#so all I'm saying is no judgement and no saying you specifically have a problem

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

I would LOVE to hear more gripes about accuracy of portrayal of historical monarchies!!!

I have been wanting to do this for a while, because there is a lot that irks me. And this ranges across board from big budget period dramas to how people write royalty AUs, which means this isn't one specific thing I'm pointing at. And if it is helpful on a writing tips level, I'll be happy with that.

Long post under the cut:

Disclaimers:

I research 19th century European history, which has a lot of questions about what a monarchy is and why they continue to exist. That's the perspective I am bringing to this.

I probably shouldn't have to say this, but: this is not about modern monarchism. This is about history. I don't want to debate whether you think certain countries should continue to have their monarchs be public figures who are only nominally head of state.

The short version:

Monarchies are institutions. They are part of how the government functions and that should have implications for how someone writes them. A monarch is a person with a built in job that they were born into.

Monarchies are not all absolute. They can exist in a multiple forms with very different structures, and often discontent within a monarchy wants to reform the system not replace it.

My biggest advice would be this: figure out how your fictional or historical monarchy is structured. You don't have to exposit about it, but you do need to know it.

The long version:

The King has a job and there is a right and wrong way to do it.

Fantasy monarchies that draw upon history seem to have Versailles in mind in terms of an aesthetic space and royalty with a lot of power over the people around them. This also includes a lot of lounging around and looking pretty and doing lavish things. However, the issue is that this is a mental image of the dysfunction in the French monarchy close to the revolutions. You can't "Après moi, le déluge" through several centuries of government.

A King (or Queen) has a job, a really important one. They are the head of state, the highest authority in the country, and the highest judge on legal matters. At least in the platonic ideal of absolute monarchy, those jobs being concentrated into one person means their responsibility and good judgement will give the state stability and consistently.

Enlightened absolutism was exactly that: monarchs staunchly holding onto the ideals of the Enlightenment and making reforms from the top down. People who read texts about ideal government and natural rights and put it into practice.

A lot of fiction takes that and goes: Oh, so they have unlimited power and can do whatever they want. Being king means you can do what you want without oversight? That's why someone would want to be king?

And yeah, sure, in theory. But the problem with having a job is that you can do it poorly and people will object to you doing it poorly. If someone is not fulfilling obligations, it is noticeable because the state functions poorly. The premise of Robin Hood is that the king is doing his job poorly. He's overtaxing, the officials are corrupt, there's disorder. The solution? Bring back the true king who is good and fair, and thus functional.

Ludwig II of Bavaria gets ousted from his throne for being more interested in opera and extravagant building projects than ruling. Again, it is a problem and people notice.

Historically, if you want to protect from someone being bad at the job you can support the idea that there should be more oversight and safeguards: Other bodies that control parts of the government alongside the king's ability to approve or disapprove. This tactic takes away the ability to be arbitrary since laws and such are not just coming from the crowned head of state. That would be a constitutional monarchy.

Not everyone needs to be Franz Joseph, waking up at the crack of dawn and working on governmental papers and meetings until bedtime. However, if a monarch is shown in fiction lounging around or talking to courtiers all day but never doing any actual governing, I'm going to assume they are very bad at their job.

2. You're probably understanding Courts and Ministers wrong.

I run into the issue quite a bit that courts are flattened to random servants, ladies-in-waiting, and people trying to be the king's sole advisor (for malicious power grabbing reasons).

The first problem: Being at court isn't an easily accessible thing. You're probably nobility or a scion of an important family. Your presence is built on family prestige and your own skill. Yes, even people in service to the monarch. There are no random people here, because proximity heightens the likelihood of greater promotion.

For example, I'm currently doing my research on a prince from an important dynasty in the 19th century. His secretary is a Baron.

It's not impossible for someone not of noble birth to get to be at court. They could have risen up the ranks of the army or be an exceptionally skilled civil servant promoted to the rank of minister. Though depending on the time period, expect these "new men" to get pushback from nobility by blood.

Ministers also matter.

Unless your fictional monarch is one of the few people who decides (to mixed results) to do all of the thinking about government on their own, there is a cabinet and ministers.

These are skilled people whose job is to think about aspects of government and be knowledgeable about them. A monarch might have many of them that argue and balance each other.

Or, you can write a particularly skilled statesman in a leading role that makes them just as prominent as the monarch if not more so. There are many historical examples of ministers who define their period:

If your monarch character isn't a strong person politically, but is intelligent, having them find a minister to take over most of the governing is a good idea. This person is promoted based on merit, even if the monarchy is hereditary.

I have rarely if ever seen fiction do a good job with a prominent minister as a character (except A Royal Affair, which everyone should watch).

Think of monarchies as whole institutions of government. They have people within them who do all the jobs of governing. But the structure of the government and the personality of the monarch can determine whether it is one person (Joseph II, Peter the Great, etc.), a prominent minister (like a Metternich or Bismarck) or a counsel or congress.

The structure can support a person not doing a lot as monarch, but you as a writer need to think what structures are around them allowing that.

3. Revolutions are scary.

There is a common trend in fiction to make your good guys pro-republic. They're revolutionaries who want to get rid of the king, so they must be good.

But here's the thing: Revolutions are a step into the unknown and have historically happened rather rarely and with very mixed results. That's because the system has to be really broken for something totally new to sound better than what you already have.

A monarchy can create a sense of stability: A fixed head of state who will be there until they die. Historically, people aren't seeking to change that. More often, the call is for a change within the existing structure. The Magna Carta or a written Constitution. Firing of Bad Ministers or the abdication of a bad king in favor of their heir. Creating elected bodies under the sovereign. These are all shifting the monarchical paradigm but keeping the monarchy intact.

And historically even the most liberal of people wanted to place restrictions of some sort on voting, especially property and gender restrictions.

There is a myriad of ways to change the system, the person at the top, or both while maintaining a monarchy. You can have a monarchy be elected as the best person among the nobility (though it didn't go that well for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

Completely throwing the whole thing out means risking all stability vanishing. That could be anarchy. That could mean a charismatic strongman who is also bad at governing in power. You could end up with a guillotine and rivers of blood in the streets. You could end up with a restoration eventually because Cromwell or Robespierre doesn't actually produce something people want to live under and they want the old certainty back.

People have a sense of inertia about changing government. What you have is better than what you don't know, especially if there can be internal reform. Making your character a Republican (in the Jacobin sense, not the US politics sense) means that they are a radical in most times and places and will likely be in the minority.

If there is one thing I would say is the point here is that monarchies are government systems, and thinking through how someone exists in that system in fiction is important. Being king isn't actually much of a fun job unless you're very good at delegating or very irresponsible. Unless you want to be celebrity, president, congress, and moral center of the state all in one, being king isn't a great deal.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.

[f1nalgirlz]

least to most likely to have a mommy kink: Rory characters edition!

(not all characters, mostly ones i'm more familiar with to make a proper judgement, clearly i take my job seriously /j also this is purely my opinion and if you disagree that's totally fine :P) The demons in me couldn't rest until i wrote this so :}

Warnings: NSFW, use of mommy (duh), sub!Rory characters, dom!Reader (for the most part), explicit language

Least:

Kappa:

- to be honest i just don't see him being into the whole mommy situation...

- like sure he could be **kind of** submissive at times, but mommy just isn't rolling off the tongue for him.

R!Euro:

- honestly kinda similar to kappa in that, mommy isn't rolling of his tongue particularly easily HOWEVER

- he's definitely further up on the list because i definitely see him subbing easier than Kappa lmao

- he most likely wouldn't use something like 'mommy' though, R!Euro is a 'mistress' man and i'll stand by that (probably)

Ollie Sway:

- he's at this placement for way different reasons than the others lmao

- he'd be wayyyy too shy to bring it up to you despite it being something he could see himself liking

- and if YOU'RE the one too bring it up he's still too embarrassed to voice it's something he might like or be interested in

- would be the type to 'ew' his way out of it simply to avoid any perceived embarrassment about being submissive.

- would come around later (give it 2 days MAX) and admit his feelings when he felt comfortable enough.

- would be totally open to mommy or even other names after coming to terms with his own feelings towards it

Jack Thurlow:

- he would, but not for the same reasons as everyone else

- he has a crazy breeding kink & you cannot tell me otherwise!!

- when he calls you 'mommy' it's almost always condescending or laced with fake sympathy

- when he calls you mommy, it's because he's threatening to make you one

- fucking you so good and saying the filthiest shit ever in your ear with mock sympathy

- "you like that, hm? like it when i fuck you full of my cum? gonna make you a mommy."

(nearing most likely territory here)

Clyde:

- i was torn on who to put in this slot between Clyde and Charlie...

- it's not that Clyde WOULDN'T be into it, he'd just be hesitant

- he has absolutely no problems subbing, but the specific name threw him off a bit at first

- 'mommy' doesn't exactly roll off his tongue with ease regularly yk??

- HOWEVER ,,,

- once you get him pretty deep into subspace, it comes out a lot easier.

