#sa meta

[biracy]

Last rb also has me thinking on like. People conceive of sexual violence as like The Ultimate Form of violence, which manifests itself in two major ways in writing fiction: denying any possible subtext or allegory of sexual violence even in a story about many many many other kinds of violence, or shoehorning sexual violence into an already deeply violent and abusive dynamic to show how Super Totally Fucked Up it is now. And honestly I think tlt fans are "guilty" of like. both of these? There is a very obvious bloc of tlt fans who pointedly ignore the very obvious themes of sexual violence and misogynistic violence overall in the text (as if forcing the soul of the Earth into the body of a beautiful woman you then lock away forever isn't a metaphor for sexual assault), but I'd also argue there's a smaller, yet still present, subset of fans who like, don't seem to realize that grooming a) can exist outside of the context of sexual abuse and b) is still bad even if no sexual abuse is present. I'm not even necessarily against certain reads of like, Kiriona as her father's cavalier being potentially allegorically incestuous, but also I don't think there would need to be sexual violence there for that dynamic to still be abusive. John is, whether biological or surrogate, the "father" of the two teenagers he manipulates the most, and I think it's important to realize that the weaponization of fatherhood is always bad, even if it never "crosses the line" into explicit sexual violence. There are other kinds of abuse and tlt is full of it. Harrowhark is revolted by John's attempts to act paternally towards her because she has only ever known her own parents as forces of control and violence. Harrowhark's parents attempting to get a 10-year-old to commit ritual suicide is actually just as bad as any hypothetical sexual violence between John and Kiriona. In the same way that sexual assault is not "special" in that it should never be written about ever, it's also not "special" in that it is The Most Violence any story can ever have and you know it's Getting Hardcore Now when abuse "escalates" from physical or psychological to sexual

[starstrike]

Mithrun's desire as an SA analogue

TW discussion of SA and detailed breakdown of aesthetics evoking SA. The way I discuss this is vivid in a way that may be triggering, though there is no discussion of actual sexual assault. Just survivor's responses to it.

People relate to Mithrun and see his condition as an analogue for a few different things, like brain injury or depression. And I think all of them are there. But I also see Mithrun's story as an SA analogue, and Ryoko Kui intentionally evokes those aesthetics. I think it's a part of Mithrun's character that a lot of people miss, but I very much consider it text. This is partially inspired by @heird99's post on what makes this scene so disturbing; so check out their post, too :)

So to start off with, the demon invades Mithrun's bed, specifically. There's even a canopy around it, which specifically evokes this idea of personal intrusion; the barrier is being pulled apart without consent or warning. The way the hand reaches towards Mithrun's body from outside of the panel division makes it almost look like the goat stroking over his body. It's an especially creepy visual detail; similarly, the goat's right hand parts into the side of the panel as well. It's literally like it's tearing the page apart; but gently. So gently.

Mithrun is in bed. It is his bed that the demon is intruding on. He's in a position of intimacy. The woman behind him is a facsimile of his "beloved" that he left behind; the woman who, in reality, chose Mithrun's brother. He is in bed with his fantasy lover, who is leaning over him. While this scene isn't explicitly sexual, it is intimate. And it is being invaded. The goat lifts Mithrun gently, who is confused, but not yet struggling.

The erotics of consumption and violence in Ryoko Kui's work(remember that the word 'erotic' can have many different meanings, please) are a... notable part of some of her illustrations. I would say she blurs the lines between all forms of desire: personal, sexual, gustatory and carnal, in her illustrations in order to emphasize the pure desire she wants to work with and evoke to serve her themes. Kui deploys sexual imagery in a lot of places in Dungeon Meshi, and this is one of them.

In this case, horrifically. The goat's assault begins with drooling, licking, and nuzzling. The goat could be enjoying and "playing with" its food. But it can also be interpreted as it "preparing" Mithrun with its tongue as it begins to literally breach Mithrun's body. The goat also invades directly through his clothing; that adds another level of disturbing to me. There's nothing Mithrun can do in this moment of violation. Mithrun is fighting, but he is fighting weakly, trying to grip on and push away when he has no ability or option to. All he can do is beg the goat to stop. And it doesn't care. This all evokes sexual assault.

The sixth panel demonstrates a somewhat sexual position, with Mithrun's thighs spread around the goat's hunched over body. In the next, the goat pulls and holds apart Mithrun's thighs as he nuzzles into him. The way the clothing bunches up looks a bit as if it has been pushed up. It has pinned Mithrun down onto the bed, into Mithrun's soft furs and pillows. It takes a place made to be supernaturally warm and comfortable, and violates it. It's utterly and intimately horrifying. To me, this sequence of positions directly evokes a rape scene. I think Kui did this very explicitly. These references to sexual invasion are part of what makes this scene so disturbing; albeit, to many viewers, subconsciously.

This is also the moment the goat takes Mithrun's eye. Other than this, the goat seems exceptionally strong, but also... gentle. It holds Mithrun's body tightly, but moves it around slowly. It doesn't need to hurt Mithrun physically. But in that moment, it takes Mithrun's eye. Blood seeps from a wound while an orifice that should not be pierced is penetrated. This moment, the ooze of blood in one place specifically, also evokes rape. That single bit of physical gore is a very powerful bit of imagery to me.

Finally; it is Mithrun's desire that is eaten. After his assault, Mithrun can find no pleasure in things that he once did. He is fully disassociated from his emotions. This is a common response to trauma, especially in the case of SA. It's not uncommon for people to never, or take a long time to, enjoy sex in the same way again; or at all. They might feel like their rapist has robbed them of a desire and pleasure they once had. I think this makes Mithrun's lack of desire a partial analogue for the trauma of sexual assault.

Mithrun's desire for revenge was, supposedly, all that remained. Anger at his assaulter, anger at every being that was like it; though, perhaps not anger. Devotion, in a way. To his cause. I don't know. But the immediate desire to seek revenge is another response to SA. But on to Mithrun's true feelings on the matter.

This is... So incredibly tragic. Mithrun feels used up. Like his best parts have been taken away. Like he's being... tossed aside. This certainly parallels the way assault victims can feel after being left by an abuser. Or the way assault victims feel they might be "ruined" forever for other partners. These are common sentiments for survivors to carry, and need to overcome. In the text, it's almost like Mithrun feels the only being who can desire him is a demon who might "finish devouring" him. That that's his only use. It's worth noting that Mithrun trusted the demon. Mithrun's world was built by the demon, and Mithrun, in that way, was cared for by the demon. I think this reinforces Mithrun's place as a victim.

