#tbh I think it's the purity culture like

[imminent-danger-came]

tbh you are so real for talking about the misogyny targeted to mei & other women in the lmk fandom. in general its like people only value mei as: a: the wingman to some basic mlm ship or b: macaque 2.0. its honestly crazy how so many male side characters overshadow her in the fanbase despite not even having a FRACTION of her screen time. idk chat i feel like the reason people dont care about mei but care about some random male side/background character is less because they're inherently more likeable but because some of you view women as inherently less likable. and everyone is always like "mei is so girlboss pussy cunt slay shes the only reason theyre still alive because she keeps them safe from their silly boy shennanigans shes their ultimate wingman shes so badass shes their lesbian best friend i totally paid attention to her when i watched this show LOL" and even ignoring the obvious misogyny here (ie. how people reduce her to being the male characters babysitter) its like... okay... i know mei is cool & badass already... could you name literally ANY other character trait she has. like people just value her as being "the braincell" who can get red son and mk together or something stupid and its like are we having fun still is this still fun. literally every day i go into the mei tag its like "look at mei shes red sons wifey and shes vaguely in the background of this drawing of red son and mk staring into each others eyes #trafficlighttrio am i right oh look shes macaques niece now this post is about ao lie why is it in the mei tag"

and thats literally JUST talking about mei and it doesnt even begin to cover the other female characters. chang'e constantly gets reduced to being red sons aunt/mom/big sister despite them like. not having any actual interactions in the show. lady bone demon constantly gets overshadowed by her minion who has like 2 seconds of screen time, or she gets made into a cartoonishly abusive madwoman who people call lady bitch demon. just in general people act like shes a horrible person for like. being a villain. liks yeah the trying to destroy everything was bad but also she was an antagonist and thats what antagonists do LOL. spider queen gets completely ignored. princess iron fan gets made into a cartoonishly abusive mother so that way red son can have a poor angsty backstory and some male character (usually nezha, macaque, swk) can take care of him.

(also theres just a great deal of ethnocentrism in the lmk fanbase? like im white so take what İ say here with a grain of salt but so many people will misconstrue aspects of chinese culture for their own personal hcs. people will say male characters are transfem or nonbinary while completely ignoring the time period/culture their from where thats the norm. like yippee youve implied that an east asian man is feminine/emasculine because he has long hair. how do you not see the negative connotations with this. people also turn pif (& lbd to an extent) into a dragon lady which obviously has negative racial connotations lol.)

anyway this is where my unhinged rambling ends have a good day have a good night İ had more to say here but İ reached the text limit. İ dont see a lot of people talk about the misogyny thats prevalent in the lmk fanbase so İm glad youre pointing it out lol.

Yeah, I totally hear you. The lmk fandom has plenty of issues with misogyny and, like you said, ethnocentrism. It's definitely something worth having a discussion about, along with these issues in fandom as a whole.

[stardust-falling]

This is probably swinging a bit of a bat at a hornet’s nest on this website, but I wonder if the rise of purity culture in fandom, aside from other influencing factors, could have something to do with the fact that so many young fans tend to consume primarily media intended for children.

After all, children’s media is usually at least in part focused on teaching life lessons and providing kids with role-models. That’s why you’ll rarely find an anti-hero protagonist in children’s media. In fact, “protagonist” seems to have sort of been conflated with “good guy.”

Of course, not all media follows these standards. First and foremost, you have to remember that characters aren’t people, they’re literary devices, and they serve a variety of purposes. Some might be role models. Some might be anti-role-models. But honestly, sometimes they literally serve to show “what happens if you put a funny little guy in situations.”

More under the cut.

See, the fiction vs reality debate is interesting in this at. We’re humans, and humans are curious things. Sometimes, humans get morbidly curious and speculate about what might happen in some fucked up situation to some fucked up people. They don’t want any of it to happen in real life, but they still want to have an idea. Literally just because we’re curious.

So what do you do? You make a fucked up little man and put him in situations. He’s not meant to be a good person— honestly good and bad don’t matter here because the story’s not about morals but about cause and effect. Characters can show bad things, they can’t do bad things.

Because humans are curious and like thinking about “what ifs,” sometimes people get really attached to these funny little horrible guys. They like seeing them go through situations and imagining how they’d react. Purely because it’s a fun sequence of cause and effect and way easier than trying to enact it in real life. Now, obviously, stories are influenced by creators’ personal biases, but then that just becomes another dimension to the puzzle. That’s how you get character archetypes who end up telling completely different stories. Sometimes, people really like the way one particular creator has figured out a cause and effect sequence for their archetype. So, people end up with blorbos. Funny little imaginary guys, good and bad, who they just take an incredible, scientific joy in watching. Humans have always been doing science.

