#very possible I'm being deliberately obtuse

[codenamesazanka]

I feel like. this moment a bit weird? because the pose and moment that Tenko is in, it's before Decay manifests fully, it's before he killed his family, it's before he gets ignored on the streets.

The moment Deku needs to save him from, according to the visuals in Chapter 305, is when Tenko's been cast out by his family, when he's in despair over the abuse, when he say he hates everyone. So—wouldn't that mean Deku needs to save him from that abusive household? From the rejection and ostracism for being different and unable to conform?

But that doesn't really happen. In the trip into Shigaraki's head and into the Tenko memories, Deku never sees the enabling atmosphere of the household. He never has to confront the three adults that stood by while Kotarou locks the kid out of the house over and over again. Deku (and Nana) does intervene before Kotarou gives Tenko the second slap, but even then, for Deku, it's not so much stopping Kotarou as getting to Tenko. (Admittedly, this is somewhat unfair because Nana is there to stop Kotarou.)

And then in Chapter 418, we see that it's not truly this very moment of despair from rejection that Deku needs to save Tenko from. This is still just a memory, and this moment's Tenko already knows about Decay, about killing his family, about being rejected later on the streets. What Deku stops when he holds Tenko's hands is the killing of Hana (and the family). The pain Tenko is in, according to chapter, is him having developed Decay and killed his family, and therefore invalidating his existence (and because he was born with "these hands", his existence had always been invalid).

But we already have that moment in the manga:

After Tenko killed Hana and his mom and grandparents. And Kotarou rejects him for the last time. That would fit more when Chapter 418's Tenko saying he made the decision to kill because he was born with these hands. This is the true moment Deku needed to save Tenko from, that Tenko wanted to be saved from?

Perhaps I'm just nitpicky over the details, since Deku grabbing Tenko's hands is immediately right before this scene, and it's a gruesome scene to redraw. It's definitely not as cute as Deku seeing a (unbloodied) crying child (holding a corgi). (And if he had seen the massacre scene and already knew what happened to Shigaraki - instead of finding out during the mind trip - he might have do more than just repeatedly say 'i can't ignore the crying child'). But it would be more honest?

Still, it feels sort of inversed. Deku is here to save Tenko from the rejection that's due to Decay and murder. He's a Hero who saves Tenko despite Tenko being such a cursed being, which is what Tenko wanted as well.

What Deku is not here to save Tenko from, then, is Kotarou and the suffocating dysfunctional household. He's not here to bring Tenko back into the house and force the adults to accept Tenko and treat him better. Deku's not here to save Tenko from the rejection Kotarou enforced simply because Tenko didn't conform to his stupid rules.

Deku's only here to give Tenko relief by accepting him, Decay and murder and all. Which is indeed nice. But doesn't really address the rejection that makes 'accepting this outcast kid' such a heroic step in the first place (when it shouldn't be???)

Which means, given the visuals, Shigaraki's most inner and vulnerable and malleable trauma core is when he said he hated everyone and gave into his anger. That was the big problem. Not the abuse of the household, not the passivity of his mom and grandparents, not the generational chain of trauma that led to him crying in a corner of the backyard. All that is bad, but what he really wanted to be saved from, and what Deku had to save him from, was his own hatred and despair.

Which, fair! It's good to save people from negative emotions. But sort of ultimately blames Tenko for being sad and mad, and puts the onus of the massacre on him (an abused five year old) unable to control his emotions.

—which tracks with the rest of the story! Heroism is about being willing to suffer in silence. Heroes are only there to help you endure the pain. The save is patting you on the back and encouraging you to go on. Why does Deku ever need to confront the Shimura house? He only needed to be there and hold Tenko's hand and give him relief. 👍🏼

(not that any of this mattered at all in the end because AFO engineered and manipulated nearly every single bit of it)

all reiterations of this moment and its heartfelt glowing framing become so funny in retrospect

[toskarin]

some mostly flippant rambles on including elves in the Saltreave (that fantasy setting I write when I'm not working on my more serious projects) along with some setting notes in the margins

well. the setting notes are like 90% of the body of the text.

but we do get to elves. and we stay at elves for a while.

-

THERE IS NO ZERO IN THE ROMAN NUMERAL SYSTEM: Prologue to the Preramble

so I've written about my thoughts on elves as sort of "narrative level lifeforms" before, and that's still very much where my thoughts lie on them, but there are also just kind of elves around as fairly normal people in the Saltreave

this is a bit of a blurry line, because they're obviously not the nature-loving type of elf you see post-Tolkien -- which I'll go ahead and say feels like a deliberately obtuse misread of what Tolkien was implying by them living in harmony with a world that is literally described as the manifestation of a song -- but the bottom line is that Saltreave's elves aren't Tolkien elves, and they're not attempting to be subversions of them, but they are written by someone who quite likes those guys

all of that raises another question: what the hell are elves in the Saltreave?

