#toxic lessons

[girltalkcollectives]

The Dark Side of ‘Boys Will Be Boys’

I still remember sitting in the principal’s office, knees scraped and uniform dirty, trying not to cry while explaining why I pushed Tommy back on the playground. For weeks, he’d been pulling my hair, chasing me during recess, and ruining my art projects. That day, he’d grabbed my favorite hair ribbon and thrown it in a puddle.

The principal’s response? A warm smile and those words I’ll never forget: “Oh sweetie, he’s only mean because he likes you! Boys don’t know how to show their feelings at this age.”

I was six. That was my first lesson that my discomfort was less important than a boy’s feelings.

And before anyone jumps in with “boys will be boys” or “it’s not that serious” — let me tell you how that lesson played out over the years.

By fourth grade, I stopped telling teachers when boys would snap my bra strap because I was tired of hearing “that means they think you’re pretty!” I learned to be flattered by harassment before I even knew what harassment was.

In middle school, when Jake wouldn’t stop following me between classes and grabbing my backpack, my own mom said, “He probably just doesn’t know how to tell you he has a crush!” So I stopped mentioning it, even when it escalated to him “accidentally” running into me at my locker every day.

“But they’re just boys!” people say. “Stop making everything so serious!”

Okay, let’s talk about how “just boys” grow up.

That same Jake who learned his harassment was “just showing affection��? By high school, he was the guy who wouldn’t take no for an answer at parties. But hey, he “just liked me,” right?

Tommy from first grade? Last I heard, he had multiple harassment complaints at his college. But I bet someone’s still saying “boys will be boys!”

And me? I spent years unlearning the idea that love is supposed to hurt. Years figuring out that someone making me uncomfortable isn’t a compliment. Years understanding that my instincts were right all along — I wasn’t being “too sensitive,” he wasn’t being “sweet,” it wasn’t “just a crush.”

To everyone saying “it’s not that deep” or “stop overthinking” — you’re part of the problem. Because while you’re dismissing these “little” incidents, girls are learning lessons that follow them into adulthood:

When my first boyfriend threw my phone because he was “passionate?” I heard: “He’s only mean because he likes you!”

When my college classmate wouldn’t stop asking me out after ten nos? I remembered: “He just doesn’t know how to show his feelings!”

These aren’t separate issues. They’re the same lesson playing out over years.

We’re teaching girls that love looks like discomfort.

That harassment means attraction.

That their boundaries matter less than boys’ feelings.

That being hurt means being loved.

And to those saying “not all boys are like that” — you’re missing the point. It’s not about all boys. It’s about what we teach ALL girls about what they should accept.

Because that six-year-old girl with scraped knees grew up to be a woman who had to relearn what love actually looks like. Who had to realize that real love doesn’t pull your hair, push you down, or make you cry.

So no, it’s not “just boys being boys.”

It’s not “making a big deal out of nothing.”

It’s not “too serious.”

It’s the first chapter in a book too many girls have to unwrite later.

And maybe if we stopped telling little girls that harassment means love, we’d have fewer women trying to convince themselves that abuse means passion.

[selfhealingmoments]

[ceaselessims]

the fact that martin blackwood haters exist is so confusing to me like he's a bitch who moans and complains but also sets fire to things for fun and successfully manipulates avatars and gets jealous about the avatar of death waking up his boyfriend up from a coma and is both jon's staunchest defender and not afraid to call out jon's bullshit

[elainiisms]

[succulentsiren]

Judgements from others is never personal, so stop treating it like it is.

Some people may think you’re too skinny or too fat, too wild or too boring, or too loud or too quiet. But it is only if you agree with their judgements, that it’ll become your truth.

Don’t torture yourself by associating with something that has nothing to do with you because when you do identify with someone else’s lowly judgements of you, you are agreeing to a mindset of self-sabotage.

People who take judgments personally, constantly live in paralyzing fear of what others think of them, which is a waste of time because they’ll be judged anyways — Understand that people’s judgements are not something to be internalized, neither something to be controlled. It is simply just something not to align or identify yourself with.

Make the choice to live your best life regardless of outside judgments. Remain unbothered, self-focused and self-validated. Don’t let what others think define you. Define yourself. Have the mindset of, “I’m not who you say I am. I am that I am.”

Stop replaying painful memories — of when people aimed their judgements towards you, in order to plant guilt and insecurities into your psyche. Free yourself by detaching and disassociating. Let these memories go and understand that it was never personal anyways. (Spiteful people always project their own insecurities unto others because they want you to be as miserly as they are).

You can either choose to disassociate and not take judgements personally, or you can cause yourself pain by identifying with the judgements and hurtful opinions of others.

The choice is yours.

[fellthemarvelous]

Holy forking shirtballs

I'm choosing violence today. I started this on Twitter, but I'm going to finish my thoughts here like I always do.

But what really blows my mind the most is the way that people look at Aziraphale's "choice" at the end, as if he had one to fucking begin with.

