#this is not an invitation for debate

[leandra-kinard]

So. There's been a lot of speculation, and a lot of hot and lukewarm and some honest and valid takes about the new trailer and the potential of what might go down next ep.

I've been thinking thoughts, and I have my own personal stance on the matter. And no, I will not be 'taking criticism', because this is the way I view things in general, and it won't change. So this isn't me opening up a debate about this, this is just me sharing my personal views, which you absolutely can agree or disagree with. (So if your views on cheating are vastly different from mine, don't come at me telling me how wrong I am, I'm not doing that at you either)

That being said, here are my thoughts and beliefs.

Kissing isn't (automatically) cheating. For me, it highly, highly depends on the accompanying circumstances. There are kisses for shits and giggles that are not cheating. There are kisses happening under heavy influence of whatever substance - something that can render you legally not responsible for a lot of things, so how does it make you responsible for a moment's poor choice? There are kisses that are done deliberately with intention and feelings/high physical attraction involved, and THAT is cheating. When we look at the Buck/Lucy kiss, I didn't see it as huge a deal as many of the fandom did. The kiss itself somewhat fell into the second category. But what made it at the very least borderline cheating was the fact that Buck made a secret of it afterwards. Had he said "Look, something happened last night. I was drunk, then Lucy kissed me, and I didn't instantly pull back, but I didn't want to kiss her again or anything. I have no feelings for her whatsoever and I will watch myself in future a whole lot more to notice any signs of flirting, which, in hindsight, there were. I'm sorry." - then I think that's still grounds for a partner to be mad, sad, disappointed, but it's not really full-on cheating. Not in my book, by my definition.

Emotional cheating is much worse than physical cheating Being in love with someone and knowing it, imagining yourself to be with that other person, THAT is much more cheating by my definition than a fleeting kiss. And sometimes, depending on the circumstances, maybe even more than a drunken fumble or one night stand, but that is a very complex question. However, emotional cheating means you're not really in it with your current partner, pining for someone else but settling for what you can have out of convenience, fear of being left behind or some other highly egoistical motivation. That really sucks. (I've seen that take expressed on my dashboard as well, though with slightly different nuance to what I feel and believe, but pretty close)

So, taking these two of my underlying beliefs as the basis, what can I see happen in the next episode that would leave me feel okay with it, or happy about it, and what would make me feel iffy about it?

Let's start with the iffy.

Buck:

If, at any point in their drunken Hangover-movie escapades Buck and Eddie kiss, full on kiss (with maybe a little bit of tongue), and that kicks something lose in Buck, I would utterly hate that. Not that I wouldn't find it plausible that a kiss like that would trigger him realizing romantic feelings for Eddie, but that it happens now.

Someone else made a long post about negative stereotypes about bisexuals, and I agree. This is the promiscuity/bisexuals can't be trusted to be faithful stereotype, and I don't want Buck to ever be seen in that light.

Also, Buck JUST (and that post mentioned that too) convinced Tommy to come with him to the wedding, that he's ready for something... only to emotionally cheat (because it's that aspect for me rather than the kiss itself) on him the very next opportunity?

"But Tommy and Buck aren't in a relationship yet," I heard someone say, and well, yes. But this isn't REAL LIFE. It's writing. Things are crafted in a certain way to form a story, and stories have a purpose. The narrative gave us an arc where Buck seemingly wasn't ready for a relationship with a man yet, where he fucked up and had to fix that, had to take a leap and take some courage to make it work.

Just purely from a narrative standpoint, it would be so inconsistent to reverse that healthy step forward just one episode later.

From what we know about the episode, it also doesn't look like he's breaking up with Tommy in that episode. A lovely, potentially dramatic moment where Buck kisses Tommy in front of everyone as a means of 'coming out' is highly implied/likely. So that would mean him being aware of some feelings towards Eddie and still going through with that. And yeah. No. I'd really, really fucking hate that.

Eddie:

If they kiss at some point and it kicks something loose in Eddie, and he then goes back to Marisol... I'd have much less of a problem with that because it could still be explained and justified with him just being in utter panic about coming out. It would match the catholic guilt arc, and all his previous attempts at conforming to heteronormativity... BUT, if the relationship just continued as is and he'd actively use her as beard that would be shitty, even for poor confused, repressed, closeted Eddie.

The Not Iffy

On with Eddie:

If that kiss brings something to the surface in Eddie and he then breaks up with Marisol one episode later I would not consider that cheating or poor morals or anything of the sort. He wasn't aware of it until that moment, and as soon as he is aware of it and has had a little bit of time to process it, he draws the right consequences from it and breaks off a relationship he's not fully in.

So this would actually be fine to me. This could be the kick starter for a potentially long and complex arc for Eddie to a) come to terms with his sexuality and b) pine for Buck from a distance, because Buck is with Tommy and c) eventually, when the time is right, for Buddie to go canon.

Buck:

The kiss itself wasn't a serious or real kiss. I'd be okay with it, if it was some silly, exaggerated "MWAH" smack of the lips kiss, prompted by someone or something around them - I dunno, maybe one of the women there saying "Aww you're such a cute couple" and they going in for it just for shits and giggles; or Buck gushing about Tommy and what a great kisser he is and Eddie drunkenly, outwardly jokingly saying "Hey, I'm a great kisser too!" and them jokingly leaning in for a smooch, again, for shits and giggles.

Buck afterwards doesn't even remember it because it meant nothing in that moment, and so he's neither seriously physically nor emotionally cheating on Tommy in the slightest.

"But Buck has deep feelings for Eddie. How can he kiss him and not realize them?"

Well, see, Buck has been around Eddie for almost 6 years now and not realized them. They are so, so far past that getting to know and falling in love phase that it makes it a bazillion times more complicated to distinguish those deep platonic feelings from deep romantic feelings (because, what it comes down to in both instances is a deep bond; the bond of love you feel after years of dating isn't that different from a deep platonic bond. Again, Eros vs. Pragma and all that).

But Buck is *in love* with Tommy, he's just entered that exciting, chemically turbulent process of falling in love with someone which, with all the newly formed neural connections and all those hormones overrides anything else that has long since been present and is only now presented with the opportunity to take on a new nuance. Of course he doesn't get it, and he likely won't get it until much, much later, when he's falling out of love with Tommy again for whatever reason, or they break up amicably for whatever reason.

And THIS again is something that could easily go into the iffy, because I would really fucking HATE the implication that Buck needs to break up with Tommy to be with his One True Love. I don't want this to be a difficult and painful choice.

IF (when) Buddie goes canon, I want them both to be ready and free for it and not accidentally pushed towards it, or struggle with a guilty conscience for it, or hurt someone else about it. (Marisol wouldn't count in that context as Eddie would have broken up with her months ago and gone on his own long self-discovery trip).

So yes, even if for slightly different reasons, and even if my views on what constitutes 'cheating' may differ from a lot of yours, I agree that any actual MUTUAL feelings realization right now, under these external circumstances, would totally tarnish the beginning of the Buddie relationship.

Which also makes me hopeful it won't happen in such a way. Up until now, the writing has been extremely solid, and Buck's coming out arc has been done with so much care. I doubt they'd do something that ruins it. (But I'm not 100% sure of it either).

[radicalcircuit]

Everytime I see Shadow age discourse, I can’t help but think about Aang from ATLA.

Both of these guys have been frozen for long periods of time, and yet they’re still the same age they’re suppose to be before being frozen. Then again I’m not in the ATLA fandom, so what do I know?

[meowyjean]

hey y'all, jily isn't synonymous to anti regulus and jegulus isn't synonymous to anti lily either. don't drag either of their names carelessly for debates you want to have. thanks x

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

The TTPD Deep Dive (Part ?)

It’s no secret that I have a lot of Thoughts about The Tortured Poets Department and it has lived rent-free in my head since it came out earlier this year. I’m absolutely blown away by how underneath the chaos, it’s actually an exceptionally cohesive story and is probably the closest to a concept album Taylor has ever done.

There are so many themes that have stood out to me over the last five months, and there’s one in particular that I think not only drives the entire album, but ties into previous albums to help deepen understanding of it.