There's also something to be said about Mithrun as a victim of his own possessive romantic and sexual desire. The mirror shows him his beloved just dining with his brother, and it infuriates him. He doesn't know if the vision is real, nor if she has really chosen his brother as a romantic partner. The goat then creates a whole fantasy world where she loves him. As Mithrun's dungeon deteriorates, she is the only person that continues to exist. Mithrun continues to have control over her. And that is the strongest desire the demon is eating, isn't it? There's something interesting there, but I don't know what to say about it.

In conclusion, I think Mithrun's story is an explicit analogue for sexual assault-- though, certainly, among other things! The way the scene plays out and is composed explicitly references sexual violation and invasion of the body. His condition mirrors common trauma responses to sexual violence. And, at the end, he finally realizes he can recover.

Let's end on a happy Mithrun, after taking the first step on his journey to recovery :) You aren't vegetable scraps Mithrun. But even if you were-- every single thing in this world has value. Even vegetable scraps.

[shelfperson]

while i see where some if it comes from, i feel like way more people took “as a former sex slave, armand is disgusted by teenage daniel’s sexual behavior” from the torture scene and not “daniel has been prostituting himself for drugs presumably for years, and armand both relates to and is repulsed by daniel as a form of projection” and i think that’s extremely fascinating.

like it’s a very consistent vampire trait that they only really get up in arms about social issues that affected them in their mortal life, and even then only when it would directly affect them now. i.e, claudia and louis being aware of and condemning racism but not really caring about european nazism despite very real parallels.

and there is. a big difference. between the ultimately consensual gross misogyny of the paper bag incident and armand being sold to a brothel as a child, then kept as a rich man’s catamite experiencing regular sexual assult.

AND armand is a man who does not experience that kind of day-to-day indignity. those are completely separate circumstances and armand doesn’t give any reaction to the memory aside from what it means for daniel. in fact, that remark has very little to do with how armand feels and everything to do with daniel’s lifelong feelings of guilt for constantly being a fucking asshole.

and the vampire armand, specifically, is not a creature prone to sympathizing with people who share his struggles anyway. especially not strangers he doesn’t know. look at the way he treats claudia, specifically. she’s in a spot similar to him, both growing up and now. constantly robbed of agency, both infantilized and adultified depending on what’s convenient, and in the books of course they’re both child vampires. and he doesn’t offer her any compassion whatsoever because he’s the type of person to take his suffering out on others and reenact his trauma with himself in marius’s place.

like mr. i-constantly-mind-control-my-lover, duchess of unsafe bdsm practices, is not offended by daniel’s understanding (or lack thereof) of power dynamics or safe and respectful sex. he’s throwing the boy across the kitchen because he doesn’t understand what makes danny special when, despite all similarities, he himself is not.

edit: i went into a whole rant in the reblogs about the importance of sexuality and sexual autonomy and sexual perversion as a theme in this show if any one interested

[s0fter-sin]

soap's whole deal being sniper and demolitions gets me going bc on the surface they sound so different but when you get into it, you realise it's bc soap's smart

sniping is all math; calculating distances and wind interference and bullet drop. something i think people overlook is he was listed as a sniper first so it can be implied that he's better at it than demolitions. he does more sniping in both campaigns than demolitions work; in capture or kill, ghost specifically calls on him to take down the aq snipers

and demolitions is math with a hit of chemistry; knowing what mixes with what, knowing how much to use, recognising environmental factors and adjusting accordingly. it's not just about the boom; so much work goes into contained/ planned explosions. especially when having enough power for a breacher charge and not bringing down the whole building is the difference between mission success and failure

the chemical bombs he makes in alone can't just be any old cleaners, they have to have the correct reaction to each other; he just knew off the top of his head what would mix with what to create what reaction. he would also potentially have to recognise them by sight/smell bc they would’ve been written in spanish

soap would also have to know architecture; recognising structural integrity and weak points so he knows exactly where to plant a charge to bring it down and how it'll come down

he has an incredible soldier's mind people just forget that bc he's sociable which itself is a skill

we know he tends to buck against orders he doesn't agree with like when he pushes back against ghost in capture or kill and shepherd when he tells them to release hassan

he gets closer to people and sees if he can trust them and that's when he follows them without question. really think about how he talks to alejandro and rudy; he asks about their home and alejandro's family and rudy's relationship with him. those aren't questions you ask a stranger after a few hours of knowing them. that's not even touching on his relationship with ghost

he also deliberately brings people of higher ranks down to his level; talking informally with ghost and giving him a shoulder punch, addressing alejandro (a colonel!!) by his first name and rudy by his nickname despite literally just meeting them. he personalises all of them and it’s in direct opposition to the reason most characters do that; it’s not due to insubordination or lack of respect, the more he respects and trusts someone, the more casual he is with them

he digs into people; he wants to know what makes them tick and that determines if he can one, trust them and two, follow their orders. once he decides that, he's the ultimate soldier; he bleeds loyalty which makes him vicious when that loyalty is taken for granted

he isn't naive or bubbly or insecure; he's an incredibly smart and aware soldier. he's aggressive and bloodthirsty and loyal and intuitive and i love him so much

[khruschevshoe]

The problem with the handling of Ed's season 2 arc on ofmd is that it sets up the cycle of abuse so well. Demonstrates the way it destroys both Ed and his victims in the first two episodes so well. Shows the ways the trauma can keep destroying people and their relationships in episodes 2-4 (Lucius, Izzy, Jim, etc.). And then just...shames Lucius for trying to open up and shames him for being traumatized and makes fun of him for trying to talk about what happened to him. Makes Izzy apologize to his abuser for one comment he made what is implied to be months ago after the man he is apologizing to CUT OFF HIS TOES AND SHOT HIM IN THE LEG. Doesn't allow Jim (or for that matter, Archie) to be righteously pissed off for longer than episode 4. And then has the audacity to say that Ed making a "Youtuber apology" and using the loot that he blackmailed/threatened/forced the crew to steal in the first place to buy them party decorations somehow...makes up for everything he did?

Like, am I missing a part of this arc? Am I missing the part where he reconciled with literally ANYONE but Fang? Am I missing the part where Stede apologized to Lucius for telling him to stop talking when he was telling him about the severe trauma he went through? (Or even, as much as I love him and their relationship, Pete apologizing to Lucius for dismissing his trauma and wanting to move on before Lucius was ready because listening to Lucius' sa/abuse story was uncomfortable?) Am I missing the part where Archie and Jim found a reason to forgive Ed (and don't tell me that the Izzy-the-unicorn helped them forgive Ed- that was about the crew coming together to help IZZY to recover and had jacksquat to do with Ed)?

