Maybe the villain drains hoarded resources to support the protagonist’s gambit, emphasizing the need to collaborate with and trust in others. Maybe the villain becomes a double-agent and sabotages the corrupt empire from within, demonstrating that good is not served by people refusing to engage with an ongoing problem. Maybe the villain redesigns their ray gun to kill cancer cells, so the message is that technology is only as harmful as the people using it. Whatever they do, the villain’s redemption arc will be just as important to the audience as the protagonist’s arc. They need to make an impact worthy of that effect.

I’ll also note what I omit from this: emotion, forgiveness, and justice. Emotions are irrational, so I don’t buy into the idea that any character needs to experience a specific kind of emotion for a certain kind of arc or story to be high quality. Choices do not require emotional congruence. As for forgiveness and justice, redemption comes from within, and these two facets require input from other characters or social groups. Redemption does not need someone else’s permission or validation. While these three things can certainly add to a redemption arc—and I’m sure people have preferences—they are not necessary aspects. It is entirely possible to construct a quality redemption story without them.

Schindler’s List is essentially a villain redemption story: Oskar Schindler (the protagonist) was a businessman who joined and benefited from the rise of the Nazi Party. He held fascist leaning ideals (people as resources, efficiency and profit over all else, etc.) and bribed officials to get his way, but he wasn’t overtly cruel. His experiences with the Jews forced to work for him gradually changed his perspective, and he took small steps to make their lives easier or safer—against the wishes of the Nazi government. Eventually, he reached the point that he decided to engage in treason to try to save as many as he could, not only spending his ill-gotten fortune on selfless bribes, but also risking his own life, freedom, and station. There are several scenes that emphasize what would be done to him if his plots were discovered. Schindler ultimately saves hundreds of Jews and is not destroyed for it. Those he saved even work to protect him from the consequences of his past deeds. But his final scene shows that Schindler is crushed by his own conscience and laments that he could have done more. He was introduced as an apathetic, greedy villain, and his gradual change to a man genuinely heartbroken by the genocide and remorseful for his participation was well-paced and cathartic. In particular, his role as a villain (a “bystander” profiting from genocide) contrasted well with his later choices (sacrificing his fortune to save those he exploited).

In addition, the villain switching sides does not mean that it’s intended as a redemption arc. Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds absolutely betrayed the Nazis, but he did it to save his own hide and talked his way into a rather comfortable retirement over it. There was no internal crisis, no new belief system. Landa simply realized that he had a better chance at a preferred future, so he remorselessly served up people to be killed, just like in the opening scene. Nothing had changed. That worked wonderfully in a film about stopping violence with violence and the emotional dissatisfaction of letting vile people live after they had terrorized and slaughtered innocent people. So the protagonists carved a swastika into Landa’s forehead as a warning of who he was. Is any of that good? That isn’t even the right question for a Tarantino film, but again, it was not intended as a redemption arc; it was very clearly intended to mean that some people don’t change and we may have to let them live anyway.

Redemption arcs don’t suit every story or villain. They take a lot of narrative focus to pull off well, and many of the thematic implications can be handled in a protagonist’s arc anyway. A lot of writers tend to fuck up by making the protagonist’s forgiveness or approval a necessary part of the story, ignoring that they’ve then added a message that change is only legitimate when recognized by others. (Note: Schindler’s List dodges this because Schindler denies himself the catharsis of forgiveness.) That said, many audiences like that message. They like the idea that their permission is needed for a bad person to change. I have a strong aversion to that mentality, especially when it conflicts with other themes in the story.

Is the writer telling a story about redemption, or is it about a religious concept of sin and atonement? Forgiveness and acceptance? Is this really about change, or is it about punishing people who hurt your favorites? Change is something we do, and there is value in that even when there is no atonement, forgiveness, or punishment waiting at the end.

Villains should not be included in a story if any of the above causes distraction or discordance with the main plot line.

Villains aren’t necessary for every story. If you want to go with conflict structures, a person vs. world or person vs. self story doesn’t need a villain. Villains can be added to those stories, but they need to represent something about the world/self for that to make sense. They are too dramatic and time-consuming to toss in as an afterthought. If there is nothing else you take from this post, take this: if a villain doesn’t add substance to your story, don’t include one.

I can tell when the writer is just checking boxes. None of these things can be done well without a certain level of affection for both the art of storytelling and the story being told. It’s not even difficult; it just takes effort. There’s an incredible amount of stories out there to engage with, and I’m never going be pleased to put up with a writer’s checklist villain.

Write what you want, and if you don’t want to include a narrative device that requires effort, then don’t.

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i think it is very telling that the best documented case of women buying sex from men are white western women going on vacation in west african countries such as gambia to prey on impoverished and usually younger black men. it highlights that prostitution - any prostitution - is an exertion of power from a more privileged group against a less privileged group. that prostitution is a system that profits from and reinforces oppression and inequality. here, the axis of oppression is not sex, but race. its a symptom of neocolonialism, like most sex tourism.

nonetheless i always have to laugh when the articles, documentaries and research desperately try to act like female and male sex buyers are exactly the same - usually the argument hinges on the fact that the motivation is the same, companionship and sexual gratification. but male sex buyers are motivated by so much more: fetish, sadism, violence, domination. this does not tend to be the case with women. also, unwanted penetration is a different level of violence, having something inserted in you. female sex buyers dont request painful acts such as deepthroat or anal. there are no brothels full with men, the men dont have pimps, and usually in the case of female sex tourists, the arrangement is loose: companionship and sex with no fixed payment but pleasantries, gifts and such. additionally, women dont tend to be able to physically overpower men, or get off on enacting violence like hitting and choking. men who prostitute themselves for women are also less stigmatised than those who do so for men, or prostituted women. and more men sell themselves to other men than to women. and: women who buy sex tend to be single, while the relationship status of a man is no indicator of likelihood to buy sex.

female sex buyers highlight that besides sex, economic class and race determine who is prostituted and who buys sex. that prostitution is an issue of intersectional inequality. and that misogyny is still the key motor of prostitution: male sex buyers are any age, any class, any race, because any man can be a misogynist. but women only become sex buyers under specific conditions; for example motivated by racist fetishisation. another key factor here is gender. buying sex is considered masculine, but women buying sex break with gender norms. consider also the orgasm gap: most women are not satisfied by their male sexual partners. hypothetically it would make more sense for women to be the majority of sex buyers to enforce sexual satisfaction they lack in consensual sexual relationships. yet privileged women who lack sexual satisfaction are more likely to prostitute or otherwise objectify themselves than buying sex.

any form of female-on-male prostitution has its male-on-female (and sometimes male-on-male) equivalent that is more violent and more common. meanwhile many forms of prostitution dont have a female-on-male version, for example prostitution in brothels. men prostituting themselves for women are at a lot less risk for physical violence and abuse or being trafficked. there is even a phenomenon of heterosexual men having to prostitute themselves for men because there is just not enough demand from women. and female-on-female prostitition is almost unheard of, if anything this occurs in a male-female-female constellation. there are no gangbang parties with one or two men and groups of women.

people are so obsessed with pretending like women as consumers in the sex industry - whether that be as sex buyers, porn watchers or stripshow enjoyers - are just the same as men when there are clear differences. gender relations are always relevant in a patriarchal system and reversed roles dont produce the same outcomes.