This is it, my fangirl magnum opus, my months of posts consolidated into one place. This is also my disclaimer that this is just my interpretation of the album, and my summary of the story it tells, and I don’t pretend to have any special insight or authority. I’m not saying I’m correct at all, do not take any of this as fact, it’s just what it sounds like to me, and these are my silly not-so-little thoughts about it.

(Under a cut because it’s way too long and involves discussion many may not care for or be sick of.)

Come one, come all, it's happening again (I'm thinking too hard about Taylor music)

The overarching theme in TTPD to me is: Grief. If you’re looking at TTPD as a story being told (instead of just as someone’s real life), the inciting incident of TTPD is loss, and the grief from that loss is what drives the narrator’s actions and the fallout, as well as unpacks those complicated feelings and how they apply to the her life in general. By the end of the standard album, it’s also about recovering from that pain, moving on from it and learning from it.

The loss specifically is the loss of the dream of having a family (with one’s partner). One thing that is abundantly clear both on the top line and under the surface in TTPD is how Taylor (as a person and as narrator) longed not only to for marriage but specifically parenthood, and the fear and then realization of losing that chance absolutely wrecked her— which is why the next lover’s (the conman's) wooing worked so well, because it preyed on that yearning. Yet that loss also dovetails into the grief of many things: of youth, of idealism, of relationships, of ideas, even of self, which causes almost a deconstruction of a belief system to piece one’s life back together by the end.

THE CONTEXT

TTPD weaves in the topics of marriage and motherhood both explicitly and in the subtext, in various forms and scenarios. The cheating husband in “Fortnight.” The wedding ring line in “TTPD” the song. “He saw forever so he smashed it up” in “My Boy Only Breaks His Favorite Toys.” All of “So Long, London.” Running away with her wild boy in “But Daddy I Love Him,” fantasizing about weddings and joking about babies. The imaginary rings in “Fresh Out The Slammer.” The cheating husband (again) and the friends who smell like weed or “little babies” in “Florida!!!” “You and I go from one kiss to getting married,” “Talking rings and talking cradles,” and “our field of dreams engulfed in fire” in “loml.” (And arguably: “I wish I could un-recall how we almost had it all.”) “He said he’d love me all his life, but that life was too short,” in “I Can Do It With A Broken Heart.” They may not sound like much on their own, but they paint a picture about how the topics pervaded her thoughts and her writing, and in many cases express her desires, and her pain.

It’s something that goes back several albums when you pick up on context clues. You get the first hints on Reputation with “New Year’s Day,” and “you and me forevermore.” Then Lover is very forward with it: “Lover” is basically wedding vows, “Paper Rings” is very engagement-coded, “I Think He Knows” is cheeky but low-key “you better put a ring on it,” “It’s Nice To Have A Friend” has wedding/marriage imagery in the last verse. As a self-professed diaristic writer, it’s the type of stuff one presumably doesn’t put out there unless those conversations have already happened, and she was very excited about it at the time it was released.

Then the pandemic happens and folklore comes out, and while there is still happy love there (“invisible string”), there are also the first indications that something has happened to put a halt to whatever future she once dreamed of (“hoax,” “the lakes”) and that she’s trying to reassure herself and him that it can still happen even if she’s scared it might not (“peace”). Notably, as far as I can remember it’s the first time Taylor explicitly brings up the idea of family (with her partner) with “you know that I’d give you my wild, give you a child,” which stood out at the time because it’s so incredibly vulnerable, but it’s even more poignant when you really take in that the whole song is like a confession of her deepest worries, and this is her vowing to give him these things that she holds most sacred if he’ll let her. These are what she cherishes most dearly and wants to return in kind: her youth and commitment (my wild), the family she craves (a child), unconditional support (swing for the fences/sit in the trenches) and understanding/compassion (silence that only comes when two people know each other).

Evermore follows an even darker path, and suddenly the album explores relationships that end and grappling with loss. There are toxic relationships (“tolerate it”), dangerous marriages (“no body, no crime,” “ivy”), failing/broken relationships (“Coney Island,” “champagne problems,” “happiness,” “‘tis the damn season”), as well as grief (“Marjorie,” “evermore”). Even some of the happy songs have uncertainty in them: in “willow” she’s begging for him to take her lead, like she’s still trying to decipher him and ask him to commit; in “cowboy like me,” still a beautiful love song, she’s thinking, “this wasn’t supposed to work and we were supposed to bail on each other but we fell in love instead”; “evermore” is about the depths of severe depression (and more) with the love story being the one saving grace in her darkest hour. And it’s also notable that after all the “fiction” writing, shortly after this album she writes “Renegade” where she’s telling the subject: I’m ready to start the next phase of our life now, why aren’t you? Is it me you don’t want after all? It’s like there’s something telling her that this stall might not just be a stall.

Midnights is a jumble (in a good, but in hindsight, also sad way) with the “sleepless nights” concept, but it seems pretty clear now that the themes and events and relationships she was revisiting tied into a lot of what she was feeling in her present life. I wrote the cliff notes version awhile back, but she’s questioning so much of her life that’s reflected in past events and relationships. Am I actually always the problem? How did we lose sight of each other and what we had? We only seem to work when we block out everyone and everything else. Can we ever go back to when things were good? Why are you neglecting me? I once thought I was going to lose everything but you saved me in the nick of time, can that happen again? I chased my career, but did I give up my chance at having a family in the process? Nobody knows what I really suffer from behind closed doors and I’m all alone.

And so on, which in retrospect now that we have TTPD, is very much what she was grappling with in private while writing and releasing the album. The inspiration behind the songs may have been different events and muses, but regardless of their origins they all end up feeling too familiar, like she's seen this film before (ahem). We’re seeing her view of commitment change too, or rather how she writes about it: she’s not making the outright declarations of it like on Lover, or even the implied ones on folklore, nor is she talking of the dark side of it like evermore. For the most part it’s a return to the early days of some relationships, before things got hard, or the end of them when there was nothing left, and also pushing away the discussion of it altogether by the outside world. “Sweet Nothing” is a sweet slice of life, but even at that, it’s the peace of the home in conflict with the pressure of the outside world. Now that we have “You’re Losing Me,” which was written at the same time as the rest of the album, we can probably deduce that she was going back to the start because something happened that made her doubt the future.

THE SETUP

So much of Midnights directly ties into TTPD, and I said in the post I linked that it’s like Midnights is asking the questions that TTPD answers. But there’s one song in particular on Midnights that sticks out to me as being key in the broadest sense to understanding the state of mind that led to the events of TTPD, and that’s “Bigger Than The Whole Sky,” because the way it expresses grief is reflected in the theme of mourning a life built and the dreams along with it that are never realized in TTPD. There are several instances in TTPD that are basically variations of: “every single thing to come has turned into ashes,” and that’s what makes her snap, and leaves her vulnerable to someone who promises her those things when she’s bereaved at losing them in the first place. (In other words: “the deflation of our dreaming leaving me bereft and reeling.”) The song tells a story about how that loss of hope colours one’s entire mindset, and in some ways is a bridge to TTPD to understand what such a low point feels like.

I think that that grief, and most importantly losing hope for an imagined future in its wake, is fundamental to understanding TTPD on so many levels: both the decline with one partner that kept her hanging on then led her such a dark path, and why she fell for the conman's apparent bullshitting because it offered an express pass to what she was losing with her partner. And I also feel like it plays a part into the ruminating she’s doing all over Midnights, trying to make sense of where she finds herself when she’s writing the album, which directly leads to “You’re Losing Me.” Loss permeates so many of the stories on Midnights: of lovers, of innocence, of youth, of faith, of control, of life’s work, etc. “BTTWS” is just one of the ways in which it is expressed so fully, capturing that deep depression and subsequent extinction of faith in something that once felt assured and very much wanted. (Which is also mentioned in her writing process in the “Depression” playlist on Apple Music.)

If you understand why that feeling of loss in general across so many parts of life is so important to Midnights, then it illuminates so much about the “narrative” in TTPD too. If on Midnights she’s wrestling with the seeds of grief and loss (on multiple fronts), TTPD is her reckoning with it in its full form. “So Long, London” is the song that is the most explicit about it: How much sad did you think I had in me? How much tragedy? Just how low did you think I’d go before I’d have to go be free? You swore that you loved me, but where were the clues? I died on the altar waiting for the proof. It’s the sequel to “You’re Losing Me.” It’s, the air is thick with loss and indecision, I know my pain is such an imposition, I’m getting tired even for a phoenix, all I did was bleed as I tried to be the bravest soldier, I’ve got nothing left to believe unless you’re choosing me, my heart won’t start anymore, but from the other side of the break.

