#uncoerced

[irrealisms]

every time I see a “it’s actually totally fine and nbd to have sex you don’t enjoy and are uncomfortable with because your partner wants it and you want them to be happy, as long as you’re giving uncoerced consent!” post I lose a month off my lifespan

[deusimminenti]

People need to be allowed to make choices about abortion and surgery and (consensual, uncoerced) sex for bad reasons. I used to think people need good reasons for these things but actually the second someone gets to be the authority of what reasons are good reasons, we have entered authoritarianism and stripped them of control over their own body. Bodily autonomy for everyone first - can't let them take that from us.

[memory-lane-and-back-again]

I am admittedly biased about Shi Wudu despite the atrocity of his actions but I had a lil thought that I has to share about his personality as the water tyrant. In the english translation he comes across as very aware of his own reputation especially when he uses it to try and placate Shi Qingxuan into killing him. It’s kind of like an: I may be your brother but I’m also objectively a blight to existence and deserve to die.

At least that is how my biased ass interpreted it. Anyway, to me, it almost feels like for all the arrogance Shi Wudu has, he is not necessarily proud of how horrendous he is and this led me to a little thought about how he could have become like that.

We know he is so fearless he deterred the revenant of empty words so that’s kind of like a trait since birth. But fearlessness doesn’t equal tyranny…

I’d like to propose it came from sacrifices. Since black water arc foils the main story line, I’d propose that Shi Wudu’s cynicism and ruthlessness is parallel to Xie Lian’s unbending optimism.

We know his family went from wealth to struggling (kike Xie Lian’s) and in the midst of fighting he took his brother away and raised him and protected him as best he could (similae to how Xie Lian tried to look after his parents) and failed to protect his brother when the revenant found him again (once again reminding me of how xie lian discovered his parents)

He ascended to heaven desperate for a solution and couldn’t even protect his brother by appointing him to the middle court. It did not deter the revenant of empty words.

I propose that like how Xie Lian was on the verge of becoming a calamity, Shi Wudu was on the verge of doing something unthinkable to protect his brother. Yet unlike Xie Lian, he did not get or find a reason to hope for a different alternative.

The line ‘there is no such thing as remorse’ is so bitterly cynical. Madness whether as an act or genuine in literature can be used to disguise hard to digest truths and I feel this is a core belief that shi wudu holds. He does not believe that remorse is genuine and has shaped his personality and identity in many ways around this.

Watching his brother’s misfortune go ignored and return ruthlessly

Witnessing his family slowly become destitute and again seeing him and his brother be neglected in favour of wealth and inheritance. (All speculated based on what limited stuff we know) And then the final nail in the coffin: to have to choose to be remorseless to save his brother. Lives for a life.

The water tyrant became the water tyrant the day he chose to align himself with a twisted, distorted version of reality. Where the remorselessness he would have to have in order to save his brother and remain sane becomes a defining part of him.

After all, if he can go so far across the line to destroy a family solely for his brother’s life then making enemies and letting ships that don’t pray to him drown, encouraging them to sink, hardly seems that bad.

I wonder if that is why he is friends with Ling Wen, who also makes an impossible choice for power. Giving up love although it might have been sincere, branding herself as cruel and ascetic to distance herself from the disdain of womanhood.

I can imagine him contemplating in ashen distress what he has just done, second guessing why he has just done it and Ling Wen being something of a mentor in the ways of picking which subjective evil we would prefer to be defined by. Will it drive him to madness to kill a stranger or his brother?

I don’t think Shi Wudu died insane, but I do think he built something of a cynical delusion of the world and its values around himself to stay sane.

And He Xuan, desperate to know his death meant something, that he did not die merely as a biproduct… He xuan who cannot rebuke the action he will take himself for his own justice (destroying an innocent’s life), cannot accept remorselessness as an answer.

I’m very convinced that if Shi Wudu had shown uncoerced regret and apology, if Shi Qingxuan had not been a factor to explain away Shi Wudu’s caution and trigger his protective self-destructiveness then things may have gone differently.

I guess I just refuse to believe that someone who I interpret to be willing to destroy any morals he may have for his brother as completely remorseless and cruel. I do not know how much of hid persona is a facade, but I also feel like the only genuine sincerity we get from him is when he pleads with Shi Qingxuan to kill him and has to desperately back peddle when Sqx has a breakdown about it. And then he is absolutely remorseful: stuck with yet another impossible choice to destroy his brother’s fate or his brother’s sanity.

In the end, I think the no remorse line is a double entendre. I feel like HX and SWD almost have a separate conversation between the lines of what we read. No remorse reflects his actions toward he xuan but also begs he xuan to show remorse towards his brother: prove me wrong, make a third option that is kinder to Shi Qingxuan.

By unveiling this flawed view of the world, he gives He Xuan a way to almost justify only killing the water master. If he shows remorse, gives this single drop of mercy by not forcing Shi Qingxuan’s hand in this way, he can undermine everything the water master has built his ideologies on and therefore sparing Sqx becomes essential.

These two are very kindred in many ways and I do not think two so meticulous people could both be driven so far to madness to completely give up on things they have valued so highly for centuries. Shi qingxuan’s quality of life in shi wudu’s case and revenge in he xuan’s.

It seems too coincedental, like an impass was made an reached… i suppose though that if anyone could drive them to madness it would be eachother.

[mirrorofliterature]

what if the jedi had an actual child protection policy in place

a dream

in part because I grew up in a society with a strong child protection culture, I find the jedi's lacklustre protection of the children in their care - particularly anakin and the padawans during the clone wars - particularly egregious

anyway just imagine palpatine's evil sith plans defeated by bureaucracy

palpatine: I want to meet alone with that 12-year-old boy

mace *internally wtf man*: uh let me check with our liasion

bored jedi SR (sentient resources): do you have your up to date working with children's check?

palpatine: my what

SR: unfortunately you can't see an under-age jedi without a working with childrens' check and the explicit, uncoerced consent of their master.

palpatine: I did not know this existed :) how... sensible :)

[an incident happened 300 years ago]

palpatine completes the beraucracy

SR: alright so you must follow these protocols with anakin -

palpatine: ah forget it I'll corrupt him once he turns eighteen

[hyperlexichypatia]

can you comment on assisted dying

Sure, in fact, I thought I had posted about it here, but in fact, the post in question was on my Facebook page that migrated to here, so you've inspired me to c&p it here! As follows:

Beginning disclaimer: I'm going to talk a lot about death and suicide in this post.