- if you're fucking him really good 'mommy' just slips out so easily, he's just not thinking about anything other than how mommy is making him feel in the moment :(((

- the first time he moaned it out, you hardly heard him, it was so soft and quiet.

Charlie Walker:

- he definitely wouldn't be the one to bring it up first but... come on.

- he'd probably be a lil embarrassed about it and it might take quite a bit of encouragement to get him over that little bump of embarrassment

- but after that he *loves* it, not that he'd actually say that.

- he's more of a show how you feel than say it kinda guy.

- surely willing to be such a good boy for mommy <3

- he's literally obsessed with you and would do *anything* for you anyways.

Danny Cooper:

- DUHH !!!!! the subbiest sub to ever sub, you guys

- he's the one who brought it up, extremely shyly i'll add

- once it's been discussed and in action, he's not shy at all though. he's definitely not too shy to moan out for mommy to his hearts content <33

- he thoroughly enjoys calling you mommy, he loves belonging to mommy,

- ESPECIALLY when he's being reminded of how he belongs to mommy !!!

- he adores being mommy's good boy and he is a good boy. the best even.

- when you're fucking him so good he's just a drooly teary eyed mess, and you compliment him, "mommy's baby is so pretty"

- he might just cum on the spot :'))

Most

[drdemonprince]

can i ask for some sex advice? im a bisexual trans guy, i’ve been with cis women and had hookups with a cis guy where he just went down on me. i’m generally attracted to all genders, but sexually i find myself turned off/repulsed by penises and cum so i’ve only pursued hookups with ppl with vulvas (so far cis women and other ftms) or situations where i don’t have to interact with the penis. totally fine with trans women and femmes who are post-op, etc. i’ve just been worried that i’m gross/transphobic/a chaser? even though im bi i feel like a shitty person for not being into dick.

Hey, thanks for the question. I think it is a good thing to be asking oneself. I think that even if you were to conclude that your attitudes were transphobic, I don't think the solution would be pushing yourself to have sex you didn't want to have or trying to force yourself to "get over" the associations that you have. That won't work, and it's not your fault for having them. What matters is how we treat people, not what fleeting thoughts and emotions we might have privately, which is part of why it is so annoying for cis people to act as if they are persecuted for having a "genital preference" or whatever. The problem isn't their feelings. It's their exclusionary, cruel, often violent actions and the words they express publicly.

I think it's worth contemplating that many trans femme people have absolutely no desire to use their penises during sex, or can't because of various medical issues, and do not produce cum that looks anything like the way most cis men produce cum. How would you feel about a trans woman who does have a penis using a strap-on on you? About you two fisting each other? About you using a hitachi magic wand on her? How do you feel when you see a trans guy with a post-phalloplasty cock? Try to reflect on questions like these with curiosity and not judgement.

Maybe you will explore your feelings and find that there are still barriers; maybe for example you wouldn't feel comfortable going down on someone's penis, but would be happy to be fucked with a strap-on by someone who has a penis, or to fuck them. That's okay. Lots of trans women want exactly that kind of sexual encounter anyway. And lots more are open minded and recognize that T4T sex is experimental and free-floating and doesn't have to involve any specific sex acts. Negotiating these things should be done delicately and respectfully, but it is always fine to say "I don't do [xyz]" or "I don't want to do xyz right now."

I relate more to your question that you might know, albeit from a different direction. I have a lot of dysphoria about having a vagina; though PIV can feel good, what I most picture myself as having in my mind's eye is nothing at all between my legs. I hate receiving oral, as I've talked about a lot, but I'm also dysphoric about and disturbed by giving oral to a person with a vagina. I have also experienced a lot of sexual trauma that involved a (typically cis male) partner forcing or pressuring me to have sex with cis women. That's happened to me many times over the course of my life. It's also made facing any pressure whatsoever to have sex with women (either cis or trans) deeply triggering and upsetting to me.

All of my own personal hang-ups and traumas have left me feeling funnily very much like that one line from Saltburn, "Women are too wet. Men are so lovely and dry."

I do get into my head about it being super transphobic of me sometimes. But I have also had fun, carefree, experimental, gratifying, hot sex with trans men with vaginas. I might not be able to eat them out, but there's lots I can do. I can finger them, put my hands in them, eat their asshole, take their strap, suck their strap-on, kiss them, fondle them, play with their nipples, be fucked alongside them, writhe atop a single hitachi together with them, slap their ass, put a dildo in them, whatever. I just don't want to eat them out or have them eat me out, for the most part.

It would be highly understandable if a trans guy felt invalidated by my feeling that way or didn't want to have sex with me given those limits. that's fine. I understand this stuff is fraught and sucks sometimes. I don't talk about my feelings around this topic publicly often because it is so contentious and I don't want feelings to be hurt. But in my heart I'm comfortable with where I am at. I know which limits I have that seem immovable and I don't really want to push them ever again. Having those limits pushed is what traumatized me. At the same time, I know it's not connected in any way to seeing trans men as lesser than cis men, or as less attractive, and I know it's not a barrier to me having sex with trans men if the moment and our interests both align. I'm not a bad person for feeling this way. It's actually really hard to be trans and to be wired this way. But I'm doing the best I can with it to both grow, and not be an asshole, and also to find fulfillment.

[doberbutts]

about your TME/Imane Khelif post, i believe i can provide some answers (im not transfem myself but im very interested in transfeminism)

first of all, no oppressed/oppressor binary is going to be perfect. POC/white is a useful distinction, but last summer a white man was killed after being mistaken for being arab. a straight man may be harassed for hugging his male friend and being seen as gay, etc. TME/TMA are useful terms to describe the way transmisogyny operates in society, even though like all oppressions, things can occasionally get muddled IRL. it doesn't make those terms useless or incorrect. to go back to the harassed straight man example, that man would certainly be a VICTIM of homophobia, but that doesn't make him gay, or mean that he doesn't have any heterosexual privilege at all.

(you said imane khelif may be sent to jail IF she's ruled not to be enough of a woman. horrifying prospect of course, but that IF is doing a lot! a trans woman would not have that IF!)

just wanted to provide that perspective since you asked very genuinely and thoughtfully. have a nice day

I appreciate the good faith response!!! This is exactly the sort of discussion I was looking for.

I am mostly on board - I have discussed at length how these social categories are muddy at best and do not operate on strict lines, and that people in general are impossible to place into neatly sorted boxes. Similar to your first example, I reference frequently a past love of mine who was white but often mistaken for mixed asian (usually chinese/white) due to his monolids, facial structure, and facial hair pattern. Despite being a white guy, he had numerous encounters with racists that ended quite violently for him, and as a result was probably one of the most sensitive white guys I've ever dated regarding race.

Being mistaken for being chinese, while not actually being chinese himself, is not at all the same as actually being chinese. I certainly agree. However, I think it is wrong to say that sinophobia does not affect him or that he is exempt from sinophobia because he has the ability to say "hey wait a second I'm not chinese I'm white". Mostly because any time he tried to do that, it didn't work, and he still got beaten up anyway.

And I also don't think it means he has no white privilege at all- certainly, we experienced it as a couple in real time because while he could be mistaken as a man of color, I absolutely am one without question. And, furthermore, I'm visibly black, not just "of color", which makes people really double down on the racism. Case in point, any time I parked my car in the visitor spot next to his apartment door, the landlord would run out of their office to chase me away stating the spot was only for approved visitors. Even though she saw me entering and exiting his residence in her pursuit to make me move my car. The town he lived in is less than 2% black, and these were luxury apartments that did not have a single black person in the building he specifically lived in. He could live there, but I couldn't even visit without being harassed.

Similarly, as I said in my post, I can see the logic of stating that there is privilege there even though Khelif is in a difficult situation currently, because yes, she can provide a birth certificate and a blood test and a genital check and be cleared of all accusations. I just think that being forced to submit to embarrassing and invasive testing, as well as being forced to provide personal documents, and having the world weigh in on the judgement of your gender, is not really a good literal get-out-of-jail-free card. It is certainly a leg up that she has the ability to do so. I do not think it is right that she should have to- but then I don't see the problem with trans women competing alongside cis women. I think it's stupid that sports are divided by gender and not by weight/height/proficiency.

And I think that forcing specifically women of color who oddly enough seem to be the vast majority of these cases (esp black women and esp esp black intersex women who didn't even know they were intersex before but w/e) to prove that they're woman enough to be qualified as women is racial violence with interphobia and transphobia as the weapon. Intersectionality and all that.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA for using my status as an agender person to get a surgery I want although I do not want it for gender-related issues ?

TW : talk of uterus, menstrual cycles and menstrual blood

I'll start by saying this is not the US so please don't make your judgement based on that. I'll describe how things are in my country.

So I (X24) want my uterus removed. The main reason is that I want to be sterilised to stop having so much anxiety about becoming pregnant, which would be a nightmare for me, and I never ever want this to happen again.