This is highly speculative, but if you follow the thread about the topic and the relationship as told from Rep through TTPD, in broad strokes it goes: young love with a serious connection (Rep) -> growing up and making life plans (Lover) -> something happens that delays those plans or makes them grind to a halt (folklore) -> serious doubts arise and cause a loss of faith in their future (evermore) -> struggling with the loss of that future and trying to make sense of the problems in a last ditch attempt to save the relationship (Midnights) -> fallout from that grief after the blowup of the relationship (TTPD). Understanding that progression of events (through the music) explains not only the storytelling side of TTPD (e.g. the jump from the partner to the conman) but also how the experiences/muses blend in the music, and how the music that on the surface is about the short-term relationship is really driven by the destruction of the long-term one.

Following the music, it’s IMO implied that Taylor (the narrator) was holding out for marriage and family with her partner, for years, and it seems like it was at one point a shared dream until something happened to pump the brakes, and seemingly on her partner’s end. And extrapolating further, given how the sorrow expressed in former albums bleeds into TTPD, it sounds like a plan that had been concrete in some form before it had fallen apart, and losing something that once felt so tangible is what drives her in her grief to find any kind of respite from the pain. Which is why the situation with the conman becomes so appealing as the one with the partner splinters further and further.

(If everything you’ve once touched is sick with sadness and you don’t want to be sad anymore, what are you left to do?)

THE STORY

So (one part of) the story kind of sounds like this from the standard album: the relationship with her partner as well as his mental health slowly deteriorate and he withdraws emotionally (“London,” “Fresh Out The Slammer”) and physically (again, “London,” and “Guilty As Sin?”) and takes his resentment out on her (“London” and arguably “My Boy Only Breaks His Favorite Toys” even though I don't want to get into muse speculation here). As she sinks deeper into her own depression as a result, the weight of the failing relationship starts feeling like a cage— or a noose (“London,” “Guilty”), but coming to terms with the loss of their life together and the future they’d dreamed of was killing her (again, “London,” but also “I Can Do It With A Broken Heart”).

Enter the conman who she reconnects with at the very point where this is coming to a head (knowing that IRL she reconnected with him around the time Midnights was being worked on) , and if you read between the lines, she confides some deeply personal things to him (“Down Bad” and “hostile takes overs”/“encounters closer and closer,” “Smallest Man” and the entire sleeper cell spy imagery which is one of my favourite things and I could write a whole essay about the meaning of it, “loml” and “A con man sells a fool a get-love-quick scheme”). Then after she’s confided these secrets to him, he insinuates himself back into her life (“Guilty,” “Down Bad,” “Smallest Man”) and sells her a dream that HE can give her all these things she hopes for (again, “Down Bad,” “Smallest Man,” “loml,” song “TTPD,” “Broken Heart”).

But the thing is, he only knows these are the things she wants because she’s revealed it to him, and presumably, told him that was what she was losing by staying with her partner. And instead of the normal response of, “that is really sad that your partner is not supporting you and you deserve to be treated better,” to a friend in growing distress, it seems like it was, “well I can give you all those things!!!! Right now!!!! Trust me!!!!” And worked on her until she believed it, and jumped at the chance at a precarious time in her life. And one thing I want to underscore is: Taylor has agency in the situation always, it’s not like she’s been kidnapped and brainwashed. (In fact, she implores on songs like “But Daddy” that SHE is in charge of her own choices, good or bad.) She chose to rekindle the friendship and then relationship, and she chose to eventually leave her long term relationship for another man, and she reiterates on the album that she owns this all. But it’s also: nothing exists in a vacuum, and she makes choices based on emotions and information she has at the time, which is why it gives so much whiplash.

THE ALBUM

When you look at it as, the situation with the conman only happens because of what happened with the partner first and that the appeal of the conman and the fantasy he sells her is a direct reaction to that, it makes the “swirliness” of the music make so much more sense. And for much of it, even many of the “conman” songs on the surface are really “partner” songs underneath.

Fortnight

A suburban gothic allegory about a broken marriage with a distant husband with a wandering eye, which makes the rekindled romance with the neighbor so appealing. She’s miserable caged in her stifling house because she’s been abandoned by her spouse, so the reappearance of this past love reignites the passion that’s dead at home.

TTPD

“So tell me, who else is gonna know me?” “I chose this cyclone with you.” I’m gonna kill myself if you ever leave. Everyone knows we’re crazy. She’s laying it out there that she’s already in a dangerous state of mind, and she’s actively putting herself in more danger by pursuing the conman. “At dinner you take my ring off my middle finger and put it on the one people put wedding rings on, and that’s the closest I’ve come to my heart exploding,” spells this whole thing out so clearly: whether it’s an actual event (likely) or a metaphor for the promise he makes to her, the reason why it makes her heart explode is because it’s the thing she’s been waiting for forever with no movement, and here this person comes in and slips it on her finger in an instant like it’s nothing. (And eventually, as we’ll come to know, it is absolutely nothing to him.) You mean it could have been this easy this whole time?! (Well, no. Not until a certain other suitor makes his appearance later.) It feels like she’s finally getting everything she wanted in the blink of an eye! How lucky! How convenient! What was that about the get-love-quick scheme you say? (Unsaid: the reason why this feels so urgent is because there’s a sense that time is running out in so many aspects of her life and not just the obvious. Which reappears later on.)

Down Bad

“Did you really beam me up in a cloud of sparkling dust just to do experiments on?” sets the scene for this euphoric experience in the moment that starts to feel violating once the dust settles (which is then followed up in “Smallest Man” and the spy mission on her). The bridge spells out how he weaselled his way into her life, preyed upon (intentionally or not) her emotional state, sold her a dream and then vanished, without the benefit of hindsight yet we see later in the album.

The alien abduction metaphor is pretty brilliant, because it shows both how she was desperate to escape the place she found herself in, and how much it screwed her brain to then be left stranded when the affair was over. “[I loved your] hostile takeovers, encounters closer and closer,” is so evocative because it details how the situation came to be: his overtures under the guise of friendship blurred lines until he made her an offer that she eventually couldn’t refuse (hostile takeovers) as he infiltrated her life more and more intimately. The sad thing is that the song has parallels to how her relationship with the partner started too in earlier albums, in that they ran away to live in their own bubble (or planet) only for him to metaphorically abandon her as the years went on. (Oven, meet microwave.)

My Boy Only Breaks His Favorite Toys

Being continually emotionally broken down by a person who knows he’s hurting you but still acts the way he does. (The original voice memo version makes this even clearer and it’s rather heartbreaking.) “He saw forever so he smashed it up,” speaks to the loss of a future the person became scared of, and the original lyrics (“he saw forever so he blew it up”) somehow cut even deeper to me because it feels so much more intentional.

Also in the original version, “he was my best friend and that was the worst part,” also speaks not only to the loss of an entire partnership in the wake of this hurt, but also to the feelings of betrayal that the person you trust so deeply has the ability to hurt you in this way too, and how it’s a one-two punch of not only losing the relationship but also your closest confidant. (It’s like the sequel to “Renegade” and the missiles firing to me.) Again, there are shades of both/many situations in the song, pointing to an unfortunate pattern in some ways. The situation in “My Boy” is part of why she was so low, and why the “get love quick scheme” was so appealing later on. And it dovetails nicely into…

So Long, London

The most explicitly “partner” song that puts a coda on “You’re Losing Me,” and is Track 5 because it’s the emotional underpinning of how she got to where she was, and drives the events of the rest of the album. It spells everything out: He withdrew, she tried to fix it for both of them, eventually even that stopped working, he was oblivious to or minimized how badly she was suffering and his (in)actions couldn’t reassure her, he wouldn’t move forward on their future plans and stewed in his own struggles, she was spiralling out of control trying to hang on and ultimately felt like she was going to die if she didn’t leave.

