#signs of backsliding

[bvthomas]

Signs of a Derailed or Backslidden Christian: Recognizing the Signs of Straying from God's Grace

A Christian can indeed fail to live in the fullness of God’s grace, and there are several signs described in Scripture that indicate a person may be in a backslidden or derailed state. While someone may still identify as a believer, their life may not align with the way God intends for His followers to live. The Bible warns that it is possible to stray from God’s path, even while still outwardly…

[isa-ah]

frustrated bc ive been working really hard on my health and one of the marks of improvement is that i used to get stars in my vision on the regular, and a bunch of them at that, but over the last year or so ive been moving a lot more and eating a lot better so they were completely gone for a while.. but lately they keep cropping back up... just 1 or 2 and only for a second but its a couple times a day again and im so frustrated rahhh

[rogue-ai-cat]

SIGNS

Note: Josh Dun and Debby Ryan have a cat called Velma. This is the first reference to Velma in a video, hence the random family photo.

[hype-old-posts]

okay so maybe, maybe, my backslide animation is a bit too edgy to be posted on my main art acc (aka insta), so imma post it here and possibly on tiktok only

[deancasforcutie]

#Cass you're a gem for this update #I was not in THIS fandom where the mincing of words #in order to try not to piss off a specific segment of hyper-reactive fans was needed #but I have been in OTHER fandoms where that was needed and know exactly how it feels #and I have absolutely been here long enough and read enough old old fandom posts from the heyday both here and on LJ #to have a pretty good idea of what kind of wanky nonsense was going on once upon a time #it's glorious to see people stop giving a fuck about catering to the bronly and anti-destiel crowd (via @ilarual)

I'm really confused about something and was hoping you would explain it to me. I see people loving that Dean's siren was a man and people say that's proof Dean wants to be with a man. Now I am Team Bisexual!Dean all day but the siren himself said that what Dean wanted "wasn't some bitch in a g-string, it was you. A little brother who looks up to him. Someone he can trust." These are the actual words he uses. I don't understand why people say that means Dean wants a man. Pray explain?

Ahh, nonny! Thanks for asking :)

When it comes to evidence of Dean’s bisexuality, his siren being a man is not—in my opinion—the most convincing of arguments. This is mainly because the true nature of sirens in the Supernatural universe a little muddy.If they do shift between wanting different kinds of love, as the dialogue implies, then it doesn’t serve to prove anything about Dean’s sexuality. If, on the other hand, they are only interested in eros, as the action implies, then it’s another story altogether.

Regardless of which is accurate, I do still think it counts for something when added to the overwhelming number of hints throughout the seasons, but used as a sole piece of evidence I don’t think it’s enough.

That said, there are three main reasons that I can see why someone would consider the siren’s male form as “proof” that Dean is interested in men.

Narrative structure In the context of season four, Dean and Nick were a clear mirror for Sam and Ruby. The episode in question (Sex and Violence, 4.14) comes at a point in the overall narrative where Sam is being manipulated by Ruby.Throughout season four, Sam ingests Ruby’s blood, and the connection he forms with her through this act results in a sexual relationship which she uses to manipulate him further. In Sex and Violence, Dean ingests Nick’s venom, and the connection he forms with him through this act results in a relationship which Nick uses to manipulate him further. The only thing that appears different on the surface level is that Sam and Ruby’s relationship was explicitly sexual/romantic, while Dean and Nick’s was implicitly sexual/romantic.

In-show mythology / Dean’s horrible upbringingAccording to the mythology we learn at the beginning of the episode, sirens are beings who crave love—specifically, eros.We are told that the siren learned what it’s victims desired most in a lover, and then embodied those traits in order to manipulate and control them, using it’s venom as the catalyst.The information Sam and Dean got from Bobby about Sirens resulted in this conversation:

DEANSo whatever floats the guy’s boat, that’s what they look like?SAMYeah. You see, sirens can read minds. They see what you want most and then they can kinda, like, cloak themselves. You know, like an illusion.

We learn that the siren seduced it’s first three victims by appearing to them in the form of their perfect romantic partner, and after they had fallen in love with the illusion, it convinced them to murder their wives. The fourth victim was different only in that he was unmarried and instead murdered his mother.In each case, the siren appealed to it’s victims by appearing in the form of someone who they not only lusted after, but fell in love with. This was it’s MO. It wanted, as it said later in the episode, to “fall in love again and again and again.” So, going by all the information up until the last few moments of the episode, the kind of love it craved was eros—not philia, not storge, not agape, but eros. Romantic love.All the in-show mythology researched by Bobby and the brothers, and what we saw in the Siren’s seduction of it’s other victims tells us this. The only time it switches to a familial, platonic form of love is in dialogue with Dean. Despite this, the siren’s actions, as actor Jim Parrack mentioned in this interview about playing the character, still created “some kind of sexual tension” with Dean. Why did the siren’s dialogue differ from it’s actions? Because Dean is damaged. Horribly so. From a young age Dean was taught that the only attachments he should have are to those he can trust, and the only people he can trust are his family. Their life on the road forced this to an extreme, and for at least the first 24 years of his life Dean only knew familial love.The only time he allowed himself to entertain the notion of another kind of love ended horribly—at around age 24 when he told Cassie Robinson about the true nature of the things that go bump in the night. This only reinforced the idea that he could not trust anyone who wasn’t family. So, at this point in the show, the only person Dean had ever trusted and who had also respected him was his brother. The siren told Dean he would replace his brother because it knew that it was the only way to gain Dean’s trust, and without trust and mutual respect you cannot have love.

Dean’s interaction with NickThe final reason is all to do with body language. Their interaction at the strip club is more than a little flirtatious.Complete with the heart eyes—more commonly seen when Dean is staring at Cas or Lisa or Dr. Sexy—that are very much aimed at the dude-shaped siren.Then there’s the fact that this scene happened before Dean came into contact with the siren’s venom. Those were legit heart eyes. That was legit flirting. The siren saw Dean. The siren knew that what Dean desired was a clean-cut, blue-eyed man in a position of power with an interest in cars, who would show him respect and share a few drinks with him, and it became that guy so that Dean would let it get it’s gross venomy saliva all up in his mouth. No but seriously, if Dean hadn’t conveniently offered the siren his flask (which was pretty damn intimate considering he barely knew the guy) I can’t help but wonder what else the siren had been planning to do to get him good and poisoned. Call me crazy but I’m guessing it involved a touch of the ol’ tonsil hockey.