[teaboot]

Your post about art vs content got me thinking about the differences between the two. To me there is no difference besides the mindsets. One is of creator and the enjoyer, the other is content and consumer it removes the personhood, the joy/emotion, from the equation. Like a writer or video creator may not see their work as art so content creator maybe a way to refer to themselves comfortably but it sounds so machine, emotionless and lifeless, like a cookie cutter recipe mass producing something verses people lovingly crafting something...then again Disney uses a cookie cutter recipe for the most part and it brings out bangers cause people lovingly make it their own so maybe I'm thinking too hard on this

Does my long-winded rant make sense?

see, I get what you mean, but I still feel like the willingness to entertain calling art of any kind "content" reduces it to the facet of consumption where in reality, the experience of consuming art is not the sole defining trait of it.

Reducing arts like music, writing, painting, dance, voice acting, theater, etc. to the role of "content"- a thing created to be consumed, measured and valued by how pleasant or easy it is to digest- I feel that it was our biggest red flag to herald the incoming tide of AI "art".

Because if art is "content", if arts are nothing but consumable matter, then obviously the key to success is to produce as much soft, tasty, edible paste as we possibly can at the lowest possible expense.

It's the same issue I have with "meal replacements", diet culture, nutrient slurries, twenty-step skincare routines, 24/7 body padding and shapewear and laxative teas and "grind culture". It's not a cause, but a symptom, of the disease that is late-stage capitalism.

Things must be produced at low cost and remain in high demand forever. Things must be perfect and palatable and the new hit trend forever. People must pay hand over fist to consume without asking anything in return, and if they start dropping like flies at the unending unrewarded thankless demand of it all, then that must be treated as a weakness. We should all take pride in how much we can spend, pay, give, produce, and think as little as possible about what we ask for ourselves.

So, who cares if, of two identical paintings, one was made by a person and one was made by a computer program? It's the same work, so what does it matter? What does it matter?

I am an artist. I make art. I ask a question, make a statement, declare something horrific or challenging or upsetting or wrong or grotesque, and when you respond, we are together experiencing a conversation. We are existing, two people living one life and reaching out and touching across time and space. No matter the work, you're at the barest minimum saying, "I'm alive, and you're alive, and at one time or another we shared this same world, and at the end of the day we aren't too terribly different. My heart is worth sharing, and your heart is worth the struggle of understanding."

An AI-generated piece, a computer-generated voice, a CGI puppet of someone long since dead and gone, they cannot speak. They have no voice. Ay best, they are the most chewable, consumable, landlord-beige common denominator possible that you can sit and listen to like the lone survivor of a shipwreck listening to the same three songs on a broken record, and at worst, they're the uncaring vomit of an empty, unloving, value-addled hack wearing the skin of someone I know over their own.

When you abandon art to say that you make content, that should not be a point of pride. That's an embarrassment. That's not sitting down for an intelligent discussion with an equal, that's kneeling at the feet of the crowd and saying, "what do you want to see me do? I can be anyone you've ever loved. I can be them, I can be anyone, as long as you love me."

I can make content. I can be consumed. What do you want to consume? I'll make myself consumable. I'll make myself just like anything you like. And I'll make so much of it that you'll never have to go anywhere else, because it'll all be right here, and under all the cut-and-paste schlock you've seen before I will sit alone in the dark and the silence and I will know that I am safe, because I am valued, because I am desired, and I need to be desired or else I am worthless like a factory that no longer churns out steel or a hen that no longer lays eggs or a cow that is too old to make milk.

Content, the most literal meaning, is something which is contained inside a container. What it is doesn't really matter, and the best it can hope to be is something worthy of being scooped out and used.

Art is an experience that transcends value. Art is something you can eat without paying for. You can make it out of anything and anyone can do it. It can be crude and vulgar and bad, and that's a strength because it means something. It always, always means something, and it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It's not content because it doesn't fill anything. It's a living, breathing thing, and whether you want to birth it or eat it, then you're going to have to be willing to put the fucking work in

[mcclainwilla]

JJK 271 spoilers under the cut!!

So, with the leaks out and the series (un)officially over, I wanted to offer an alternative (NOT optimistic, but accepting) perspective to how things ended...

...specifically with Gojo.

I am a Gojo lover. I am a tragedy enjoyer. And I believe that both the (implied) return of both Sukuna and Kenjaku and Gojo's shitty posthumous treatment by the rest of the cast boil down to the same themes that have defined Jujutsu Kaisen from the start.

Jujutsu Kaisen has a punitive narrative. When a character fails to honor their goals, retribution is swift and severe. Itadori failing, continuously, to guide people to proper deaths. Nanami failing to keep his juniors safe in Shibuya. Geto failing to follow through on his own ideology. Jujutsu Kaisen also has a circular narrative. Its characters' storylines are defined by the generational curses that haunt jujutsu society. Gojo and Geto were thrown at missions like grenades until Geto finally went off. Ten years later, kids are still being exploited for their talents. Itadori, for all rights and purposes, died in the juvenile detention facility. The Shibuya task force was like, at least 50% high schoolers. Nothing has changed, despite Gojo's dream of fostering strong and capable allies who will overturn the system.

Now, about that. Gojo stated his intentions multiple times throughout the manga. He wanted to break the cycle. But that panel showing Sukuna's finger? Not surprising at all. He failed to break the cycle. Why?

Because without concerted effort, there will be no true change.

That is the point of Jujutsu Kaisen. It always has been. We ended up right where we left off - with the looming threat of Sukuna in the form of a surviving finger - because no one made an active effort to step off the tracks; instead, everyone combined their forces to push back against the train. Sure, the train stopped - Sukuna was exorcized, mostly - but trains have engines, and when jujutsu society grows complacent, the old order will begin to creep back into place.

There's another way of saying this. We ended up right where we left off - with kids as cannon fodder - because Gojo failed to consider that he couldn't dismantle the system from within the system. And the worst part is, he figured it out, right before the end.