But Daddy I Love Him

Like a direct reaction to “So Long, London” in that she breaks free from the death of one relationship and throws herself with reckless abandon to the next, fuck the haters. How dare you judge me, when the relationship you think I should have stayed in was killing me? (Dutiful daughter all the plans were laid. All you want is gray for me.) Fuck all of you, I’m going to choose whoever I want! (So what if I have a baby with HIM, huh?! I tried doing it the proper way and look where that got me so now we're back to square one) It’s again her imagining how wonderful and freeing this “wild boy” is going to be for her, and how wrong she’ll prove everyone. THIS TIME she definitely got it right. So what if she has to run away! So what if she scandalizes the whole town! They don’t know what she really wants or needs anyway! She’s the only one of her (hee-hee-hee) and she’s the only who gets to decides how this goes. (Because: she longs for control in a situation she’ll eventually realize she has little of it in, which we’ll find out is a recurring theme in her life.)

Fresh Out The Slammer

Also spells out what happened with the partner in the first verse and the pre-choruses, which is what makes the conman so appealing as the imagined jailbreak. The bitter loneliness vs. the sultry passion she builds up in her head as she awaits her release from prison is key to understanding the two sides of the story in the album. There’s this whole outlaw imagery (which is also carried through in “I Can Fix Him”), but it’s contrasted in the end with her and her reunited lover sitting on park swings like children with “imaginary rings” — because “Ain't no way I'm gonna screw up now that I know what's at stake.” What’s at stake is lasting love and the promises that come with it (marriage/family) that are precious and time-sensitive. The imaginary rings are both a nod to the youthful dreams of her and her new/old lover, but also has a double meaning to me because those promises aren’t built on anything together; they're made up, intangible. (They’re no more concrete than the plans that went up in smoke with the partner.) Like with most of the conman situation, it’s all a fantasy in her head that has yet to happen, and as we find out later in the album, reality ends up leaving much to be desired.

Florida!!!

Broadly speaking, it’s running away from your problems and wanting to disappear from your life. (But again: the life she’s disappearing from is the cheating husband she may or may not be feeding to the swamp-- another miserable marriage.) What kind of flies under the radar though is the “I don’t want to exist,” line, which points to her dire state of mind that led her to fleeing to that metaphorical timeshare down in Destin. In many ways about cheating death.

Guilty As Sin

Yes it’s the “masturbation song,” but again the nuance is that she’s left to pleasure herself because her partner has abandoned her emotionally and even physically, i.e. “my boredom’s bone deep.” To be blunt: they aren’t even intimate anymore, so she starts fantasizing about the guy she used to have chemistry with who’s reentered her life and is making moves on her. And realizing that she’s now finding release in another man (albeit imaginary) breaks her even as it reinvigorates her because she finally understands that the relationship she’s in is effectively dead. (“Am I allowed to cry?”)

Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me

This isn’t about relationships, but about society and its reaction to them in a general sense. But again, she’s left to stew in all this anger and hurt as she’s been abandoned at home, then abandoned by public opinion, and the public attack on her is part of the origin as well as the end of that story. The trauma inflicted upon her detailed in the song is the reason why she felt trapped in the first place, which led to the decisions she’s made and habits she’s leaned on ever since.

I Can Fix Him (No Really I Can)

This is one of the few songs that is the most completely conman-coded, and shows when the delusion finally breaks at the end of the song. She spends the whole song being like, “no really, I alone can make him better! You’ll see! I know he’s gross, but he’s mine! It’ll be fine I swear! You don’t know anything! Uuuuuum hmm wait actually what the fuck—“

Loml

Oof. THE song. Again the surface reading is about the “conman” who comes in and sells her the lie, but the pain is because all the dreams she writes about are HER dreams and implied that they were the dreams she built with her partner that the conman sold back to her. I could do a deeper dive on this but most of the song is applicable to both relationships, which not only shows the “swirliness” of her writing, but also how they both ultimately did the same thing to her in different shades.

The bridge and the last chorus are kind of fundamental to understanding it all, and her ending it with “you’re the loss of my life” is about, among other things, how falling for this trap blew up the life she built and dreamed of for good. (I could talk about this one forever.) “You shit-talked me under the table, talking rings and talking cradles” to “Our field of dreams engulfed in fire” is a hell of a line and progression, and again, indicative of what the real driving force behind the whole album is. The shit-talking is because he took her dreams (of marriage and children) and hyped it back up to her tenfold whether in a moment of his own delusion or for more nefarious reasons — much like how the man prior kept promising these things but never followed through, which left her vulnerable to someone who appeared to offer them enthusiastically. The field of dreams isn’t just the one with the conman, it’s the one with the longterm relationship she’d built the dream with in the first place, because the conman’s actions are part of the reason the LTR went up in smoke. (Not the reason for the rift, but the consequence of the final break.) And THAT is why it’s the loss of her life, so completely.

When she says “I wish I could un-recall how we almost had it all,” IMO it’s not just the fake future that the conman lures her into, but also (and perhaps mainly) the once-real one she had with her partner and the loss of which that made her susceptible to falling for the con in the first place. There’s honestly so much between the lines in this song that covers every theme and speaks to the grief of seeing the life she imagined slip away, slowly by the first man then annihilated by the second.

I Can Do It With a Broken Heart

The juxtaposition of “He said he’d love me all his life, but that life was too short” and “He said he’d love me for all time, but that time was quite short” sums it up to me (and parallels “loml”), because they are two different situations, but they cut her just the same. In the first, “that life” IMO was the life they’d built with the dreams that went along with it and it was too short because he never followed through, and in the second, the “time” was quite short because it was the frenzy of the whirlwind romance that fizzled as quickly as it began. The life that was too short led to the time that was quite short.

The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived

This is definitely THE conman song. The rage, the shame, the violation, it’s all in there. But the key to it is the bridge and the espionage imagery woven through it. A honeypot scheme is when spies target a mark and seduce them to gain their trust and their privileged information for their homeland. So her likening him to a sleeper cell spy who set her up just to mine her deepest secrets and use them against her is a heavy, loaded statement. And implied: that valuable information she unknowingly held were her longings of marriage and family (the aforementioned shit-talking about rings and cradles she never got to have), and more importantly, those dreams preceded him reentering her life and then beginning his mission on her.

The insinuation then is: she confesses these are her deepest wishes which are now seemingly unattainable in her current situation (e.g. with her partner) -> he convinces her HE will give them to her and make the dreams she pines for come true -> she falls for him and blows up her life to make it happen -> he gets what he wants (thrill of the chase/sex/the idea of her/whatever his intent was) -> he abandons her when he gets what he wants, or rather it isn’t what he wants or can handle -> she’s left a) all alone b) with dreams unfulfilled c) with no answers d) feeling used at having her most sacred wishes used against her.

Again, the song is unquestionably about the way the conman absolutely destroyed her, but he was able to do that because there was this thing she wanted more than anything, that was dying in her previous relationship, that he was able to prey upon to seduce her, then discarded her and her dreams as soon as it was inconvenient for him while absolutely hollowing her inside out. (And again: the devastating thing is that this also applies to other relationships she’s written about, in different ways.)

The Alchemy

Not about either the partner or the conman directly, but it (loosely) touches on her finding herself after the whole oven-to-microwave experience and opening herself up to life and love again. #GoodForHer

Clara Bow

This isn’t about the romantic relationships on the surface, but it is about how damaging the entertainment industry and public life are on women, and how women are only valued for their beauty as commodities until they can be discarded and destroyed in the process. Which I think plays into the circumstances that led her to make the decisions that she did years ago, and why she makes the ones she does now. (But also, being valued for physical traits and appeal for the male gaze brings us to…)

The Manuscript

The “original sin” that kicks off all of this. Again, at first light this isn’t about the partner or the conman, but the person it is about is the reason why she has made all the decisions she has ever since in relationships (and that’s Mr. Plaid Shirt Days from “All Too Well”). The realization that her first serious adult relationship is what cemented these patterns, and this view of herself and her worthiness in relationships, is profoundly sad. An older man who valued her for being so mature for her age and implying that the mature activities ahem associated with that were the performance benchmarks in her ability to carry a relationship, only to leave her, was earth shattering. She placed her faith in this person, but then the way he treated her changed her view of love and of herself.