Let's talk about the "right to die."

So, as an advocate of bodily autonomy, if an informed, uncoerced, freely consenting adult is truly certain about choosing to end their life, I don't want to stand in their way.

That said.

Here's the thing.

If you're an adult who is not under guardianship and is not being involuntarily hospitalized or institutionalized, you already, in practice, have the right to end your own life. It's fairly easy to do. Poisons and weapons are fairly attainable. I don't need to go into detail here; adults know how death works ("Unsuccessful" suicide attempts are often deliberately "unsuccessful," because many people are driven to suicide attempts by involuntary intrusive thoughts rather than intentional choice).

The only people who do not have access to the right to die are people having this choice actively constrained -- people who are institutionalized, involuntarily hospitalized, or under guardianship. If the "right to die" movement were centered on abolishing adult guardianship, institutionalization, and involuntary hospitalization, I would be its loudest proponent.

Yet, most "right to die" advocates have little or no objection to these things, which should be our first clue that this movement's goals aren't quite what they seem.

So free adults who want to end their own lives can generally already do so without too much difficulty.

This is why "right to die" advocacy is mostly about the right to choose to consent to someone else (a doctor or family member, usually) killing you.

Now, accepting -- as I do -- the philosophical premise that individuals own their own bodies, and therefore, if they freely choose to, can consent to allow someone else to take their lives, it is nonetheless extremely difficult to prove, in any given case in which this has happened, that the dead person (being dead, and unable to testify) did in fact give free, uncoerced consent prior to their death.

So it's relatively easy for free adults who truly want to end their lives to do so, and it's relatively difficult to truly be certain that someone who consented to be killed by someone else was giving fully uncoerced consent.

In light of this, what's the actual effect of pushing for the "right to die" (or, more accurately, "right to be killed with prior consent")?

Well, whether or not it's the intent of the people promoting it (and I reserve the right to be cynical on that question), the effect is to normalize and naturalize the idea of death as a reasonable, desirable, and morally good solution to disability (especially the intersection of disability and poverty).

This makes the "consent" and "choice" part of the equation less necessary.

Someone murders their disabled family member? Well, we can't prove they DIDN'T consent to be killed, so, hey, reasonable doubt.

Parents murder their disabled child? Well, they consented on her behalf, so it's fine.

Need medical treatment? It's awfully expensive, have you considered death instead?

Recently, I argued with someone defending the murder of a disabled person (using the "you don't know that they DIDN'T consent" reasoning), and, when I argued that if someone really, truly wanted to end their own life, they could do it themself, the person retorted that some people choose to stay alive for religious reasons, and that's why it's okay for someone else to kill them.

Now, my first instinct was to argue that religious reasons are perfectly valid reasons for wanting to stay alive -- but note the shift in discourse that would accept. Why do people need to justify their reasons for wanting to stay alive? Why is anyone entertaining the idea of valid or invalid reasons for staying alive? Why isn't NOT killing people the baseline default that needs no reason or justification?

What kind of dystopian hellscape forces people to provide a "good enough reason" for not wanting to die any sooner than they have to?

I've noticed that many people who are generally disability allies, some of whom are disabled themselves, seem quite stuck on understanding why organized disability advocates are generally skeptical of the "right do die" movement. After all, aren't we in favor of bodily autonomy, and freedom of choice, for all disabled people?

And yes, we are!

I, for one, fully support the right of any adult to choose to end xyr life so long as xe is making an informed, uncoerced choice.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

You cannot make a truly free, uncoerced choice to die unless you also have the freedom to choose to live.

And too many people, including other disabled people, cannot conceptualize WANTING to live with whatever they think of as "severe" disability. They simply take for granted that no one could really want to live "like that," whatever "like that" means, in their minds. "No quality of life" is a term that comes up a lot, even though there's no such thing -- everyone has SOME quality of life. No form of disability, impairment, or adaptive equipment is synonymous with a quality of life of ZERO.

If society can't fathom a "severely" disabled person with (allegedly) "no quality of life" actually WANTING to live, there is no impetus to ensure that such "severely" disabled people actually have the resources and conditions they need to live well, or even to ensure that their right to life is legally protected (which it is not, if anyone who kills them is presumed to be doing them a favor).

In fact, many "severely" disabled people DO want to continue living as long as possible -- even those who, prior to becoming disabled, said that they would not want to live under those conditions (https://kevinmd.com/2012/09/patients-deviate-advance-directives.html)

If you, as a consenting adult, want to make the informed and uncoerced choice to end your life, you should be free to do so. And for the most part, you are free to do so. You can have the right to make that choice about your own body without having it reified, on a societal, legal, cultural, medical, political, philosophical level, that death is the "correct" or "obvious" response to some forms of disability. You can exercise that choice without disparaging forms of assistive and medical equipment, or making generalizations about how "no one would want" to live "like that," or assuming, without evidence, that the killing of someone "like that" must have been asked-for or well-intentioned.

Because if you truly believe in choice, you must ensure that every disabled person has free access to the choice to live.

[dxxtruction]

Let's be clear here, Armand removing Louis memories is abusive no matter whether or not Louis really had asked for it. The act itself removes the agency of consciousness which we need to form our love towards another. Love, like relationship, doesn’t appear out of thin air. But unlike relationship, love (uncoerced) is always internally facilitated through the full breath of our understanding to give it, or receive it.

To remove parts of a conscious which affects one’s ability to judge love and relationship, even out of love (misguided) is thereafter not really love at all but an illusion of it. It is inherently coercive. Trapping the person against their will insidiously without the knowledge of their will being trapped. To control memory is to control the very will of the person. To do this, even if he’d asked, Louis identity therefore belongs to Armand not to himself.