I'm sorry, but Aziraphale knows how messed up Heaven is. He told The Metatron, more than once, that he did not want to go back to Heaven! We can debate what each of us means by "choice" all night because my "choice" and your "choice" might be two different concepts. He could have been strong armed by The Metatron or he could have looked at where things were headed and realized he had no choice but to intervene himself.

You need to ask yourself what Aziraphale has a moral imperative to do.

What do we owe to each other?

Seriously, if you have not watched The Good Place, I recommend you go and watch it, because it absolutely shaped how I've viewed Good Omens 2 since its release.

My levels of frustration with the bad faith mischaracterizations of Aziraphale are off the charts. If you are blaming him for everything, implying that he should have to grovel and that Crowley has a right to hurt him back, you have missed the point of Good Omens entirely.

I defend Aziraphale, but I don't think one of them is more right or wrong than the other. They're equals. They're a group of the two of them, acting and reacting to each other throughout history. They're Alpha Centauri.

I cannot even begin to explain how fucking devastated I felt when Crowley said these words, knowing he was fighting a losing battle. What he said took a lot of courage because he's finally admitting something they've both been too scared to publicly define for 6,000 years. Crowley has had to spend so long with a rough outer shell because he fell and had to hide all of his softness.

The look on his face was one of pure joy when he created that nebula, but I think the fact that he got to share that moment with Aziraphale is what has always stuck with him.

So yeah, seeing Crowley with a broken heart at the end of "Every Day" was sad for me as well.

My brain still lives here!!

But Neil has said that Good Omens 3 is not quiet, gentle, or romantic. I imagine it's going to be more like the the first season in which they are not central to the plot. GO2 will help us make sense of how they ended up where they are when we see the bigger picture with all the other major players involved with GO3.

Aziraphale was still a soldier and accidentally got himself discorporated in his own magic circle in season one. He had a platoon waiting on him to start Armageddon, and he deserted them to go save the world with Crowley instead. Aziraphale is a deserter. I need everyone to remember that. He yeeted himself out of Heaven and sought out Crowley before even locating a body just to warn him about what was happening so they could try to save the world together.

I can't help but think of 1941 and that magician who had been arrested for being a deserter.

Aziraphale disobeyed orders. That took courage but it branded him as a traitor against Heaven. They tried to destroy him for it the same way Hell tried to destroy Crowley for his part in stopping the war.

Aziraphale and Job are the only characters we have seen interacting with God directly. Aziraphale has spoken to God before and he is determined to do so again.

Aziraphale knows Heaven is flawed, but he also knows it's supposed to be good. He wants it to be good. He does not like the way the system works and he wants to make a difference. (And I'm pretty sure he's also determined to talk to God without being intercepted by The Metatron.)

Since when is that a bad thing? I don't get it. And I've had this discussion before.

If you need to change the system by burning the old one to the ground, it's still change, and we don't know what Aziraphale has planned.

It seems to me that people just want to see Aziraphale fail because it would punish him for returning to Heaven instead of running off with Crowley.

Some of y'all take everything Aziraphale says or does and twist those things into malicious anti-Crowley actions because you think the only reason Aziraphale exists is to make Crowley happy, and if he isn't thinking only about Crowley then he's doing something wrong.

Aziraphale does not exist as a plot device to further Crowley's character. They come as a pair. They've been learning from each other for 6,000 years. Crowley challenges Aziraphale just as much as Aziraphale challenges him.

You can be mad at Aziraphale all you want, but villainizing him is gross. Defending Crowley does not mean you have to tear down and mischaracterize Aziraphale anymore than defending Aziraphale means you have to tear down Crowley (but I don't see that happen on nearly the same level it happens to Aziraphale). Stop painting Aziraphale as an abusive partner, for fuck sake.

Aziraphale knows there are flaws in the system. He wants to make a difference, and since he has seen that Gabriel can change, then maybe the whole system can. He has to at least try, and if he can succeed then maybe he and Crowley can stop hiding and finally be together without having to look over their shoulders all the time.

Why is that a bad thing? He's just as protective of Crowley as Crowley is of him!

But don't forget that Aziraphale's wing was covering Adam and Eve too. As much as a wants to protect Crowley, he has a moral imperative to keep humanity safe as well.

He sent Adam and Eve into the unknown with a flaming sword so they could protect themselves.

As much as he wants to be with Crowley, there are 8 billion people on Earth heading toward the Second Coming and Judgment Day. They'll work together to fight alongside humanity in the end. Aziraphale should not have to humiliate himself just to earn Crowley's forgiveness. That's a rancid notion.

The Resurrectionist was a whole ass moral dilemma for Aziraphale, which is why I brought up The Good Place earlier, but that's a post for a different time.

Aziraphale has his own motivations and they're just as important as Crowley's, and they don't have to be chalked up to Aziraphale being the bad guy. Weird, I know, but shades of grey.

"To the world."

[reality-detective]

If you wonder why hamburgers don't taste the same, here's a short history lesson from 11 years ago 🤔

[classycookiexo]

[may-lutlone]

accomplice shooting lessons 💖✨💖✨💖

am I using this as an excuse not to study for many exams I have this week? sure.