Too late, Gojo realized his plan of a peaceful coup would never come to fruition. He realized he would have to take tangible, violent action in order to have even a chance of guaranteeing his students' futures. But because he was too slow to realize this, the hammer dropped, he failed, and died. And now, his kids might get to live to see another day, but they live to see another mission, too. And another Sukuna finger, and another Kenjaku. No one's efforts were focused enough. Like Yuki said, they were treating symptoms, not causes.

What's interesting is that this 'concerted effort' clause can also explain Gojo's apparent insignificance to the surviving cast. After Geto left, he leaned into the role of the Strongest, because there was nothing left for him to be. He took missions. He automated Infinity. He only started teaching so that the next generation wouldn't be lonely - he mentioned nothing of how that revolution would impact himself, presumably because it was of no importance to him. He'd already given up on having the very thing he tried to build for his students.

You can, actually. You can ask a flower to understand you, but you would be insane to do it, because it won't, obviously. So why would you bother?

Gojo never bothered. He let his loss haunt him for the rest of his life and never tried to put it behind him (or if he did, he did a shitty job at it). Instead, he let it motivate him, guide his choices, hollow out his heart. And in his death, he reaped the consequences of refusing to reach out for companionship: by making himself into a weapon, rather than a person, he was used, rather than mourned.

(But even though he knew he would die in the fight against Sukuna, he still wanted Itadori to keep going, to have hopes and dreams! It would be better if the world no longer revolved around 'the Strongest,' because that way, no one would have to be alone! What a nice dream. What a shame he only fought 'til blood at the end - first the higher ups', then his own.)

It's not comfortable to look in from the outside knowing that, after all that sacrifice and loss, nearly nothing was gained. But imo, it's not the thematic reach some say it is.

Jujutsu Kaisen was never about curses. It was about consequences.

[lovesick0cupid]

stereotypes abt systems r so funny to me bcuz.

host [me, hi] is not an anp, but instead a trauma holder of some of our most traumatic memories, with worsened symptoms of bpd and hpd. and i do actually do more than just sit around and front. because i have several roles actually. [sleep + social caretaker]

actually also, we have NO anps, the closest we have is a robot former host who is NOT normal because they STRAIGHT UP cant feel hunger or exhaustion due to us not having time to eat breakfast before going to school when it was hosting.

our main caretakers are not sweet, or soft, or cozy. one doesnt care for people and is actively intimidating to others without trying [and hes not interested in changing that idea], and the other is actively hostile towards people and is only interested in taking care of daily tasks

being social and friendly isnt a requirement but an optional thing, to the point we have social caretakers because so few of us are enjoyable to talk to or enjoy talking to people.

the Hosting situation [1 main host who is always fronting, 3 primary cohosts who are almost always in cofront, and 5 more cohosts who often get pulled to front. and we still have regular host changes every year or more.] instead of having no host, or a """""""""core""""""""" host

we have 10 introjects out of dozens of brainmade alters.

furthermore, we dont split the same fictional guy over and over! instead we have ~30 anger holders and 20+ protectors. b. because? i dont know. man too angry to associate

we DO have an evil alter and among being the only alter who we warn people abt interacting with, he has also eaten a mattress!

[oohbuggypie]

I CANT BE TAME AND REGULAR RIGHT NOW EXCUSE THE CRAZINESS I GENUINELY DONT EVEN KNOW HOW TO WORD THIS BUT !!! YEAH IM BREAKING DOWN THE LYRICS TO THIS SONG AND HOW THEY REFLECT DON AND BULL'S DYNAMIC DEPICTED IN @goferwashere's LATEST PIECE OF WRITING !! GO READ IT IT MAKES ME INSANE SRSLY. SO THESE R THE LYRICS::

**(song above is Shades Of Cool by Lana Del Rey;; the section takes place from 3:49 - 4:31 . please read the disclaimer / warning at the end of this post !!)

OKAY . BREAKING THEM DOWN TIME.

"your hot, hot weather in the summer" - (real quick: i would change the 'your' to 'you're' as it would make more sense in the context of describing their lover as a feeling; if not, it makes less sense. anyway!!) so this lyric makes me think of how, as Don begins using his manipulative ability to alter Bull's state of mind, the feeling the victim succumbs to when hearing his voice is described as bringing a sense of "warmth and comfort." to describe Don's manipulation effects as "hot weather in the summer" makes sm sense to me because, much like the sun's radiance and the general relaxation/freedom that comes with the summer season, Don's manipulation makes Bull feel a (false) sense of safety and enjoyment. further, in closer context to both the song's general tones and siren mythology, the description of Don's manipulation being akin to "hot weather" can also be taken in a more sultry / seductive manner; in the story, Don uses intimate gestures like tracing along Bull's hand, cupping his face, wrapping himself around his arm, drinking directly from the same cup as him, etc. in what id assume is an attempt to be more alluring / welcoming. along with this, Don's handsome appearance and charisma seems to sway Bull's judgement slightly. Bull does have a reaction to these gestures , being flushed in the face and appealing to Don's demands the first few times he's asked. however, this feeling gets its meaning changed fairly quickly.

condensed: the feeling of Don's manipulation is akin to the warm days of summer, a freeing and typically sweet feeling. Don invokes feelings in Bull that can be related to the sentiment of summer's heat.

"high, high, neglectful lover" - in the literal sense of the song, i believe the use of the word "high" implies that the lover is constantly under the influence of drugs; in this context though, i prefer to think of the word "high" as in a power trip. Don is shown to be on his high horse constantly due to the overwhelming abilities he holds over his peers, being able to demand anything from nearly anyone. alternatively, closer to the original context of the song, i suppose the "high" could also correlate to the feeling of Don's manipulation influence. the victim loses their own proper coordination, their thinking is impaired, and in Bull's case his temperature even rises, causing sweating. all of this could reflect the symptoms of somebody under the influence, similar to how Don puts all of his victims under a "trance" of sorts. moving along to the second part of the line; in this writing, i don't believe that Bull and Don are implied to be in a relationship of any form. however, they do almost seem to reflect feelings for each other, seeing that Don touching Bull's hand makes the latter blush, and Don's heart rate picks up when Bull touches his face (this could be due to the fact that Bull was moving beneath command, causing Don nervousness - but my interpretation is the former). so in this scenario, i believe Don would take the role of "neglectful lover" - as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, Don is shown to use sweet and intimate gestures with Bull; however, we know that they're devoid of any true meaning and that he's doing them simply to appear normal to outsiders that can't tell his victim is under his control, or to persuade his victim before manipulating them. however, Don does present himself as caring for Bull, such as constantly adjusting his attire and even cleaning the sweat from his forehead, and an important factor is that Don - for the first time - feels guilt whilst manipulating Bull. this seems to happen only when he's dealing with him in specific, and to me that deepens the idea of Don being the neglectful lover because , despite being aware that what he's doing is wrong, he pushes that guilt aside and continues to manipulate Bull.

condensed: Don holds an overbearing amount of power among his peers. he also induces symptoms / feelings similar to drug use upon his victims when manipulating them. Don plays the role of a "lover" that does not express true care for their partner and ultimately harms them.