[screencaps taken from homeofthenutty]

[f1ghtsoftly]

All The Women’s News You Missed This Week

3/10/25-3/17/25

Furious protests erupt in Bangladesh after an 8-year-old girl succumbs to injuries she sustained after being brutally raped. Indian health workers strike for better working conditions. The Queen sends a letter of support to Giselle Pelicot. The Supreme Court will take up conversion therapy bans in a Colorado case and in Kentucky state lawmakers have voted to protect the practice. Ukranian women’s organizations struggle without US funding.

In a piece of good news, Fatou Baldeh, a campaigner against the practice of FGM, has been named Time’s Woman Of The Year.

Want this in your inbox instead? Subscribe here

Opinion and Investigative:

As the US backslides, can China claim moral high ground on women’s rights?

Why US abortion restrictions matter beyond borders

Serbia’s Femicide Record Undermines Claims of Progress on Women’s Rights

The GOP’s Next Target? No-Fault Divorce and Women’s Right to Leave

Lorraine Kelly: Diversity push is leaving working-class people behind

Women, girls bear brunt of cyberbullying against persons with disabilities

“IT’S ALL IN YOUR HEAD”: ENDOMETRIOSIS PATIENTS AND THE PROMISE OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

LGBT:

Supreme Court will take up state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children, in a Colorado case

Angry response to how transgender lawmaker Sarah McBride introduced

A new anti-LGBTQ+ bill in Hungary would ban Pride event and allow use of facial recognition software

North Dakota Senate rejects resolution asking US Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage ruling

Kentucky GOP lawmakers vote to protect conversion therapy

Women’s Rights:

Iran: Authorities target women’s rights activists with arbitrary arrest, flogging and death penalty

Louisiana woman pleads not guilty to a felony in historic abortion case

Risks of state abortion reporting mandates outweigh the benefits, an advocacy group says

Iran using drones and apps to enforce women's dress code

Kentucky lawmakers add specific medical exceptions to the state’s near-total abortion ban

Driving ban puts brakes on young women in Turkmenistan

Ukrainian women’s rights organisations struggle as US aid suspended

Male Violence:

Search for US student in Dominican Republic intensifies

Things to know about the former megachurch pastor charged with child sexual abuse

Airman charged in killing of Native American woman who went missing 7 months ago in South Dakota

UN experts accuse Israel of sexual violence and 'genocidal acts' in Gaza

'He strangled me without asking' - experts say choking during sex now normal for many

Sean 'Diddy' Combs pleads not guilty to updated indictment

Disabled author swamped by hate speech after social media post on feminism

Women Fight Back:

Haitian women commemorate International Women’s Day spotlighting broken justice system

How Iran's 'Woman, Life, Freedom' Protests Live On Today

FGM campaigner honoured with Time magazine title

Teacher ordered to remove signs from classroom, including one saying 'Everyone is welcome here'

Mother of woman who died after Georgia’s six-week abortion ban calls for law’s repeal

Women Radio amplifies African feminist voices

Texas midwife accused by state’s attorney general of providing illegal abortions

BBC presenters settle sex and age discrimination dispute

Queen sent letter of support to Gisèle Pelicot

Yasmeen Lari rejects Israel's Wolf Prize over "continuing genocide in Gaza"

Fierce protests as eight-year-old rape victim dies in Bangladesh

India's frontline health workers fight for better pay and recognition

US arrests second pro-Palestinian Columbia University protester

Women in the News:

Democrat Rebecca Cooke to again challenge US Rep. Derrick Van Orden

Brown Medicine professor and doctor deported to Lebanon despite having valid visa, court filings claim

Woman arrested in US for allegedly holding stepson captive for 20 years

WATCH: Woman trapped in car films as tornado hits Central Florida

'For holding a wombat, thousands threatened my life'

Judge says Fani Willis violated open records law, orders her to pay $54K in attorneys’ fees

Feel Good Stories and Feminist History:

The forgotten story of the woman who invented the dishwasher

The Mexican women who defied drug-dealers, fly-tippers and chauvinists to build a thriving business

Early members of Philly’s roller derby league face off in a match circa 2005-2006. Jeff Fusco/The Conversation U.S., CC BY-ND Philly Roller Derby league turns 20 - here’s how the sport skated its way to feminism, anti-racism and queer liberation

'We couldn't get jobs in sexist garages - so we set up our own'

5 Major Historical Movements Led By Women In Rajasthan

Arts and Culture:

‘Just be radical’: the feminist artist giving Matisse a modern punk twist

The film exploring loneliness of migrant workers

'Santosh' review: Feminist police drama confronts harsh truths

Shabana Azmi On Feminism And Her Powerful Role In ‘Dabba Cartel’

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: I want my books to be read in Africa

Cannes award-winning actress Dequenne dies at 43

Legendary Russian composer Gubaidulina dies in Germany

Book Review: Patrycja Humienik’s powerful debut poetry collection is a conundrum worth mulling over

13 Nonfiction Books to Read This Women’s History Month

As always, this is global and domestic news from a US perspective, covering feminist issues and women in the news more generally. As of right now, I do not cover Women’s Sports. Published each Monday.

[nellasbookplanet]

What with cr3 ending and me having semi-recently read dungeon meshi and currently replaying mass effect, I find myself pondering characters coming back from the dead and the nature of (happy) endings.

The thing is, I generally prefer a happy ending, and I don’t really agree with takes that they're boring. I do, however, want my happy endings to feel earned, and not in a 'the characters went through a lot of hardships and deserve it' way but in a 'this is narratively satisfying' kind of way. Dungeon meshi (which I'm about to massively spoil) ends in an incredibly happy way, with virtually no one dying, and a huge cast of characters coming together to resurrect the lead's dead loved one. However, the plot throughout also massively focuses on the inevitability of death and of how to handle mourning and moving on. It features a character who, like Keyleth, has a very long lifespan and is desperately seeking a way to save herself the suffering of seeing loved ones die, even as they repeatedly tell her they don’t want the 'solutions' she’s offering. In the end, she does come to terms with things, and before attempting the resurrection admits she’s no longer as scared of the possibility of it failing or losing people in general because now she knows how to move on and find new happiness. When the resurrections succeeds, it doesn’t feel like a cop out or her backsliding in her growth, but rather as immensly satisfying. The nature of the happy ending is also overall tempered by very real consequences from the adventure that will never go away, rather than everything being saccharine.

In mass effect (which I'm also about to massively spoil), the player character comes back from having spent 2 years dead in the second game, and has the chance to try to rekindle a romance from the first game (assuming you romanced that particular character to begin with). Except, she doesn’t take you back. She has spent 2 years mourning and building herself up as a new person, and she’s terrified of losing you again to a looming galactic war and having to do it all over again. She can’t just pick up where you left off. Of course, you can still convince her with the right choices, but it’s made clear it isn't easy, and she does have to come to terms with that it’s not only possible but likely that she’ll lose you again (and indeed, by the end of the trilogy she does). You know by the end of it that she has grown.