[toskarin]

miss Toskarin you’re not convincing me that Skyrim was the ruin of all western rpgs. In fact you’re convincing me that the issues began with oblivion.

I'd better be careful or else I might convince you of my less loudly-held beliefs

[ek-ranjhaan]

Oh my mum's superpower of manipulation

[kitti-luvs]

this is peak romance

[selfhealingmoments]

[wahroh]

Haters gotta hate.

[katyspersonal]

hey, I saw that you and your friend got some unwarranted nonsense for your lore posts on Marika. I thought it was nice to see people give Marika some agency for once.

Thank you for a message, and support, I suppose; I am glad that you liked the analysis and takes themselves.

Honestly, the whole thing was really unfair to Val. That post was not even about Marika, it just tangentially involved her! @val-of-the-north was addressing the situation of people seeing Marika as that noble hero who was up to rid the world of "Hornsent's evil" and making the world better by only obliterating the filth that ruins it of sorts. Correctly pointing out how much injustice and cruelty happened under her reign, caused or allowed! Yesterday I've made a post ( x ) about Marika that is the best reflection of mine and Val's opinion on her! Sounds rather humanising and positive even all things considered, right? And the reason why Val did not do a giant disclaimer explaining how Marika is not 100% cruel monster was because that post was not! about! her!

And yet, imagine how VAL was feeling. The original reblogger maybe earned (my) disrespect by admitting they hated any interpretation of Marika and Messmer that weren't their, as well as using an oddly specific made up story as a proof, but on conceptual level, it is not wrong to start a debate! Debates are good, debates are healthy, debates are vaccine against being stuck in hostile echo-chambers believing you are superior and others are "media illiterate weirdos"! They were switching goals wildly like a bunny making its traces on the snow a labyrinth, BUT, it was fun to double-check Marika's lore there! But it stopped being okay when another person faaaaaaar not Val's size got involved and not only made it some sort of 'affirmation', but then also continued to mock his post as aNoThEr CaNcEr tO MaRiKaS jOy before their followers uncritically approving of everything they say! I know I should not act like he or me are special, because this is just a constant in any fandom/community!

Imagine that big, radiant, loved by everyone artist with more followers than there are people in your country, whose creativity and presence stands in the fandom seen from every spot much like the notorious Erdtree itself, for the first time having a direct interaction with you...... only to unfairly write you down as "just another Marika hater" and "part of the problem in the fandom" with "a post so bad they wish they could remove it from the addition" pure upon virtue of agreeing with their biased subjective vision. In front. Of their. Huge. Fanbase. When they also didn't even read the post and admitted to not even loredig. (Why do you think you can be the judge whether someone's lore is right or wrong when you do not even research it? Seriously why?) There are very vitriol-filled posts about Marika that do not offer any nuance, yet from my knowledge, they only ever earned vagueblogs? Just getting readsomewhered, as 'some weird takes I've seen'? But it was a fair, researched post, dealing only with facts, that earned the "honor" of directness?

Besides, it was rich saying the post was wrong and better be removed to only keep the addition, when the post was about people approving of Hornsent genocide! And the reblog of disagreement that made it about Marika..... justified Hornsent genocide. So, proven Val's point, hilariously? Literal Queelign behavior, all. 🤦‍♂️

[nyxofdemons]

“one day im going to have to make like a three hour long video essay that's just called In Defense of Helluva Boss” Please do. I see more anti videos than I do with defense ones. Like the ones that say season 2 is terrible even though it’s barely completed and the ones that say Stolitz is a bad despite them barely having a relationship.

no literally i am sick of seeing more anti content than actual appreciation videos but the anti talking point i see most that drives me up the fucking walls is that it's "bAd RePrEsEnTaTiOn," as if that is all that queer people are allowed to have; just the vague nebulous concept of "Rep(TM)." the fact that if a straight character is a bad person then it's just that This Character is a bad person, but if a queer character is a bad person then This Is Bad Representation Of The Community And Is Homophobic. can we not just HAVE characters?? vehicles to tell a story??? tools to craft a compelling narrative??? this is part of why Helluva/Hazbin being adult shows is such a THING because i see this get shut down a lot under the guise of "uhh well just because it's an adult show doesn't mean that it can handle whatever topic it wants however it wants" and like. yeah buddy! that's true! and that's not what this is fucking about!! when people say "it's an adult show" what they mean is that it's made to be engaged with under the assumption that you would know better than to take information to shape your worldview and perception of other real life people from a fucking cartoon! the show doesn't NEED to tell you that Um Hey Guys Just So You Know This Isn't Actually Meant To Reflect How All Real Life Gay Relationships Are because you are an adult who should already be able to discern this.

"bad rep" doesn't mean "characters that are nuanced, morally gray, or just bad people." "bad rep" would be if helluva boss was a show that said "the REASON these characters are in toxic relationships / are bad people is BECAUSE they are queer, or at least directly correlated to that fact." which is. you know. very fucking different than "these characters are in toxic relationships / are bad people because they 1) live in a classist society that actively encourages them to be their worst selves and 2) are extremely traumatized."