Everyone should want their partners to have their own identities, that’s a large part of why we love them and not just anyone else. Maybe Armand doesn’t recognize this, abusers tend not to see themselves as abusers, but only an abusive person would want their partner to be without their own identity, even if just in part. No matter how supposedly well intentioned it is either. Cause say Louis had asked for this and Armand, always to please him, does it without question. Does it delusionally thinking this is showing his love when it's really enabling the behavior which is inherently abusive. He’s still the one at fault for it. He had the power to say no and he didn’t.

[cbrownjc]

Hi. I’m a recent follower and I really enjoy your commentary and predictions on iwtv.

I was curious, cause since the play was scripted, are any of the revelations that lestat made (the turning of Claudia, their fight in 01x05, that it was actually Louis who was hunting lestat) true or a little bit true?

Hi! Thanks for following and I'm glad you like my commentary and such. 🙂

So I think, when all is said and done, the only things we can trust about anything wrt the things Lestat said during the trial are the things he said when he was clearly off script. Those things, and those things alone, I think are safe to trust 100%.

Anything else he talked about, however, is highly suspect IMO, and if Louis called something out as being false then I -- personally -- am 100% taking it as such, and looking at it as clearly part of the narrative the coven wanted Lestat to present to the audience.

Anything Louis didn't call out as false I'm giving more credence to. However, I also think there is probably more context to those events that we are still missing because Lestat was still being scripted when talking about those things.

Because even with Armand's interference with Louis' memories, I still feel there is more credibility to Louis' POV for now than Lestat's when it comes to the trial since we have still yet to hear or get Lestat's POV fully uncoerced or manipulated -- which he very much was during this trial -- about all of this and of past events.

I mean, for starters. Lestat says he went to sleep underground right after Nicki died and slept for 100 years, waking in 1908. So that would mean that Lestat went to sleep sometime around 1808.

However, there are little anecdotes Lestat dropped in Season 1 that contradict that he was asleep underground for 100 years. Such as in episode 1x02 when he tells Louis about having seen the comic opera Don Pasquale. That show first premiered in 1843, and Lestat told Louis he was there for it (as well as that he was acquainted with the composer of it). Which would have been impossible if Lestat had gone underground to sleep after Nicki ended his life and didn't wake up again until 1908, 100 years later.

Also, in the trial, Lestat said once he did awaken he immediately chose to go to New Orleans. Yet, in episode 1x01 he tells Louis that he was actually headed for St. Louis, Missouri, and only stopped and then stayed in New Orleans first because of the music and then because of Louis himself.

These two things were clearly scripted in this way to establish a narrative that Lestat was just a lonely, brokenhearted vampire still mourning the loss of his first love when he first encountered Louis, who supposedly preyed upon Lestat. And used Lestat's brokenheartedness and loneliness to his advantage. All of which Louis loudly rejected and said wasn't true.

So when it comes to those two events, as well as the narrative they were being used to lead to -- that Louis pursued Lestat and took advantage of him -- that was all false and part of the script IMO.

However, when it comes to something like Claudia's turning, Louis says that Lestat's version of that event was correct. So, just for now, I take those events as having more credence than what we saw in Season 1. However, I still think parts are still missing with regard to this event that we won't know in full until Season 3 when we can get Lestat's full, and clear, POV about it.

So that is something I think we should also wait to hear from Lestat's full, and unscripted self before any final judgments are made about it.

And I think the same should be true of any other events that fall under this same mode, such as the fight in 1x05. Louis didn't contradict or call false anything Lestat said about the part of it we didn't see in Season 1. So I'm taking it as true, though I still feel there is even more context to it all that we still don't have and will only, once again, get when we finally get Lestat's full, unscripted, POV.

Also, I think it's important to note that the times when Lestat would fully go off script was when it came to emotional things, not simple narrative ones -- such as when he confronted that homophobic audience member who was ridiculing the love he and Louis held for each other, or when he was apologizing to Louis for the drop in 1x05.

It was deeply emotional things about and for Louis that would break Lestat fully off-script, even right at the start when Lestat corrected that this was a story of love after Santiago tried to call it a story of betrayal. And when he was recalling and talking about the actual events themselves he would also only do so if they were deeply emotionally connected with Louis, such as him talking about the fight in 1x05.

So I would say anything Louis didn't directly call out as being false are things that should be dismissed as false, for now. And the things Louis didn't do so with should be given more weight wrt their truth. But, even then, there might still be -- and very likely is -- context missing to those events that we won't get a true and full picture of until we can hear Lestat talk about them via his own, fully unscripted and unmanipulated, POV next season.

[iatrophilosophos]

At the end of the day I simply do not fw stances that try to work around agency

Coercion is a thing, at interpersonal and societal levels. Conditioning is a thing. It's good and important to have analysis of sociopolitical factors that contribute to the choices people make, especially choices that go against their desires, and it's important for that analysis to serve us in many ways, including in having more grace for one another & achieving desirable relations.

But like. Show me an uncoerced subject! Show me a theory of agent->recipient that does not rely on moral judgements, on clout, on singling out a sympathetic victim to paint as hapless and cast every actor in malicious agency against.

People who act against my interests and affinity are just as much a product of the world as people who are in alignment. Where is the joy, action, movement in viewing ourselves as hapless automata? "Everyone makes the only choices available to them by way of external factors creating interiority" is a fucking cope for miserable people who would rather terminate their thoughts than face internal conflict. It's fucking hard, it sucks to be there, but don't get that mess on me.

There is no universal self-evident truth. There is no structural revolution that will relieve the burden of being ourselves. There is desire, affinity, and action. There are analyses and tactics that are useful for desire, affinity, and action. 🤷

[chaifootsteps]

I think one of the saddest parts about all this is that Stolitz could’ve opened the doors to exploring genuinely abusive queer relationships in published media. Many of the most abusive people I ever knew were queer, and queer-on-queer abuse both looks and feels significantly different than cissexual abuse, though they overlap. The fact its doing the opposite by saying Stolas isn’t abusive is devastating.

Viv, her shows, and her fandom doing everything humanely possible to undo all that boring, unsexy progress where you need an enthusiastic, uncoerced "yes" to have sex.

[agentrouka-blog]

Is liking Cersei being a ‘rape apologist’?