"hot, hot weather in the summer" - oh my goodness this is one of my favorite parts of the song when reading it along with the writing. in the story, as Bull begins regaining his consciousness back, we learn that he can hear Don's voice almost as an outer force. as i covered in the first paragraph, the "hot weather" starts as a pleasant and seductive feeling for Bull. it's swaying, comfortable, and warming. however, as the breakdown in the song intensifies and the guitar whines over the drawling vocals, the pronunciation of the phrase begins to lean towards sounding pained;; bringing a bit of personal description into this, summer where i come from can become so intense that it starts to feel painful on the skin and is no longer enjoyable. this is exactly the feeling i think Bull experiences; that "hot weather" Don induced no longer feels like freedom, it's becoming a dreadful burning. a detail that i adored and stuck out to me in the writing is that Don's voice is so intensified in this state that Bull shields his ears, wincing at the height of the volume. this contributes more to my point that Bull's slow awakening and the summer weather reflect one another; much like how the beating sun becomes overstimulating and unbearable against the skin, Don's influence that was once sweet starts to slowly morph into a more agonizing experience, both mentally and physically for Bull.

condensed: the sense of comfort and warmth that Bull initially felt when being manipulated by Don slowly transforms into a painful feeling as Bull begins to escape the manipulation's trance.

"high, neglectful lover" - when Bull fully escapes the maze and is no longer under Don's control, it can be viewed as one coming down from their high. this is where the roles become reversed to me; he awakens to Don grasping his hand and gently holding his face with the opposite. in that moment, Don seems to be truly concerned for Bull as he twitches and acts irregularly. Don momentarily sheds the image of a neglecting, careless lover and now appears to be the sweet partner; and as Bull quickly resorts to violence upon understanding what Don had just put him through, that "neglectful lover" image is projected onto him instead. he cares not to hear Don's reasoning or explanation, but for how he will reflect the same suffering he was caused onto him. this part is so so detrimental to me because it almost makes you feel for Don. Bull appears for a short moment to be the monstrous one before we're reminded yet again who truly is the neglectful, abusive one.

condensed: Don appears to care for Bull, and he is no longer the neglecting partner; Bull takes on the latter role instead, but for a short moment only.

"you're crumbling, sadly" - to me, this line reflects the final moments of the writing, in which Bull begins choking Don against the bathroom wall as vengeance for his manipulation. on the surface, reading this from Bull's point of view, you can view the "crumbling" as Don's reaction to his punishment. he seems to almost lose his grasp on consciousness, his breathing is inconsistent, and he can't disguise the terror that Bull has inflicted upon him; the largest part of the "crumbling" is that Don's usual sauve front was dropped out of pure fear under Bull's rage . however, as we see just a moment later, Don manages to remain snarky despite his terrified state just seconds before .. so, to me, i think that this line fits just as perfectly when being read from Don's point of view;; he views Bull's immediate resort to violence / switch in demeanor as proof of weakness, and that his manipulation was powerful enough to make Bull "crumble" beneath the pressure of his trance. this also plays strongly into the afore mentioned power trip that Don is constantly on.

condensed: Bull choking Don is the former's idea of the latter "crumbling". however, Don also believes that Bull's violence towards him is an example of his victim crumbling as well.

"you're sadly, crumbling" - the very last moments of the writing show the aftermath of Bull nearly strangling Don, as the latter begs him to come back. and i think one of the most key factors of the entire story - if not Don's entire character in this AU - happens here. as Don attempts to use his manipulative power one last time to lure Bull into retrieving him, that power sputters out just as Don says "i'm sorry." i think the entire sentiment of Don's weak figure facing the consequence of his wrongdoing , asking not only for help, but for forgiveness from his victim is a turnaround moment for him. it strikes a chord that has never been heard of; Don realizes that there was no reason behind his actions, that the abuse of his power and his manipulative behavior simply cannot be justified. i think that crushing, unheard of feeling of remorse for his actions is what ultimately differentiates who truly "crumbled" in the end; Don is the one left unforgiven, regretful of his own actions and battered on the floor with nobody to sympathize with.

condensed: Don is ultimately the one harmed most by his manipulation.

OH MY GOD ITS DONE. this actually took the entire day im so srs,, like i know it's not even that much and it's written not very well but the effort that is articulating my thoughts enough so that other ppl don't just hear "LOOK HERE THIS LOOKS LIKE THAT DO U GET IT" is grueling . anyway gofer i hope u enjoy this absolutely monstrous amount of writing cuz it was all inspired by u 🩷 i reccomend reading all this and then rereading ur own story with the song in the background it will change u i Think . and i recommend doing the exact same thing 2 anybody else who can stand to read this entire post ✝️ it's literally 1 in the morning as i post this and a majority of this was written at midnight so sorry for all the janky wording nd generally bad writing but i had to get this out today or i wouldn't come back 2 it 😭 hope u can try n understand where im coming from hehe

**(i do not agree with many of LDR's statements and actions, and prefer not to directly stream her music as to avoid supporting her. if u would like to hear the excerpt from the song, i reccomend doing what i did and YouTube-to-MP3'ing it so u can download, easily hear, then delete it without having to stream her music 🩷 thank u 4 ur understanding !)

[smoft-demons]

This is Auva

Her personality:

Auva is a self insert. She’s the exact same flavour of aroace and neurodivergent as I am. (AuDHD, has NVLD too. Probably also has discalculia. Alexithymia, time blindness, memory issues, and no sense of direction are all major symptoms tied to these that are super obvious.)

She has two modes: one is the unflinchingly practical, observant, mature problem-solver. Responsible and efficient and cautious and self-sufficient. Quiet. Logical to the point of seeming cold sometimes. Hyper-competent in a crisis. Then the second mode is… soft, sensitive baby who wants attention and love and reassurance—wants someone else to take over being the protector for once. Easily distracted and confused, open and clingy and reliant. Will not hide her emotions unless there’s a real urgent reason to. Obviously young.