And that’s where purity culture comes in. Because, with purity culture, these characters are treated like they’re humans with accountability for their actions. Even though they haven’t hurt any real people. It is, in fact, impossible for a fictional character to hurt people. Even if they are treated as a role model— it’s still the fault of the person who decided to view them that way.

Because characters aren’t intrinsically role models. Even protagonists.

Children’s show creators often make their protagonists to be role models for kids. And in that case, when that’s the stated intent, it’s perfectly reasonable to judge that character’s morals. But you’re not judging a person, any more than evaluating a school textbook for accuracy and correct information would be evaluating a person. You’re evaluating the literary device that is a character. Of course, if you primarily consume children’s media, where many characters are role models and teaching moral lessons is often an intent, what happens when you read something with a different premise? What happens when you read, for example, speculative fiction about what goes on in the mind of a horrific dictator?

If you’re used to judging the worth of characters on a moral rubric, then of course you’ll apply that rubric to protagonists of the new media you read. So naturally, you’ll start thinking that, of course the protagonist of this story is a terrible guy and a horrible role model. What about the people who like him? Well, they must look up to him and agree with him in some way, especially if they’re rooting for him. So of course their morals are in question.

Except, they’re not rooting for him because they agree with him. They’re just rooting for him because they’re invested in seeing where his fucked up actions take him and how it ends up.

Same with relationships. Someone who ships a “problematic” pairing might have absolutely no desire to see any relationship like that in real life, ever. But regardless, it’s a very scientifically, morbidly interesting thing that they can’t take their eyes away from.

Anyway, genre awareness is a great thing to have when consuming media. A romance story isn’t about “what makes a good relationship,” it’s about “what makes an interesting and complex relationship to think about.” A horror story isn’t “what should you do in a fucked up situation,” it’s more of “what might people with these kinds of personalities do instinctively in fucked up situations.”

Genre awareness is cool. You don’t need to think about how good of a role model or representation a character is, so much as you need to think about “what is the purpose of this character in this genre and narrative, and how well are they fulfilling that purpose?”

[coulsonlives]

This pains me.

Like, fam, that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Please learn what prefixes are. 😭

[asinglesock]

unemployment arc update

[ravenkings]

the thing about trying to employ some kind of "rating" system for books or trying to prevent certain people (even children) from reading certain books based on content that is deemed too "extreme" (which btw is a notoriously slippery categorization that will almost always be entirely based on the biases and preconceptions of whoever happens to be in power) is that:

a) unless you are going to take absolutely draconian measures, which i ~assume~ that most people ostensibly on the left who advocate for this sort of thing are not in support of, things will inevitably slip through the cracks and the whole exercise will ultimately be ineffective

b) you have to be comfortable with whatever happens when the people who DON'T share your beliefs and values grab hold of power and can then use the rating/censoring apparatus to further their own goals. for instance, think of all of the book bannings of LGBTQ and POC writers that have been ACTUALLY HAPPENING IRL in iowa, florida, etc.

c) WHO exactly determines what is "inappropriate" or "too scary" and how do they make their decisions?? different things scare and trigger people for different reasons, some of which they probably don't understand themselves, especially when they are children. to bring in a personal example, when i was 6 years old, i remember being OBSESSED with the movie elizabeth (1998) which is a biopic about the early reign of elizabeth i of england. for those who are unaware, this film features scenes of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, poisoned, not to mention loads of fucking including what i believe is a brief orgy scene. i LOVED it. by the same token, i would not TOUCH any of the r.l. stine goosebumps books because i thought they were "too scary." and i KNOW for a fact that i was not the only kid like that. so like.......if you want to "protect" the children.......how do you take this sort of thing into account?

and tbh, the key thing to me is that whatever adults decide is "inappropriate" for children will inevitably be more of a projection of their own anxieties than what the child's might actually be.

[lovegrowsart]

accusations of misogyny towards people critiquing misogynistic writing will never not. grind my fucking gears into dust. sorry you're twisting yourself to defend awful writing that's NOT my problem

[vouam]

I love radfems that aren’t afraid to criticise certain religions.

I would like to see more of it tbh, a lot more.

I live in a country that is not very religious, and so sometimes feminists in my country don’t address it as much as they should. Think about the entire worlds population and the prevalence of religion in society, its impact on culture, the government, the law. Almost all of the oppressive ideology promoted by major religions is aimed at women.