The set up was brilliant. Episodes 1-3 killed me. Episode 2 was my favorite episode of the show (bar the bit where Stede ran away when Lucius was unloading his trauma, and even THAT could have worked if he apologized later and allowed Lucius to talk). But the lack of payoff makes me feel sick. Because I understand this show is a comedy, but you don't introduce themes like that and give them that kind of ending.

[midnightfox450]

SA Mention //

The cantarella scene in Utena is so so so good and nearly every bit of it has been analyzed over the years (for good reason!). But can we take a moment to talk about how the music skips?

Right after Anthy suggests she poisoned Utena's cookies. The background music starts skipping. It's an obvious loop too, once you hear it, it's hard to unhear. The music doesn't pick back up until after Utena admits to poisoning the tea, AFTER the spinning red rose. It picks back up at "The tea is delicious".

At the most basic level, the skipping is just another method by which RGU creates emphasis.

But it just. It can't help but remind me of the most significant case of music skipping in the franchise. In Adolescence of Utena, right before E-Ko and F-Ko show the tape of Anthy's assault (another scene which has to do with something being put in Anthy's drink).

So then, the skipping could represent honesty. The brutal, uncomfortable bearing of the truth. Statements that ring in the ears and choices that maybe aren't the most delicate or harmless but had to convey the intended message somehow.

(If anyone else has watched seebeees' video essay on transfeminism in utena [which you should, it's really good], it reminds me of their point on the way Adolescence could be using static to represent Anthy's trauma. Records and CDs skip when something has dirtied them. Scratched them. Damaged them).

It could represent repetition obviously, but it could also represent the exact opposite. A breaking of the cycle, a momentary reprieve from the looping record that is Anthy and Utena's lives at Ohtori. When they confess their love for each other in that moment, in such an odd and uniquely utenanthy way, it catches the narrative off-guard. They are cracking the shell of their egg. Their love is forcing itself through the narrative.

[ladystoneboobs]

an examination of theon greyjoy's feelings about and (implied) relationship with evil uncle euron

Theon searched for his uncle Euron's Silence. Of that lean and terrible red ship he saw no sign, but his father's Great Kraken was there, her bow ornamented with a grey iron ram in the shape of its namesake. [...] It might be only a caution, now that he thought on it. A defensive move, lest the war spill out across the sea. Old men were cautious by nature. His father was old now, and so too his uncle Victarion, who commanded the Iron Fleet. His uncle Euron was a different song, to be sure, but the Silence did not seem to be in port. It's all for the good, Theon told himself. This way, I shall be able to strike all the more quickly. -Theon I, aCoK

the first we read of euron is in theon's first pov as he searched the harbor at lordsport for euron's ship. no reason is given for singling that ship out nor an initial reaction to its absence. later down the page euron is described as different from balon and victarion, with none of an older man's caution to be expected from him. that's why theon thought it for the best that euron's ship was not in port, though at this point it appears his only concern is being the boldest greyjoy around, commanding the fleet all the more quickly for its already being assembled, and not being outshone by euron. the only hint at more is his description of the ship as "terrible".

"You can marry off your sister," Esgred[Asha] observed, "but not your uncles." "My uncles . . ." Theon's claim took precedence over those of his father's three brothers, but the woman had touched on a sore point nonetheless. In the islands it was scarce unheard of for a strong, ambitious uncle to dispossess a weak nephew of his rights, and usually murder him in the bargain. But I am not weak, Theon told himself, and I mean to be stronger yet by the time my father dies. [...] [Asha-as-Esgred, to Theon:] "Euron Croweye has no lack of cunning, though. I've heard men say terrible things of that one." Theon shifted his seat. "My uncle Euron has not been seen in the islands for close on two years. He may be dead." If so, it might be for the best. Lord Balon's eldest brother had never given up the Old Way, even for a day. His Silence, with its black sails and dark red hull, was infamous in every port from Ibben to Asshai, it was said. -Theon II, aCoK

by theon's next chapter, when he and (unknown, to him) asha discuss their greyjoy uncles, theon has learned that euron hasn't been seen in the iron islands for two years. atp, rather than just noting that euron's not at home, theon has decided it's for the best if he's died somewhere and can never return. the word terrible is again used wrt euron and it's also said that his ship is infamous all over the world. euron is the only greyjoy never to have given up the old way in any sense, and the implied danger to theon is that he could also partake in the old tradition of a strong, ambitious uncle murdering his nephew. euron has thus been establishled as a villain, a threat, and possible kinslayer more specifically but we have yet to learn all the other, more unique aspects of his villainy. i think it likely that grrm, with his gardener-writing, had not yet decided that euron was an incestuous sexual predator. the risk of nepoticide is enough to explain theon's nervous shifting at the mention of euron's cunning and the terrible things said of him, but it could also apply to euron's full characterization only revealed years later in aeron's pov, one of those little half-open seeds gardener-grrm could decide to grow later.

[Robb Stark, to his assembled bannermen and his mother:] "Euron Greyjoy is no man's notion of a king, if half of what Theon said of him was true. Theon is the rightful heir, unless he's dead . . . but Victarion commands the Iron Fleet. I can't believe he would remain at Moat Cailin while Euron Crow's Eye holds the Seastone Chair. He has to go back." -Catelyn V, aSoS

our next clue about theon/euron is not from his own pov but in the book between his arcs when he's "offscreen". i'd say the fact that theon had confided to robb at all about euron is significant, let alone that he related enough things about euron for robb to rhetorically dismiss half of what theon told him and still feel confident of ironborn infighting with euron on the throne. (with theon's status unknown and asha absent from the isles too, euron would have a claim to that throne and a better one than victarion regardless as the eldest surviving greyjoy. vic is the dutiful younger brother who wouldn't normally make any power play, so for robb to know that euron's rule would be challenged by his younger brothers shows he does indeed have insider intel wrt euron.)

this accurate read from robb stands in pretty, ahem, stark contrast to everything theon must have told robb and himself about the likelihood of a robb/balon alliance. an impartial observer who knew (as theon did) that balon's first rebellion was about bringing back the old way more than just independance from the iron throne would have known those goals were not in line with the kitn's cause and that alliance was a no-go from the start. we see in the quoted portion of theon i above how he lied to himself about balon becoming a cautious old man and this being his time in the sun, yet it seems euron was the one family member he couldn't lie to himself about. not only did euron make such an impression on him that theon always remembered him very clearly but the effect was such that amid all his hostage time at wf fantasizing about his return home, he felt the need to tell robb the truth about this one scary relative by confiding in him with multiple stories. (though if euron had sexually abused theon, i can't imagine him ever explicitly revealing that to robb or anyone else.)