But I can't get any other form of sterilisation as then I would keep my uterus, so I would keep my period, and without hormonal treatment it's just not liveable. To give you an idea, my natural cycles are 21 days instead of 28, I get my period for 7 days instead of 5 and it can be hemorrhagic for up to 4 days of these 7. (I used to get post-op medication because of the hemorrhagia before I was under contraception.) And of course I get through excruciating pain every time, beside having iron deficiency among other things. I'm currently trying another hormonal contraception, it's still not going well. There is always something wrong. My first pill just stopped working, the next ones made me gain 20kg, I'm currently trying hormonal IUD and although I don't bleed as much, I bleed for so long and there is so much pain that no available painkillers can block. I'm so tired. I can't imagine going through that for another 15 to 25 years.

In my country, it is written in law that you are allowed to be sterilised using various methods, all of which keep the uterus. Nothing is said for hysterectomy as a sterilisation method. And although many refuse to sterilise you at all, if you find the right surgeon you can be no matter your age. The procedure is also fully reimbursed. Nothing is said in law about hysterectomy.

This means that the vast majority of surgeons won't remove your uterus. Except if you have a pathology related to it or if you're trans (coming back to that later).

So what I described above does look like a uterus with a pathology, right? It certainly looks like endometriosis at least. I went to a surgeon known for doing the other kinds of sterilisation and tried to convince him to just remove my uterus. He refused, not without an asserted pathology. To his credit, he looked for it. He had me take an MRI. Well, they found nothing.

Which means that, although I have a pretty dysfunctional uterus that I never want to use and just keeps causing me problems, he won't remove it. Because they can't find the cause. Even though I feel completely alienated from my body because of that damn organ that keeps trying to make me bear children and will have me bleed out and in pain when I won't allow it.

Then there is the other solution. I said above you could get surgery if you are trans. It's actually a bit more complicated that that. In order to get HRT and gender affirming surgery, you first need to get diagnosed with body dysphoria by a psychiatrist. And then you get a special status in our health system that allows you to get free access to all kinds of things in the medical field (like surgery and HRT) and beyond (like laser depilation).

As I said, I'm agender. They give this status to nonbinary people so my specific flavour of gender (or lack thereof) is not the issue. But I don't have body dysphoria, only social dysphoria. People misgendering me to my face will make me feel horrible but I don't see my body as gendered. My breasts and specifically my uterus are not something that I see as gendered, so they're not something that causes me distress in terms of gender-related issues. Which means as psychiatrist is never going to diagnose me with gender dysphoria as is, and I won't have access to hysterectomy through trans care.

Except if I fake it.

Now, I have no idea if it could even work. If I could even fool someone. But I've been considering trying because I really, really want to get rid of that damn uterus. And technically, I wouldn't be faking my gender identity. Just expanding on my dysphoria. Still, it feels wrong. I wouldn't transition in any other way except removing the uterus. This path doesn't feel like it's mine to take. I feel it would be disrespectful towards actual, dysphoric trans people.

So, what do you say Tumblr ? WIBTA if I tried it anyway ?

What are these acronyms?

[utilitycaster]

I'm curious about your judgement of the success of the various format experimentations in Campaign 3. If you feel like saying a bit more, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on which are the most and least successful, and why.

Sure! So as I said earlier today, I think a big problem is that the format experimentation and the moon plot are directly at odds. Pulling off the moon plot, with all the NPCs from past campaigns and payoff of various canonical setups requires a pretty firm hand on what the current canon is, and also really did require a firmer hand in the character creation than there was. On the other hand, the point of experimentation is to let other people play in the space and introduce their ideas. This comes together in what I have referred to in the past as "Not Now." Like, the Crown Keepers showing up just as the party was grappling with FCG's death? Not bad as a concept, but Not Now. Abubakar playing Corellon? Incredible performance, but the fact that he was given free rein in a plot that's already shedding viewers left and right for its lack of direction? Not Now.

On an individual level:

I think EXU Prime either needed to be fully standalone, or Matt needed to provide a slightly more rigid direction to Aabria and therefore really couldn't play Dariax. If it's going to get woven into the main plot of Campaign 3 it needs to set that up (including giving Liam and Ashley a heads up beforehand). My personal vote would be for the former, to allow Aabria to tell her own story without it having to serve like 20 different functions, but what's done is done. If I recall, Liam and Ashley had the option to play different characters for Campaign 3 and I do wonder what would happen if they had decided differently, because you could still have Dorian pop up as a guest but I wonder if the Crown Keepers would have shown up in the same way.

Similarly, as stated, the general concept of the Crown Keepers interlude during the campaign as a means to bring in Dorian? I'm not opposed, though I think this is by far the hardest thing to coordinate generally and for a plot as demanding as Campaign 3 probably not a great idea. But it's hard to judge because the timing was truly the worst timing possible given the events of episode 91, and even delaying by like an episode or two would have at least solved that to the point that I don't understand why they didn't just...do that. (and, just to head off this particularly stupid argument at the pass, this would not have in any way affected Sam's ability to take time off for cancer treatment; it would have just shifted things around, and a lot of this experimentation was planned WELL in advance). [sidebar: I haven't listened to the WBN interlude yet but I do have thoughts because I think interludes from different GMs can be done, but the premise of Campaign 3 is particularly hostile towards them unless the main GM has a very heavy hand in their creation or unless they are light on things relevant to the core plot and mostly for the purpose of worldbuilding a la Song of the Lorelei.]

Solstice split was excellent and I think it's because it was not actually anything you wouldn't see in how people frequently play D&D at home. You have a few players who won't be available for a few sessions in a row? Great, find a reason to split the party, bring some other guest players in, and run some side quests!

Downfall was great because it was diagetic. It was a story within a story that Bells Hells was seeing and responding to, and because it took place so long ago with such specific characters, while it may bleed into how Laura, Taliesin, or Ashley feel in game (impossible to prevent, people bring their own feelings to the table), Matt still has room to decide how the Raven Queen, Wildmother, or Everlight feel a thousand years later. I also feel this had the most direction from Matt, which the other things really needed.

As said, bringing in Abubakar to DM as Corellon is something that again, this plot simply doesn't handle well. It makes for a fantastic scene, but within the 107-and-counting episodes of this story, giving the reins to someone else after you finally have a clear plan and letting them throw another curveball is a terrible idea narratively. I think this again would be fine in a story with a looser plot.

Echoes of the Solstice and presumably the upcoming Vox Machina Malleus Key/Mighty Nein Weave Mind concept is again pretty good. This also fits into things that D&D home games have been doing forever - run a one shot or mini campaign following different characters but DM-ed by the same person that have an impact on the current plot but aren't too closely interwoven. Basically this is like the solstice split in concept.

Essentially: I think playing around with the format within a campaign but having the same GM is pretty easy to do. Once you introduce other GMs acting within the world concurrently (rather than as a story with a foregone conclusion a la Downfall, or for that matter Calamity) you need to be extremely careful if you are trying to tell a specific story with a lot of moving parts, as Matt is with Campaign 3. It's one thing to improvise based on things your players do or say; it's another to do so based on improv by a major NPC or someone doing extensive worldbuilding mid-game that you now need to incorporate. This wouldn't be an issue in a more sandbox-style game; Campaign 2 might have been able to withstand it more gracefully, though I'm still not sure. But Campaign 3 was the wrong place to do it. Again, it's trying to converge in some places and diverge in the others and as a result it's just kind of flopping around in place.

[thehobbitwithstickyuppyhair]

I am pulling yet another of my friends into Critical Role via TLOVM, and they sent me this meme, saying it reminded them of VM despite them not specifically a polycule:

And I was immediately possessed by perfectly picturing this scene:

they're poking around somewhere and it's like "oh hello who are you and why are you at this private event"

Scanlan would immediately be like "I am your entertainer for the evening, good sir! It was supposed to be a surprise, but I suppose I can tell you. I am Scanlan Shorthalt, the greatest musician in all the realm!"

And then his charisma bonus is so dang high he gets away with it

Person: "oh, of course! Thank you so much for coming. And are these your band?"

Scanlan: "oh, no, I'm a solo act. These are my retinue. One simply cannot travel without one's retinue."

Vax, deadpan: "We're his lovers."

Person: "... all six of you?"

Scanlan, without missing a beat: "do you have a problem with that?? Are you being a judgemental bigot right now?? Unbelievable!! I'm leaving!! You can explain to the guests that you singlehandedly ruined what would have been the best night of their lives by throwing out THE Scanlan Shorthalt--"

Person, flustered and panicked: "no no no no, I'm so sorry, of course it's absolutely fine-- I was just surprised-- it's no problem, I'm so sorry--"

Scanlan: *sniffs disdainfully* "Well. As far as apologies go, I've heard better. But thankfully for you, Scanlan Shorthalt is nothing if not forgiving and merciful. Now begone from my sight lest you upset me further."

Person to someone else as the entire Vox Machina troop files in behind Scanlan: *whispers* I'm so afraid to ask about the bear

[terrence-silver]

Can I be blessed with some CK Terry and college beloved headcanons Bea💚 I just started my freshman year of college recently and I'm already getting stress acne it's only week 2 🫠 (also you’re sticker on my water is helping me get through my criminal justice class half the time lol I'll just stare at it looking at all the beautiful detail keep up the amazing work!)