The line between the two modes varies in blurriness. Sometimes the switch is jarring to an outside observer, sometimes the two aspects of her blend together smoothly. This is standard human complexity, everyone is multifaceted, but the contrast in her is particularly notable to her demons.

She’s like… take Belphie’s sleepy, cuddly nature, his love of stars and performance arts and storytelling, his enjoyment of sushi (and preference for no wasabi), his head full of trivia and success at tests but not projects, and his attachment to Beel.

Combine that with Beel’s blunt, earnest disposition, his guard dog complex, his open, bleeding heart, his honesty, softness, and loyalty, and his enthusiasm for food.

Add Mammon’s inability to lie about his feelings and his obvious ADHD, Satan’s curiosity, voracious reading, and soft spot for cats, and Levi’s obsessive fandom and love of video games and being in the water.

Remove all the violence and replace it with introspectiveness, anxious attachment, a shocking amount of emotional intelligence, the ability to stay scarily chill in a crisis, and a constant craving for hugs because of a backstory full of touch deprivation. Mix well.

That’s Auva!

_______

Auva’s role:

No one can tell what her relationship to her seven pacted demons is. It doesn’t fit neatly into any human relationship box.

To them, she is… some nebulous combination of their: friend, roommate, therapist, confidante, queer platonic partner, emotional support animal, babysitter, unspecified relative, school underclassman they adopted, etc etc.

Bottom line is just that they love her and she loves them. Found family, big QPR kind of vibe.

If someone asks what they are to her, she’d have to be like “they’re… mine.” When that’s met with confusion and prodding, like “your what? Friends, family, partners, mentors? What?” She’s just like, shrug “Just… mine.”

That’s as accurate a label as there can be.

[ix-c-999]

symptom enjoyer

a symptom enjoyer is a system member who enjoys experiencing symptoms of conditions that the system have. one example of a symptom enjoyer would be a system member with psychosis who enjoys delusions or hallucinations that other members of the system do not enjoy having. another example would be a system member that actively enjoys stimming but whose other system mates do not have strong feelings about stimming. the symptom is probably usually one that is considered unpleasant by the other members of the system, but all that is required to be a symptom enjoyer is for the system member to actively enjoy experiencing the symptom in a way that is notable enough that they feel it constitutes a system role. this is not inherently a form of symptom holder, but many symptom enjoyers may be symptom holders as well.

simplified flag

this post has no DNI other than not to start discourse on it

[the-bah-oracle]

hi! we have another request for you!

we would like a very fluffy sentient talking tanuki plush whose primary roles are syspet and comforter, but who also has caretaking and managing roles, especially managing our symptoms. we'd like it to be someone who fronts during stressful situations (especially ones that are bad for our avpd and agoraphobia) and helps keep us calm. also roles like delight, destressor, or distractor would be nice!

they like being pet and they're kind of silly, and they lean into canine behaviors a lot. maybe some interest in shitposts/bastardcore and colorful aesthetics!

for identity, we'd like them to be completely asexual, either aromantic or aro-spec (if they're not completely aro then i'd like them to have some mlm and/or nblnb sort of identity), and have a gender that is whatever mix of masculine, neutral, agender, and/or xenogender that you see fit.

here are some emojis for vibes: 🐶🌸📌🎵🦝♾️🌈🗑️🧸🧋🪐🎉

we'd like it to be a waxing crescent, too!

thank you!

~ @headmate-ideas

Waxing Crescent-Sized Pack, for a Very Fluffy Sentient Tanuki Plush

★ Genders: Non-binary, Voidpunk, Softgender, Fluffgender, Tanugender, Plushcomfic, Plushpupgender, Stuffedanimalgender, Raccoonic, Raccoonabomination, Faunatrashed, Pasflufficbear, Softiecomfkneadic, Cloudoiillive, Fluffcoric, Joyembodiment, Sillybodiment, Feralbodiment, Bastardgender

★ Sexualities: Asexual, Apothisexual, Aromantic, Grayromantic, Aroflux, Cupioromantic, Aegoromantic, Chaoticromantic, Arojump, Aroweird

★ Aesthetics: Bastardcore, Feralcore, Scene, Rainbowcore, Kidcore, Internet Oddity, Glowwave, LOLcore, Internet Awesomesauce, Club Kid, Weirdcore, Dreamcore, Surreal Memer, Goblincore, Chaotic Academia

★ Sign-Offs: 🌸🦝, 🌈🎵, 🧸🪐, 🧋♾️, 📌🎉, 🐶🍡, 🦝🗑️, 🌈🎆, 🪐📌, 🧸🌸

★ Roles: Syspet, Delight, Destressor, Dear, Distractor, Soother, Comforter, Succorer, Caregater, Pacific, Ameliorator, Companion, Buffer, Caretaker, Manager, Symptom Manager

★ Song Inspo:

I tip my figurative hat to thee for this request. It was quite enjoyable to complete, and we are hopeful it is to your liking. Be not afraid to request any slight changes to this pack -🌌🗡️

[system-of-a-feather]

Continuing some from this post, but for our functional multiplicity / resolution, we do have some amnesia for things in the past and our present day memory isn't perfect and between parts we still do loose bits - but that is not experienced in any distressing, intrusive, or distressing manner as it is an inherent part of our state and form of functional multiplicity and I've seen that confuse some people as a lot of talk around functional multiplicity operates on the "complete remission of DID related symptoms" which it CAN be - but it really isn't that nor needed to be to that extent for our system.

Our system is stable and we have very limited to no notable conflict - our system morphs and operates very fluently with one another and switches relatively easy - usually there is at least 3 parts co-con at once - often going upwards to 6-8 at a time depending on if they're so much as interested in doing so. Internal communication is pretty solid and easy beyond actually "summoning" the part to be near and actually tune in so that we can talk. Parts being near the front and "tuned in" is more so a choice to either involve that part or not by both the unseen collective and the individuals as a parts of a collective.

In our functional multiplicity, the individuality of parts - specifically key parts - is a large comfort and aid to the current stage of our trauma healing and the parts in our system serve exclusively a healing function in dynamic with one another and we all work for the betterment of one another and the whole. We haven't had a real issue beyond occasional (and much less frequent) PTSD flashback and triggers and even when those get tense, it isn't a conflict of parts but a stress and worry about one another than against one another.

Additionally, the only roles we use that are formally used are "host" "gatekeeper" and "trauma holder" as they explain key dynamics that are relevant to supporting and recovering forward as all the other roles are either the resting state of all parts (caretaker and soothers and what not are just all of us by nature of peer support) or not needed (we don't need protectors as most of us can handle ourselves individually and we are no longer needing to "just survive").