I'm not opposed to Vax coming back, especially not with the overhanging consequences both of him and Keyleth having inherently changed as people and therefore having to build something new rather than pick up where they left off, and of him still being beholden to his duty as a champion first. Having a character cursed to outlive everyone she loves find a partner who's kind of undead and won’t die is kind of neat actually. The problem is, Keyleth shows little sign that she has learned the lesson so beautifully portrayed in dungeon meshi and mass effect. She still can’t move on from losing a loved one, still can’t accept both the inevitability of loss and how she, as an incredibly long lived person, will have to experience it over and over again. She explicitly asks Vax if he would come back to her if the Raven Queen died/was killed, all but implying she’d support this end if he said yes (he didn’t). At no point does she accept that he is truly dead. And while I'm happy she has Vax back, I'm also saddened it didn’t happen in a way that conveyed true growth of character.

[fivelasanctum]

Let The World Burn

Five was willing to let the world burn for more prolonged time with Lila. Showed how deeply he was in love with her. Hiding away from the world to be with her and nobody else. That she was enough. Around season three's climax he was already becoming settled in the mindset to let go of trying to save the world. The chaotic struggle is an addiction. Yet after 6 years of going without his chaotic fix with the added temptation to spend time with his best friend (Kemosabe)...he did easily agree. Believe Lila represented temptation to fall back into his 'chaos junkie' issue yet also serving as the temptation of caring about her. Making him backslide with his control and burying his feelings. Even with the aim to save the world, solve the cleanse issue, once lost in the subway his love overpowers that need to fix everyone's problems, including time and the world. Being just a man and embracing the romantic he has always been. Just secretly concealed outside of his time with Dolores. Realizing both he and Lila could afford to be selfish given their situation.

Here Five is hopeful he won't be pulled into another apocalyptic event he would have to struggle to remedy. Even though Lila made the choice to return to her kids (Not exactly Diego) I think their was that hope that they could still be together in reality and not just in their space outside of time. Without the overbearing weight of the cleanse. His family doing something without him for a change.

We know how that turns out. Messy misunderstandings, stress from the chaos of the personal and cosmic issues transpiring. Thinking Lila made her choice made retreat to the subway. Not caring about the world. Saving his family because Lila had become his world. Song's lyrics put it best: "Dead to the world"

Anti Fivela fans had made the argument over how he wasn't in character. He was determined to save the world and his family for 40 years and how this five would never do what he has done in Season 4. I vehemently disagree. As Viktor said, he was old and tired. His rough, long life has beaten him down to the point of him being more numb and aimless at the start of season 4. He wanted retirement desperately even before that. Add to that, in 7 years his love for lila was enough to overpower his previous responsibilities. Technically known her for close to 13 years. Shows the intensity of his feelings for her despite it not be 40 + years to be what's most important to him. More than the world. When his heart was broken he retreated to the subway. Knowing what he was signing up for. Solitude in apocalypse worlds. Just like how he started. Where he formed his psychological scars and ptsd. Only worse since Five seems to feel deeper than other characters despite the walls and masks he projects. Succumbed to despair. For all we knew, he may have been suicidal since he maybe lacks the energy to keep fighting. He made it through again when stuck in the subway most likely because Lila was there with him.

Makes sense his psychological mindset with wanting a solution to fix the world so they all could live, yet hearing all his alternate selves struggle to fight and try to accomplish the goal resulting in failure...coupled with his broken heart made it easier to give in. Dying alone or together...wasn't a prospect that Five was eager for but their was a certain tragic beauty to him realizing they wouldn't die alone even as the world was ending and burning.

While I was making screen captures noticed extra glances they share with each other. Not just in their final moment but leading up to it. Thought it was significant that lila had her gaze locked on him while he was talking and then that same side glance turned more heartbreaking as she revealed her love in her eyes. Letting her sadness show with her tears, much like how she only felt comfortable breaking down with Five in the subway minutes before. Then the last moment when five shows his sorrow and love in his eyes I thought I noticed his mouth move subtly in a ghost of a near smile in acknowledgement and possibly comfort with her holding his hand and understanding the love that was left unspoken.

[diamondpython00]

I suddenly got why Dr. Venture misunderstands his sons so much: because he’s treating them like they’re him. For Rusty, Dean acting like he wants to do anything else besides super science is a sign that he’s meant for it -because that’s what Rusty did when he was a boy adventurer. Similarly, Hank would be totally fine doing super science or anything else, but because he doesn’t show the disdain for it that Dean does, Rusty thinks Hank doesn’t want it, because if you don’t fight against it, you must not want it, right? I’m thinking of the therapy scene between Rusty and his dad, where he’s told that his negative feelings about his life are from a lack of gratitude. He’s internalized that message and applied it to his parenting - and this is a common pattern for him. Without any frame of reference for moral behavior or for good parenting, he’s backslid into neglectful parenting and immoral behavior. But, despite all that…

“Dean, I promise you that the one who gave birth to you…loves you. Very much.”

[germiyahu]

Maybe an ethnostate is an inherently dangerous and immoral idea. What has happened when other people tried to establish ethnostates?

Well firstly, Israel is not an ethnostate. There is no equivalent policy of Israelification or Judaification as there was (tbh is) with Russification, or historic and contemporary Arabization, Modi's attempts at Hindutva, Erdogan's extreme backsliding into ethnonationalism, etc.

Israel is a liberal democratic state. Some Arabs rejected citizenship, as is their right to do so on principled grounds. But most other groups who are not Israeli Jews have implicitly accepted the Social Contract of a modern liberal democratic state. They receive equal rights under the Law (which is enforceable), and they're aware that they're not the majority and that not every aspect of their culture will cater to them or center them.

Most of the country coming to a standstill on Shabbat could be a sign of an ethnostate, but if municipalities don't want to observe Shabbat, there are no enforceable laws that allow anyone to stop them from ignoring Shabbat. And if there are/were, they were much more frequently levied against other Jews.

Israel has historically not cared if its non Jewish citizens practice their own faiths, speak their own languages, observe their own cultural traditions. Jews do not proselytize. If Israel truly were an ethnostate we'd see a repeat of the Edomites being forcibly converted by John Hyrcanus. The reason this hasn't happened is not because Jews are "disgusted" by Palestinians, for the record. A majority of Israeli Jews look identical to Palestinians and historically spoke Judeo-Arabic. It's simply not necessary for any government to function to pursue an assimilationist policy. It's not a priority among any stream of Judaism or any sub-cultural group of Jews.