-

― You sure you don't your diploma simply...you know, bought? Because that's the first idea that permeates Terry Silver's mind; just cut to the chase and buying the damn thing for you like he would buy a new race car or a new mansion. Maybe give the college or university in question a tactical 'generous grant' that leaves them indebted to him, as a benefactor, doing so to such a high degree letting you graduate under mysteriously premature circumstances is simply a given. Is it unfair? Yeah. Is it sleazy? Yeah. Does Terry care? No. In fact, the notion that it's morally wrong makes the whole idea more attractive as a prospect to him. Maybe he should simply charmingly threaten the head Dean if the place proves to be incorruptible, which only makes his desire to corrupt all the more ardent; whatever the case, Terry might see the college as an obstacle to himself. All the time beloved's investing focusing on exams, learning, studying and extracurriculars is time not spent with him, which is the way it should be. But, it isn't. And that's a problem. He's a territorial person, you see, and everything could potentially be a threat; even college.

― As a result, he undoubtedly mentions the whole 'lemme buy your graduation credentials for you' plan very, very, very often. On the daily. Tries to practically muscle you into it, not taking 'no' for an answer, having a whole onslaught of reasons why his standpoint is correct and why you're, in his opinion, making this harder for yourself than it really should be; he comes off strangely compelling and logical about it too. Why spend years and years on this when he knows the right people who know the right people. Not that Terry Silver's against education; on, in the public eye he's the patron of all causes noble (supposedly), so clap in awe of him, except, in his own private life he's just too greedy to share those he considers his. Too possessive to be eclipsed. Look at you; your face is breaking out in zits from the stress, oh, beloved; that right there, among many other factors is a tool of manipulation Terry might use to have you capitulate and let him have his ways because these pricks and punks are here stressing his beloved out to the degree the stress is physically manifesting all over their face. There should be hell to pay for that. He wants revenge on your behalf.

― But then again, as an upside Terry Silver does enjoy having a beloved currently in college because for the lack of a better word, it's hot, regardless if this is a very young post-Nam era Twig, 80's Terry Silver or old man Terry, the fact beloved's still in education has major fetishistic qualities for him and not to lie, said fetishistic quality only ripens and gets stronger as he ages. Old man Terry, for example, is fully aware the fact he's with someone who's still in college would raise eyebrows, run into critique and even downright judgement and disgust but he doesn't care and in fact, he relishes in it for that specific reason. It's quite literally a trope as ancient as can be and he realizes this, playing into it majorly; an older man and the student. Just the sound of that makes him gleeful and turned on and while he might be meddlesome and feel jealousy over the actual educational aspect of...you know, getting an education, the sound of it suits him far better than the practical aspects. Suffice to say he's as invested in this as beloved themselves is, if not more. Everything beloved does is something Terry himself is overinvested in more than beloved.

― Means that while he'd might wanna keep beloved away from school, or invent tactical shortcuts to the whole process by pretty much buying everything for them and presenting it on a silver platter (because, why not, if he can?), but he sure likes the sound of beloved being in college and regardless if beloved consents to this or not he will absolutely meddle, one way or another, into all of this. He'll be there making donations to the university, becoming a backer and a sponsor for various projects around campus, he'll be attending opening ceremonies, holding speeches, probably opens a Karate extracurricular headed by Cobra Kai just to drill the point home that this is now his territory through you and if it's at all possible, he'll invest so much into this philanthropic deeds around this college that these people will have no choice put to put up his framed picture in the lobby. It's like Terry Silver's presence infects everything it touches. Beloved's only a freshman and my god, the man they're with is already in everything. People who fight against it or speak up on the subject? Promptly fired. Maybe they get embroidered in a convenient scandal not of their making if Terry decides that's more fun for him.

― It's obsessive, yeah, but Terry loves beloved. Adores them. In his own messed up, dark way, sure. This is how his devotion manifests; this university? Better be honored to have someone his within their walls. That he's allowing beloved to grace this place at all. Better give them a preferential treatment as a result. They better be just as biased as he is. Yeah, they better be afraid on the downlow because he's butter up, shake everyone's hand, lowkey threaten everyone, bribe whoever he feels needs it and weave everyone into their web to ensure this happens. You want this education? You'll have it. And you'll have it however you want on whatever terms. He could've bought it for you and he's infinitely disappointed you didn't accept that route (or...maybe you did) but these people will worship the very ground beloved walks upon because he'll ensure that happens through his power and influence; the long reach he has. Might not be immediately apparent, but when you're loved by someone as influential as Terry Silver, it pays off. When your significant other's picture hangs in the hallway? People tend to notice. Might just make you valedictorian by the end of your educational career because Silver money just lined the halls of that school.

― Nothing's for free, see? Beloved does graduate with exemplary grades and achievements regardless if they actually did or if, uh, the system of said university got a couple of well meaning nudges in the right direction, if you catch my meaning. If Terry made the right people a couple of offers they couldn't refuse. They're their generation's best student. Probably got handled multiple accolades and awards too simply because Terry had the itch to see them happy and beaming. And he'd do it. He'd do anything to make them content and fulfilled. He's undoubtedly with them, right there on that stage once they graduate because he's invited up to hold a speech. An audience of hundreds of students know beloved belongs to him. Heck, they might even know a great many of these achievements are a source of complete and utter nepotism, but Terry doesn't care. He's amused by it. Totally gleeful like a smug snake. He laps it all up. Sees it as feeding fuel. He crapped over the system in effect in the name of devotion. Beloved's all smiles. Terry's won in their name by any means neccessary. So, that's all that matters to him. If they said 'burn down the campus' he'd just as easily do that as well, so everyone should count their blessings all beloved wanted was a diploma and a graduation cap and not blood.

― 'Perfect' Terry would purr looking over beloved's immaculately perfect grades in the back of his limousine he's totally bribed out of the professors for them. All the better if beloved's just naturally that accomplished and talented, but my god, if they aren't, the whole world's gonna be what Terry Silver wants it to be because he'll make it so.

[sevensoulmates]

7x05 Buddie Meta YDKM Part 3 (of 4)

Part 1. Part 2. Part 4.

Eddie. I cannot stress this enough. If this was a partner that you actually had a good relationship with, you could go home and talk to them, tell them your feelings. Hell, you should feel safe enough just to say, "hey, I don't feel like having sex right now" and your partner should be able to accept it.

Why does the idea of saying no to sex terrify Eddie? There is a stigma that men are always supposed to want sex, and when they don't, that automatically means something's wrong, either with the man or with their partner. A lot of women might think they're the problem. One could argue maybe he doesn't want Marisol to feel bad, but if that was the case, then he would be doing his damndest to reassure her that he just needs a minute with the nun thing and not to take it personally. Instead, he avoids her, doesn't respond to her messages, and now--looks very panicked at the idea of her possibly trying to initiate sex with him. Which is kind of hilarious because what makes you think she even wants to have sex with you right now after you've been avoiding her all day?

This is another interesting line because it suggests that Eddie finds sex to be a chore. An obligation. Something he must provide his partner in order to keep them satisfied, and something that he's always done just to please his partner. I'm not saying he gets no pleasure from sex with women, but it doesn't feel to me like sex is really something Eddie really likes all that much just for himself if it's something "he'll get through somehow." I understand that this is a joke on Buck's end, but it's still written into the show on purpose, and sometimes jokes are just ways to cover up speaking the truth.

I want to talk some more now about Perception, specifically how both Buck and Eddie felt perceived this episode in ways that made them uncomfortable. For Buck, he was experiencing for the first time what it feels like for the world at large to perceive him as a queer man. Seeing eyes everywhere when no one was really watching. And for Eddie, it's the same, except instead of society perceiving him it's God. Both society and "God" are both entities that are known to be judgemental overall. But my question is, why does Eddie feel judged for sleeping with a woman who never even made the final steps to become a nun?

Buck is right, if God is an omniscient presence he would've always been watching, so why now does the idea of an All Powerful Being perceiving Eddie having relations with a woman terrify him so much? Is he afraid of "someone" knowing what actually runs through his head when he's being intimate with a woman? Is he ashamed that he's not actually as into it as he appears to be? Maybe now that the catholic guilt has been brought back up in Eddie consciousness, the thoughts are spilling through, and he's not able to stop them this time, and he's scared that someone, God, or society, or whoever, will see that he's not actually as into women as he wants people to believe. All of this is something I don't think he's realized. It's just as much unconscious to him as Buck's bisexuality was to him last episode. But something is bound to happen that finally clarifies it for Eddie.

He comes to the conclusion that he has to break up with her. But when confronted, he says he doesn't actually want to break up with her. Why? Because she just moved in. Not because he "really likes her" or because "he wants to build a life with her" or because "he wants her there" or because "he wants a relationship with her", it's because it's inconvenient because she just moved in and it makes him look bad (honey, far too late). He doesn't actually want to be with Marisol, he just likes the idea of cohabitating because it gives the illusion of a family without actually having to put any effort into building and strengthening it. This is exactly like how in the scene previous, he admits to Bobby that he liked being married, not necessarily that he loved Shannon. He just loved being married to her. This is the exact same thing.