We've cultured a strong sense of radical acceptance and unconditional care and love among the parts and those that can help do help and those that need help are given it - and while holding that radical acceptance - we also hold respect to the brain's decision to keep us in different parts and the inherent level of denial and dissociation between events that each part has as it gives a unique and strong perspective that gives us a bigger and better insight when we discuss the topics.

We simultaneously fully accept and respect the reality of the other part while fully accepting and respecting the reality of our own and living in our own space and we largely acknowledge that our life - and life in general - is full of subjectivity and our individual realities of the events we've been through are all simultaneously true even when they conflict. Those subjective differences form the foundation of our individual extreme strengths that we can then use to build one another up.

At some point we do likely intend to fuse down in numbers - a number of parts are working on it as their key traumas and burdens get resolved and they themselves feel as if their separated conscious no longer holds anything new to bring up or add to our situation - but as it is, we handle trauma and caring for one another better as separated parts of a whole.

Divide, specialize, and conquer of sorts - and Ray does a great job in managing us. It's honestly a really peaceful and enjoyable existence operating as such a smooth and oiled system. We all have our place that is not so heavily and formally defined but a sense of belonging and purpose in the system. We all do what we do and live where we live. No one is responsible for anything or anyone but also everyone is still there. It's not a job, or a role, or a duty, but simply just how things are. We're a family and a community and we care for one another solely on the principle of putting out our strengths as an offering to the whole team, knowing that the others would pay it back. If one of us is unhappy, we all are. If all of us are happy, each of us are.

We have a lot of trauma to work through still, like A LOT of it, and these days a lot of the system changes and dynamics are in preparation to best refine our team work and individual strengths as parts to better ready us to accommodate the higher needs parts.

I work on not only maintaining but polishing and increasing my self regulation, patience and mindfulness as well as my general coping and insight to what I care for and what helps me and those around me.

XIV takes on a lot of responsibility for understanding what we need and as he keeps expanding his understanding of the collective needs of the system, what matters to us and what can be improved - he is our best advocate and he then focuses on building his ability to understand and assist parts in getting what they need, but also to regulate his own anger that comes with being the part most aware of what we deserve.

Ray, Lucille, and Aderis - the core elders - have worked and slaved hard for the system during the crisis era and they inherently have great skill to be able to help and care for one another, their work then comes in learning to live for themselves and to let us and the other parts that they used to care heavily over make our own mistakes and develop independently into self sustaining parts of our own while still maintaining their presence and expertise for when things get dicey.

Lin is working on a fusion with another part that would better equipt him to travel and manage the heavier trauma holding parts between our side system and eventually fall into a role as the "gentle ambassador" between known long-dormant trauma holding parts that we have long since - both by the parts themselves and our talking active ones - decided to let sleep until we have a life that we know is better for them, worthy for them, and completely the secure life that they deserve.

There are a a lot more parts I could further explain into their individual projects to improving our system dynamic into that of a perfect healing environment for the trauma holders that we know sleep in the back - but that would take more time than I'm willing to put into this point.

As it is though, our system is functionally set less to survive and cope (the main fronting parts all have that individually on their own, having a system for that purpose does little than encourage a sense of learned helplessness at this point), but more so to build a home and a beautiful safe space so that when the time comes that our deeper more hurt trauma holders come up, that there is a beautiful world for them to join us in.

Compared to a few years ago when it was trying to learn the system, understand it, parse conflicts, butting heads over ways to survive and live with one another without killing one another, etc.... its honestly really fun. Like genuinely, its fun to be trying to improve and set a perfect home for the hurt kids that will eventually join us up here. It's a fun group project and we are all deeply engaged, invested, and dedicated to.

It's a very whole experience and healing experience and I really do love that I am able to live my life operating in my individual self with a number of really skilled, amazing, and insightful different versions of me to build this beautiful thing of life.

I dunno, I think the rhetoric around complete remission of symptoms, while totally valid and understandable, is a very black and white situation stemmed from the pain that early stages of healing comes from. Yes amnesia, not always being in the front, and what not, that isn't "normal" functioning, but my brain has never been normal functioning between autism, very early childhood trauma, OCD and C-PTSD and what not. Just cause its not "normal" doesn't mean its not distressing.

I'm not even saying this in a "we are allowed to be not miserable about our disorder", I genuinely mean that not only do I not find the DID aspect of my disorder distressing, but in reference to the PTSD - I find the DID aspect of my disorder incredibly healing and comforting.

I enjoy my life with DID at this stage in healing. It gives me a different perspective and deep insight into myself. There is no "but secretly I hate this aspect" because really, no, I don't think there is anything about the parts in my life and brain that I secretly hate. Yeah some of them do stupid shit, some of them are annoying, some of them are headaches, but I love that about them regardless and its those differences that make them amazing and interesting to engage with.

Anyhow, thats just a bit of a ramble on the topic that I wanted to go on.

[the-lark-ascending69]

your nancy wheeler whump is incredible, ty for the food

— sincerely, a nancy wheeler fan who is also a whump enjoyer

About this post, I think.

Omg anon hiii i'm so happy you liked it!! 🥰🥰 Nancy is such a whumpeable character, maybe because shes so broken inside already 💕 she's just a scared wet cat who needs to be wrapped up in a warm blanket.

A few headcanons for youuuu 💕💕

Robin's parents will be out of town for a few months (they're visiting family far away), so she has the house all to herself, and since the Wheelers are gone and Nancy has nowhere to go, that's where they take her.

Steve and Robin spend a long time looking for the Wheelers. They make a hundred phone calls a day but they keep hitting dead ends. The Wheelers left Hawkins shortly after Nancy was "confirmed" dead, and Mike quickly lost contact with his friends. Finding them has become impossibly difficult, and Steve and Robin worry that they'll never get to tell them Nancy is alive. Nancy misses them like crazy.

The party gets involved super quickly - Lucas, Dustin and Will, as well as the two new kids, Max and El. The boys all cry when they see Nancy, and to Nancy it feels like having siblings again, three new little brothers to try to fill in the space left by Mike and Holly. Max and El just want to help - they're excited to finally meet Nancy Wheeler, Mike's famous sister - he never shut up about her. He always talked about how smart and brave she was and how nothing has been the same since she died. Nancy was a bit surprised to know Mike said that about her, and it only makes her cry. She misses her brother so much.

Max in particular spends a lot of time with Nancy. She helps take care of her when Steve and Robin can't.

Will makes a lot of drawings for Nancy, and she keeps them all by her bedside. She particularly loves the one portraying her family - Mom, Mike, Holly, yes, even her dad.