What "too online" discourse birthed this question? :(

No, liking Cersei does not make you a rape apologist. Not anymore than it makes you a murder apologist. It is perfectly fine to like villainous characters. It's even perfectly fine to feel sympathy for villainous characters who have done absolutely vile things. Many many perfectly sane and rational and ethically sound human beings do so every day, everywhere in the world.

Pretending that what Cersei did to Taena Merryweather, or to fifteen-year-old Lancel, was squeaky-clean and uncoercive and harmless?

That would make you a rape apologist.

Lots of stans like to do that for plenty of characters, too, because they can't cope with the idea of liking a villain and being sane, rational and ethically sound about it.

[deadliterarysociety]

The thought of living fills me with guilt. The notion of being present, being alive physically and mentally torments me. My necessity to take up space, even infinitesimally, makes me sick and want to rip my eyeballs out.

This skin feels like a cage, a house that no longer feels like home. The very act of breathing makes me enraged and disgusted. I want to scrape my skin raw with my claws so profound even time wouldn't stem the morbid bleeding. The thought of being physically present and being seen fills me with embarrassment and nausea. My mind is an esoteric metaphor, an asylum filled with deluded harpies with grotesque screams and little kids with abandoned childhood. My sanity is a juxtaposition of my lost potential and uncoerced failures. Guilt follows me around like a stray dog, like a predator ready to dine on the fleshes of juveniles.

[plurillean-confessions]

Welcome to plurillean & sysian confessions!

[PT: Welcome to plurillean & sysian confessions!]

This blog is run by plurals, for plurals; it is for anysys who have headmates loving headmates, and who wish to send in confessions or silly moments or heartwarming things, and anyone who wishes to ask questions (mind the social contract of (in)tolerance; see below).

What is plurillean and sysian? [PT: What is plurillean and sysian?]

From pluralpedia, on plurillean and sysian respectively:

Plurillean refers to a member of a system who is attracted to other members of their own system. This doesn’t have to be exclusive, and they can love both system members, and non-system members.

A sysian is a member of a system who is exclusively attracted to other members in their own system.

NSFW confessions are allowed; they will be tagged as #18+ confession. Minors found sending NSFW confessions or interacting with these confessions will be blocked from the blog. Any mockery or shaming will be removed and offending users will be blocked as well.

BYF, mod introduction, and tagging conventions under the cut!

Before You Follow/Interact

[PT: Before You Follow/Interact]

RE: Social Contract of (In)Tolerance

This blog is explicitly pro-endogenic, nontraumagenic, and multigenic systems, including disordered nontraumagenic systems, tulpamancy, and systems who are disordered through something other than a CDD. Sysmedicalists and anti-endogenics found interacting will be blocked.

This blog is supportive of people with any personality disorder. Any who support the idea of "[insert personality disorder, eg. narcissistic, antisocial, borderline, histrionic] abuse" found interacting will be blocked.

This blog is supportive of alterhumans and nonhumans of any and all kinds. Any who cannot respect this found interacting will be blocked.

All good faith identities are welcome, including male / nonbinary /mspec / he/him lesbians, female / nonbinary / mspec / she/her gays, and anyone with "contradictory" identities. This blog is queer and anti-assimilationist; anyone who cannot respect the above found interacting will be blocked.

This blog does not believe in thought crime; someone cannot be a bad person solely for their thoughts, regardless of how horrible those thoughts are, and regardless of whether or not that person enjoys those thoughts. The only thing that determines whether someone is "good" or "bad" is what harm they do or don't commit against others, and--if harm has been done--what they're doing to remedy it. Anyone who cannot respect this found interacting will be blocked. [Edit because it looks like some people don't understand the point of this: this may not be a fandom blog, but this roughly translates to being profiction. What you like in fiction and in fantasy does not matter so long as you are not harming real people. Okay? Okay.]

This blog is, above all, anti-harassment for any reason, no matter how horrible you believe the other person is. "ACAB" includes vigilante justice. Anyone who cannot respect this found interacting will be blocked.

RE: "Is this allowed...?"

"Is NSFW allowed?" Yes! Copy-pasted from above for convenience: "NSFW confessions are allowed; they will be tagged as #18+ confession. Minors found sending NSFW confessions or interacting with these confessions will be blocked from the blog. Any mockery or shaming will be removed and offending users will be blocked as well."

"Is [x relationship] allowed?" So long as all parties have given informed, uncoerced consent, then yes, it is allowed.

"Is talking about relationships with people outside of our system allowed?" Yes, but please keep in mind that this blog is aimed towards plurillean and sysian folks and is meant for talking about in-system relationships and attraction.

"I'm a singlet/not plurillean/sysian; can I send questions about it?" So long as you're respectful, yes!

"I/we don't call my/ourselves plurillean/sysian, but we have in-system relationships/attraction; can we still send confessions?" Yes! One need not apply the label to themselves so long as you're talking about in-system relationships and attraction.

"I'm a singlet; can I send confessions about my plural partners?" No; this blog is specifically for in-system relationships & attraction and plurillean/sysian folks.

"Can I tag the blog in posts I think would fit the theme, a la @/funnier-as-a-system?" Yes!

-

Mod Intro[s]

[PT: Mod Intro[s]]

Hi, we're Mod Lepton[yx]. We use it/its, hy/hym and ze/hir pronouns collectively, and are also collectively a genderfaun aroalloapl abro gaybian. We're a polyfragmented mediple gateway collective of 900+ with DID, a werebeast, autistic, and have ASPD and NPD. Our main blog is @coyotenoses and our plurality-centered blog is @canis-constellate if you're curious.

-

Unique Tagging Conventions

[PT: Unique Tagging Conventions]

#confessions - Confessions!

#18+ confesssions - NSFW confessions; minors found sending or interacting with these confessions will be blocked from the blog

#not a confession - Non-confessions #questions - Questions #unqueued - Posts that weren't put in the queue #anonymous - Anything sent in on anonymous #[insert URL] - Anything sent in not on anonymous #Mod Lepton - Submissions answered by Mod Lepton. Slightly redundant unless we get another mod, but hey, never know what'll happen!