She took his innuendo about “pushing strollers” as a sign of potential commitment, whereas he ultimately meant it as foreplay, and she was too young and naive to know the difference. So not only did she learn from that that this man (and men) didn’t view commitment and family the way she did and that it was something to be toyed with, but she also learned that her value to them among other things was sex. Imagine being an idealistic 20 year old and your boyfriend ten years your senior tells you, “if the sex is anywhere near as good as our dates have been, we’re going to be making babies before you know it,” (e.g. this is relationship is serious) and then he dumps you: does that imply that the sex was not in fact that good? (E.g. that you’re not worthy after all?)

No, obviously from this side of life, it’s because he was a commitment-phobic playboy, even if he did love her, but she couldn’t have known that at 20 and instead internalized that shame. But, it did send her on a path of how she approached sex and love and relationships for over a decade afterwards. And her coming to the realization that that first act of (perhaps unintentional) manipulation is what informed her actions thereafter helped her break the pattern. Her worth to men is not just sex, she has value and her hopes and dreams have value, she doesn’t have to change into a different person to please anyone, because if that is what they want, they won’t ever want her anyway.

It’s been described here on Tumblr by people more eloquent and astute than I as a song that encapsulates the album as this: one did it slow (partner), one did it fast (conman), and one did it first (first love)— and that is haunting. After years of men minimizing her dreams and desires, if not outright using them against her, she’s finally at the point where she can let it all go and move on for good. (There’s a whole other tangent about consent and shame and manipulation, but that’s an entirely different kind of discussion. But it is so devastatingly contrasted with “you said if we had been closer in age maybe it would have been fine, and that made me want to die.”)

THE SUMMATION

This is just my interpretation of it, but in going through the standard album, it feels pretty clear how cohesive the album is about a story of love and loss and grief, then reckoning with what caused it all in the first place that set a person on this path. It’s a formative experience at a young age that was traumatic and led to certain coping mechanisms and a shaping of one’s self-perception, as well as the reaction to external pressures that try to dictate behaviours and influence how one feels one deserves out of love which makes it harder to know when one absolutely deserves more and better. And leaves one struggling to cope with loss when there isn’t anything else to hold onto. Then in light of one’s life blowing up, learning to find oneself in the aftermath all over again.

On another tangent that is somewhat related to the theme of loss, the way she writes about the two main muses on the standard album also ties into how the situations converged to create absolute carnage on her emotional and mental well-being. With one situation, she’s talking about a concrete life that crumbles under the weight of their struggles; with the other, the entire thing is a fantasy that she builds up in her head, and when it comes to fruition it falls far, far short.

If you look at the “microwave” (conman) relationship, you realize that almost everything she writes about it happens before it actually becomes reality, and it’s mostly her imagining how great it’ll be, but with few exceptions, when she writes about what actually occurred, it doesn’t even come close to living up to her expectations. “Fortnight” is an imagined future where she escapes to Florida and his touch finally starts her stalled engine (ahem). “TTPD” is perhaps the most positive retelling of their time together, but even that implies he was better off stoned and when he sobered up he succumbed to his demons all over again, and more importantly she conveys how she also is in extreme distress, barely concealed by the veneer of being infatuated with him. (E.g. saying to that she’ll kill herself if he ever leaves her — the implication is that she is absolutely serious about it when she “felt seen.”) And that the warning bells are going off in her head, but she feels like this person is the only one she can be with (because they’re equally fucked up and the chaos he brings into her life makes her feel alive when she felt so close to death).

“Down Bad” is the most explicit about being in love, but she’s also left completely confused and disoriented by him disappearing, wondering if any of it was real and the seeds of violation creep into her consciousness (“did you really beam me up in a cloud of sparkling dust just to do experiments on?” “Waking up in blood.”). “But Daddy” is her imagining she can tell everyone to fuck off for telling her what to do with her life. “Fresh Out The Slammer” is her fantasizing about this man while feeling trapped in her relationship — but never in the song is she actually reunited with him; she’s using him as the projection of all the things she’ll make right after being wronged by her partner. “Guilty As Sin?” Is very obviously about her fantasizing about sleeping with him, but again it’s such a minefield for her because it hasn’t happened yet; they’ve only just reconnected. “I Can Fix Him” is the only song other than “TTPD” that shows them actually together, and it’s the one where she keeps saying, essentially, “I know he’s gross but I can rehabilitate him into an upstanding person, trust me,” until the mic drop at the end of the song where it finally hits her that no, she can’t, because this is who he is, not the person she’s built him up to be.

“Loml” is when it all comes crashing down, and the song emphasizes everything he did and told her, e.g. that she’s the love of his life, but she doesn’t return the sentiment in the song about their time together. Because now that it’s past tense, she knows it wasn’t actually love. (And says as much in the album epilogue poem.) “Broken Heart” is her reeling in the aftermath, but again, it’s “he said,” not “I loved.” And then there’s “The Smallest Man,” where she eviscerates him: he also pursued an idea of her but didn’t care much for the real her in front of him (who else is gonna know me?), he love bombed her only to hurt her (crushing her dreams), he was constantly stoned (and not just in the funny munchies kind of way), and he wasn’t even a good lover (despite the fantasy she’d created before). That last point is especially striking because she spent albums singing about the importance of and pleasure in (sexual) intimacy in the relationship with her partner (sometimes to both their own detriment) and how it was at times the only way they could connect, but in this case, the idea she hyped up and acted on in her head about this lover never panned out in practice. She spells it out in the epilogue: it wasn’t a love affair, it was a mutual manic phase.

In contrast, there’s a lot more tangible action in the “oven” (partner) parts of the album, showing how hard she tried to make the relationship work in real life instead of just in her head. All of “So Long, London” is her detailing how she tried to break through to him and support him, even when he rejected it and pushed her away, thinking she could carry them both until they ultimately sank, but she did it because she “loved this place for so long.” (The place? Not just the city, but the home and perhaps most importantly, him.) In “Slammer” she stayed with him even as things disintegrated for “one hour of sunshine.” (E.g. holding onto the rarer good times even as they were fewer and further between, hoping things would eventually turn around.) And like in “London,” she held on despite people in her life pleading with her that it was hurting her. (Which is also echoed in “Slammer.”) In “Guilty” her boredom is “bone deep” because the passion that once drove their relationship (and papered over their problems) has finally gone out too, so there’s nothing left to hold onto, leading to her fantasizing about the new suitor, which makes her realize her relationship has passed the point of no return. “Loml” is about the conman on the surface, but the undercurrent of all the things she says about him is that he was co-opting the dreams that she was clinging onto for dear life in the previous relationship, which is why the con is so painful; the field of dreams he sets ablaze isn’t just the fake painting he sold to her, but the original artifact (her life with her partner) too.

All the physical and emotional labour she puts into the relationship with her partner ends up reflected in the fantasizing she does in the one with the conman, which is why it is so confusing in the moment and so lethal when he leaves her without any answers. She wants to get married and start a family with her partner which keeps getting stalled; the conman mock-proposes which makes her think he’s immediately serious (“TTPD,” “loml”). She feels caged by having to hide with her partner and shrink herself; the conman promises he’ll stand by her side publicly and let her shine (“Smallest Man”). She sinks into a deep depression in her loneliness as the relationship with her partner careens off a cliff; the conman convinces her they’re meant for each other in a them-against-the-world way (“Down Bad”). The intimacy (in all senses of the word) in her relationship with her partner fizzles; the conman stokes the fire by sending her secret messages and reigniting passion (“Guilty”). She spent years trying to help her partner to no avail; the conman makes her think she has the power to reform him (“loml”). She feels misunderstood by her partner; the conman acts like he’s the (only) one who truly gets her (“TTPD,” “loml”).

In short: there’s nothing that the conman does or says that isn’t a direct response to what her partner did first, and it’s even worse because the conman knew how much her partner’s actions hurt her and he used that privileged information to paint a picture of what he could give her, but in doing so in some ways aimed at her heart with even deadlier accuracy. (I’ve likened it to him borrowing someone else’s life for his own joyride, until he crashes the rental car and flees the scene.) It’s why in the aftermath, the difference in emotions are so different: she feels nothing but rage and violation towards the conman for getting in her head and using her, whereas her feelings towards her partner are more complicated. There’s anger (at her lost youth and being taken for granted), but there’s also sorrow (at their lost life and future), disappointment (that he never could step up the way he’d promised or she’d needed), even compassion (towards his struggles) and a tiny measure of appreciation (for the good times they did share).