People's discomfort with a Jewish majority state, that utterly and thoughtlessly centers Jewish culture (through symbols, the calendar, the weekly/monthly/yearly cycle, holidays, etc.) is rooted in antisemitism. Because it's abhorrent to see Jews running the show. It's new, it's weird, it's even a little insulting. It's not the Natural Order of things. It's unfair. This is a primal Judenhass gene being activated, and it applies to everything related to Jews. There's an inherent hypocrisy in most people when it comes to Jews.

Even in a country like Japan which is considered by fascists to be an Ethnostate, that belies the diversity of the country. An ethnostate is not a state with a majority or supermajority of one ethnicity, nor is it a state that has implicit biases toward that majority ethnic group. An ethnostate must legally uphold the supremacy of the ethnic group in question and at best make no attempt to extend equal rights to any minorities. At worst, it will attempt to assimilate them or exterminate them.

Secondly, what happens in real genuine ethnostates? Well to name a few examples: the Apartheid system of Imperial Russia, with the accompanying pogroms that led to the collapse of the Pale of Settlement which ushered in the largest Jewish migration in history. The effects of this system are still being felt today, not just by Jews. The whole reason Putin and most Russians feel entitled to Ukrainian land and feel threatened by a Ukrainian identity is because Russification considered Russians Belarussians and Ukrainians the same people (which meant Belarussians and Ukrainians were to be forcibly assimilated by Russians).

Here's another example: Kurds in Turkey are still not considered a legally recognized ethnic group. They can't even spell their own names correctly because they have letters in their alphabet that do not occur in Turkish, and Turkish is the only language of state (Turkey as a modern state was heavily influenced by France and it shows). Kurds are routinely suspected of being PKK members and whole towns were bulldozed to make room for Syrian refugees, as a collective punishment against the Kurdish insurgency (which restarted amid the war with ISIS).

Saudi Arabia is an ethnostate, as are most of the Gulf Monarchies. Citizenship is a privilege only enjoyed by the Khaleeji Arabs, even though they're a minority in most of their own countries. Palestine is also an ethnostate, citizenship and rights are only offered to those who are deemed Palestinians. Nobody else is allowed to live there. The Israelis who illegally live in the West Bank have to be propped up by a military occupation and have to have Israeli laws stretched over the border to encompass them, because they would not ever be allowed to even live in the West Bank, much less be afforded any rights or citizenship. This is not just Palestine's fault, this was a precedent set by Jordan. The oldest of all Jewish communities in Palestine were all cleansed by Jordanian troops, banished from their lands and never allowed to return.

I hope you can see that ethnostates are not very compatible with liberal democracies, as liberal democracies by definition and by tradition have universal human rights (at least in the West). It is authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that typically strive for an ethnostate. There are shades of ethnostatitude in democracies, such as France, which uses civic identity as the privileged "ethnicity," and that civic identity happens to be French, which means everyone must be culturally French and speak French. Though it's not violently enforced there is a state policy of ignoring all minorities and their cultures. And of course Turkey, which has always been a flawed democracy, but is increasingly becoming dictatorial and wouldn't you know, the more authoritarian it becomes, the more Turkishness is a central component of Erdogan's goals and policies.

Are there Israelis who want Israel to be an ethnostate? Why yes, but are they significant or relevant beyond appointing Ben-Gvir as a token gesture to this radical fringe? Not really, though there's an alarming capacity for them to increase their numbers. Is any of that relevant to the daily functions and moral "core" of Israel as a nation? Not at all. If you don't judge any other state by it's worst most obnoxious most supremacist actors, why judge Israel that way? Is it those Judenhass Genes again?

[phantaloon]

something really interesting (aka fucking tragic) is how like, this story is going so far

bc overcompensate starts strong on the fighting back (both lore wise and just, life wise ig), and then next semester comes kinda hopeful/hopeless about new beginnings (a common theme with the pilots)

and then theres backslide, which, like its name, is such a big backslide mood wise and theme wise and like, you know personally for tyler's mental health state (i have no idea how to express my thoughts)

like it goes to a darker place, and unlike next semester, it doesn't have any hopeful undertone, it's quite the opposite, questioning whether one deserves help, whether one is worth even the minimun sign of help, even tho he desperately wants to keep fighting and just isn't strong enough to do it anymore

and going from "do you think that nows the time that you should let go?" to outright saying "you should let go" bc its over his head, and just the way he whispers "i don't wanna backslide" in the end, just barely audible

im afraid clancy is gonna be the end of me lmao tyler is really pulling out the pain in this one

(and its also quickly becoming my favorite album despite only 3 songs being out)

[mariacallous]

Georgians are in the streets fighting for their democracy. The Georgian Dream party, which is working to align Tbilisi with Moscow’s interests, declared victory in the country’s Oct. 26 election before the votes were even counted. Voters and election observers were harassed by Russian-funded gangs and mobsters; just after the election, protesters holding European Union flags were sprayed with water from high-powered hoses. And the person who has the iron will necessary to lead the charge against Russian-inspired authoritarianism in Georgia? A woman: President Salome Zourabichvili.

This is no accident. Across the world, women have, and are, playing incredible roles as bulwarks against the rise of authoritarianism. Moldovan President Maia Sandu is standing up to a tsunami of Russian disinformation. In Poland, women played a critical role in the effort to oust the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party. In Hong Kong, women continue to be the practical and normative face of resistance to Chinese authoritarian rule.

These are the freedom fighters of the 21st century. And yet, the U.S. national security community tends to view women’s issues as a domestic concern, frivolous, or irrelevant to “hard” security matters. For example, in 2003, discussions of securing Iraq excluded women, with a top U.S. general stating, “When we get the place secure, then we’ll be able to talk about women’s issues.” More recently, the role of women in the military has been reduced to discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion, rather than a focus on how women have been vital to solving the United States’ most wicked national security problems—from serving on the front lines in combat to providing essential intelligence analysis. But if the overall aim of U.S. national strategy is to shore up democracy and democratic freedoms, the treatment of women and girls cannot be ignored.

Globally, women’s rights are often eroding in both policy and practice, from the struggles of the Iranian and Afghan women who exist under gender apartheid to the Kenyan women experiencing the harsh backlash of the rise of the manosphere. In tandem, there’s been a sharp rise in reports of online harassment and misogyny worldwide.

National security analysts explore issues and psychologies through any number of prisms, but Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) remains an underutilized one. One of the national security community’s core tasks is discerning signals from noise in the global strategic environment, and regressive ideas on gender and gender equality can be a useful proxy metric for democratic backsliding and authoritarian rise.

The United States’ 2023 Strategy and National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security provides the backbone for the United States to leverage WPS to counter authoritarianism. It highlights that displays of misogyny online are linked to violent action. The plan also points out that formally incorporating gendered perspectives is essential for maintaining democratic institutions at home and modeling them aboard. This includes recognizing misogyny—online or in policy—as an early indicator of authoritarian rise.