#reblog - reblogged posts #image described - Posts with images that have alt text #image undescribed - Posts with images that do not have alt text

#positive - Any general positive posts sent or reblogged #negative - Any negative posts sent or reblogged #discourse - Anything related to discourse that is sent or reblogged

#blog upkeep - Posts related to the blog itself and its functioning #intro post - This post!

General plural tags will be used for confessions and related questions, such as #actually plural, #pluralgang, #plurality, #plural system, #plurillean, #sysian, #pro endo, and #endo safe. If you wish for a specific tag to be added or removed, feel free to mention it in your submission!

[allmenrape]

what is considered rape

shoving one or multiple fingers inside the anus

Shoving one or multiple fingers inside the vagina

Shoving any objects inside any bodily orifices

Shoving the penis inside the anus, vagina or mouth without explicit consent, every time you have sex, regardless of what has been consented to or not in previous encounters

Shoving your penis inside partners throat deeper so you can make them gag during oral sex without askng first and receiving an enthusiastic "yes!"

Sticking your tongue inside your partners anus or vagina during oral sex without a clear question followed by an enthusiastic "yes"

Taking the condom off during any type of penetrative sex

Taking the condom off and ejaculating on any body part

Taking the condom off and ejaculating inside the anus, vagina or mouth

Taking the condom off during sex without explicit consent(clear question from sober partner and an enthusiastic "yes"!)

Ejaculating in the anus, mouth or vagina regardless if the sex is done protected or unprotected, without explicit consent beforehand( clear question about the intention from sober partner followed by an enthusiastic "yes")

Slapping your partner on the face or any body part

Pulling your partners hair

Spanking your partners butt

Scratching your partners skin

Chocking your partner's neck with your hands

Licking your partners vagina or anus without a clear question beforehand and explicit consent.

Pushing forearm on partners throat

Placing your palm on partners mouth so they cannot speak anymore

Grabbing and locking parners wrists with your hands so they cannot move their hands

Using derogatory terms such as "slut" "whore" or any words that may consist in hateful unrespectful terms during sex

Not stopping intercoure completely when your partner says what they are doing inflicts pain, any amount of discomfort or hurts during sex

Recording video, voice or taking picures of you and your partner during sex without explicit consent followed by an enthusastic "yes" before any sexual encounter with your partner, regardless of the specified consent given in previous sexual encounters

Using any oils, lotions, substancs, fabrics, toys, objects, type of condoms, lubes on your body or sexual organs or your partners body and sexual organs that they explicitly did not agree to be used previously on them or yourself during sexual contact with them without asking the question and receiving an enthusiastic "yes!",

Sharing intimate material made with your partner who consented to being recorded in any sexual or nude instances with any other person, enitity, on any platform or site withour asking first and receiving explicit consent and an enthusiastic "yes!)

Being told by your partner to switch the position you are having sex in and not complying right away

Being told by your partner to slow down the pace but keeping the pace at the same rhytm as before

Being told by your partner to slow down the pace during intercoure but speeding the pace harder

Touching any body part again in any way after explicitly being told your partner does not like being touched in that are or in that mode

Biting your partners lips or skin without asking and receiving explicit consent to do so

Giving hickeys or leaving any marks on your partner withour asking and receiving an enthusiastic "yes"

Ejaculating inside your partners vagina or anus during agreed upon unprotected sex without asking about it with a clear question and receiving clear enthusiastic uncoerced consent by your partner

Blocking your partners access to move, stand up,change position or get out of the room , with your own body or any restrictive objects during sex.

Tying or blocking access to your partners limbs or any body part from moving during any type of sexual practice ex.restricting access to their head movements during oral sex using your hands, feet or any object ( forcefully keeping the penis inside the mouth) without asking explicit questions and receiving an enthusiastic "yes"before sex.

Ejaculating on any body part or place near your partners body that was not agreed upon beforehand

Coercing your partner into receiving any kind of unprotected sex after the first negative response about doing so by their partner

Having sex with a partner who is experiencing hallucinations, is heavily intoxicated or too drunk to keep still, not feel dizzy and give coherent responses in that moment

Not stopping all sexual activityin the exact momeny your partner shows no expression on their face, looks bored, sad, displeased, uncomfortable, disgusted, not feeling pleasure or looks unresponsive( making less gestures, less sounds or starts expressing low lethargic movements that may imply they feel in danger or some other underlying cause)

Making your partner taste your sperm or placing your sperm on any body part of your partner without explicit consent given beforehand

Not integrating the hygiene and safety requests given by your partner before intercourse ex.using perfumes they find repulsive, not washing your body or genitalia every time before sex, using substances they find repulsive, might cause them harm or allergies etc

Integrating any kinks or roleplays during sex that was not agreed upon or was not asked before followed by explicit consent and an enthusiastic "yes!" by your partner

[a-forest-in-her-bones]

On Vax’ildan and the Raven Queen

I’ve seen some takes on the Raven Queen lately and I wanted to add my 2 cents, specifically when it comes to Vax and his situation. A lot of people have talked about how Vax being the Raven Queen’s Champion is unfair. Let’s unpack that. (This ended up way longer than I expected, oops! Hopefully it’s coherent)

(SPOILERS for those who haven’t finished Campaign 1 or have only watched TLOVM)

Vex dies in the Sunken Tomb. There was a trap, Percy accidentally triggered it, Vex died. Kashaw starts the ritual to bring her back, and when it’s Vax’s turn to make an appeal or an offering, he angrily tells the Raven Queen to take him instead. I think that Vax expected to die in this moment, if it meant Vex would live, he’s willing to pay that price. Matt has Liam roll a persuasion check for this part of the ritual, and he doesn’t roll very high, maybe an 11 if I remember right. But it seems to be enough. The ritual succeeds, Vex is alive, and so is Vax. The Raven Queen does not take his life in trade for his sister’s. 

Later, when Vax has decided to wear the armor (at the insistence of his friends, he had initially told Vex that she could wear it), we see him start to learn more about the Raven Queen and her principles. He had already shown interest in divinity before this, learning about Saranrae from Pike and even choosing to wear an emblem of the Everlight when Vox Machina fought the Briarwoods in Whitestone. Those interests seem to find a focus after the Sunken Tomb. We see him take it upon himself to honor the dead in Westruun, unprompted. When he bursts out of Umbrasyl’s side, Liam says that Vax emerges as a Paladin of the Raven Queen. As he falls he prays, “if you have any wings to lend me, now is the time” and that prayer is answered in the form of Grog polymorphed as a giant eagle. 