When you look at the bigger picture, the story the album paints is just so painfully normal. You have two people (Taylor and her partner) who once loved each other deeply, and despite warning signs early on telling them they have fundamentally different needs and ways of living their lives they fight like hell to make it work (the epilogue) until those warning signs become grenades that destroy their home (“My Boy,” “London,” “Slammer,” arguably “loml”). Having already been through at least one rough patch/break/breakup that she felt almost destroyed her (harkening back to Midnights on “You’re Losing Me,” “The Great War” and “Hits Different”), the final and fatal downward spiral of the relationship (“YLM,” “London”) and the grief over losing that future sends her into a tailspin, just at the time where a flame from the past (the conman) reenters her life and tells her all the things she’s been longing to hear and feel (“TTPD,” “Down Bad,” “Guilty,” “loml”) and, crucially, missing from the relationship that was once her entire life.

So in her panic, she falls prey to the (empty) promises of the past lover (“loml,” “Smallest Man”) and decides he’s actually what will save her from the free fall, because the alternative (that she will end up in a situation she doesn’t think she can survive) is too painful to bear. When she finally acts on these circumstances (leaves her partner/runs to the conman), she snaps, acting on pure emotion and adrenaline (“But Daddy”), but before she knows it, the new lover abandons her, and she’s left to reckon with the fallout of the episode and process everything that has happened (“Down Bad,” “loml”) — with the conman, with her partner, with the choices made in her adult life personally and professionally which leads her back to the moment she feels set her down that road at the start.

The TL;DR of this unintentionally long essay is that the reason the conman affair was so serious was precisely because it was meant to fulfill the promise of what was her life with her partner. To me, a large part of the story is that she projected that life onto the conman (or he projected her life back to her for his own purposes) because she wasn’t ready to deal with that massive grief and the life raft he offered felt like the only alternative to an even darker end. Whether the conman actually believed what he told her, or he went along with it or encouraged it because it served his purpose, we’ll never know, just like we’ll never know the finer details of what went on (nor should we). But no matter what, the album is just an extreme deep dive into all the ways grief can consume us, and whether it’s a long, drawn-out death or a sudden, inexplicable one, it can turn a person’s life into such a trainwreck that they act in ways unfathomable to even them, let alone the people around them. It can also unleash repressed trauma and mental illness that can crater your sense of self. And when those situations are compounded? It makes for a nearly impossible type of breakdown to unpack. (Which is why you might need a 31 song album to process it.)

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Bingqiu ponies (Happy Birthday @Piosplayhouse!)

[genderqueerpositivity]

Note that I'm straight up blocking people who reblog my shit with comments promoting voting third party because I'm honestly done entertaining it and I won't let you use my posts to promote it.

If at this point, you still can't be bothered to go out and do the absolute minimum in order to prevent a literal Hitler-idolizing right-wing authoritarian fascist who has already promised the mass deportation of millions of people and the potential opening of detention camps on American soil from reassuming the role of Commander-in-Chief with the power of one of the largest militaries in the world at his fingertips, then you aren't as much of an antifascist as you claim to be.

Jill Stein will never be the president, go deny reality elsewhere. ✨

[nepenthean-sleep]

so much of common culture "biology" is just straight up eugenics. the purpose of life is to be alive, not to breed/have children. "survival of the fittest" is not how natural selection works. gender and race are sociological concepts, not biological categories of people. evolution is not "we are descended from monkeys", it's "monkeys and humans share a very distant ancestor." exploding every shitty grade school biology textbook ever made with my mind

[nothingbizzare]

The rock star !!

Ones again pre-mob Teru band au

Another version :

[toomuchracket]

i would hope this applies to none of you, but if you voted for that orange bollock, please feel free to unfollow me. i don't want anyone with such a lack of empathy here, thanks. love to all my friends who'll be hit the hardest by the results - my heart breaks for you

[batfambrainrotbeloved]

SO I have extreme brainrot over this song rn. (and because im dying to write SOMETHING)

TW- Bad Dad Bruce, Child death (they dont stay dead), FYI Just in general one of my MUCH darker AU's

So premise is a Bruce who finally reached his breaking point (for whatever reason) and decides he cant save the world, that his lifes mission is meaningless, but there is one bit of good he can still do.

Protect his Robins. Dick, Jason, Tim, Steph, and Damien- his five little birds.

Whom one by one he "saves". But then someone else gets involved (i wanna say babs because mad scientest babs?? my love) Barbara ends up killing Bruce- doing "what had to be done" But now what?

She begins to fight in order to find a way to get her family back. But something goes wrong and instead of just coming back, they come back- but in the wrong dimension.

Cue main Batfam + Justice Leauge dealing with five Robins (all relieved to see their siblings again) and desperate to get back to their home dimension and reclaim the lifes that were stolen from them.

But of course, its never that easy. And through plot shenanigans- THEIR Bruce is back as well- and hell bent on finishing what he started once and for all.

New problem though?

The heroes who were so eager to help them, refuse to admit there is no other path than immideat lethal force. No prison will hold the bat, they can never be free until he is gone for good. Basically tons of moral debates and "this isnt a fictional moral debate- this is our fucking lifes" lectures.

Im not gonna write this anytime soon if ever- but the idea is swimming in my otherwise muddled brain so thought id share. <33

[pluralhottakes]

Something that reeeeaally frustrates me is when I see new system members in discord servers saying they have no idea where they are, when they also have a fully created proxy for themself. Like that headmate in particular has no idea where they are, but somehow, they or one of their headmates still bothered to make them a proxy without y'know. helping them?? If you know that newbie is there enough to make them a proxy, but you don't think to help them out even though they're in *your* system, you automatically have bad system accountability. And this isn't a case of them autoproxying someone elses proxy bc I've SEEN these ppl say their names (its the name on the proxy) while also having no idea where they are. I understand that some systems have Internal communication issues, but these systems *know* they have a new member and still throw them out to be *other* peoples problems. Theres this one system I was in a mutual server in and I saw this happening to them multiple times every day, I told them, why don't you just help your headmates yourself? Write them a note? Talk to them internally? To explain where they are? And they legitimately responded with, "Oooh thats such a good idea I hadn't thought of that". Stop making strangers have to babysit your headmates because of your poor accountability. And don't even get me started on the people who apparently have such bad amnesia that they can't understand the cat image sent through discord isnt a real cat stuck in the phone, or that they don't know what food is (real things I saw btw!). But I know the moment their mom walks into their room they're gonna "randomly" remember everything.

People will take this entire point the wrong way and clock it as fakeclaiming because it is something they bring up often on those shitty reddits, you all know which ones.

I get what you're saying but the way this is worded comes off that way.

[the-way-astray]

i am not ready to get pissed off today but can we not ruin people’s positive fandom experiences. can we not. if someone makes a post saying “i love sophie foster!!!!” can we not go to that post and immediately comment “well i don’t like her”. if someone shares a headcanon and it clashes with yours can we not go to that post and reply “well that headcanon is WRONG because HERE’S WHAT CANON SAYS”. if someone talks about a ship can we not go on that post and start ripping it to shreds. can we not. you are aware that just scrolling past without engaging is an option, right? you know you can tamp down the urge to express your negative opinion where inappropriate, right? make your own damn post!!!! can we not ruin positivity posts for the people that like/made them. can we please not. please.

[multiplicity-positivity]

hello? i hope this is not much bother, but i was wondering if i/we could get some advice.