This showcases Eddie's fundamental misunderstanding of both Tommy AND Buck. He has his blinders on the entire episode, and he walks a fine line between just misunderstanding or being willfully ignorant. The same way he doesn't see Buck and Tommy's queerness is in my opinion, the same way he doesn't see his own queerness.

Eddie's facial expressions here--Gosh, hats OFF to Ryan!! He really looked like he was shaken to the core. Especially his face in the last still. You can tell he did not see it coming at all. Because for "manly men" like Eddie, Buck, and Tommy, he's probably never even thought of it being a possibility for people like them.

This is especially evident when his first thought is not of Buck being queer, but of Tommy. And I don't think this is because he's surprised more about Tommy, or is not putting enough emphasis on Buck. I think it's more so that Eddie is aware that Tommy and he have A LOT in common, so much so that Eddie probably heavily identified with Tommy, and to have this part of Tommy be something so "different" from what Eddie expected is more shocking to him in the moment. Because if a man like Tommy (Eddie's narrative mirror) is queer, then what does that say about Eddie? I think that's why his first thought is about Tommy.

It might also be because it's easier for Eddie to process Tommy's queerness in the moment than it is for him to process Buck's queerness. In the same way that Buck was so unsure of why he was so hesitant to tell Eddie, Eddie might be struggling to comprehend Buck's queerness and what that means for them and their relationship without appearing to be unsupportive.

Additionally, it's interesting that Tommy's queerness never came up in conversation since it seemed like Tommy and Eddie got pretty close and "clicked" in a very short period of time. Is it possible Tommy is supposed to contrast Buck here? Buck says "Tommy just doesn't offer that information up". Maybe Tommy is also aware of how supposed "straight" men react when they learn that someone like him is into men. It provides an interesting contrast to Buck, who was so anxious about telling Eddie because he worried about how it would affect their relationship in particular, whereas Tommy just opted not to tell him at all just because he doesn't tell people unless they ask.

Buck asks if this is weird for Eddie, but Buck is aware that Eddie is not a homophobic person, and therefore wouldn't need to be worried (like Tommy could've been since he's only just met them both three weeks ago). Buck's known Eddie for six years, he knows Eddie knows plenty of queer people and has never had an adverse reaction to them. But this is personal because Buck knows that he's one of, if not the closest adult in Eddie's life. If Eddie is uncomfortable with Buck, it ruins their entire...everything. This says to me that Buck knew that by telling Eddie about this something would change, but he just doesn't know what.

I told myself if Eddie said any statements in this episode along this line, anything that felt like it was in the same vein as "no homo" that it would signal to me immediately that they were going to go there with Eddie's sexuality storyline, and this counts for me.

Eddie, it should be a given that you don't like Tommy in the same Buck does. No one in the room is accusing Eddie of being queer, and yet he says this all on his own for no reason other than to purposefully distance himself from queerness. All of which point to internalized homophobia. A person who was secure in their straight sexuality would not feel the need to clarify that they are straight (making it a bit about yourself there, huh, Eddie?) immediately after a close loved one just came out to you.

This is not a scenario where someone's coming on to Eddie and he has to say "no, sorry I'm not into men." This isn't someone asking him point blank, "are you gay?" and he says no. Nowhere in this conversation was there anything that Buck said that could've made Eddie feel like he was also being accused of queerness and yet Eddie feels the need to make it known that is in fact, not gay.

Eddie, a confident straight man, should understand that this convo is about Buck's queerness, not whether or not Eddie is being perceived as queer. This coming right after he looked so shocked about Tommy, when the last two episodes spent a lot of time painstakingly telling us that HEY! HEY! EDDIE AND TOMMY ARE SUPER ALIKE!

Eddie. My guy. Your queer realization arc is coming and of that I am certain.

This line read to me in the same way as the line in 7x01: "but with only one [gender] is there underlying sexual tension". This line, spoken by Buck, was disproven in episode 4. This line here from Eddie is put there to eventually be challenged. This line has two meanings, which is that of course the foundation of their friendship will not change because of Buck's queerness, but it does signal to the audience that some part of their relationship will change. What could that be? The only thing that makes sense at this point in the story is for the romantic aspect of their storyline to finally be explored. I think this is foreshadowing that story that's likely going to come at some point down the line. I don't know if it'll be this season, but it's going to come, of that I'm sure now.

Bucktommy as a direct parallel to Eddiemarisol is so interesting because whereas with Buck you can tell that he genuinely has interest in Tommy, it's heavily juxtaposed by how uninterested in Marisol Eddie has acted pretty much since the second they got together in season 6. Even Eddie's face here looks like he's thinking "wish I knew what that felt like". Don't get me wrong, I do think that Eddie wants a real connection, but I think he thinks that if he just stays with a woman for long enough one will just develop through proximity alone. But that's not how relationships work. It didn't work with Shannon and their relationship continued to be dysfunctional until the day she died. It didn't work with Ana, but that time, his physical reactions were enough to get him to break up with her. With Marisol, I think Eddie's at his patience end. He doesn't want to give up and be alone again. Or worse, have to start trying all over again. He doesn't want to fail again, because failing this time not only means failing himself but failing Christopher as well.

We just saw in 7x01 that Christopher believed that it wouldn't matter what he did, people (girlfriends in this case) would always leave. Christopher learned this from Eddie. Eddie deciding to stick it out with Marisol is both him desperately trying to grasp onto the possibility of a connection, but also a way to prove to himself and to Christopher that not all relationships have to end.

But in this case, Eddie's advice makes sense for Buck, because he's literally in the early stages of this relationship with Tommy, he's still trying to get to know Tommy, and he's trying to adjust to queerness for the first time in his life. For Eddie, this is at minimum a 4-6 month old relationship, one that he's just randomly decided to take "to the next level" and he did all of this without bothering to get to know Marisol AT ALL. That ENTIRE time. While it's true that Buck hasn't yet had a chance to figure it out what it is with Tommy, Eddie has had many chances before but has chosen not to take them. And I think when faced with the reality that he would giving up on yet another relationship, the prospect of failing yet again, he decides to go against what his gut is telling him and stays with Marisol.

I love that Eddie realized before he left that Buck needed physical assurance and gave it to him. This is their first hug in many seasons and it's a beautiful one. Eddie puts his thumb on Buck's pulse yet again, and I'm sure that was a very reassuring thing to feel, to know that Eddie still cares that deeply for him. He even puts his finger up and tells Buck to call Tommy, showing his support for Buck's relationship with Tommy, which was never a question that he would do. Because it's no question that Eddie loves Buck to the core, and he will always want Buck to be happy. He just hasn't figured out that his own happiness is possible specifically with Buck.

This entire scene also was physically blocked very similar to the scene in the episode right before, the scene that ended with Tommy kissing Buck. The only difference here was the topic of conversation and the fact that it ended in a hug and not a kiss. Buck lets out a sigh of relief as Eddie leaves, exactly the same way he let out a sign of relief after realizing his attraction to men.

Marisol's possessions in this episode have been a metaphor for who she is. Eddie's choice to look in the boxes at the beginning of the episode was him finally dipping his toe into learning who she is and he was uncomfortable with what he saw there, not because of Marisol, but because it reminded him that he's not being true to himself in this relationship. And now, he's given another chance here at the end. Marisol's metaphorical box is open, and an invitation for Eddie to take to get to know her more, and instead of wanting to get to know her, he says he "doesn't want to know what's in there". He admits that not only does he not know Marisol, but he doesn't WANT to get to know her.

In the same way, Eddie doesn't know the truth of who he is, he doesn't want to find out the truth. He doesn't want to open the pandora's box inside him and wade through the shit until he finds the tiny little bit of hope. Eddie would rather close the box and leave it closed and keep this relationship with Marisol going rather than try to dig deeper to figure out the real reason why this whole issue happened.

Marisol's reasons for not telling Eddie about the nun thing herself are understandable. She was worried about judgment, rejection, or possible fetishization. It makes sense to me why Eddie, in the end, was able to ask for just a minute to digest it. I think he realized that in the end, the nun thing isn't the whole dealbreaker here, it's something else. Something he's not willing to examine at this time. And since he's realized that the problem isn't Marisol, but him, he can move past the weirdness, and accept Marisol.

Because it's not Marisol he's accepting or rejecting, but the promise of a continued relationship in the future.

Marisol offers him a chance to back out, and you can tell that his first instinct (his "gut" reaction) is to take it. And yet....he adds a "yet". He keeps her on the hook, and he ignores the signs his gut is telling him. In an episode written partially by Taylor Wong who laid all the same "the universe is screaming" and "I do not panic" story threads, Eddie is once again ignoring them and going against his gut despite what he says next.

Eddie tells Marisol that he tends to rush his relationships, and this is true. Despite Eddie being so stubborn and hard to get to know most of the time when it comes to his romantic relationships, he over-commits. I've already talked about how he did the same thing with all of his relationships, including Shannon. He over-commits and under-delivers. I'm glad that they're pointing this out textually in canon because it's true and it's a large part of the issue, even though the root of it is not yet being explored.