As Vax continues on this path, and even speaks to the Raven Queen in her temple, we see her ask if he is willing to accept the position of Champion, and he says yes. He continues to serve her, and spends time in the temple built in Whitestone. In game terms he takes more levels in Paladin, uncoerced. We as the audience learn more about her, how she is a representation of the natural order of life and death. She is not evil, she is not kindly, but, as she says in The Legend of Vox Machina, “we must safeguard that beautiful moment when the soul transitions to a new purpose.” Death is scary, of course it is, and so is the Raven Queen, but she is not vindictive or greedy, she does not speed along the deaths of mortals. She stands at the gate, and ensures that souls pass through safely. We see she is sad, lonely, and perhaps a bit selfish in her wish for Vax to be her companion. She is an oddity among the gods, having once been mortal, and what is more symptomatic of mortality than loneliness, than longing for connection? She is imperfect, and complex.

When Vax dies during the fight with the Kraken, she does not cling to him or prevent him from returning when his friends bring him back. The magic used is benevolent, born of love, and there is a body for Vax to return to, and perhaps she sees that his work is not yet done on Exandria. Vax lives, and the Raven Queen does not take his sister’s life as trade.

But then there is the first confrontation with Vecna. Both Vex and Vax die in this fight, but Vex has a body to return to, and she is quickly revived. But Vax’s physical body has been turned to ash. Vax is dead, and his friends can’t bring him back this time. He is in the Raven Queen’s hands, and she has every right to keep him. She tells him that he has earned his eternal rest. But he refuses. He wants to help his friends face this evil, he tells the Raven Queen what they’re facing, a lich who seeks to become a god, a defiance against the Raven Queen. She sees that he is determined to protect the ones he loves, endlessly dedicated, and she approaches him without her mask. Vax sees her loneliness, she expresses her desire for company. Terms are set, and she allows him to return to see this through. Vax still does not have a mortal body. When he returns he is not alive, he is a revenant, cold to the touch, heartbeat very slow. When he is “killed” in this state his form once again crumbles to ash, but the Raven Queen allows him to return until his task is finished. He knows that his time is limited. He knows that if he and his friends, his chosen family, defeat Vecna, he has to leave. Vax knows this, and he continues anyway. He comforts Vex and Keyleth, he seems to have accepted the fate laid out before him, even if they haven’t. He is already dead, and that’s Vecna’s fault. Now he has more time to say goodbye, and that’s the Raven Queen’s gift. 

When Vecna is sealed and his family is safe, the Raven Queen arrives to take him away. He says his goodbyes, gives Vox Machina a smile, and leaves this life with the Raven Queen, to serve as her Champion. It feels unfair. In many ways it is. Having experienced this myself I know that it feels painful and terrifying to be left behind when someone you love dies. But that does not make death itself evil, or selfish, or cruel, it just is. 

Vax is now divine as the Raven Queen’s Champion. He has Become a being that will last forever. He shepherds souls to the eternal rest he rejected. He sends ravens to Keyleth, to remind her he loves her, and that’s just as forever as he is. 

He appears on Exandria to save her life, and is captured by Ludinus Daleth. Used, tortured, though I doubt he regrets his decision. Vax has shown time and time again in his life and death that he is always willing to sacrifice for the people he loves. The Raven Queen mourns behind the Divine Gate, unable to help her beloved, selfless, beautiful Champion in this time of great pain. Every temple to the Raven Queen in all her worldwide iterations mourns with her. She does what she can. She sends a vision to people who could help him. Shows her Champion’s suffering, her own wordless plea for help, for someone to come to his aid. And perhaps they will. She hopes they will.

I hope they will too! Vax is having a bad time right now. Bell’s Hells, save my raven boy! I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t think that Vax resents the Raven Queen for how things turned out. I’m sure Vex and Keyleth and others of Vox Machina do, but they are the living left behind, it’s to be expected. Vax made the choices that led him to his role as the Raven Queen’s Champion. Obviously along the way, some of his choices were limited, or he felt that they were, but that was ultimately the hand Fate had dealt him. And I’m sure Vax wanted to live, to grow old and be there to see his family grow. But that was taken from him when Vecna killed him. Not when he chose to be the Raven Queen’s Champion.   

[elhopper1sm]

I understand people who don't like Fiona because she didn't take Liam with her when she left. But honestly I can't hate her for it. Now Fiona is my favorite character so I'm undoubtedly biased. But in my opinion her decision to become their legal guardian was not one she made under a free and uncoercive environment. Fiona became their legal guardian under threat of what would happen if they were still legally under Frank's care. It's a decision she made because she felt like she had no other choice. Now you can say from a rational perspective that's not the case but then again. It's hard to think rationally when you're under that kind of pressure. And let's be honest here the Chicago Legal System isn't exactly famous for being kind or low income people with Fiona's background. So there's so much added pressure this was also in the early seasons when pretty much all of her identity was formed in being the Gallaghers caretaker and parent. At the end of the day she was their sister who was forced to step up as the parent role. Not their parent. And yes she made that decision. But it's not a decision she made freely without coercion. Also so much of season 9 is spent establishing that the family can (with the exception of Liam) look after themselves you know. Like when they want to find someone to look after Frank and she offers to do all the calling around and the siblings say they have it handled. It was to represent that Fiona has sort of lost her sense of identity in the two things she formed her identity around. 1. Being the family caretaker or the family fixer and 2. Relationships with men since she fell apart and essentially swore off relationships after Ford.

Again this is how I interpret the show others are free to interpret differently. I understand if you disagree it's a TV show. And it's really not that important to be rude to someone if you disagree. I'm just saying I personally don't hold it against Fiona because again it's a decision she made because she felt like she had no other choice.

[darklight572]

"Catradora is Toxic"

Is a claim i've seen spread...heavily here, now, obviously this is disproportionate compared to the actual number of SPoP fans. This is, even if its Tumblr, social media.

Despite that, I think even folks who don't buy this interesting take could use a reminder- why exactly is Catradora not toxic?