Unfortunately, WPS is often misread as simply including more women in the national security workforce. But it is more than that. It offers a framework for understanding why it is useful to take gendered perspectives into account when assessing how the actions of individuals or groups enhance national security, which is especially important at a time when authoritarian regimes are weaponizing gender in ways that strengthen their grip on power domestically and justify their aggression abroad.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has argued that he is the guardian of traditional Christian values, telling women that they should be back at home raising children, and has been rolling back domestic violence laws at the same time. Days before invading Ukraine in February 2022, Putin said, “Like it or don’t like it, it’s your duty, my beauty,” which was widely interpreted within Russia as a reference to martial rape. Russia’s own army is built on a foundation of hierarchical hazing in which “inferior” men are degraded by their comrades. With that kind of rhetoric from the top, is it any wonder that Russian soldiers’ war crimes have included the rapes of women and children?

But Putin isn’t alone. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consolidated media outlets to censor women’s voices, in the name of protecting traditional values. He has also used coercive financial practices to push women out of the workforce and positions of political power and into more traditional roles of wife and mother. In Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko attempted to force the deportation of the most prominent woman opposition leader and imprisoned her after she tore up her passport to prevent it. In China, where women were once told they “hold up half the sky,” President Xi Jinping has worked to undo decades of Chinese Communist Party policy on gender equality. Chinese women are now being encouraged to return home and become mothers, while feminists have been targeted legally and socially.

The WPS agenda provides the U.S. national security community with three opportunities to recognize, understand, and counter early-stage authoritarianism.

First, the United States can do a much better job of supporting women’s groups around the world as a central aspect of its national security strategy. Women’s groups are often a bellwether for authoritarian rise and democratic backsliding—as currently on display in Russia, China, Hungary, Georgia, and Belarus, where women inside and outside their respective regimes have been specifically targeted or attacked.

Women have also found innovative ways to resist the rise of authoritarian norms. In places like Moldova, women have acted as bulwarks against authoritarianism despite vicious disinformation campaigns targeting women leaders. Yet when it comes to formulating and executing strategies on national security, women’s groups are often left in the margins and their concerns dismissed.

Second, gender perspectives are essential to more fulsome intelligence gathering and analysis. The U.S. intelligence community can do a much better job of integrating gender—particularly as it relates to the treatment of the most vulnerable—as an indicator of societal and democratic health. This includes understanding how both masculinities and femininities influence decision-making and how, in turn, lived experiences act as necessary analytical tools. Training collectors and analysts of intelligence to recognize gendered indicators will provide a more robust view of the geopolitical landscape and fill critical holes in national security decision-making.

Finally, the United States must improve the participation of its national security community in WPS and feminist foreign-policy discussions. For too long, the “hard” security sector has distanced itself from more “human” security-focused endeavors and treated women’s rights as something that’s just nice to have.

Yet national security is an essentially human endeavor, and gender is a central component of what it means to be human. This is something that needs to be appreciated to better understand the many dimensions of the conflict—disinformation, online influence campaigns, and lawfare—that authoritarian regimes are waging against the United States and its allies.

[dotthings]

Okay, strap in, I'm going deep dive on Dean and Cas during their S15 breakup and going to address some things about The Trap. (It's long, there's a lot to unpack).

Castiel: What he did wasn't bad. It was the absence of good. And I saw that in him. But we were a family, and I didn't want to lose that, so I thought I could fix it on my own. Felt like it was my responsibility. So I left. And I didn't tell you. If I could go back and just -- just talk to him right then and there, I would. But I can't, Dean. I failed you. And I failed Jack. And I failed --

(14.18, Absence)

What Cas was about to say it seems, when Dean cut him off, was that he failed Mary, along with Dean, and Jack.

Cas is fully acknowledging his culpability and his failures.

His clinging to the idea he had to fix it on his own is similar to his S6 mindsets, but with way less hubris. This isn't about his hubris, but it's a holdover of Cas's stubbornness.

It's not true there was no growth. There's no arrogance in Cas now. That doesn't mean he's over all his neurosis. That's not how this works. But it's not the same as the past.

Why is Cas expected to be over everything and never backslide from some people, while Dean gets sympathy and understanding when he does? Neither of them cleanly break from their traumas and old patterns, they do grow, they do move forward, it's not repeating the same.

It's also patently untrue that Cas never owns up to his mistakes, never apologizes, never suffers consequences. Cas has owned up to his mistakes. Even sometimes pulls penance down on himself on purpose.

He doesn't just play at being sorry.

Dean's subjective pov from years ago (from late S7), at a point where Dean was understandably and rightfully hurt, frustrated, angry, but also scared for Cas, so he lashes out, terrified because Cas was suffering from PTSD, unable to fight, and he isn't the Cas he knows. He knows something's wrong. So Dean threw a board game onto the floor. It was all completely understandable to me and I felt for Dean. But it's interesting how this gets weaponized against Cas so people can claim Cas isn't actually sorry he just plays at being sorry, as if this is exposing some deep objective Truth, just like people take Dean's words in The Rupture that Cas is always the screw up as some deep objective Truth. When Dean is speaking from hurt, anger, fear.

Cas repeatedly apologizes to Dean in early S15.

He is not huffy because Dean didn't insta-forgive him.

The moment that broke Cas, where he decided to leave, was when he perceived Dean's walls against him to be so high and so rigid, Cas lost hope that anything would get better, that he could ever be forgiven. He really thought it was all over.

Remember that Dean already said, if Mary's dead, "you're dead to me" Remember Dean just said to Cas, "why does that something always seem to be you" about things going wrong, saying Cas is always the screw up.

Cas did not leave because Dean was mad at him.

Cas endured Dean being mad at him for how many episodes, late S14 through early S15, he didn't tell Dean he had no right to be, he didn't run away from it, he endured, and he repeatedly apologized.

Why did Cas leave, why did he leave, not because he saw Dean was angry. But because he lost hope.

Cas wasn't wrong to put some space, that's right for Dean as well as Cas, at that point, but he was wrong in his perceptions, and Cas's perceptions are heavily driven by his insecurities.

The same reasons that partly drove why he latched onto Jack so hard--loneliness, a need to feel useful, a need to feel needed.

While he's away Cas realizes he was wrong to give up. He gets a tiny sign that Dean still cares, and he comes back to try to fix it instead of running away.

It's not true there is no growth.

Cas goes back, things are tense but they are able to work together for a greater good and greater emergency.

And Cas volunteers to stand at Dean's side and return with Dean to Purgatory, where the leviathans who very specifically and personally hate Cas's guts and they all want him destroyed exist.