However, him saying he "goes with his gut" and lets his head catch up later, is both a true and false statement. When it comes to his romantic relationships Eddie purposely ignores his gut, each and every time. When his gut tells him that he shouldn't bring Shannon back into his life, he ignores it (though this situation is a bit more nuanced). When his gut tells him something's wrong with his relationship with Ana, he says he's going to stick it out anyway. When his gut tells him to end things with Marisol, he doubles down.

The true part of this statement is that he lets his head catch up later. But the thing is that when his body tries to show him later on that something is wrong, whether that be through panic attacks or sexual dysfunction, he continues to ignore it or refuses to dig into it deeper. He still hasn't confronted the truth of his unhealthy relationship with Shannon. He didn't examine why his relationship with Ana didn't work, and he's not questioning himself deeply enough to ask why he's so deeply uncomfortable in his relationship with Marisol.

One thing is for sure, Eddie is an unreliable narrator. He has a hard time understanding his feelings let alone communicating them, and therefore whenever he says statements like these, I think it's worth it to always question it. Does it actually feel like he's telling the truth from a place of understanding, or from a place of what he wishes he could feel?

Go to part four (last part).

Part 1, Part 2, Part 4

[sydsaint]

Working on a survivor series fic for the trio so have this to tide y'all over until then.

Summary: Adam Pearce enlists the help of the Smackdown GM and her trio of boyfriends to handle Rhea Ripley and The Judgment Day.

You're sitting in your office enjoying lunch while answering a few work emails when someone knocks on the door.

"Come in." You call out, mouth half-full of food. "Adam? I wasn't expecting to see you today, Pearce. Did I miss an email about a meeting or something?" You swallow your food and glance at your laptop.

"No, no meeting." Pearce shakes his head and shuts the door behind him. "I saw you come in early and was hoping that we could chat. If you're not busy, of course." He explains.

You gesture to the empty seat in front of Adam and he takes a seat. You push your laptop off to the side of your desk and turn your attention to your fellow general manager. "I'm just having lunch, nothing important. So, what's up?" You ask him.

"Well, Y/N, if I'm being completely honest with you, I have a favor to ask of you." Pearce gets straight to the point.

"Oh?" You reply, curiosity piqued. "Alright, what can I do for you?" You ask him.

Pearce hesitates for a moment, unsure if he even wants to ask you for help. But he needs it. So he swallows his pride and gets to his point.

"I'm sure that you've been at least keeping up with Raw these past few months since I took over?" Pearce asks you and you nod. "Well, then you must know that Rhea Ripley and the rest of Judgment Day have been causing me grief." He adds.

"Oh yeah, I don't envy you there, Pearce." You tease him lightheartedly. "Kind of makes you miss dealing with Roman's BS, doesn't it?" You laugh.

Pearce lets out a small chuckle and shakes his head. "Not a chance in hell." He smiles at you. "But back to my point. I know that this must sound terribly desperate and in poor taste on my part. But, to be frank? I'm out of options."

"Alright." You nod. "So, what do you need me for?" You urge your colleague to get to the point already.

"Y/N, I'm here to ask if you'd consider helping me in handling Rhea and the rest of Judgement Day," Pearce explains.

Your eyebrows raise a bit in surprise. "Help you how exactly, Adam?" You prompt him.

"Rhea is the main problem that I'm facing, but as a man, there's only so much I can do when it comes to her behavior. But if a woman was to confront her. Specifically one in a position of power equal to my own. Then I believe that I might have a better chance of reigning her in." He explains.

"So essentially you want me to come over to Raw and put Ripley in her place?" You clarify for yourself. "Knock her down a beg so she's not such a pain in the ass for you all the time?"

Pearce nods and confirms your clarification. You study his face and can tell that there's something more that he'd like to ask you.

"Yes, essentially," Adam confirms. "I was also hoping that you might enlist a certain trio to aid with Damian, Finn, Dominik, and JD." He adds suggestively.

"Right." You crack a smile. "Well, you do seem desperate coming to me for help." You tease Pearce with a smile. "So, I'd love to help out, Adam."

Pearce seems slightly surprised by your willingness to help him out. "Really? Thank you, Y/N." He smiles eagerly at you.

"Of course, Adam. What are friends for? Just let me make a quick phone call." You pick up your phone and dial a number. "Hey, yeah I know I'm at work right now. Listen, I need you to come down to my office right now...Yes for work." You roll your eyes. "Mhm, and bring the two stooges with you. Alright, thanks. Mhm, love you too, bye."

You hang up the phone and turn back to Adam waiting patiently for your conversation to continue. "They'll be here soon." You inform him.

"That fast?" Adam replies.

"What can I say?" You giggle. "They're good boys. Always come when called." You joke.

You chat with Pearce for a while and finish up your lunch. Then, around half an hour later, a knock sounds at the door again.

"Come in!" You shout and turn your attention to the door.

"I grabbed Waller and Theory from the gym. So what's up sweetheart? What did you need all three of us for?" Knight walks into the room first and is quick to spot Adam sitting behind the desk with you. "What's Pearce doing here?"

You wait for Grayson and Austin to both file into the room after Knight. Austin shuts the door behind him and the two turn their attention on you before you speak up.

"Thank you for getting here so fast, Shaun, sweetie. And picking up Gray and Austin for me." You thank him with a smile.

"Yeah, no problem, hun." Knight nods. "So, are you going let us in on what you've got going on here?" He asks you.

Austin and Grayson share a small look before they both nod in agreement with Knight. "Yeah, what's he doing here?" Grayson points a finger at Pearce.

"It's a pleasure seeing you all again." Pearce nods to everyone.

"Pearce and I were just having lunch and discussing some business." You begin to explain the situation. "Adam has been having some trouble with Rhea Ripley and the Judgment Day. And he's requested our, or rather, my help. So, you three are coming to Raw this Monday with me. I'm going to handle Rhea, and you three are going to help Pearce with the rest of her entourage." You explain.

Knight, Waller, and Theory all turn to one another and share a few glances before they all turn back to you and Pearce. "What if we're busy on Monday?" Grayson asks.

"You're not." You reply plainly. "I have all three of your work schedules. And I also know your personal plans for the rest of the month." You remind them. "Austin has a mandatory physical next Wednesday. And Shaun has a PR thing on Tuesday. Besides that? The three of you are mine to order around."

"Well, she's got us there." Knight chuckles. "We'd be happy to help out, Y/N, of course." He grins at you.

You nod and turn to Pearce. "Well then, it looks like we've got a deal then, Adam." You reach out to shake his hand. "We can discuss the details of our little arrangement later. But for now, I'll be seeing you on Monday in Kansas City." You shake his hands firmly.

"Pleasure doing business with you, Y/N." Pearce nods. "I look forward to seeing you all on Monday." He adds before he makes his swift exit from your office.

The door clicks shut and the onslaught of questions starts to pour in. "What did he mean by arrangement?" Austin asks you.

"Just a little trade we've got going on. Nothing you three need to worry about." You reply.

"How are you planning on handling Rhea?" Grayson asks you. "I mean, if Pearce can't keep her in line?"

You smile to yourself and laugh a little. "Oh, I've got my ways." You assure Waller. "Rhea won't be a problem for Adam anymore when I'm done with her, trust me."

"Which one of us are you planning on traveling with this time?" Knight asks his own question.

You shrug and glance at your laptop when it pings with a new message. "Probably you so I don't have to share a room with those two again." You tease Grayson and Austin. "They get all possessive when it comes to who gets to share the bed with me." You giggle. 

"Now hold on a second." Grayson protests.

"Yeah! We can get along for the night." Austin agrees. "Why don't you travel with us, Y/N?" He whines with Grayson.

You roll your eyes playfully and shake your head. "You two also get up to the most nonsense when you're on the road." You remind them. "And I don't need distractions when I'm trying to work?"

"Oh, so I'm not a distraction now?" Knight chimes in.

"You're plenty distracting, sweetie." You reply. "Just in a different way." You assure him. "Now all of you out! I've got another meeting soon." You usher the trio toward the door.

Austin, Grayson, and Knight all nod and head for the door, knowing better than to interfere with work. "We'll see you later, Y/N." Knight waves before he steps out the door.

"Yeah, take care, babe," Austin adds.

"We'll see you later, gorgeous." Grayson winks at you.

[marshemillow]

phone addiction is actually a real specific issue that has been researched. I would recommend reading "How to Break Up With Your Phone" by Catherine Price. Not for the advice, obviously since you don't have that problem, but it's a very thorough resource that compiles many studies. This is at the beginning of the book before the guide. It's actually a genuine problem for many people gen x and younger that is specifically about the phone itself and not the content being consumed.

See? This is what I mean when I say I must be living in a different dimension than everyone else.