Here’s just a few things that major religions promote/justify:

- Child marriage

- Sex slavery

- Purity culture

- Modesty culture

- Victim blaming

- Less inheritance for women

- Women’s witness testimony worth less than a man

- Silencing of women in public spaces

- Polygamy only for men

- Gendered stereotypes

- No financial freedom for woman

- Physical abuse

- Emotional and verbal abuse

The list goes on and on and on, this just scrapes the surface.

I honestly argue that these religions should be one of main things we address and fight against. They are the blueprint of modern patriarchy.

[periprose]

sydney is too young for carmy. its grooming tbh very weird of carm to look at syd that way when she's his mentee and looks up to him. disgusting that creeps like u ship it

We don't have a canon age for Sydney or Carmy so I'm going off their actors' ages.

A four year difference is too much for you?? Lol. This isn't grooming and realistically most relationships can have this dynamic. Anon I invite you to the real world where rarely you will find people who date are on the exact same level (please don't come at me with this "power imbalance" shit too lol)

Also if you think I'm a creep I don't really care. Being an adult means I can do what I want without caring about randoms on the internet think of me.

A lot of you also use purity culture/false virtuosity to bully people, too; don't think I don't notice how you're subtly trying to equate this to actual pedophilia. Genuinely, you do a disservice to actual issues when you pull this shit.

[mariii1]

( ʃƪ˘ﻬ˘)(˘ ε˘ʃƪ) What's your sexuality (like)? 18+ (´ε｀ )♡

..........sooo i need to get out of the pattern of making time based promises, I've lied every damn time 😭😭 We'll see when the next pac will come out since im probably gonna do a lot more choices. Let me know if this resonated!

1. There might be something taboo you're holding back. You might not have delved a lot into your sexuality which isn't inherently bad but there might be a specific part you feel ashamed about. For some you this is about a fetish or your orientation for others its just shame that comes from purity culture/r@pe culture. To get rid of this is different for most, for a lot of you time and gaining more experience in life in general will help you feel more comfotable and for others you may need to take a more active role in getting rid of your conditioning. Y'all might be like me where your into our want to get into fetishgear like latex and maybe want to learn bondage but you may feel isolated in who to talk to and where to go. Getting past these anxious thoughts and actually doing your research is what's gonna help you, you might be procrastinating on this because of your own internal conflict.

2. Lord have mercy...You DO NOT want a romantic relationship or a family 😭😭 its coming through stroonnggly. I think some of y'all could be aro and don't know it. People might've told you you're cold hearted or weird for not wanting to date. For some this is toxic because you don't communicate that you don't want romance to people, which ya needa start if you don't. Yeah some of you in this group might have problems being honest either with yourself or other people. There may be pressure to fit in when there's no real harm if you don't, in this case at least. A lot of you don't believe in traditional relationships or just have no desire for romance. A lot of you are planning to be childless when you're older and if you're thinking about getting sterilized, it might be something to start thinking about seriously.

3. Oooohhh someone KNOWS fr what they want. You have this huge boundary and expectations of what you want and this couod for anything: hooking up, sex with a partner, casual dating, etc. Because of this though you might not have been in a relationship for a very long time. You're very headstrong about this and want a fair and equal relationship. I'm specifically getting a lot of femmes in this pile who are fed up with cis men. I don't have any other comments for you, you seem set in this mindset and if its working for you, great! 👍🏽

4. Me 😜 JK tbh i might be your type for some of y'all the same way I think Che Guevara is finee😩 I'm also getting hopeless romantic from this pile but ive never seen that stereotype as something positive and I feel like in this case you guys pine after people a lot but don't try to make any moves. I feel like you could have multiple crushes currently ir multiple ppl u got ur eye on but you haven't even said hi or anything to them yet. As a fellow introvert and someone who's just starting to try to make friends I get it, but it's time to get out of this mindset and just make the first move even if ppl don't like you or they don't turn out as great as you thought.

Rainbow divider @enchanthings

[scretladyspider]

I want to talk about the definition of demisexuality and why I think in an allocentric world it leads to misunderstandings like this.

Quoted by Cluffalo tweet is about demisexuality. Tweet reads: “Can we stop making everything into an “orientation"?This is normal, healthy, female sexualityWanting to immediately sleep with someone because they're hot is not the default for women.”