Don't tell me!!! Cas doesn't care about Dean!!!!!!

Dean wants to split up. He's still mad at Cas, he's allowed. But Cas rightfully points out that's more dangerous than staying together.

Don't tell me there's no growth!!!

In their first trip to Purgatory, Cas ran from Dean, to try to protect Dean. Despite Dean regarding it as abandonment, before Dean knew why Cas ignored his prayers every night, he still ransacked Purgatory, torturing monsters, looking for Cas. Refused to leave Purgatory without Cas. Even though he was angry and hurt.

When he finds Cas and Cas tells him the reason he hid from Dean--trying to draw the leviathans, to keep them away from Dean to protect Dean, Dean is absolutely gobsmacked.

This time, Cas knows it's better if they stay together. That he can protect Dean better if they stay together.

They have this conversation in Purgatory:

CAS: Well, this place will bring that out in you. Guilt. It was my fault the Leviathan got out. It was my fault we were here the first time. I carry that guilt every day. DEAN: I know you're sorry, Cas. About Bel, about Mom. CAS: I was talking about Jack. I already apologized to you. You just refused to hear it.

Let's unpack what is being said here. Cas comments on how Purgatory is a place that brings out feelings of guilt. He then acknowledges his culpability for S6, the leviathans, and that it was his fault he and Dean wound up thrown there at the end of S7. Dean says he already knows Cas is sorry about the screw up concerning Cas impulsively burning up Bel, and about what happened to Mary. Cas says he was thinking of his feelings of guilt about Jack, that he already apologized to Dean for the other things. And accuses Dean of not listening to him. Which isn't really true, but as far as Cas knows it's true because he has no way of knowing Dean really heard him, because Dean was putting up walls of iron.

DEAN: Sorry I brought it up. Maybe if you didn't just up and leave us. CAS: You didn't give me a choice. You couldn't forgive me. And you couldn't move on. You were too angry. I left, but you didn't stop me.

Getting down to the real roots of it now, Dean lets out a little confession. He's hurt about Cas leaving.

After Dean said "you're dead to me," after Dean said Cas is always the problem. Dean's mad at Cas, he's also mad at Cas for leaving. Get out--no wait, where are you going why are you leaving me.

Again, Dean is understandably hurt and he is really going through it with the inner conflict. He has rights to all his feelings. Pushing Cas away and wanting/needing him to stay at the same time, I can understand how Dean would be so conflicted.

There's nothing from either of them I don't understand, or that isn't understandable or sympathetic.

And Cas points that out, that Dean was putting up such high walls, Cas didn't know what else to do except leave. Is Cas being completely fair in how he words it? No. He's not immune to subjectivity and speaking from a place of hurt and frustration and fear of being rejected and making assumptions.

But he's not mad at Dean for being angry and this isn't canon saying Dean is wrong to be angry. "You couldn't move on" "you were too angry"--This was not a reprimand on Dean being angry. This was Cas explaining why he left. Cas left (as Cas explains) because a) it seemed self evident to Cas that Dean was never going to forgive him b) it seemed self evident to Cas that Dean was so angry at Cas there was no hope to fix it and that Dean no longer wanted him there.

It seems like a really bad faith reading to me to accuse Cas here of lecturing Dean on his anger, when what is actually happening is Cas is explaining why he left, because he can see Dean is hurt that Cas left.

And why is it from some people Dean is allowed his insecurities, his anger, his fears, but Cas has to be absolutely perfect and has to speak perfectly and without any subjectiveness, projections, or misunderstandings, at all times?

Cas feels deeply, as Dean does. He has feelings. He's a fully fleshed out character, as Dean is. A complicated character, and like Dean, with his own buzzing nest of trauma and insecurities in his brain.

"I left but you didn't stop me" finally Cas really getting to the heart of the thing. The actual root thing bothering him. Not that Dean was angry. It's that Dean let him leave without saying anything to try to stop him.

While Dean is hurt and feeling abandoned because Cas left.

This isn't about anger shaming Dean at all.

Cas isn't angry at Dean for being angry.

It is as simple in fact as Cas's fear of being unwanted, and wanting Dean to ask him to stay, and Dean's fear of being abandoned, and wanting Cas not to leave.

And then there's Dean's desperate prayer to Cas, which is another highly misunderstood scene, which gets taken as Dean "groveling" begging for Cas's forgiveness when it's entirely about Dean's own need to give forgiveness to Cas. Maybe, somewhat, saying what Cas needs to hear so Cas will stay, but it is most of all about what Dean needed to say, the same as Cas's happiness was saying what he did to Dean in 15.18. Just getting to say it. And having it be heard, is enough.

Because beneath all that absolutely justifiable anger and hurt, Dean doesn't want to lose Cas, he never actually meant for Cas to leave, didn't actually deep down want Cas to leave, and he doesn't want to lose Cas forever to Purgatory.

And Dean has a lot of fears about his anger. That he's nothing but anger, that he's only good for killing monster. This is Dean, who thinks he's "poison," who thinks people he loves are better off away from him. That isn't authorial voice. That is Dean's own fears. He can't see his own love, his own big heart. He can't see his own kindness and empathy and how deeply he loves and feels and his own goodness.

But Cas can. Cas never doubted that Dean was good or that Dean is the most caring loving human ever, what Cas doubted was about Dean still caring about him.

And then he realized he was wrong. Before Purgatory II, before hearing Dean's prayer even, he already figured out he was wrong in his assumptions on how Dean felt about him, but Dean still needed to say it, and I think Cas did need to hear it even if he already knew.

How people think Dean's anger is a late seasons invention utterly baffles me. But it's not that Dean being angry is wrong, it's that how people express their anger has ripple effects. Because that's true of everyone!!!!!!! If this reads to people as "anger shaming" then they are endorsing the idea that people should just let their anger eat them alive and destroy everything, burn it all down, no matter how much harm it does for the person who is angry.

What Dean is scared of is that his anger, the way it expressed, the hard walls he put up, the words he said, going against what was actually deep in his heart, chased Cas away when he didn't mean for that to happen.

Dean could have yelled at Cas and giving him the cold shoulder in the bunker and Cas would have endured it, if Cas hadn't gotten the impression Dean absolutely no longer wanted him around.

Is Cas completely blameless? Of course not. He made his mistakes. And he could have been more perceptive about Dean and not let his own insecurities dominate how he views things but given how driven by insecurities Dean's pov on Cas is, how is it people want to turn Cas into the monster, and only comprehend Dean, when Cas is a mirror to Dean?

Some truly can't let go of the idea that Cas into an unfeeling monster who doesn't really love Dean, that Cas is selfish and manipulative and abusive and that he doesn't care about Dean.