(tw anti endo, fakeclaiming)

so. our collective found out that a friend of ours that we haven't spoken to in a long while is anti-endo. problem is, they aren't aware of our traumagen, plus other origins? and we are pretty sure they are a singlet, but they put endo systems in quotes like we aren't real. and we really wanted to talk to them again, but we are still very scared...

we have yet to confront them about it, but is there anything we can say/offer them to help them understand endogenic systems aren't bad? or should we give it up completely?

thank you for taking your time to read this,

-Kris from 🏢🪐 collective

hey, every person is different, and we may not have a perfect answer on how you can convince this person of the validity of endogenic systems. we’ve found that, for many, but not all anti endos, they may bury their head in the sand and refuse to listen to reason, be respectful, or acknowledge research that explores plurality without trauma. sometimes they may feel like the community or self-righteousness they feel from being anti endo makes it worth being ignorant. sometimes they’re uninterested in change because the concept is scary or difficult for them.

that being said… here are some things you may do.

first - maybe just talk about the vastness of the plural spectrum. talk about how plurality simply means being more than one, nothing more. talk about how plurality can often be a symptom of dissociative disorders, but is not a disorder in and of itself.

second - establish that as a rule, you don’t like to police the lived experiences of others, and maybe they shouldn’t either. that individuals know what they’re going through more than anyone else ever could. that trying to dictate what someone else can and cannot experience is in poor taste, especially when not backed by research.

third - and as far as research goes… we have two thoughts.

research that studies dissociative disorders doesn’t prove or disprove endogenic plurality. it has little to nothing to do with endogenic plurality. so the research that claims that you need trauma in order to form a dissociative disorder is talking about just that. dissociative disorders. not plurality as a whole.

also, there is research that acknowledges plurality without trauma. the language they use may be different, and they may never say “endogenic systems,” outright, but it’s still there. here are some of our favorite studies into different forms of multiplicity that don’t inherently involve traumagenic origins:

‘I’ve learned I need to treat my characters like people’: Varieties of agency and interaction in Writers’ experiences of their Characters’ Voices

Conceptualizing multiplicity spectrum experiences: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

The Inner Vehicle: Prayer, Tulpamancy, and the Magic of the Mind

in the end, if you haven’t spoken to this friend in a long time, it very well may be best to leave this alone and go your separate ways. they might feel slighted if you want to reconnect for the sole purpose of convincing them that they’re wrong about something. at the very least, if you do reconnect, maybe spend some time getting to know each other again and reforging your connection before bringing the topic of endogenic systems into the discussion.

finally, know that your origins and your system are both valid regardless of what this person or anyone else thinks. it could be worth it for you all to spend some time reaffirming your identities and finding some form of internal validation before having these discussions. don’t let their thoughts or closed-mindedness change the way you view yourselves, if you are certain about your origins. no one else’s opinions of you, your system, or your validity should matter - you all exist, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

we know that doing something like this can be tricky and difficult. if you want further information, we answered an ask over a year ago with some common misconceptions anti endos have about endogenic plurality, which we’ll link here in case y’all might find it useful:

sorry this got so long, but we hope it helps. good luck to you with having these difficult conversations with your friend.

[thesophistiicate]

im not trying to act all high and mighty, im just genuinely confused by this... i truly dont understand girls who allow themselves to be put in degrading situations the same as the last anon? surely its glaringly obvious that man just wanted a body to use? i know i sound so mean but im genuinely actually confused whenever i hear or read girls talking about experiences like that i find it very hard to understand what would make them give the most undeserving men access to their bodies and souls like that... i can kind of understand if you sleep with a man for the first time and he treats you badly after but what i dont understand is going back again and again and expecting a different result. at that point maybe youre a little to blame as well? why would you even sleep with someone who youre not even in a relationship with? im just very lost i thought by now we all know better than to give just anyone our time. i see this even in my girl friends, theyre all so beautiful and intelligent yet they date terrible men that shouldnt even be allowed to breathe the same air as them and when they inevitably cheat or hurt them they genuinely get heartbroken and then they start to tell me about things the man has said to them and show me their text conversations and in my head im like "hes telling you right there in that message that he doesnt care about you..? what did you expect..?" sometimes it feels like girls get into situationships and relationships just to get themselves hurt on purpose because, and this is gonna sound so mean but i dont know how else to word this, but theres no way people can genuinely be this blind and stupid. i just find it so hard to feel sympathy for girls who numerously get shown and told theyre only being used for sex and still stick around for a different outcome. is that what love supposed to be? am i the one with the twisted understanding of love? am i missing something? i hope im not coming off as heartless or conceited, im genuinely confused i just dont know how to express or word it well

i'm happy to hold space for expressing thoughts imperfectly or even harshly, so long as we are willing to find understanding and not stay stuck in judgement 🤍 i would say the challenge for you here is learning to stay out of judgement (it is all right to acknowledge that's not how you would act, but attaching value statements and labels like 'stupid' don't help you be kind and don't help anyone else thrive either), and leaning into empathy (finding understanding when someone acts in a way you wouldn't, rather than judgement and frustration).

i say this as someone who used to be really judgemental, not to tell you off, but because it's so good for the soul to learn this growth. judgement and labels are easy, it's far more difficult to build the emotional intelligence to hold space for nuance and complexity, to extend compassion and nurture even when somebody is making imperfect decisions.

i think that you're someone with a really good level of self worth and self respect who cares about others too. that's so amazing! the best thing you can do is continue to hold your standards and lead by example. you aren't the one who has it wrong at all. healthy, respectful relationships aren't like this! keep your standards high, show your friends examples of high standards. as much as it will feel like they aren't listening, sometimes a simple, fairly neutrally toned: "wow, you deserve better" or "geez, i wouldn't put up with that" or "that's not normal" will linger and have more long-term impact than you realise.

i know it's easy to look in from the outside and say, can't you see it?! he just sucks!! or to look at the end of a crazy story and be like, girl, there was SO many red flags wtf!! (lol me at my past self!) but when you're in the middle of it, it's actually really hard. these people are master manipulators and they know how to keep their victims hooked. love bombing, mixed signals, disrespectful treatment to lower self worth... it's a wild ride inside the storm, you simply cannot see clearly because they are committed to obscuring the view.

at the core women get themselves into these situations because of low self worth. it's why i talk about it ALL THE TIME, it's SO CRUCIAL. when you don't value yourself, you put up with being disrespected. the more you are disrespected, the lower your self worth drops and the more bad treatment you accept. it's a toxic cycle. it's the exact same dynamics as in any abusive or domestic violence scenario (even if the relationships aren't abusive and he's just casually disrespectful - that is the beginning of abuse), and it's pretty well researched why women stay, how they get in those situations, why they find it difficult to leave, why the cycle keeps repeating with new partners. i'd highly recommend researching it if you want to understand it better. every woman should be educated on this topic.

you are right to some extent: if you want to get out of the cycle you do have to take responsibility for your own behaviour. you have to ask why you're accepting being treated that way. what led you there. why you are obsessing over their behaviours but not questioning your own.

but to confront all this is very difficult and painful and often related to trauma and neglect. yet another reason why so many can't escape the cycle, to face all of that can be more painful than putting up with a shitty guy who just wants sex without commitment... the crap treatment is easier to face, until it isn't.

it is a form of self-harm, a kind of self-destruction as a way a broken mind and spirit tries to cope with trauma. to end the relationship would be to limp out and finally confront how broken you are. when you stay in it you can stay delulu. it's a form of escape.

of course, to a healthy person it doesn't make sense. why would anyone ever willingly hurt themselves? and yet, it's a psychologically observable phenomenon and unfortunately the solution and path to healing is far more complex than just not doing that or getting into those situations. if only!!

but the way out DOES involve making a decision that you deserve better. which is why we need to keep talking about these things, bringing them to light, being compassionate, creating safe spaces for women in these relationships to talk about what they're experiencing without judgement, shame, being called stupid or asking for it etc 🤍

i could speak for a long time on this, but i'll leave it there for now... it's all right to not understand it. i actually think that's a good thing in a way, it means you're in a good place. but certainly if you really want to understand it, the research is there!