"My uncle[Victarion] is never coming back," Reek told them[the ironmen Victarion abandoned at Moat Cailin]. "The kingsmoot crowned his brother Euron, and the Crow's Eye has other wars to fight. You think my uncle values you? He doesn't. You are the ones he left behind to die. He scraped you off the same way he scrapes mud off his boots when he wades ashore." -Reek(/Theon) II, aDwD

this is euron's only name-drop in theon's dance pov, significant only in that it shows theon had recent news of his uncles, enough to know that euron dgaf about keeping balon's northern conquests and had instead drawn vic and the other captains far away. which brings me to ...

Crowfood. Theon remembered. An old man, huge and powerful, with a ruddy face and a shaggy white beard. He had been seated on a garron, clad in the pelt of a gigantic snow bear, its head his hood. Under it he wore a stained white leather eye patch that reminded Theon of his uncle Euron. He'd wanted to rip it off Umber's face, to make certain that underneath was only an empty socket, not a black eye shining with malice. Instead he had whimpered [...] -Theon I, tWoW

here, we have theon meeting a non-bolton northman he's known before, no different really from all the non-bolton northmen inside wf or any others he'd met growing up there, none of whom really seemed to scare him as his captors did, yet the mere sight of mors "crowfood" umber's eye patch is enough to freak theon the fuck out, wanting to rip off the eye patch for reassurance that crowfood was just a regular guy. this is the kind of terror we'd expect wrt ramsay, which would make sense in that regard, as ramsay had been his most immediate abuser, torturing theon in every sense for around a year almost right up until the moment of his escape, and ramsay's still right there in wf, so theon had good reason to still fear recapture by him. euron, though? that's an uncle he hadn't seen in over ten years, who theon knew to be far from wf as seen in the above dance quote, so he had no reason to expect to see him again in that part of westeros and one would think he had enough immediate problems not to worry about someone he hadn't seen in so long. you'd think his pre-ned, pre-ramsay childhood with all the greyjoys would feel a lifetime away with all he'd been through since, esp the reekening. but whatever impression euron left on him was still just as clear and fresh as ever, so that anyone with an eye patch could suddenly make him feel fear of an uncle hundreds of miles and a decade removed from him. from this moment i take away two things: 1) theon will survive stannis and have to meet uncle euron again bc otherwise i don't see the point of grrm throwing this in here and 2) it now feels a helluva lot more likely that theon was another csa victim of euron's bc i don't think this kind of sudden fear could be accounted for with just general scariness from euron. feels more like being triggered by a trauma flashback (just as aeron had as soon as he heard that euron had taken balon's throne), doesn't it? and after having been recently sexually abused by ramsay all that time it makes sense that he'd be even more sensitive to reminders of another abuser as soon as he'd finally escaped ramsay, moreso than when he was just nervously shifting as he and asha vaguely talked of euron's terribleness.

after all, theon/aeron are already linked in the feastdance as both are youngest greyjoy siblings who happen to also be victims of abuse who had buried their old selves in a new identity. aeron's old self even sounds a lot like pre-ramsay theon. theon remembered pre-born-again aeron as the "most amiable of his uncles, feckless and quick to laugh, fond of songs, ale, and women", and aeron described his younger self as "a sack of wine with legs. He would sing, he would dance [...] he would jape and jabber and make mock. He played the pipes, he juggled, he rode horses and could drink more than all the Wynches and the Botleys, and half the Harlaws too." doesn't that sound like the ever-smiling and joking unserious theon we first met, fond of wine and womanizing, once a good dancer, and better ahorse than most ironborn? the only part really missing for theon is aeron's ability to always win literal pissing contests. you'd think being sexually abused by two different evildoers (euron and ramsay) would be enough of a parallel, but this winds preview chapter certainly makes it seem like they also shared the specific experience of being abused by euron in childhood too. our poor youngest kraken really did never have a chance, did he?

shoutout to this post detailing the evidence of theon's sa by ramsay for inspiration. ik i'm not the first to suggest abuse by euron too, but thought it useful to make the case by laying out all the relevant quotes as evidence.

[chaosroid]

I've talked about this before in discord servers so I might as well share my thoughts here as well. I feel like the inclusion of polyamory in BG3 was handled sloppily. Let me preface this by saying I have no issue with poly in general. Really, it's the way it was executed in this game that confuses me. More specifically, it doesn't make sense to me how the poly companions (Shadowheart and Astarion) react to certain dialogue options you can pick and the inconsistencies in characterization that come with it.

If you suggest an open relationship with Shadowheart regarding another companion, she is completely against the idea and explicitly tells you she doesn't want to be your spare lover.

Yet, shortly into act 3, her entire stance changes when it comes to Halsin and she's suddenly cool with it. And before you say "Oh well, she knows Halsin isn't a serious romantic partner so she's not worried", that's the thing, he CAN be a serious romantic partner. And one of the things you can tell her is "He wants me, and I want him. I'm not sure there's space for you and I", ultimately treating Shadowheart like, well, essentially a spare lover, and she's not only fine with it, but encourages this. Does she just not know that your relationship with Halsin can be serious? Because otherwise it feels very ooc for her.

I feel like none of this would've been an issue if SH was just written from the start to be okay in a poly relationship with every companion, instead of this flip fop where she's not okay with it for two entire acts before suddenly being okay with it in act 3 but it's weirdly exclusive to only Halsin. It's that inconsistency that lowkey bothers me.

I have similar issues with Astarion, because some of his reactions to what you can say makes no sense either. Here you have a man who just started rediscovering his sexual boundaries, but when you tell him you want to hook up with Halsin, he'll ask if it's only because he's not putting out enough. You can prove his worry correct and apparently he's okay with this (the dev notes confirm it).

We're supposed to believe he's not hurt by what you said? 'Oh gee, I finally wanna be seen for more than a sex slave but I'm totally fine with my partner fucking someone else the second I refuse sexual intimacy because of my trauma!'. It's just so in bad taste.

You can say things that go completely against what Astarion and SH would want to hear, and they'll still be like "Yep, alright! Have fun with Halsin!". This game has some of the most mature representations of sexual trauma but will then simultaneously turn around and reduce these characters to fanservice, because the people need to have their cake and eat it too I guess.