Before we do that, we should look into: what makes a relationship toxic, how that can change, and how exactly abuse factors into all of this. Let's be clear, toxic and abusive aren't the same thing, they mean different things.

Usually "toxic" in regards to a relationships is talking about unhealthy and, sometimes, dangerous actions between folks in an relationship. For example, repeated mischaracterization. [1]

"Abuse" then speaks about when unhealthy behaviors occurs repeatedly, usually with an intent to harm the other person, and is much more actively dangerous. [1]

TOXICITY (EARLY) So then, do Catra and Adora have a toxic, or even abusive, relationship in She-Ra Princess of Power? Yes! Just not in all the instances people like to claim they do. They begin with a toxic relationship, and would delve into an abusive one toward the end of season 1 (Promise imo), then their relationship dissolves from Adora's perspective.

It starts as toxic for a number of reasons, but being brief, Adora does not fully see Catra as a person with her own autunomy but as something to protect and derive her value from. This is very much not intentional on Adora's end, but imo, Adora starts the series with a mindset with the belief that she must do acts of service to derive any value. A lot of this is expressed in her actions in the first couple of interactions she has with Catra and Shadow Weaver.

For example, choosing to leave Catra behind to find the sword even as Catra asks her to bring her. She is either: not taking Catra's abuse seriously enough, or being naive in regards to the chance of Shadow Weaver harming her for something not her fault.

Catra shows fewer troubling behaviors at this early in the case, but there are a couple- for example- when Adora asks her to come back Catra seems to disproportionately blame Adora for the violence inflicted on her. Adora is responsible for her own actions, not for Shadow Weaver's she is still a child. I want to be clear, Catra is not inherently in the wrong for being mad at Adora for not realizing Shadow Weaver was a piece of abusive shit, but shifting the blame of the abuse itself is.

If you wanna learn more about that early dynamic, I recomend Five by Five's [2] "Trilogy", "Why Adora Matters", and "Why Catra Matters". Some of my points and ideas are informed by those videos.

ABUSE (STILL EARLY) So, when and how does this become abusive? A lot of people might point out that Catra harms Adora physically pretty early in the series- I would like to point some mitigating factors in this. Catra is a CHILD, 18 at oldest, who is being repeatedly physically and mentally abused and probably violated (See: Shadow Weaver's ability to mind wipe people). It is impossible to say that Catra's seeming agreement in bringing Adora back is uncoerced.

Especially since she showed signs of leaving the Horde until she recieved seemingly safety from Shadow Weaver in some small part by becoming a Force Captain. So, in my mind, a lot of Early Catra is easily explained. We see this most clearly, imo, in No Princess Left Behind. Not only does Catra give Adora her sword back when she could: have attacked the weakened princess, pulled more alarms, etc- and it would have- at least in her mind- given her validation from Shadow Weaver.

Yet she doesn't, because while their relationship is toxic, it is not abusive at this point in time.

I think the tipping point of abuse (as mentioned previously) is Promise. This is where we see, again imo, undisputable evidence of Catra intentionally harming Adora with no seeming coercion. Letting go of her at the crevisse. Maybe she thought Adora would be fine with She-Ra, but that absolutely doesn't excuse her here. Then, the physical harm she continually perpetuates against Adora is at least- in part- uncoerced, as we see here.

MIDPOINT (ALL THE OTHER SHIT) We have to look further into Catra's abuse against Adora- and to what extent it is Catra. I think a point that too many people miss is that throughout the majority of the series Catra is in a system which repeatedly abuses her specifically, she is not just a child soldier who grew into a commander, she is one targeted uniquely by multiple of the higher ups. This does not excuse Catra's behavior, but it makes it A) more understandable, and B) less reprehensible.

So, what does she do? Mostly attacking Catra and mentally manipulating her while in battle- some of this is her trying to survive against She-Ra's enormous physical stature- but she seems to gain some amount of satisfaction from it all. Despite this, even though she has multiple opportunities to have killed Adora, she never does. This is, to be clear, a very low bar- but it does demonstrate that some claims of Catra "leaving Adora to die" are extremely overexaggerated. Adora doesn't fight particularly well in a lot of scenes, and Catra could have very easily chosen to slash her throat instead of kicking her. Catra does not want Adora to die.

One of her greatest harms is when she pulled the lever for the portal. Although, there are several mitigating factors which makes it not quite comparable to Glimmer's actions a season later. First of all, after Shadow Weaver's escape, Catra assumes Shadow Weaver's place- and Shadow Weaver is replaced by Hordak as an abuser. Second, Catra is not working on perfect knowledge, she is told it could destroy everything- by who exactly? Adora. Who she has seen consistently not recognize threats properly in the past, and has been able to outwit consistently. What she actually knows is that pulling this will hurt Adora because she didn't listen to her, to me, its unclear how much of the situation actually dawned on her.

This, again, does not excuse the situation- but it explains it. While Catra shows self-harming behavior, I don't think its at all consistent with her character to want to destroy everything- we see her contradict that with her literal every action. No, this action is much better explained as a judgement call of Adora. One of the worst actions she actually does is send Entrapta to Beast Island. While Entrapta percieves this as a "positive" later on, to Catra, Beast island is a death trap and that is her intent when she does this. This action is mitigated at least slightly by the fact that Entrapta was directly standing in her way of doing what Hordak wants. Catra knows how that ends, pain or death (through suffocation or beast island itself).

While its more than possible Entrapta could have convinced Hordak not to pull the lever (this is contentious), Catra is very clearly not thinking here. Some like to use Catra's manipulation of Hordak later on as proof she has some massive plan but uh- her plan was to nearly destroy the world then lose to Adora, and then manipulate Hordak? No- clearly she wasn't thinking, and was trying to justify herself to someone that could harm her, keeping her security. Does that make any of this right? No. But again, it provides context.

ANALYSIS (WHEN IS IT OKAY TO FORGIVE?) So, looking at ALL of this, how could there be any doubt? Catradora is toxic and abusive, the claim is correct, no? No.