[katyspersonal]

Stance about proanti disco horse (TW: personal CSA details)

I don't really like being a fence-sitter, especially at the risk that some mutual might grow really attached to me only to feel "backstabbed" once finding out we're not on the same page at all, and since this topic became more active after Fromsoft 'approved of incest' (debatable but it at least looks it!) and a certain person whose server is VERY appropriately literally named "a cult" makes a list of people in Soulsborne fandom to side-eye, avoid and shun, I wanted to say what I think

1) I do NOT sympathise with antis. Just try to accept this. They are insensitive loosers without basic common sense that need an excuse to feel like they are contributing to the "noble battle" and turned out to make lives of survivors of the thing they claim fictional works nOrMaLiZe uwu worse on multiple occasions. They are incredibly vile in what they accuse people of based on what they explore within the safety of fantasy, and as if they are not doing enough harm under guise of "protecting" us, survivors of incest, abuse and pedophilia, they are even eating their own if their fellow antis are "too tolerant" to proshippers. Enough instances of an anti showing sympathy under specific circumstances and being shunned too on the "if you're not with us then you're against us" notion. Antis are CULTS, plain and simple.

2) I am also disgusted by how antis tell proshippers "to seek therapy". Every person has dark impulses deep within, regardless of whether they had trauma they now cope with or not, that many people will never realise they have, and creativity is a healthy way to let them dwell. What person chooses to do with the characters is not a mental illness that somehow ruins them and the world around them. You don't get to hold having """morally better""" dark interests over proshippers and claim to be superior on that matter, and if you claim to not have dark interests at all you are just laughable in your pretence. And above all, I am upset at how trauma that I've survived is trivialised to the fanfics and fanart people can't stand.

3) People who are simply disgusted by incest, abuse and pedophilia in fanworks are NOT antis, however. Antis are people who actively police creativity, try to isolate shipper of the thing from the fandom by DMing people to unfollow them, accuse them of having horrible intentions and paraphilias, tell them to seek therapy and all that. As heartbreaking as it could be to lose a mutual over this problem, disgust is an understandable reaction to such ships and everyone should be allowed to detach from a person that posts something they're uncomfortable with for their own mental health! People have a right to not want to engage with such shippers, that doesn't make them fandom crusaders. It is a mistake that might come from someone's exhaustion with actual antis, but respectable personal discomfort is different so let's not jump onto seeing everyone as an enemy! The difference is: do they see their disgust as a personal boundary, or as a sign that you are a harmful monster they should fight?

4) Not all proshippers are innocent. There is a merit on what you could tell about a person based on what they think of fiction and how they judge it. If you want to be sure, you need to look out for the logic someone puts into their ships. For example, if someone simply discusses their pedophilia ship as something messed up yet fascinating for them, or it feels as though they're never focusing on power imbalance and manipulation aspect of it in their fantasy as horror element but instead it is just a matter of fact, or is a survivor that dwells on their trauma this way wishing their groomer was """nicer""" OR went further - they're basically Just A Guy that doesn't engage with fantasies the same way as you do. Like, it is just a guy ok? However, if they go into spiel about how age is just a number or age of consent in other countries or how maturity is psychology and not amount of years lived or how some teens are presumably mature enough to consent *flashback to yandev's suggestion about 'test for ability to consent'* etc etc..... this is probably a freak. You get the principle. If you can't help being suspicious of someone over their dark interests, you need to hear out this person's logic regarding the concept to tell which one they are, instead of assuming everyone is guilty OR everyone is innocent. Trust me, most proshippers absolutely do not want to make actual predators to feel safe in their 'let's ruin some fictional guys' interests circles, not only the trauma survived ones.

5) (STRONG trigger warning for CSA, skip to #6 if anything) Personally: I don't mind most of the incest and abuse ships. I was living under the same father figure's sexual and just emotional abuse (rarer, physical) since age 8-9 and into late teens, and only could do something to get away from him at the age of 20. Somewhere when my puberty started to kick in, I had a dream that I had an older brother and we were living under this hell together, with him protecting me from him at the expense of enduring worse physical abuse... but we were in supportive "relationship" through it. I think it altered something in my brain chemistry, that made me associate incest ships where one sibling cares for the sick/miserable/weak one and protects them, or where they're up against the same hardship or the same bad guy with safety and warmth instead.

As for the abuse ships, again, during puberty I was having guilty thoughts of seeking """consensual""" sex with my stepfather. He was not allowing me to seek a partner of my age on the side, naturally, and I was going rabid. Nonetheless, I had a will of steel and repressed those feelings, never acting on them, for the sake of what very little remained of my ruined pride. But it left me with the interest of what would happen if not, that I can take out on fictional characters (for example, a certain mutual who likes Sulyvahn x Dancer knows what I am talking about :p). If this is something I must uproot from how my brain developed, I'll do it when I am ready and consider it an improvement, and not when some no-life looser online tells me that what I can do with fictional characters somehow makes me as bad as the person who harmed me. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

5.1) Yes, this does mean that my blog is safe for people who like Lorian and Lothric or Miquella and Malenia or alike popular pairings. I don't really 'see' these ships personally (Aldia and Blind Swordsman are better alternatives respectively sorry lmao) but I did like artworks with them; if not because they are drawn well then as expression of support for people to do what they want. You can tell my contrarian bias is sprouting wonderfully No you did not just hallucinate my like under MalMiq fanart in 4 AM delirium and yes I am aware that I have two mutuals who openly ship it (you girls know who you are)

6) Many people avoid these ships purely based on fear of harassment and not because of genuine conviction. I could make an essay on how Miquella and Radahn is aKtUaLy not incest, but on the first glance it is. And you know what happened in the fandom after Fromsoft "approved of incest relationship in their story"? Right, people who don't mind incest ships or even openly support proshippers or even ship this stuff themselves popped up like mushrooms after the rain!! This should be telling that most people are neutral or even interested, and ALL that holds them back is lack of strong support, but what can be stronger than approval of the creator of the darn thing? If you want to make a change in how people engage with fiction and promote healthier alternatives to problematic ships, you cannot do it through holding the threat of isolation and bullying over their heads. The best way to promote healthier ships is to actually ship them, as well as passionately discuss characters who are popular to put into a problematic ship in healthy non-ship context. I think more people should promote their ideas this way, because being afraid is not being convinced and your "allies against weirdos in the fandom 🥺" WILL backstab you as soon as they feel safe to do so. Sure, I will be laughing at how frail that "allyship" turned out to be when that happens. You won't be laughing, though. Allies that are simply here out of fear of harassment are not allies, so watch your back.

7) The argument about "such fanworks help groomers to fish victims" works in reverse. Many people are convinced that a pedo will grab someone's adult x minor fanfic and go at a kid being like "hey do you want something like this? 👀" or similar stuff.. Usage of fanworks really happens to fuel the dynamic when the victim got already on the hook. And when there are no fanworks, the predator will create or commission such works on their own, initiate RPs and whatnot. However, the way questionable fanworks actually help to create new victims is isolation of the person who enjoys such fanworks. Some person, a minor, enjoys an ship between adult and minor, between siblings or noncon, and their peers start shunning them for it from the fandom. They just happen to have no one to confide in about these interests and no one to talk to. Like I said in previous pointer: if someone has these interests, they will not evaporate with fear, they will just get concealed. That person, bullied for what they like to do with fictional characters, will not """seek therapy""" like antis told them. What they WILL seek tho, is someone, anyone who will listen.

And THIS is where an actual predator lurking on some dumb community Discord server will spot the vulnerable, isolated, lonely minor and chime in like, "damn I like this stuff too, we are against the world, too bad people are so judgemental of us, right? :)". Cult-like shunning creates both victims to get scooped by another cult AND victims of individual predators. No matter how much you or anyone else is uncomfortable with certain fanworks and themes, do not allow this "freak" to fall out of the community. It is dangerous out of the loop.

____________________________

Alright I hope that I've made myself clear on the topic. I've been questioning on whether to add something so personal here or not, but decided to do so. The last time I tried to discuss this topic without showing my own wound, I got yelled at for being insensitive looser who'd speak differently had they experienced anything like that personally, so.... :^) There are times where who is speaking matter. I don't want any pity for my trauma, it's alright, really..

At the same time, if you don't like me after this post you can hardblock or softblock without any grudges from my end (pay close attention to number 3 in this post, making personal boundaries is not the same as being an anti)

[mokeonn]

Before I go to sleep I leave you all with this piece of advice: sometimes you don't actually have to answer big political questions, sometimes you can just say "I am not smart enough to know that, I just know the small things I do to help." Like you can often times completely avoid making a fool of yourself if you just say you don't know.