And sure, you can make the argument that they only trust Halsin with this sort of thing. But the fact that Halsin and his romance only got added late into the game because of horny fans from EA leads me to believe that the far simpler answer is that it was just tacked on last minute without much thought given to whether or not it would actually make sense. Halsin and SH don't even like each other in act 2, she honestly has more chemistry with Karlach (a companion who can actually fantasize about threesomes in her origin btw) and was smitten with her as early as act 1. But I guess for all the folks who wanted a fully wlw poly relationship, that's just not possible because your only option is a man :)

Again, I have nothing against Astarion and SH being poly. It's their jarring responses to some of Tav's dialogue options, in which I genuinely don't believe they would be okay with hearing those things nor would they respond so flippantly.

tl;dr They would not fucking say that

[panicroomsammy]

Okay I think I’ve started to understand something about sex in Supernatural. The comments that Sam and Dean receive from people like Hendricksen’s comments about assuming their father sexually abused them are not just about sex but about class. Though instead of just being about class I would argue they are about Sam and Dean being coded as rural or as belonging to a peripheral space than solely about them being poor. Despite how many rural places may seem on the surface, sexual deviance is higher in those places than in more urban ones. This was demonstrated in the Kinsley study finding higher rates of homosexual activity in rural areas and in the (well known on tumblr at least) queer history of cowboys. This is because there is less enforcement of social rules in peripheral spaces and individuals can find a greater degree of freedom. This also applies to more harmful deviant sexual practices. Isolation also means that physically abusive sexual relationships and sexually abusive familial relationships are more likely to go undiscovered. The way that rural communities become close knit and refuse to see any flaws within themselves means that it’s easier to hide these relationships within the community. These sort of abusive relationships are associated with the rural poor in part because those social conditions do foster these things and in part through reinforcement when we see them in media. So when other characters make comments about assuming incest, sexual abuse, or homosexuality this is innately tied to the coding of Sam and Dean as rural and poor. The sexual microagressions are classist microagressions.

[lesbians4armand]

honestly very glad more people are starting to agree that the SA plotlines in iwtv that were added and were not in the books are weird, unnecessary and disrespectful.

Like having Claudia, an abuse victim, be assaulted just to show “she isn’t strong on her own” is pretty fucking weird actually, especially with her being physically a young black girl.

Not to mention her being based off of Anne Rice’s daughter Michele, who died young. It feels disrespectful to her memory in a lot of ways.

Then the added attempted SA of Madeleine in s2 episode 6. We already know she was ostracised and being attacked by other parisians for her actions during the war, we didn’t need another unnecessary attempted rape scene.

Finally, the comments from Santiago about what happened to Claudia’s ashes after the trial were completely not necessary and actually quite disgusting, the writers truly did not need to put Claudia through any more abuse and violation at this point. They seem way too trigger happy about adding SA and attempts where they never were in the source material, even for very little effect. I’m not a fan.

The only SA plot line that is necessary in my opinion is Armand’s backstory, as it is integral to how he became a vampire in the first place and entirely informs the way he acts. It’s in the original story, and his entire character would be different without it, so that is an understandable part of it.

Anything else? Not needed.

[kryaaas]

Harry is very aversive to touch!!!!!

There really only few instances we see Harry touch someone

Most of the time other people initiates physical contact with Harry. Kim often touches his shoulder to comfort him, in the end Jean walks him to the car (and in some endings Jean seems to almost forcefully shove Harry to his side, while harry hesitates). I think the one time Harry touches Kim is when you dont recruit him in the end (🥺...)

Another contact that Harry starts is when he hugs the working class woman and it cause some traumatic memories to resurface

There are certain moments where Harry physically hurts people (the Unsolvable Case, holding a woman in her apartment, punching cuno) but ultimately it seems like a common occurrence.

If writers wanted to convey some great violence from Harry could have easily been a mention of harry (during the bender) starting a fight with whirling customers or physically assaulting them and Sylvie or attacking his colleagues. But...there is almost none of it. There are tons of other bad things Harry have done, the game doesnt not shy away from it (him harassing civilians and threatening with a gun). But this harassment doesnt seem to actually fighting someone. If anything he seems more comfortable physically lashing out on inanimate objects (jean says he was things things, the skua thing, and the whole anti-object task force thought) rather than people

And of course there is a lot to say with Harry's attitude towards sex and the Half-light check during the conversation with Klassje:

Sex while sober is something scary and uncomfortable to the point Harry to the point he cant even umagine having sex without alcohol

And the high light suggests some sexual trauma (No, this cannot be interpreted as Harry being a perpetrator because it couldnt be more clear how "cant have sex while sober" is meant to be a direct parallel to Klassje and harry obviously puts himself in her shoes)

Guys, its okay, I promise you can portray pre-martinaise Harry or present Harry as an asshole without making him a rapist or overconfident flirt. You wont die from it. I believe in you. You can do it.

[vidavalor]

Hello lovely! I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about Maggie in Final1 5? Isn't it weird that she wants to go back to talk to Az and Crowley while Nina's working? Something about it feels off to me.

Hello right back. 💕 There's chamomile mint tea and shortbread since we're on a Maggie theme, if you'd like some. Maggie's behavior from that scene on is super fucking weird, I agree.

Before the milk run-- when Maggie becomes the only involved character whom we lose track of a bit during The Final 15-- versus how she behaves when she returns is so strange as to be something that I consider maybe additional proof that things are not at all what they seem to be in The Final 15.

On Maggie and Crowley's weird Final 15 behavior, a possible meaning to all the allusions to robbery in S2, and what Maggie and Nina might be able to tell us about what happened at the end of S2.

TW: brief mentions of show's non-consensual possession/rape analogy.

Think for a moment about how truly weird Maggie's request for her and Nina to go back to the bookshop in that moment actually is...

It's only been a matter of minutes since Maggie and Nina were basically hostages in the bookshop who were almost killed by Michael and Saraqael. Crowley saved their lives in getting them out of the shop maybe, what? It's been a minute since I rewatched that bit of it but it couldn't have been more than 15 minutes prior?

The beings in the shop but for Maggie and Nina are supernatural and so left magically without using the door but while we the audience know that these people are no longer in the shop because we were watching it, Maggie and Nina do not know that. When Maggie suggests to Nina that they go talk to Crowley and Aziraphale, they have no way of knowing if the beings that just tried to kill them are still in the shop. They didn't even see Aziraphale leave with Whoever Derek Jacobi Is Playing yet because Nina was all "where's the other one?" to Crowley when they arrived back in the shop.

Maggie is literally like: Nina, I know you opened the business you own late and are the only one working right now and have a line of 20 people waiting for their morning, pre-work coffee but what if-- just hear me out-- we just made them wait an indefinite amount of time to voluntarily go back into the place where we nearly died a matter of minutes ago that could still be full of the people who wanted us dead and we did this for no other purpose than just to tell off my beloved adopted godfather and his partner, who just risked harm to save both our lives? And to maybe then also stick our noses into their love lives in return or something?