Nancy experiences a lot of ugly withdrawal symptoms after having been on drugs so heavily for so long. Lots of vomiting and headaches.

Hopper gets involved in her case. She tells him everything, and he begins his investigation. He visits every now and then - it's in his nature. Up until two years ago, he was a father without daughter, and Nancy is a daughter without parents and a sister without siblings. It's only natural when El shows up at Robin's house to spend more and more time with Nancy, happy to have an older sister figure, even if she takes care of Nancy more than Nancy takes care of her. And it's only natural for Hopper to visit a few times a week to ask how she's doing and make sure all her needs are met.

Joyce is overjoyed to hear she's alive, and soon joins Steve and Robin in their search for the Wheeler's new number. She brings food whenever she can and instantly takes on a motherly role in Nancy's life. She agrees that it's best for Nancy to stay at Robin's for the time being, since Joyce and Jonathan spend a great deal of time at work and she'd be all alone for most of the time, but she plans on taking her to live with them when Richard and Melissa Buckley come back.

Jonathan awkwardly tries to help as well - he's often busy with work, but he stops by whenever possible to see if she needs anything. Nancy appreciates that.

Nancy hates appearing weak, but she's set off by the smallest thing - the party's boys hi-fiving each other reminds her of the way soldiers raised their hands to hit her. Steve's loud laughter reminds her of the way the general used to laugh when she cried. Out of the house, she's terrified of needles and hates getting blood tests or vaccines, and going to the dentist is paralyzing - the clattering of the instruments on the metal tray, the shapes of them so similar to the ones they used to rip her nails out, the horrible feeling of foreign objects in her mouth... she has two reactions to these things: she either freezes or she breaks. Freezing includes being almost completely non-verbal, trembling slightly but obeying every order. Breaking includes a lot of crying and panicking.

Her sleep schedule is all messed up - sometimes she can't sleep for more than three hours. Sometimes she blacks out for 18 hours straight. She can never seem to go to sleep and wake up at the same time every day, and she often suffers from nightmares.

She likes cuddling with either Steve or Robin, or even better, both of them. Sandwiched between the two of them, she almost feels like a little kid sleeping between her parents.

Robin really really really didn't like bathing Nancy, or helping her dress up. It feels like she's taking advantage of her. She feels the same when she shares a bed with her. Steve is the one to largely take care of Nancy when it comes to those things. They're still dating, technically, though at this point Nancy can't say she feels love for him. She clings to him because he's familiar, and he loves her, and he makes her feel safe. She appreciates him and cares deeply about him, but if she's honest with herself... she can't love him. She can't bring herself to say that to Steve, of course - after everything he's done for her, she just... tries so hard to convince herself she loves him in the way she's supposed to.

She actually quite enjoys Robin's company, and in part, she'd prefer it if it was her doing all of this for her. Robin can't bring herself to refuse when Nancy asks. They've slept together many times, Nancy cuddled into her chest. It makes Robin's heart ache, but she pushes those feelings down - creep, she thinks to herself. Freak. Pervert. Last thing Nancy needed was a person she trusted secretly lusting after her like a... like the dyke she was.

Nancy realizes she's not having a nice dream at the end of her first day after being rescued. She's drinking a cup of tea with Robin, talking about mindless things - Robin just wanted to make her feel comfortable and she supposed keeping it simple would be best, so she tells her about band and the time she passed out during a school play audition from the nerves. And Nancy looks down at her cup, feels its heat in her hands and the sweet taste in her mouth, and the soft texture of Robin's clean clothes on her skin. She hears the crickets outside, the creaking of the wooden floorboards when Robin paces, and it dawns to her that she is free. She suddenly breaks into tears, and Robin freaks out - calls Steve - and they both try her best to comfort her. Nancy hugs herself - she wants her mother and brother and little sister, it breaks her heart to know they left, that they thought her dead. But somehow, in Robin and Steve's arms, she feels warm. Safe, for the first time in years.

[soniamaries]

Best Diet Plan for Over 40: Essential Guide by Nutritionist

The Best Diet for Women Over 40: Essential Guide by Sonia Marie Nutrition

As women enter their 40s, nutritional needs shift to support changes in metabolism, hormonal balance, and overall health. This stage often brings new challenges, including maintaining a healthy weight, managing energy levels, and promoting bone strength. Sonia Marie Nutrition knows what is required of Diet for Women Over 40 with professional nutrition guidance. A well-balanced diet can empower women to feel their best, embrace healthy aging, and maintain vitality.

Understanding Nutritional Needs After 40

Aging naturally impacts metabolism, causing it to slow down, and hormonal changes related to perimenopause and menopause often follow. These changes make nutrient-dense foods crucial for maintaining energy, muscle tone, and metabolic health. Three nutrients particularly beneficial in this stage are calcium, fiber, and antioxidants. Calcium is essential for bone health, fiber aids in digestion and supports heart health, while antioxidants protect cells from damage, promoting overall wellness. The best diet plan for women over 40, these nutrients help in managing weight, strength maintenance, and long-term health.

The Role of Hormonal Health in Diet 

Hormonal fluctuations can influence weight, energy, and even mood. Foods rich in phytoestrogens—found in flaxseeds, soy, and legumes—may help balance hormones naturally. Additionally, incorporating omega-3 fatty acids from sources like fish, chia seeds, and walnuts can support mood stability and reduce inflammation. A diet rich in nutrients can also help ease symptoms associated with menopause, including hot flashes and fatigue. Adopting a well-rounded, nutritious diet helps maintain hormonal balance, which is crucial for women navigating these natural changes.

Key Components of the Best Diet Plan for Women Over 40

The best diet plan for women over 40 emphasizes whole foods, balanced meals, and nutrient diversity. Key components include lean proteins, healthy fats, and complex carbohydrates. Protein is essential for muscle maintenance and metabolism, while healthy fats (such as those found in avocados and olive oil) support brain function and hormone production. Complex carbs—like whole grains, sweet potatoes, and legumes—offer sustained energy and stabilize blood sugar levels. A variety of colorful fruits and vegetables also ensures a broad intake of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants.  

Weight Management Strategies

Weight loss after 40 can be challenging, but it’s achievable through a combination of diet, exercise, and mindful eating. To lose weight, creating a moderate calorie deficit while prioritizing nutrition is key. Incorporating high-fiber foods and protein-rich meals can promote satiety, reducing the likelihood of overeating. Physical activity, particularly strength training, is also crucial as it helps maintain muscle mass and boosts metabolism. These combined efforts make weight management more sustainable and rewarding. 