Okay so I looked up the book you recommended, and already I found some weird self-help guru red flags, but let's not even focus on that because science is science. I can't just get the book and read it right this second, but I did look up a synopsis and a few reviews. I didn't see any references to studies, but I did see people giving a rundown of the book's content and what to expect, and apparently the entire first half of it is just dedicated to fear mongering about how cell phones will ruin your life and destroy your attention span and your ability to feel accomplished and dopamine is addictive and social media makes you depressed and blah blah blah honestly Jesus Christ if you've already picked up the book, chances are you don't need it hammered home even harder that you're basically going to die early because you didn't delete the Facebook app off your phone. Why is the judgemental fear mongering necessary?

Here's the thing; Third spaces don't exist anymore. Roads are dangerous to play on and even ride your bike across, every public place requires you to pay for transportation to even get to, and even just STANDING is illegal (loitering). People have even mentioned that their phone addiction only got so bad after the pandemic started, meaning they're turning to their phone for any kind of social connection being stuck at home. I definitely understand, I used to have really severe agoraphobia I'm still recovering from. Without places outside to hang out with friends, especially if you don't have a driver's license or a job yet, talking to your friends online is the only option.

Does it rot your brain to talk to your friends? Why is it automatically assumed that screen friendships are less worthwhile than face-to-face ones? If social media isn't the problem but having a phone is, then what the fuck is it about the phone itself that causes grey matter to erode!? Has my brain been fucked playing Professor Layton this whole time!?

Obviously, this is just cursory research, I'm not exactly doing proper journalism here, and I'm not saying phone addiction doesn't exist or that it isn't a problem, I just remain unconvinced it's a bad enough problem all on its own to warrant mass concern about it. There are definitely people who have an unhealthy relationship with their phone and with technology, and the ease of access phones create could definitely exacerbate a problem already brewing, but to say that that means phones are addictive? I don't know. It just seems like too much of a stretch to me, that's all I'm saying.

I might still read that book though. It's definitely got me curious.

[drdemonprince]

in regards to the concept of abled people not existing/abled folks being expected to do more in relationships with disabled folks... You make some good points about us all being disabled in different ways and not recognizing it, but I still feel that there's quite a vsst gap materially between say, an ADHDer who can lift and push 50lbs easily/without pain and one who can't. And i have run into big roadblocks in relationships with other lefty types as the person who can't! And I think that expectation should be talked about and accepted more because I know a lot of "leftists" who would never think to apply this to stuff like doing the dishes because they're hellbent on everyone doing Equal Amounts. It's all fun and IG graphics about disability justice until they decide that youre Nonbinary roomate named sock who doesnt do the dishes etc etc , then see yourselves to the door!

You're absolutely right that there are differences in what various disabled people can do and the privileges that affords. It's glaringly obvious as a problem in Autism spaces, where people who can mask and speak like me are listened to and trusted and frequently talk over people who are nonverbal and cannot mask.

Even there, though, there are massive problems in attempting to rank-order someone's level of ability rather than just speaking specifically about these things in terms of privileges and oppressions. People assume I'm capable of all kinds of things I am not capable of, for instance, or hold me to ableist standards of productivity and ability because I "seem more capable. And Autistic people whose disabilities are more obvious have the opposite problem -- they are denied agency, presumed to be incompetent, not permitted to take on challenges they could find stimulating and worthwhile, and are dehumanized, etc.

And so where I'm getting with this is that we can't determine from the outside what a person is capable of doing, or what they should be capable of doing. It's not that far of a logical path to go from saying "Oh, this ADHDer is not physically disabled, they can lift 50 pounds, they can do a lot of things that I can't do" to saying "This ADHDer didn't unpack all our luggage for two weeks after our trip, they are lazy and not pulling their weight."

Someone might have the literal physical ability to do something in terms of strength or mobility, but not have the ability to complete a task because of the disabilities they do have (ADHD, in this case), and even if we are disabled ourselves we may be primed to see those people as lazy, uncaring, not pulling their weight, and all kinds of ableist interpretations.

So broadly I get your point, it is undoubtedly true some of us have abilities that others don't. but I think there's no way to put this idea into practice beyond just trusting people when they say they cannot do a thing, and not passing harsh judgement against people we think ought to be able to do a thing but don't (and maybe can't). This goes back to the original point of the discussion -- wondering why so many other people seem to fail disabled people and not show up for them.

To your second point, about a lot of even leftist people bringing therapy and instagram infographic "boundary setting" advice to their relationships and expecting all chores to be divided up equally, yeah that's a big problem and it's been a big problem in interpersonal relationships for many decades at this point. Most people overestimate the portion of the chores that they do, underestimate the work their partners or housemates do, and aspire to "equity" in a way that drives them absolutely crazy with score-keeping and resentment. There's a lot of research on how that outlook absolutely poisons heterosexual relationships and has done so pretty much ever since women started getting the ability to say no to a chore. It's a big problem of individualism under capitalism at its root, I think.

And the social change needed is much the same thing -- people need to learn to actually trust their loved ones when they say they cannot do the dishes, cannot clean the gutters, can't drop off the rent check, etc. I think a disability justice politics of raising everyone's class consciousness regarding their own disabilities and others is the way to go, and a massive strengthening of community ties.

[kzele]

Unpopular TSSM Opinion

Sha-Shan was a better example of a serious moral compass love interest to Flash than Gwen was to, well, anybody.

The gal clearly has no problem turning a guy down until they've proven he isn't a too much of a douche. And she doesn't care how popular they are. If they make make the right, but hard choices, then they've got her interest.

Gwen, on the other hand, can’t seem to judge any of her friend’s moods or situations correctly and make an appropriate decision. For instance, whether as friends or love interests she and Harry are a dumpster fire. When the guy passes out in the courtyard and then avoids her, what does she do? Does she (a) tell her COP dad about it at home, (b) tell Harry’s father, (c) tell a teacher/coach/school counselor AKA any other figure in a position of actual authority? Nope. She tells Peter that something’s wrong with Harry, but doesn’t elaborate enough for him to take her concerns seriously, so he puts it among the lesser problems he has to deal with. Because if Peter was actually told the specifics, this would be MUCH higher on his problems list. There’s no way he’d have to be bullied into talking with Harry, otherwise. (Also, how is it possible that she couldn’t sense anything off about Eddie after he returned to the lab? He’s obviously creepy and fake and you’ve known him since you were both in single digits. If it was just Eddie this happened with, I wouldn’t be having my doubts about her judgement.)

This brings me to my next point about boundaries. Peter respects hers more than she respects his. Thus, she can only enforce her boundaries and/or will if someone already respects her. Harry and Gwen’s full-on couple status is proof. Harry’s shoved her against a locker, jumped over her during a villain attack (did he ever apologize for that?), and the first thing he does is ignore his new girlfriend in favor of calling his dad about having a girlfriend. Oh, and she’s ignoring all these red flags in an implied attempt to make Peter jealous. Nuff said about that ball of toxicity they got going on.

Flash saw Sha-Shan as a hot nerd/rebound, then as a challenge, and finally as someone whom he wants to be respected by. She didn’t let him get anywhere by being a jerk or overstepping. Granted, she had the benefit of not caring about Flash’s opinion of her, like Gwen would with long-time friends. And yet, despite being very judgy about him at the start, once they’re together she understands that Flash will say/do dumb things but it doesn’t take away from his good heart. Sha-Shan accepts him and his flaws. Ironically, despite Gwen being in love with Peter over Harry, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a time where she cuts Peter any slack for anything even when it’s not his fault. Including and up to not dying.(Not actually joking about that. See Christmas Tree aftermath s2ep3.) Maybe it’s just me, but I swear Harry and Eddie could be be kicking puppies off the Brooklynn Bridge in front of her and she’d be giving Peter the silent treatment for missing her calls trying to stop it.

I'm aware that Gwen isn't evil whatsoever but I find her immensely frustrating when TSSM has better female characters to choose from. And this post is for other people who agree with me. I'm not denying the flaws of anyone else here, be it Peter or Harry or whoever else, but I can't cover my thoughts on all the dynamics at play here without overloading my laptop and this site. I feel like Gwen's actions in the show get glossed over a lot. I've seen Peter and Harry get criticized for their actions and sympathy for their differently bad lives within the show, but Gwen. . .doesn't get that same scrutiny. She makes objectively horrible/stupid choices about how to go about things in her relationships but somehow she seems to get less spotlight shed on those things. Instead, the responsibility is often shoved the two guys for screwing up, despite either having far more on their plate or a bad home life. Anyways, I've rambled incoherently enough. Hope it brought you some food for thought even if you don't agree with everything.