I mean... WHAT?!?! lol

Consider, even, how even more weird that is when Maggie, just *prior* to having gone to the mini-mart, had never been more on the same page with Nina and never more understanding?

She sacrificed her own want to go sleep behind the counter of her shop to offer to help Nina. It's a big moment of change in their relationship and shows a lot of growth for Maggie. She's gone from someone who is caring but has a tendency to only think about how things make her feel to seeing things from Nina's perspective. She's matured through the season into being someone more ready to be a partner to Nina. Maggie offering to help Nina with her morning rush-- and Nina accepting the help-- is the sweet, romantic moment showing that these two are heading in a positive direction, both individually and together.

When Maggie gets back with the milk, though? After she's been out of our sight for a few minutes? She's behaving very differently.

During S2, Maggie is shown to be a pretty guileless character. She might have the occasional judgemental moment but she's not deceptive or tricky and she really wouldn't hurt a fly. When Maggie comes back from the milk run, though, her insistence on Nina dropping everything and going with her in that moment is not just weird behavior but manipulative in a way that could not be more out of character for Maggie.

Nina has been in an abusive relationship where she was afraid of displeasing Lindsay. Maggie is aware of this, as it's been the subject of multiple conversations between them throughout the season. So, when Maggie gets so bizarrely insistent on Nina dropping her work-- her livelihood, her purpose, her job-- to meet Maggie's demands in that moment? When this isn't an emergency of any kind and isn't at all time-sensitive and there is no objective reason why Nina should be halting her job to do what Maggie wants in this moment? Maggie is being controlling in a Lindsay-like way. She keeps at it, knowing that Nina will give in and agree to go with her because Nina is used to doing that with her partner.

Nina hesitates and isn't sure whether or not to go with Maggie for a moment and I don't really blame her? This is the complete opposite behavior to Maggie before she left for the mini-mart. Maggie is suddenly acting quite a lot like her polar opposite-- the Lucifer-and-Heaven-paralleling Lindsay.

Maggie is also literally on Nina's shoulder like a devil the whole time in the scene in which she's convincing her to step away from the shop and go across the street with her to the other shop for a chat and...

...listen to what we just said there...

...it's a parallel to the thing that Whoever Derek Jacobi Is Playing is doing with Aziraphale, is it not?

So, what happened on the milk run?

Who did Maggie run into at the mini-mart that we couldn't see in the ending of S2 without it giving the game away? I wouldn't be surprised if, on this mirror-happy show, on the other side of learning in S3 that it was The Devil with the coffee in the bookshop in The Final 15, we also had a scene that showed that, while on her milk run, Maggie had a run-in with Sister Teresa's killer.

Did Hastur possess Maggie as part of Satan's plan? Was the idea to use Maggie and Nina to further trip Crowley and Aziraphale towards disaster to get Aziraphale? If so, it kind of half-worked. I'm not convinced that anything Maggie and Nina said to Crowley really mattered-- I think they weren't telling him anything he didn't already know or feel and that it's largely misdirection for the audience. What was effective, though, was the impression Aziraphale got upon seeing them leave as he was coming in.

Maggie and Nina being back in there at this weird time and then rushing out with smiles and comments like that they were "just leaving" and they were sure Crowley and Aziraphale had "a lot to discuss" seem to have led Aziraphale to assume that Crowley had asked them to come back and to the conclusion that he must have done so to tell them of his intent to ask Aziraphale to marry him. It's Maggie and Nina leaving the shop that reinforce to Aziraphale the idea that, when Crowley stands up afterwards, takes off his glasses, and says he supposes he has "something to say", that Crowley is only trying to communicate a proposal and not a plan.

It's what helps-- big time-- to lead Aziraphale to not listen for a shred of coded language for the entire scene. Neither he nor Crowley are listening for that with one another, which is why neither of them can truly understand what the other is saying, but Aziraphale's part of that is really fucked to Hell by the presence of Maggie and Nina in the shop when he came back. That's all pretty suspicious since Maggie was out of our sight for a few moments and came back fixated on the idea that she and Nina needed to go to the bookshop right that very moment and that it couldn't wait.

The Final 15 is a dark parallel to The Baby Swap plot and Maggie and Nina are full of shadows of Sisters Mary and Teresa to a point that the final shots of both of them in the series are mirror images of the final shots of their S1 characters. Nina looking through glass at Crowley departing is the last shot of Sister Mary both in 2008 and 2019, while Maggie's last shot?

To me, it's one of the most eerie moments in the entire series because of how much it visually resembles Sister Teresa's death.

Basically two minutes after we hear about The Second Coming... in the same season where Maggie and Nina's partial-vavoom gives way to a (possessed?) Gabriel saying: the dead will leave their graves and walk the Earth once more... we are shown Crowley and Aziraphale's apparent adopted goddaughter unresponsive on the counter of her shop.

Is Maggie dead?

Is Maggie asleep, like we were led to believe she wanted to do earlier in the episode? Maybe. Is she comatose/unconscious? Maybe. It's just that, best I can tell, she does not take a breath during the shot which I feel had to be intentional on the part of Maggie Service, and she's in the same position as we last saw Sister Teresa in S1...

Then, there's the robbery theme and how Maggie and Nina foreshadow so much of the end of S2 back in this scene here:

In Good Omens, the shop is the character. Maggie is, symbolically, the records she sells. The show also explains that Maggie's shop used to be a part of the bookshop. Now, there are three characters, not two, who are A.Z. Fell & Co.: Aziraphale, Crowley and Maggie. At the same time, Aziraphale is also The Small Back Room. The shops are intertwined as the characters are, essentially, family in the story. The fate of one is the fate of the other, which makes what Maggie and Nina foreshadow when talking about Maggie's shop while trapped together in Nina's not just the fate of Maggie's shop in S2 but also of the bookshop.

Maggie says that if she can't close the door to her shop, someone could walk in and take records. Maggie is the records she sells so, symbolically, this means someone could take Maggie. We got a bit of a preview of that when Shax appeared to get into her mind during the attack on the bookshop and Maggie also became the one who unintentionally "let the robbers in."

These robbers, Maggie frets... they could empty her till-- take all her money on a literal level... take her mind, or maybe even her life, on another. (Not to mention the now chill-inducing use of money-related words and coins with regards to the paralleling Crowley...) These robbers could take forcible ownership of Maggie's shop-- so, of Maggie. Maggie's shop was born of the bookshop... so, they could take forcible ownership of the bookshop, too.