Okay, so… demisexuality is “not experiencing sexual attraction unless a close bond is formed”. It was invented over a few years of discussions on AVEN forums about a sort of in-between ace experience, between asexual and allosexual. Graysexual came about around the same time.

The most common criticisms of demisexuality include that it was invented for a role play, that it’s “just normal”, that it’s “just how women are”, or that its especially puritan, assigning superiority to not liking or not having casual sex. And while all of these are worth a deep dive… I want to talk about how we define demisexuality, and why I think it’s both helpful but also leaves some pretty big holes in understanding that leads to posts like that original tweet.

When you’re explaining anything under the asexual spectrum, you generally have to assume that they’ve never heard of asexuality. It doesn’t matter if they are or aren’t ace and don’t know it when we’re told our whole lives that asexuality isn’t a possibility. As much as I don’t want to center the allosexual experience when discussing demisexuality (or anything ace), and I really, really don’t, it ends up being the inevitable reference point when talking about anything ace.

Actually, really understanding the definition of demisexuality requires understanding and accepting asexuality, the asexual spectrum, action not necessarily equating with attraction, arousal VS attraction, libido, and unpacking what we’re taught sexuality is or could be. Demisexuality requires all kinds of knowledge about asexuality to even begin to understand that there IS a difference between waiting to have sex with your partner and not experiencing any sexual attraction at all, to anyone, ever, until and unless a close bond forms, IF then.

The way the “no sexual attraction until a close bond is formed” definition of demisexuality is set up currently sounds like it’s describing building trust with someone before engaging in sex from an allosexual perspective.

In my experience, people can more easily accept that some people don’t experience sexual attraction than they can that some people might experience it, maybe, under select circumstances. That takes more unpacking allonormativity and amatanormativity.

But if you know about and understand asexuality, it’s not difficult to go from the “little to no sexual attraction” that we usually think of as “no sexual attraction” when we talk about asexuality to understanding where and how the “little to” specifically comes into that.

However! If you know what asexuality is, then the definition of demisexuality as we currently write it, as in the OP’s post, is perfectly adequate and can even be liberating, especially if you’ve been trying to figure out why you usually but don’t *always fit into “no sexual attraction”.

I’m tired of explaining over and over the same thing, trying to find new ways to do that. If I can be vulnerable a second, a lot of the time it feels pointless, like, “why am I even doing this?”

And I’m sure I’m not the only person talking about asexuality that feels that way.

Also a lot of the “demisexuality is just being a woman” narrative typically overlaps with transphobia, and folks who say this tend to attribute who they’re referring to as “just being a woman” to whiteness, which again circles everything back to purity culture.

I haven’t yet found a way to explain demisexuality without basically writing a book. Tbh I don’t know that there is a way to briefly and adequately explain demisexuality, as it rests on understanding asexuality, which I know from experience I can’t just assume is the audience. And I don’t really have any solutions or answers to this. I don’t have a new and quick demisexuality definition ready to go. As is, if you understand asexuality, it’s fine, but if you don’t, it’s like… yeah, I understand why people get confused. I used to too. Demisexuality is a real thing. But I am frustrated and tired by how it takes a PowerPoint or dissertation to explain— not just for myself, but any demisexual, because there’s so much around it you have to explain first.

So… those are just some thoughts. I don’t have a solution? I’ve been just thinking about all this for… a long time actually. I wish more people knew about and understood asexuality. it would help. Not just with this, but, this would be something it helped with.

But, yeah! Those were thoughts. I don’t know how to end this thread. Uhm. Okay bye thanks for reading have a nice day

if you liked this consider supporting me on Patreon

or check out my spotfund, relevant thru June 2024

[ravenkings]

re: "litfic" vs YA discourse, one thing i think it's important to remember is that, despite everything, what we consider to be "litfic" tends to sell MUCH LESS than YA does and publishing is, ultimately, a business whose primary reason for existence is to sell books.

people can complain about exclusivity in the "literary establishment" (whatever that even means these days) but, ultimately, that "literary establishment" actually has very little power in comparison to the power of marketers and the suits behind the scenes in these publishing companies who decide what they think will sell the most amount of copies with the least amount of effort on their end

[coffeenonsense]

I usually try to stay in my lane most of the time (mostly bc I am far too old for fandom drama) but what the hell, it's friday, let's put that lit degree to use:

the way people are playing morality politics with fiction is really starting to genuinely irk me and I think some of the responses to ascended astarion are a perfect example of why this type of thinking is actually hugely detrimental to one's ability to meaningfully engage with fiction and also to the future of art.

astarion is one of the most well-written complex characters I've seen in recent years bar none (and I'm clearly not alone given the explosion of his personal fandom lol) and he has a truly compelling, emotionally resonant character arc whether you ascend him or not

If you keep him a spawn, you get a deeply touching, realistic character's journey to healing and personal growth where he learns who he is after the experience of his trauma and depending on the player's choice, explores his relationship to sex, romance and intimacy

If you ascend astarion, you get an equally emotional and well-rounded character arc where he chooses the power that allows him to have the desperate freedom and safety he's wanted, but in the process eschews any hope of real healing or personal development, and again, depending on the player's choices, restarts the cycle of abuse by taking cazador's place.