[beeclaws]

i finished season 6!! i have...many thoughts. arguably too many. and please be aware that unlike my last screaming session, there's a fair bit of discussion here that isn't wholly positive! if negativity/criticism of this show is going to bum you out (genuinely no judgement if so), please don't click this readmore!

organised into a numbered list to pretend i'm capable of coherency. okay.

i am extremely biased and you shouldn't listen to me probably

there is a sense in which this show cannot win with me once it starts changing the status quo beyond approx the cultural festival, because i'm in the weird position of having spent literal years living mentally in this space that's like vaguely post-kamino to just post-overhaul. that's my comfy cozy little status quo zone and i like it there a lot. so when this show necessarily, very legimately wants to move its plot and characters forward from that point, there is always a part of me that feels a little like someone just ripped a big wall off my favourite playhouse - it's a legitimate story development but also hey :/

that said! when i was looking ahead at the stuff i knew happened from the point after i stopped watching, i kind of thought "huh, it sure does seem to escalate pretty intensely and become Just All War after a certain point." and i kind of thought that perception might be a function of my knowledge being all from spoilers, bc naturally that will focus on big plot developments and leave out quieter in-between moments. but uh... nope! again i cannot be trusted with perceptions about pace but...my feeling when watching is very much that at a certain point horikoshi decided he was barreling this thing right to the finish line

and that's fair! a lot of what's going on here with this status quo shake-up is like the objectively competent storytelling move where you don't give the audience time to slow down so they're feeling the same sense of overwhelm and fear that the characters are. basically it's me not them but boy would i have liked...space. for characters to slow down and react and feel things.

2. midnight was fucking robbed

she was robbed!!! why even kill her if you aren't gonna give it...weight. i know she's a minor character but best jeanist is a minor character and i feel like his fakeout death was borderline given more screentime and gravity than midnight's real actual death. and i know this show isn't about aizawa but fuck!! she had a big big place in the young aizawa arc, she mattered! to mic and aizawa! they were friends for 15 years! and they just don't really...do anything with it. i feel like if they'd killed mic off there'd have been...something. something that wasn't here. and she's not that much more minor a character than mic

3. the dabi reveal ruled

we all knew but christ. dance with your son in hell! the wilder and more bloodthirsty he gets the more i'm here for it. go for it you funky little maniac. love that he was animated like a weird little marionette while talking about shouto being a puppet. it's genuinely impressive that even with 0% surprise factor this still hit so good. i'm rotating him in my head like a microwave

and i say often that this show is better at creating problems than solving them for me but it sure is good at creating problems like. that fucking house. the pressure cooker of misery. tiny little touya soaking it all in. harrowing

4. the thing where dabi is a foil for shouto does not hit for me

i know i just said a bunch of good things about the dabi stuff but. okay.

i was conceptually never here for the concept of endeavour redemption arc and i will say! i was at times pleasantly surprised. the ep that basically concludes that the best thing he can do for his family is to stay the fuck away from them had more maturity than i expected. and again i genuinely enjoy the drama! it's very good drama!

but there is just. something about the thing where dabi is specifically there to be like. this is what shouto needs to try not to turn into with his anger towards his father, this is the path that could lead him down that just... for me it rings too much like vilifying the anger of an abused child. after they went so hard and so explicit on the domestic abuse angle.

i'm not saying you can't tell good interesting and valuable stories about anger after abuse, and even about how it's easy to become consumed by hatred when you've been wronged and let that take away your future. probably this story is that for some people. it isn't for me.

5. i love mirio but the missed potential of his temporary quirklessness fucking haunts me

idk if i can even say more about this like. i love him. i was happy to see him again. i long ago accepted that this show will never dig into quirklessness in a way that would satisfy me (and yes i know about Future Events and will be pleasantly surprised if that proves me wrong). but i truly cannot get over the missed potential of doing nothingggggg with this character who explicitly had a power that only let him be an incredible hero because of WORK. and effort. and training. and then having him lose the power but not the work and effort and training, and then shoving him gently out of the narrative until he just gets the power back one day. when your protagonist grew up quirkless!!! the opportunity for reflection on that is so obvious!!

okay apparently i could say more about that. sorry. read pez dispenser debris

6. hawks man

i already yelled (positively) about the twice stuff last time but it's worth yelling again because fuck!! again it's wild to me that after actively encouraging and seeking out spoilers, i still managed not to know this. and it fucking hit. toga's line where she goes "if [heroes'] purpose is to save people, did they not think jin was a person?" hit so fucking hard i had to pause the episode and put my hand over my mouth and stare at the ceiling for a while. it's...genuinely damning

and i think they did a really incredible job building hawks' character to the point where he does this. like. it's one of those perfect tragedy things where you can see all the pieces spinning into place. make someone into a weapon and they're gonna draw blood.

and then as always. i just vibe way more with the creation of those problems than their solutions. i'm sure they will do at least a little more with hawks but. idk. i feel like horikoshi is so good at breaking stuff and then he kind of hastily glues it back together and i'm like wait please. the wreckage was so fascinating. fixing it would be so long and hard and also fascinating. this is what fanfiction is for probably

7. lady nagant!!

i knew nothing about her going in and i liked her a lot. the music worked so well, there's this one specific kind of circussy little riff that i liked almost as much as AFO's theme, my other fave piece of music from this show

and again it's like...genuinely damning! holy fuck! and i'm trying to just enjoy the parts where they launch extremely cutting criticisms of hero society without remembering that my vague amalgamation of spoiler knowledge suggests we will not be....doing a whole lot with that

8. iconic yellow scarf era of sadness! at last!

in some ways i am the ideal audience for this narrative and in other ways i am again hopelessly biased. bc i have been craving content that addresses the fact that my boy is like this for so long, but also it's so My Favourite Subject that i have seen done well so many times that i'm like...would anything ever really be enough for me, an addressing midoriya's self destruction guy for literally 5 years now

in my head i expected this arc to be izuku going fully rogue so i was surprised when this was like...a semi-sanctioned thing, at least at first. but makes sense so you can then build to him being basically totally rogue. and oof the build. i really liked the visuals! let my son be fucked up and scary and haunted

and god when he admits he can't go back because he is so scared. i feel like the mall scene hit way harder for me this rewatch because there are so many horrible aspects to it, but particularly the thing of looking at these people all around you and knowing if you cry out too loud they will all get hurt. and it will be your fault, if you can't bear it quietly enough. and you are fifteen fucking years old. so the moment at jaku when izuku looks around at all the evacuating civilians and you can see him realising that him being anywhere near them could doom them. because they're near you, and this person with impossibly destructive power wants You. you're next...that inversion. that pressure. i love him forever and ever...

9. i knew aizawa would not be in this arc but i felt his absence so keenly

like i know i know. he's a minor character. he was busy not having a leg anymore. but i would have killed a man for anyyyy kind of OFA reveal reaction/one of his kids running around the city with a target on his back from the world-ending villains reaction. please. please. i knew i wouldn't get it but i still wanted it very bad

[tarysande]

Apologies if I'm prying, and obviously you don't have to answer at all, or publicly, if you don't want to: I've only been diagnosed with ADHD a couple of months and I'm still looking for admin jobs/working a few part time bits. Do you disclose? Or do you think it's a bad idea to disclose/wouldn't work for your situation?

I'm always happy to talk about my experiences!

So, my situation is a little different because I'm self-employed. Part of the reason I'm self-employed is because I have ADHD. I like being able to set my own schedule. I like not having to work in the morning (when I'm pretty much useless). I like being able to (for the most part) choose my work based on whether it's interesting/novel/challenging enough to keep me interested--and I like that my work is always changing. Even if I get bogged down on one project (i.e., I'm so bored I want to pull my eyeballs out), I know it'll end and I'll get to move on to something else.

In my primary source of employment (I'm a freelance editor and writing coach), I'm quite open about my ADHD specifically because I want neurodivergent writers to know I understand and empathize with many of their struggles. I can (and do!) tailor my approach when working with folks who have, for example, issues with rejection sensitivity, emotional dysregulation, or trauma around criticism. We're all in this together.

That said, I am also very aware that my employment situation is made possible by the fact that my husband has a good, salaried job that includes the health insurance that pays for the various and sundry (ridiculously expensive) medications I'm on. And I live in a country where my health care is not tied to employment.

I do have a very, very part time gig for an employer (I'm still considered a contractor, though), and I did disclose to them--but only after we ran into a situation where I was made incredibly uncomfortable by the extremely neurotypical way they decided to handle a difficult situation. Without going into details, they called me in for a meeting that I would much, MUCH rather have preferred as an email. I explained that everything about the way they handled things led to extreme issues with rejection sensitivity and emotional dysregulation that would have been entirely mitigated by a) clearer communication and b) giving me time to process the information in a private space. While they didn't get it at first, I was able to eventually make them understand where I was coming from, and they changed the behavior to accommodate me. But--and this is a big but--I already had a good relationship with the management, so they were willing to listen without judgement.

Even though there are meant to be anti-discrimination protections (including providing accommodations for neurodiverse folks), I'm not entirely sure I believe they ... work? There's still a lot of stigma. And sometimes people hear "ADHD" and assume "flake"--which absolutely is not the case.

I would say that if you do disclose, be sure to clarify what kinds of accommodations you might require and to heavily lean on the strengths you bring to the role instead of what an employer might perceive as weaknesses. (For example: I work extremely well under pressure. I will be less effective if given work with vague or non-existent deadlines. I am an excellent problem solver who often discovers or invents solutions not just for existing issues but for those that haven't yet become critical. My enthusiasm for work I find interesting, novel, and rewarding is boundless. I am creative, dedicated, and motivated ... but only after about eleven in the morning.)