Not just the physical bookshop, though that, too. The symbolic bookshop. Which is not only Aziraphale but Crowley and Aziraphale.

But, if The Small Back Room was originally part of the bookshop, then the bookshop really isn't just Crowley and Aziraphale-- it's Crowley, Aziraphale and Maggie.

If the robbers come for the bookshop, they've also come for The Small Back Room because it is all born of the same, symbolic shop.

Is that what they did?

Is that why Maggie is last shown to us non-responsive in her shop?

Now, Nina's even more foreshadowing reply:

Nina said that, if she owned a record shop, she'd be more concerned about "someone breaking in and leaving more records behind."

What are records? They're the literal records in the musical and old film sense that Maggie sells, yes, and also Maggie herself. They're also books, like what Aziraphale sells, and Aziraphale himself. But they're also a third thing that's very much of note in S2.

They're also the life's work of a scrivener, like what Muriel does.

Nina foreshadows someone breaking in and leaving "more records behind"... which is exactly what happens in The Final 15.

Elspeth's graverobbing. Bildad stealing Job and Sitis' wine and food. The 1810 Clerkenwell Diamond Robbery. Aziraphale having the missing Shakespeare Robin Hood play in the box in 2.06. The robbery-based fantasy Aziraphale was telling Crowley in Lockdown: ...the other night, when a couple of young lads broke into the back and tried to steal the cash(cache)box!

The Final 15 is a robbery.

The last two episodes see the shop attacked during The Meeting Ball and into the next morning. Aziraphale is robbed blind of his entire life. Characters are taken hostage. Signals for help are tried and fail. The cop, it turns out, was a stooge for the robbers. Whoever Derek Jacobi Is Playing broke in through the open door and robbed the place blind, as Maggie foreshadowed. As Nina foreshadowed he would, what did the robber leave behind?

More records. Muriel.

To rob, as we know, is to steal. It's to plunder or strip a place from someone through force and/or violence. That is why it was once, in addition to being descriptive of physical goods stolen from a person, also a word that was used for rape, for which non-consensual possession has been analogous since the show's first episode. That is why some of us think that the music goes insane on the look to Crowley in the scene below. Satan is robbing Crowley-- forcing him to identify him as The Metatron to Aziraphale and the angels and to let Aziraphale go alone with him.

Satan attacked Crowley in front of Aziraphale and, while Aziraphale pretended he didn't see it, he did, which is why he led "The Metatron" straight out the door in an effort to get him away from Crowley. Because, speaking of characters behaving very weirdly... anyone have a better explanation for why guard dog Crowley sat in that chair like he couldn't get out of it and encouraged Aziraphale to go alone with a guy who once tried to kill them? It just doesn't make any sense unless his words are not really his own and there's only one character we've seen do that to him.

And if Crowley's not the only one behaving out of character, then what else happened to Maggie at the mini-mart but something similar?

What happened in The Final 15? Satan robbed the bookshop.

He and The Metatron don't give a toss about the shop itself and plan to destroy it alongside everything else once Armageddon gets rocking. They're there to get Crowley and Aziraphale out of the way for Armageddon by dividing and conquering. Just because we've yet to see blood doesn't mean this wasn't robbery by force.

Satan took hostages at the start-- letting the ones go he didn't care about go and keeping the ones most likely to influence the shop's owner: Crowley and Muriel.

Satan and The Metatron sacrificed Muriel to their plan, not caring if Muriel explodes along with the shop when they kick off Armageddon a matter of *checks watch* basically any minute now after S2. We think Muriel is better off in the shop at the end of S2 but I'm not totally sure they are. I think it actually might be one of the most dangerous places to be in right now. The bookshop didn't burn down this time-- it was burned as safe space in every possible way. It's a crime scene.

The Metatron and Satan are here for revenge. The Metatron is letting Satan have Aziraphale to get Crowley and Aziraphale out of the way for Armageddon. There is no real job offer-- it's all Satan tempting Aziraphale into falling. Satan's revenge on Crowley and Aziraphale is to force Crowley to help him take Aziraphale right out from under his nose. That's the start of it, anyway.

Besides Armageddon and daring to have a relationship and a sense of self outside of the demonic collective of Hell what is Satan really pissed at Crowley and Aziraphale about?

His kid. Adam. Crowley and Aziraphale helping Adam against him.

If Satan has been lying in wait, still very, very angry at Crowley and Aziraphale for turning his son against him and if he's now here for revenge, then who else besides Aziraphale is then most in peril here?

Yes, my Job-and-Sitis-paralleling poppet... your big, cross duck and your kids are most imperiled here and S2 showed us that your kids are not just humanity writ large but, specifically, Maggie. The Small Back Room is of the bookshop that is you and Crowley. Maggie is your Adam. Will Satan come after your daughter? It's a concept posed in your paralleling/foreshadowing story earlier in the season... actually, it was also the entire plot of that paralleling story earlier in the season as well...

I feel like not going with Ennon and Keziah's theories on Satan's behavior is probably the best way to form a Good Omens theory 😂 so I'll stick with the idea that Satan very much would dare leave a revenge body count of Crowley and Aziraphale's adopted kids, as the Job minisode proved he'd do even with the spawn of "God's favorite human", let alone anybody else.

As, speaking of foreshadowing lines, this is really even more S2 than it was about S1:

Satan will even have a whole pseudo-philosophical chat about it with you first, amused that he's standing in a place called Give Me Coffee or Give Me Death and ordering a coffee while the plan is likely for this place, the women making him the coffee, and everyone on this street and on most of the planet to be dead by tomorrow.

Maggie is the only character who actually asked for coffee using that exact word in S2.

[aspiringsophrosyne]

Not every criticism of TLOVM is due to its un/faithfulness to the original stream.

Take the following scenes from the latest season, for example. Neither hails from the source material, but the contrast between them is illuminating.

(Spoilers for episodes 3x02 and 3x10 below the cut.)

Prisoners of Ank'Harel

At the climax of S3x02, J’mon accuses Vox Machina of a crime they didn’t commit; to spare the rest, Percy takes the blame, and the Emperex readies a sentence.

But J’mon doesn’t name the sentence. They only call it a transformation, and lift a headpiece over Percy. This puts it in the same frame as J’mon’s mindless guards, revealing they bear an identical design.

Based on previous episodes, I expected J'mon to explain:

“This circlet will make you as they are, prisoners and criminals I put into service to…”

You get the idea.

But there’s no further explanation. Or exposition. Instead, the show leaves visual cues so the viewers can clock Percy’s imminent fate.