These options offer vastly different paths for the character and experiences for the player, but while yes, ascended astarion is the evil ending, and yes, ascending astarion is a tragedy, and a fucking incredible one (not only do you have astarion reigniting a circle of abuse but you have the narrative weight of KNOWING he could have actually overcome his trauma...hats off to the bg3 team tbh) but that does not mean ascending astarion MAKES YOU AS THE PLAYER EVIL

Ascend astarion because you love tragic story arcs, ascend him because you want to indulge in a master/slave vampire fantasy, don't ascend him because you want a healing character journey, don't ascend him because you want a sweet romance; all of these choices carry the same moral weight for the player, which is to say, none, because they are an exploration of fiction.

I know I'm saying this to the villain fucker website but it bears repeating; just because someone wants to engage with evil, fucked up characters or content does not mean they support evil acts in their real life, and furthermore, exploring dark, taboo or tragic concepts safely is part of what fiction is for. It enables us to look at those things from a distance, work through difficult feelings and develop greater understanding of what makes our fellow humans tick — and before you get it twisted there's also no moral issue with exploring fucked up media bc you're horny or just, because. You can take it as seriously (or as sexily) as you want.

It's starting to really concern me how many people not only do not get, but are violently opposed to this concept, because equating what someone likes in fiction with their real life moral code and actions is an incredibly dangerous and let's be honest, immature way of thinking that not only stunts your ability to engage with fiction but ironically, hampers your ability to deal with complicated issues and emotions in real life.

I don't know what's driving this trend (though purity culture is certainly playing a role) but it's definitely something that's not just impacting individuals but contributing to the commercialization of art, where we get games and stories and tv shows and books that regurgitate the same safe, mass marketable plotlines and character archetypes over and over and over again so corporations can squeeze out as much profit as possible.

Anyway, remember kids: There's no such thing as thought crime, reaching for morally pure unproblematic media is directly contributing to the death of art, and this is why funding the humanities is important.

[coulsonlives]

Saw this and had to use it as an example. This person claims 'most people know' that being proship is part of basic dni criteria because apparently, it's on the same level of badness as sexism and racism. But:

Yep, that's as harmless as it sounds. Most people within fandoms are ideologically proship, even if they don't use the term, it's just common sense for anyone with a brain! This shouldn't be lumped into the same category as racists and sexists, my fam.

This is a great example of why 'basic dni criteria' is total bologne. If someone is uninformed about even one definition, or totally lacks critical thinking etc, then their version of 'basic criteria' WON'T be intuitive at all, even if they insist it is. People gotta say what they actually mean.

Don't be like this peep!

Okayy ill be respectful. What does standard dni mean and why tf is it so hard to type an extra few words if u mean a homophobe or something?

it means no lgbtphobes, racists, sexists, and proshippers. most ppl know this. i don’t know why ur so pressed about it lmfao

[gray-ace-space]

Kind of a mini rant for a second but I feel like that Chris Flemming "was anyone going to tell me?" meme in kind of a fuckton of ways since becoming more aware of just how much ace is in my grayace self

that most people find sex very actively appealing a very large amount of the time??? Like they're not just kinda neutral about it as a default???

That most of the times I've thought "I have a crush on this person" it's just been aesthetic attraction the whole damn time???? Like thinking "oooh pretty"/"Oh no, they're hot" is not usually where it stops for people 99% of the time???

That I don't have amazing self control regarding avoiding teenage pregnancy/ abstaining from sex because of a medication/ not cheating/ stupid sexual purity shit that I was adjacent to bc yay deep south, like my controller was apparently just never fucking plugged in, like it's pretty damn hard to loose a game you aren't playing

Most people find nudity very very very appealing? Like they don't neutral to negative about it??? Like not because I think anything inherently negative about their body I'm just less interested in it naked?? Is that even an ace thing or am I just weird???