Personalized Nutrition Plans

A personalized approach to nutrition addresses individual goals, health needs, and food preferences. Sonia Marie Nutrition specializes in creating customized plans to suit each woman’s unique lifestyle. Personalized plans can focus on specific areas like weight management, hormonal balance, or enhancing bone health. By tailoring each diet plan to individual needs, women are empowered to achieve their best health outcomes effectively and enjoyably. 

Common Myths About Dieting After 40

Misconceptions about dieting often circulate, especially concerning aging. For example, it’s a common myth that metabolism declines sharply after 40, making weight loss impossible. In reality, while metabolism is slow, balanced nutrition and regular exercise can significantly improve metabolism and overall health. Another myth is that restrictive diets are necessary to lose weight, but overly restrictive diets can harm metabolic health and make it harder to maintain results. A positive, balanced approach to food and exercise is far more effective for lasting wellness.

How Can Top Nutritionists Help with the Best Diet Plan for Women Over 40?

Working with a nutritionist like Sonia Marie Nutrition, who has over 30+ years of experience, provides invaluable support in navigating dietary changes. They offer expert insights into specific nutrients, portion sizes, and food choices that align with each woman’s health goals. Services offered include personalized diet plans, ongoing guidance, and meal planning strategies. With professional guidance, women over 40 can confidently manage their health, improve energy, and enhance quality of life.

10 Best Diets for Women Over 40, According to a Dietitian

Mediterranean Diet

The Mediterranean diet focuses on whole foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats, especially olive oil. Known to support heart health, it’s rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory nutrients, which help manage aging-related issues like joint health and hormonal balance.

DASH Diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension)

The DASH diet is designed to reduce high blood pressure but offers benefits for women over 40 by emphasizing fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and low-fat dairy. This diet also limits sodium, helping to improve heart health—a vital focus as the risk of heart disease increases with age.

Plant-Based Diet

A plant-based diet focuses primarily on whole, plant-derived foods while limiting animal products. High in fiber, antioxidants, and phytonutrients, plant-based diets are excellent for hormone health, weight management, and reducing risks of chronic conditions.

High-Protein Diet

After 40, maintaining muscle mass becomes a priority, and protein plays a crucial role in this. A high-protein diet—emphasizing lean meats, fish, eggs, and plant-based proteins like legumes and quinoa—supports muscle tone, metabolism, and bone health.

Anti-Inflammatory Diet

This diet includes foods that reduce inflammation, such as berries, fatty fish, leafy greens, nuts, and olive oil. Chronic inflammation is linked to numerous health issues, including arthritis and heart disease. Following an anti-inflammatory diet can alleviate joint pain and support overall health.

Intermittent Fasting

Intermittent fasting (IF) focuses on when to eat, rather than what to eat. Popular IF patterns, such as 16:8 (fasting for 16 hours, eating within 8 hours), have been shown to help with weight loss, blood sugar control, and energy levels, especially beneficial as metabolism slows with age.

Low-Carb Diet

Low-carb diets can be helpful for women over 40 aiming to manage weight or improve insulin sensitivity. Reducing refined carbs and increasing protein and healthy fats can stabilize blood sugar levels, reduce cravings, and support weight management.

Paleo Diet

The Paleo diet emphasizes foods our ancestors ate, like lean meats, fish, vegetables, and fruits, and excludes processed foods, dairy, and grains. It’s nutrient-dense and can help women over 40 improve digestion, energy, and metabolic health.

Flexitarian Diet

A Flexitarian diet encourages primarily plant-based foods but allows for occasional meat and dairy. This approach provides the benefits of a vegetarian diet while offering flexibility. The diet supports heart health, reduces the risk of certain cancers, and helps with weight management.

Ketogenic Diet

The Keto diet, while restrictive, can be effective for women over 40 looking to manage blood sugar and shed pounds. By drastically reducing carbs and increasing fat intake, the body shifts into ketosis, using fat for energy. It’s best followed under professional guidance to ensure nutritional needs are met.

Book Online consultation with Sonia Marie Nutrition today

Conclusion

A balanced diet that meets the evolving nutritional needs of women over 40 promotes overall health, vitality, and wellness. By incorporating whole foods, key nutrients, and tailored support, women can feel empowered to live healthily as they age. Sonia Marie Nutrition offers personalized guidance to help each woman achieve her health goals effectively and sustainably.

Ready to prioritize your health and wellness? Book a free 15-minute consultation with Sonia Marie Nutrition today! Whether you’re in the USA, Canada, or Australia, contact us directly at (818)-864-6540 or email sonia@sonia-marie.com for personalized support.   

[peach-studios]

A New Direction: Dopamine Art

What is Dopamine? Dopamine is a type of neurotransmitter, which is a chemical messenger that transmits signals in the brain and other areas of the central nervous system. It plays a key role in many important functions, including:

Reward and pleasure: Dopamine is often referred to as the "feel-good" neurotransmitter because it is involved in the brain's reward system. It is released during pleasurable activities, like eating, exercising, or even engaging in social interactions, giving you a sense of enjoyment or satisfaction.

Motivation and goal-directed behavior: Dopamine is also linked to motivation. It helps drive us to pursue goals, make decisions, and work toward rewards. The anticipation of a reward often causes a release of dopamine, encouraging us to keep working toward that goal.

Movement and motor control: Dopamine is critical in regulating movement. The loss of dopamine-producing neurons in the brain is associated with movement disorders like Parkinson's disease, where symptoms such as tremors and stiffness arise due to the depletion of dopamine.

Cognition and learning: Dopamine is involved in attention, memory, and learning. It helps to focus attention on important tasks and is also linked to reinforcement learning, where actions that lead to rewards are strengthened.

In short, dopamine is a vital neurotransmitter for a wide range of functions, including mood regulation, motivation, movement, and cognitive processes. Disruptions in the dopamine system are associated with various conditions, such as depression, schizophrenia, ADHD, and addiction.

How can this idea of a dopamine response be used in art to produce feelings of joy and happiness? Perhaps through a new trend called "dopamine art" which has tones of revitalization of expressionism and impressionism.

Dopamine art refers to a type of artwork or creative experience designed to trigger the brain's release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, motivation, and reward. The concept is often used to describe art or experiences that aim to create an instant, satisfying emotional response, which leads to a pleasurable "hit" or rush of dopamine.

Some examples include: visually stimulating and highly satisfying art, themes of expressionism and impressionism, abstract art, engaging art, neon or vibrant art, or art with positive messages.

Stay tuned for more content related to Dopamine Art.

:)

-Niki Peach