I want to go out into the woods and scream.

[olderthannetfic]

You recently mentioned that you've been out since your teens. As a person who managed to overlook a shitton of signs and only realized she was bi in her early 20s, I am wondering how you realized you were bi and also how you found out bisexuality exists?

Sorry if the phrasing sounds weird, I only noticed I was bi because I stumbled over the term on tumblr in 2016 and was like "oh, that's possible??" and then my earlier identity crises during my teens due to feeling attracted to multiple genders and being like "I'm crushing on [female person]. Am I lesbian? Nah, I've also felt attracted to [male person]. But I can't be straight either because this attraction feels the exact same. Am I broken?" were suddenly resolved with the realization that bi is also an option and that I'm not broken due to zigzagging between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but rather just bisexual. In retrospect, it's absolutely ridiculous that it took me so long, considering that as a kid I had crushes on Anna and Carter and Doctor from Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town, and Vitani from Lion King 2, and back in primary school, I used to go to the kids' section in the library and look at the first pages of a sci-fi comic which had one or two women get out of a lab or space station thingy and go bathe in the nude in the first few pages. I don't remember what it was called or what it was about, but tbh I'd love to find it and actually read it properly this time lol.

--

Horniness. The hornier you are, the easier it is to notice.

But also... well...

The 80s were all about combating the AIDS crisis and trying to get basic recognition of the humanity of gay people (at least in the US circles I was familiar with). The 90s saw the rise of a much more organized bi rights movement.

And then we backslid.

In the 2000s and 2010s, interest in bisexuality as a distinct thing fell off a cliff as far as I can tell. The "hey, it's not just cis gays and lesbians" energy moved first to trans topics and then to asexuality but without bisexuality joining the stodgy old guard.

The 90s were different. I was hitting my teens just as Anything That Moves hit its stride. I bought that shit at the bookstore. Yeah, this was the Bay Area, but they carried it at all the regular bookstores, not just the gay ones.

On Usenet where I spent a lot of my tween years, one of the big groups was soc.bi. I even spotted them having an in-person meetup in a restaurant in Berkeley where I happened to be having dinner with my parents. I didn't go say hi because I was like 14.

My big eureka moment, though, was on alt.tv.x-files when two groups were having a satirical argument about who enjoyed The X-Files more: people who got to lust over David Duchovny or people who got to lust over Gillian Anderson. Someone showed up and was like "Hah! I get to enjoy it twice as much as all of you! I'm bi!"

I was like "That's a thing????" I'd grown up with very liberal parents and lesbian neighbors, but like a lot of boomers, my mom was pro-gay and deeply clueless about all other queerness.

--

So the answer is unsupervised internet access in an age with no algorithms plus things like bisexual magazines actually existing.

RIP Anything That Moves.

[lunar-years]

Okay. Let's talk Jamie and Roy getting beers and being idiots.

I know we are all still processing that whirlwind of a finale. I'm understanding that a lot of people hate the Roy & Jamie scene because it is 1) backslide-y (true) 2) they treat Keeley like a prize to be won (true) and 3) it's OOC (I actually disagree with this one, but I can understand why it's complicated). I want to start off by saying I completely see where this opinion is coming from and I respect everyone who just hates the scene because it shows normally kind characters being very unkind to each other etc. This is less me arguing against that as it is me trying to articulate (at great length, sorry) why it not only worked for me, but I genuinely liked it.

I like to think I strike a balance between loving everything the show has done and hating overwhelmingly on a show I claim to enjoy, but sure, you could definitely argue that I'm just giving my favorite characters the benefit of the doubt, or making excuses for them, because they're my favorite characters. I'll admit I'm historically very forgiving of all the main characters' many fuck-ups on Ted Lasso, but that's because I think the show works best when it emphasizes how kindness, forgiveness, friendship and love can still operate between imperfect, flawed people. I like seeing them make realistic mistakes much more than I like everyone handling everything perfectly, I'll bite.

So, back to Jamie and Roy. I enjoyed their finale plot because despite them making a world of mistakes, the regression felt very, very human. I don't agree at all with the take that this somehow erased all the progress they've made this season or the friendship the show has lovingly crafted between them. In fact, I think this actively reiterated it! (Note: I am operating with my ot3 goggles on at all times, so I'm going to write this with that at least partially in mind, but I think the gist of it works even if you ignore the bits that get a little shippy.)

For both Jamie and Roy, Keeley and their love for her is a major beacon guiding them. I think that is the crisp, clear thing in both of their heads this episode: Keeley is the love of my life. And they both believe that wholeheartedly, and they both want to be with her. (and it's goofy to pretend this came out of nowhere for Jamie/since when is Jamie still in love with her/etc. because he literally told her and us this last season and nothing that has happened since has indicated otherwise, btw.) But there's also something else now, which is their relationship with each other, battling with their Keeley thoughts. It's like, in Roy's head, for instance, I imagine there are two wolves: on the one hand he loves Keeley, and wants to be with her, and plans to win back her heart. On the other hand, there's his love and care for Jamie Tartt, which is much less defined and inarticulate and maybe still a little repressed, but just as overpowering. His love for Keeley feels so simple and clear in comparison, while his love for Jamie is something complicated and unsure, and in this episode, he's leaning hard into the first to avoid unpacking the second.

So Roy starts off strong. He sees Jamie with Keeley in the hallway and he doesn't flip out!! Instead, he approaches Jamie calmly, and invites him out for beers. Think about how different this is from his reaction to Jamie's love confession to Keeley in season 2. This is Roy's growth in action, and it's a resounding sign of just how important Jamie is to Roy now. Even when he is feeling jealous of the woman he loves potentially leaving him behind for a man he loves (a completely natural reaction, let's be so real, if not a "good" one), he also knows that for as much as he wants to be with Keeley, he doesn't want to lose his friendship with Jamie.

As for Jamie, I know some people took his reaction and subsequent response to Nate's question as like, shock at the realization that he and Roy are actually friends now, which I agree is something that had to have come earlier in the timeline (what was Mom City if not that) and would seem very out of place at this point. What I saw it as instead was Jamie's brain more just. sort of short-circuiting? Because: holy shit isn't this the best day ever? First Keeley agreed to go to Brazil with me and now Roy is asking me on a date for beers? this is so sound. This invite is out of place behavior from Roy even within the parameters of their friendship, because they still have a match to win and Roy has banned Jamie from beers as part of his training and despite them being close now I find it hard to believe that Roy often comes up to him right there in dressing room to ask him to grab a beer with no pretense.