Because while toxic, and further abusive, describes Catra throughout most of the series, it does not describe her throughout the ENTIRE series. And, her acts of abuse have consistently been muddled with manipulation. Earlier, I left out a small detail, even during Promise- Catra was being actively manipulated by Light Hope. Her memories were being changed, Catra is being violated. That changes a lot doesn't it? Throughout the series Catra's safety is conflated with an end-goal. Taking over the Horde with Adora, retrieving Adora for Shadow Weaver, being a Commander for Hordak.

This does not change the fact that she was abusive, but it puts Catra into a context as someone who is not necessarily doing so of her own will. Of course she grows more and more angry at Adora, in her mind, Adora is actively refusing Catra's safety. This is still a very toxic mindset, but it is a deeply understandable one considering Catra's childhood. This changes the entire dynamic Adora and Catra have. We see everything from Adora's perspective, we understand thats not her intent, and not even what she's doing. But Catra doesn't. The abuse, fundamentally, comes from a lack of perspective. [2]

So, Season 5, the biggie in the room. This is what most critics of Catradora seem to either ignore entirely or dismiss without thorough examination. Well, they also ignore all of the context of seasons 1 through 4 but i've already discussed that. Its notable that here, for the first time in a long time, Catra's power is something she knows not does not protect her. It allows her to consider her own perspective as unbiased as she has ever been able to. She is isolated from most anyone she could abuse, and the one chance she does have she chooses not to.

Here, she finally recognizes that her own perspective is rooted in a flawed understanding of their childhood. Not just from Shadow Weaver, or even from Light Hope- but from herself. This is extremely important, Catra- in realizing this- is not just taking accountability for her actions but the mindset that lead to it- and immediately takes action to correct herself. She rescues Glimmer, and in the process is violated again, this time even more severely- and is mind controlled by Prime. Adora saves her anyway. Because even abusive as Catra was, Adora understands the context that Catra was abusive in, and through her action to save Glimmer, see's the goodness in her return. As Catra couldn't kill Adora, Adora can't let Catra die.

So, Adora rescues her, Catra reacts negatively at first- but of course she does- her mind was just taken from her without her consent. But even then, Catra wants distance, asks Adora to drop her off- to isolate her. Adora refuses. This is important, too often people outside of a situation or even the perpetuator try to claim ownership of how to help the people they harmed- thats not up to them- its up to the person harmed. Adora doesn't want Catra gone, because she see's the context which shackled Catra has been- literally- eradicated. Catra proves to us that Adora isn't just being optimistic here.

As they move around, Catra ceases her violent actions against her, she barely even bickers- when she raises her voice she immediately apologizes and displays accountability for her anger. She helps save the world from Horde Prime. I think looking at Shadow Weaver's behavior creates a nice dichotomy between what someone actually changing looks like versus someone who wants to appear as changed. Shadow Weaver is still manipulative, still actively trying to get Adora to do everything she wants- and Catra- doesn't take her shit. She calls Shadow Weaver out, repeatedly sticks her own neck out against her former abuser in order to save Adora.

Catra does eventually get emotional with Adora, but there is not manipulation happening in "Heart Part 1", Catra is correct- Adora will die if she does this herself- Catra doesn't want Adora to die. Is this the most healthy way of doing this? Absolutely not, but again, they are fighting an evil space empreror. When she realizes Adora is going to die, she immediately course corrects and goes to find her, attempting to and successfully rescuing Adora from herself and Prime.

Does this make what happened before, okay? No. It doesn't. None of what I've explained here should make you dismiss what Catra did, Catra certainly doesn't, but I want you all to think about what creates the abuse and toxicity in the first place. Is Catra actually the origin? Or is she a tool for a system of perpetual power to inflict violence through. She isn't completely cleared of her part in her actions, she has choices, but in such a system your choices are limited and often coerced. Catra was actively coerced at literally every step, and had her options limited from day one. She was different, and Shadow Weaver didn't like the, even toxic, relationship she had with Adora.

Highlighting that a lot of the initial toxcitiy is from Adora helps illustrate my point more clearly, it is not Adora being a "bad person" it is the oppression of the Horde using Adora as a tool. Adora has the privilege (through the Sword and her lack of physical danger) to escape it, Catra- at least, in a safe way, didn't. Catra didn't have the power to fight off the Horde when they came looking for her, at least, she didn't think she did. What we see throughout the series is Catra trying in vein to reclaim some small amount of safety she had when she was with Adora and failing because she was playing the system's game.

Adora knows this, of course she does, thats why she's so quick to go back after Catra once she see's the glimmer of goodness in her (heh). What makes Catradora so good in my opinion, is that it doesn't just show how people who were abused can move on, but it shows how systemic oppression differs from individual abuse. Is their relationship going to be perfect at the end of the series? Absolutely not. Will it abusive? No. Not from the context we see in Season 5. Is it okay for Adora to forgive Catra? That depends on the person. Fundamentally, Catra's situation is extremely complicated, with no real analog to our real world in its entirity. We have to understand that metaphors can only go so far, I've tried to explain as much as I can, but there's absolutely nuance missing here because Etheria isn't Earth, and the Horde isn't like any massive corporation or even military on Earth.

I think, given all the context, and Catra's later repeated displays of growth and goodness- that Adora can forgive Catra. I feel, for a lot of reasons, a lot of relation to Adora. I can say, at least from my current understanding, that I would forgive Catra.

That doesnt mean my take is automatically correct, but, the continued insistence that Catradora is toxic has largely ignored a massive portion of context and development on Catra's side and seemingly completely missed the fact that some of the toxicity came from Adora before it came from Catra, and therefore missed the system ultimately responsible.

[1] "What is a Toxic Relationship." Elizabeth Scott, 2023 https://www.verywellmind.com/toxic-relationships-4174665

[2] "Five by Five Takes" Youtube Channel, Sar (Specifically Trilogy, Why Catra Mattesrs, and Why Adora Matters)

One Little last note: I have absolutely missed a LOT of things, Glimmer's actions in comparisons, some of the specifics, Catra's toxic (platonic) relationship with Scorpia- but - most of that isn't necessarily relevant to this anaylsis. What happens with Scorpia is much more complicated than Catra just abusing Scorpia, but I think the situation with Entrapta is much more poignant and relevant for what we're discussing here.