Tbh I'm not even sure how gray of an ace I even am bc of all this, like I think there's some gray area, like I've felt some quick pangs of sexual attraction I think??? idk??? I thought the other parts were pretty standard before now so idk???

Like I'm sorry for semi ranting and I know everyone kinda has to figure themselves out for themselves and labels are there to help not define, but like do you have any advice for any of this?

my guy (gender neutral). you are ace as hell.

hahaha no but let me go through these point by point so we can compare notes.

"most people find sex very actively appealing a very large amount of the time" - is that true??? are we sure that's real??

"most of the times I've thought "I have a crush on this person" it's just been aesthetic attraction" - well i get very strong romantic crushes but. any time i say someone is hot i just mean they look cool and i wanna look at them a bunch. maybe some sensual attraction gets mixed in and i like, wanna touch them as well, non-sexually. so. definitely feel u on that

"I don't have amazing self control regarding..." - YEAH. THAT. YEAH. (i was not really deep in the purity culture stuff but as a young teen i was like. what the hell is wrong with everyone. can't they be normal like me)

"Most people find nudity very very very appealing?" - i honestly quite like nudity in a completely not sexual way, just like a body positivity way. maybe it's cause my mom raised me to not be weird about nudity, it's very chill to me and i think most people are beautiful. but i do not have a connection in my brain between nudity and sexual attraction. i do not care. not once in my life have i looked at someone i liked and thought "oh i would like to see them naked". so, is it an ace thing? probably yes

"I'm not even sure how gray of an ace I even am" - this is probably the one where we most diverge because i do actually feel strong enough sexual attraction that i can't mistake it for anything else. it's just that, i think i'm demisexual. so it's for like. 5 people. ever.

are you gray or not? who the hell knows. maybe ur dark gray ace, maybe i'm light gray ace. but i relate to a lot of what you said! it's fucking wild to unpack this stuff. i do not understand allos at all. i'm glad we can agree on that.

[jev-urisk]

✨️OC 'Purity Test' Tag Game✨️

Starting a new tag game and cackling at the thought of my mutuals doing this. Let's go!

Take the Rice Purity Test for your OCs to see how pure (score near 100) or scandalous (score near 0) they are. This is me making fun of purity culture, not supporting it. All scores are valid and shouldn't be subject to ridicule. If you don't know what one of the questions means, you can message me, no judgement.

Characters from 🌐7 Circles🌐

From most pure to least pure:

Seeker🌠: 85

This proper diplomat grew up somewhat sheltered. I wonder how low it will be by the end of the book..

Valian🐁: 51

More in the middle than I thought! Val never got to be in a relationship before he was imprisoned.

Kaus🌻: 36

Being an incubus gave him most of the checks tbh. I think Klaus is too good a man to go much lower.

Me✨️ (for funzies): 16

Hmm. I would not recommend my past to others. I'm apparently a great resource for writing explicit themes tho.

Kazimer💋: 7..

Oofta. Ahahahaa... Listen, he's had a few centuries to get to this number though. Things he hasn't done below.

Kazi HAS NOT: Joined the mile high club. Had a STI. Impregnated someone or been impregnated. Committed an act of incest. Engaged in bestiality. Had sexual intercourse in public. Cheated on a significant other during a relationship.

Tagging: @katenewmanwrites @smellyrottentrees @wyked-ao3 @lychhiker-writes @the-golden-comet @fortunatetragedy @cowboybrunch @zackprincebooks @urbiggestfan-01 @quillswriting +OPEN TAG

(hmu to be =/- to my tag-game list. I like making original ones like this when I can)

[broodwolf221]

this conversation means sm to me...

cadash inky, asking solas about elves after recruiting sera

Cadash: I'd like to know your opinions on elven culture.

Solas: Perhaps you could ask Sera. She has... opinions.

Cadash (option: She's worthy of respect): Sera is part of our team. You don't need to be snide about her. Solas: Actually, on some level, I do. She takes it better than she would take my pity... or my envy. OR Cadash (option: You don't seem to like her): You don't much care for Sera, do you? Solas: I pity her, although I imagine she would detest that. Perhaps, in truth, I envy her.

Solas: She has a purity of purpose that I lack. I have observed too much and done too little.

(the other response is:

Cadash (option: I'm not asking Sera): If I wanted Sera's opinions, I'd be talking to her

Solas: And learning colorful new idioms, no doubt

but this doesn't contain anything that interesting tbh)

i can't compose my thoughts on this rn but at the same time i think it speaks for itself