(In the same vein, I appreciate they didn't outright tell us J’mon is a dragon. Raishan uses a humanoid disguise, then Vex’s dragon sense tingles in the Emperex’s presence....We can figure out what J’mon’s deal is from that.)

To The Ends of The Earth.

Compare this to the earth trial chamber scene in S3x10, ‘‘To the Ends of the Earth.’’ The Ashari council states the trial could kill Keyleth, and the chamber is a gallery of anguished-faced statues. Like with Percy’s sentence, they could’ve left it at that, especially since Keyleth will fight against turning to stone once the ritual begins.

Despite all that, Keyleth comments on the statues and prompts her teacher to explain them. In doing so, the show turns to the camera and says:

“So you get it, right? Do I need to say it again? Should I talk slower?”

This is an unnecessary exposition. At its best, it wastes time or breaks the audience’s immersion; at worst, it does both. Season one took pains to clarify that this show is for adults. “Adult” doesn’t just mean swearing, gore, and nudity; adult can also mean assuming your audience can pick up what you're putting down.

Again, neither scene is from the stream. And the first handles its exposition well, in an understated fashion. It gives us enough information to understand what’s happening without being told. But the second scene is excessive. It gives us multiple indirect hints that are good enough to get the point across, but then tells us straight out, regardless.

The second scene is an easy fix if you remove a few lines. What it lacks isn’t faithfulness but subtlety. If this show can cultivate that more often, it has the potential to be great on its own terms.

[kafkaesquedyke]

I’m a little confused by some posts I’ve seen about armand breaking down the door in the book, because they frame armand as either ‘lol he’s so random’ or ‘that proves he’s abusive too’ when everything that happened before explains armand’s actions

break down with tva book quotes under the cut TW: discussions of csa

the initial event that triggers everything is Marius sending Armand to a brothel to have sex with other boys (which was preceded by Marius sexually abusing Armand for a couple of years atp (all of the following takes place while Armand is 17), including already having sent armand to another brothel to have sex with women)

this basically differs from his previous sexual encounters in that he 1) has sex with other guys, 2) they’re most likely around his age, and 3) he enjoys it (I consider basically every sexual encounter Armand has in tva non-consensual but this, and the following encounters, are the closest to “potentially consensual” within a fictional narrative, that this book has to offer and the closest we get to Armand’s real sexual preferences)

following that Marius grows incredibly cold towards Armand, which he clocks as him being jealous (Armand knows Marius is a supernatural being and that he can read his thoughts) though Marius is also potentially stressed because of his duties towards Akasha and Enkil

So, Armand leaves and has sex with Lord Harlech, some noble man he just met (again, I don’t consider this consensual, but mostly because of the age gap)

(not included in the screenshots, but they switch and Armand tops and doms Harlech and deliberately makes a point about enjoying it, which contrasts his relationship with Marius where he is not allowed to reciprocate intimacy (mostly due to Marius’s vampire nature) also Harlech behaving like a lunatic after lol)

then he goes to Bianca (a close friend throughout the novel) and they have sex as well

she calls him out on his relationship with Marius, as well as that he was hiding from him

once Armand returns, drunk after stirring over Marius’ treatment of him in a tavern, Marius is madly painting with vamp speed disturbing the other boys

he’s also painting Armand, further implying that his rage is about Armand sleeping with others, again, something Marius ordered him to do!

Marius ends up flinging paint in his rage, after Armand enters (presumably reading his thoughts?) and orders everyone out of the room

Marius does not respond to Armand’s pleas to once again talk with him, so they can resolve the situation. Armand begs him to simply admit that he’s angry with him and Marius continues to ignore him and then flees

he locks himself in his bedroom (which Armand shared with him so far) then he tells Armand to go sleep with the other boys in a way that implies an end to their relationship. tbc, at this point armand ties all his self worth back to Marius and how much he is desired by him, specifically because Marius is the only person who ever “cherished” him

so Marius rejecting him like that signals to Armand that he is no longer special to him and has therefore lost his unique worth, which Armand has built his entire self worth on (by Marius’s design)

so Marius acting jealous over Armand having sex with others (partially under Marius’s orders), Armand questioning him, not getting a response, leaving to further explore his sexual options, which makes Marius even more jealous, while the entire time refusing to talk about it, despite Armand begging him to, and then rejecting Armand completely is what ultimately leads to Armand breaking the door down. Marius was a 100% more immature here than Armand despite being a thousand-year-old beefing with a teenager (who he’s abusing)

[deaddee-anime-brownfanlady]

When watching playthroughs of Mouthwashing, I honestly don't understand how some players can completely missed the major detail that Anya was raped by Jimmy.

Personally, I felt it was pretty obvious that Jimmy clearly did *something* awful to her given her constant showcasing of how uncomfortable and anxious and also how skittish she is around him.

The fact that Jimmy has shown signs of him constantly disrespecting, invaliding, and belittling, and being just condescendedly terrible towards her,

Also, he made a messed-up inappropriate sexual comment towards only her about being sexual aroused by cartoon horses during the psychological evaluation flashback. ( which just gives major creep / sexual harassment vibes).

But what really sells the fact of what happened to Anya and why she is behaving the way she is and how vlie Jimmy truly is. Is the flashback of her and Curly in the lounge room talking about the screen projector and Anya mentioning why Pony express sleeping quarters don't have locks on them....but the medical-bay and cockpit does.

That line of dialogue right there, I picked instantly that it was clear as day that Jimmy sexual abused her, most likely in her room while everyone else was asleep and when she was at her most vulnerable, likely in the middle of sleep too as well and Jimmy take advantage of that.

I don't get how some Let's Players / people not picked up on such a vital part of the game story also narrative. It's one of the main reasons why Jimmy does what he does in the game just so he can avoid taking accountability to what he did to Anya and not face the consequences of his horrid act against the only female crewmember.

To see some players or certain essays act like Anya pregnancy was fully consensual or even going as far as to make it seem like Anya and Jimmy were romantically involved with each other, LIKE SERIOUSLY!?

Man, I swear some people really don't understand subtext or subtlety in media anymore at times or can't seem to read in between the lines when it comes to certain details in a story.

I mean, it's like so apparent that Anya didn't feel safe or comfortable around Jimmy, and that what Jimmy did to her wasn't 100th percent consensual by the narrative of the game at all.

[flowersintheimpala69]

Spn writers: hey. Hey what if. What if we raped sam. Again. Metaphorically AND literally. What if. We rlly want to. Can we? Pls? Can we?

Robert Singer: you guys have been so well behaved this week I’ll let you rape him twice as a special treat <3

Sam (held together with staples and twine. If you shake him he makes that sound of a tin can with a few coins in it): can we please maybe not