Therefore, they're already walking into that bar in completely different head-spaces. Jamie isn't planning to discuss Keeley, and for Roy that is his major intention behind the evening. Jamie is nervous and downing his beer, and Roy is internally panicking, I'm imagining, over when and how to bring Keeley up. I think Roy is thinking: Well, I don't intend to stop pursuing Keeley, I genuinely don't want Jamie's feelings to be hurt when I get back together with her (and yes, it is a huge presumption for him to assume Keeley's going to eventually take him back. But I think it's also an understandable one), so I've got to tell Jamie I care about him, and that I'm going to keep going after Keeley, and he needs to be okay with that so that this won't get in the way of our friendship, which I also desperately need and am unwilling to give up. In his mind, Jamie is of course going to accept all of this, because Roy and Keeley are soulmates, which Jamie will clearly recognize deep down because it is so obvious and right and anyway, Jamie always does what Roy tells him to do (again, this is all misguided thinking. But we can see how Roy's anxious little brain that's bad at processing feelings and holding space for emotions could get himself here, can't we?).

So again, we start off strong with Roy saying he's proud of Jamie and them both thanking one another. But then Roy's blurting out nonsense about how Jamie just needs to pull himself out of the running and just let Roy be with Keeley. Which is obviously not on. And Jamie responds, simply, with No. I'd argue this is also a huge step for Jamie. Jamie really doesn't tell Roy no anymore, he doesn't tell anyone no. Jamie has spent so much of his time since coming back to Richmond working to be the person everyone around him wants and expects him to be. This is him fighting for something he wants for once, doing what is best for him. It was a fabulous progression to see. In the moment, boy does it work Roy up, because why is Jamie not agreeing with me, Jamie always agrees with me? but obviously at this point, Jamie is in the right. His relationship with Keeley was no less meaningful than Roy's just because Roy says it was, Roy doesn't have any claim on her, and there's no real reason Jamie should not try and shoot his shot with Keeley if Roy is going to do the same.

Here's where things start to spiral. Established flaws we know about Roy: he's competitive. He's bad at voicing his feelings productively. And he is territorial about the people he loves, a category that safely includes both Jamie and Keeley at this point in time, for better and sometimes worse. Yes, his next actions are grossly possessive over Keeley, yes Roy has made a lot of effort over the past year to do and be better than that, to break free of that cycle. But look, it's not a linear process. He's going to still mess up, and he does here. In fact he's downright mean, weaponizing Keeley against Jamie and throwing having sex with Keeley a month ago into Jamie's face, bragging about it, boasting. Same old cycle, same old patterns of ego-driven, prideful mistakes.

Which promptly prompts Jamie to also fuck up by bringing up the leak. It's a concentrated response intended to get a suitable rise out of Roy, because Roy has really, genuinely hurt him here, and Jamie knows bringing up that video is the one thing that will hurt Roy just as much in turn. It's not the right thing to do, obviously, but again, it's such a human thing to do. Hurt the person who's hurt you right back, even if you're hurting someone else (Keeley) by extension. Mind you, Jamie came here expecting a hangout (/date) with Roy over a rare beer, and instead he got Roy being a complete asshole and lecturing nonsense at him out of seemingly nowhere. He reacts to this change-up, well, not greatly. There is something so messy and emotionally complicated happening here and it hinges on how very much Jamie and Roy care about each other, not negates it.

Keeley, queen that she is, rejects them both out of hand and kicks them out not the curb immediately because they're both being complete idiots, acting like they're so gracious in giving her the honor and privilege of choosing between them. Not to mention they've clearly got something going on between them they haven't worked through and that sure as shit isn't her problem, is it? Keeley (presumably, and I wish we had seen this) calls them out their shit and tosses them right back out the door.

Which leaves Jamie and Roy to lament how they've let their egos get away from them, they've been idiots (which they acknowledge immediately) and decide that now they should go for kebabs, presumably to actually hangout this time, not to interrupt themselves with inflated talk about who "deserves" Keeley more. They both screwed up, they acknowledge it, and all they can do is try again tomorrow, and in the meantime, go on that kebab date.

I guess....I can just see where both of them are coming from? it's not mature behavior, obviously, it's maybe not what we would have liked to have seen from them in the finale episode of the show. But it was regression that I didn't feel impeded their overall progress. Roy in particular was being a complete dick about it, but that's why the very next morning he's finally knocking on the Diamond Dogs' door. And honestly, that conversation was heartbreaking. When Roy admitted he'd expected, after a year of putting in the work, to be a whole new person...god. This is a man who still completely hates himself, to the point where he can't quite grasp that he can be better where he's at now, that he doesn't have to transform magically into someone new in order to do right by himself and others. And so he has to consciously determine, once again, to do better, be better.

The message is: change isn't linear, you're going to fuck-up, and fall back into old patterns. What matters is trying every day to do better together, and be better for one another, than you were the day before. That is the meeting point all three sides of the royjamiekeeley triangle were heading towards by the end of the episode.

So yes, it was rushed, because no one gets much screen time in a finale (and the overarching issue with this season anyway is god awful pacing. The last three episodes could've easily been the second half of the season, while the first half of the season was stretched out and largely extraneous). And yes, I would've liked a more thoughtful follow-up conversation between Roy and Keeley or all three of them. My biggest issue was that we didn't get to hear Keeley's voice hardly at all. I would at the very least have liked to have seen her setting them straight at her kitchen table, because turning both of them down signifies very important growth in her, too, and I would've liked exploring that more explicitly. So it wasn't perfect. But I still liked it, I really did.

[oonajaeadira]

FLUFFBRUARY 29: breakfast | valley | sign (Charlie)

ADIRA'S SELF-IMPOSED FLUFFBRUARY RULES:

Six sentences.

Must be fluffy.

All 29 ficlets must feature a different Pedro.

All three words must be used (Fluffbruary prompt list here).

Use the words in order.

I reserve the right to break rules and/or cheat.

Morning, babe, you want some breakfast?”

“Yah, thah be greh, thans!” the valley voice sings out loud and nasal as Charlie-not-Charlie sashays into the kitchen.

Your eyes slide to the calendar on the fridge to confirm that it’s the 4th, then back to your husband who--like a lunar anniversary of waking from his coma--backslides to his trauma persona on the same day every month.

“Well, since Charlie’s not here today, I suppose you’re gonna want some orange juice and toast?” you ask, meeting him where he’s at as the doctor suggested, for as long as it takes, because Charlie’s worth it.

“Nah, mah waf mahkes rally gahd cahfee an pahncaks an Ah lahf tham."

You smile and nod, turning to grab a coffee cup and knowing it’s gonna be another weird day, but excited about the connection being made--it’s a sign that Charlie’s under there somewhere and that despite that weirdo voice, the love is coming through.

___

@fluffbruary

FLUFFBRUARY MASTERLIST