-

I: Preramble

I put a bit of an information abyss at the beginning of the setting by design, outright saying that the "pre-apocalypse" might as well not exist at all.

to some extent you can say that it must have existed, and there is a bit of scattered writing that implies things about the state of affairs the world was in (mostly in terms of the politics between mortal civilisations and how that manifests in the modern politics of the remaining citystates), but the Advent is where the story starts

the most common explanations of what things were like before the current era are, at the end of the day, just attempts to explain what the people living in it are presently perceiving

the Advent, used as shorthand for a million things that each mean something different to everyone, is either the end of the world or the end of the old order of things. it is both the death of the symbolic plane and its violent merging with the material plane, severing every connection to the symbolic along the way

a bit further down that line of thought, even the present magic system gestures towards being derived from an older practice that was forced to adapt to sudden shift of the central symbolic source to a source diffused unevenly in the material plane, although from what exactly this magic system was forced to adapt remains a bit of a mystery

-

II: Into the Ramble

the Saltwind (the thing that gives the setting its name and effectively wiped out the previous world) is actually harmless

or more accurately, it's a visible symptom of an invisible problem, and that invisible problem is extremely harmful in a way nothing else could possibly hope to be

the "salt" in the wind is actually just salt. it's a lot of salt, but it's still just recognisably some sort of organic salt if you were to hold it in your hands

the salt is both the result of the Advent and a vessel for carrying "warped grain," an invisible ripple of magical static that functions more or less like (non-mutagenic, because I'm actually not a fan of using that as an apocalypse fiction concept) magical radiation

warped grain takes on a bunch of roles, so let's go over a few of those in relative brief

the one most commonly acknowledged fact is that warped grain is a soul-destroying pollution. it's bad stuff. it's poison that seeps into everything. it's in the water, it's in the air, it gets into the food as it grows, and you need to affiliate yourself with a citystate that has access to unpolluted (or otherwise purified) supplies to survive in the world as it exists

a bit less commonly (mostly when scholars and other big-hats talk about it) it's acknowledged as a sort of ambient magical noise that makes spells more unpredictable and dangerous. it can also periodically "complete" a spell if you take too long casting it, making it do something unintended (often killing the caster)

in a pinch, warped grain can be absorbed into the body as some kind of environmental magic energy, allowing someone to replenish their depleted magical energy and forgo resting to generate their own*

*: absorbing environmental energy in a world where it's literally poisoned will also eventually fuck up your soul beyond repair, so it's a really stupid idea and not something any serious magic-user would recommend

but most importantly for why elves are around, warped grain can be seen as the frayed threads of a decapitated cosmological order, death-rattling itself apart

-

III: Rambling About Elves, Mostly

because of their intimate connection to the disrupted symbolic plane of the world, the elves who were alive at the time of the Advent were grievously injured, experiencing the soul equivalent of radiation-induced chromosome aberration, and died a few years later. the generations following this one represent the entirety of the remaining elven population

this means that all modern elves can theoretically be divided into two categories

Selvedge Elves - while ostensibly referring to one of "pureblooded" elven stock, meaning someone whose parentage has never included a mortal. the elephant in the room is that Selvedge Elves aren't real and haven't been for quite some time. an actual Selvedge Elf had a lifespan of about 20-25 years and was not capable of having children, on account of being a wholly symbolic being born into a world where the symbolic plane exploded like an asbestos ceiling. "Selvedge" exists as a highly ideologically-charged concept, and not exactly one that lends itself to any non-reactionary interpretations

Scion Elves - everyone else. all elves currently alive are demimortal, which means that they have at least a bit of mortal parentage. even beyond elves, there are no immortals left in the Saltreave, but their descendants are absolutely still around. the term "Scion" refers to those descendants, but given that there isn't really a group to draw them in contrast to, most people prefer not to use it at all.

now it's worth mentioning, while they're all partially mortal, not all currently existing elves are specifically partially human. the stereotypical elf is human or similar, but there's nothing stopping an elf from being, say, a sylvan (the broad category of mortals who have animal ears and such)

Luuga, a character I've posted a few times, would be considered an elf if her status as a sylvan didn't make people identify that first. that's why she has longer, narrower ears than other feline-type sylvans (contrast the only other example I've drawn, Imiellith, and how her ears are much stouter)

more on sylvans and other types of mortal at some later time, but with everything out of the way, let's get down to some elf facts

-

IV: Indulgently Rambling About Elf Facts at Great Length

elves theoretically have different lifespans from mortal beings, which is something they have in common with other demimortals. elves specifically live about ten years longer on average than mortals, provided they don't die of unnatural causes, which they usually do.

additionally, they have a few notable traits that are more specific to elves

(an egregious number of) examples of these include...

elves only breathe as a learned social behaviour and theoretically don't actually need to do it. the same goes for yawning, coughing, sweating, sneezing, and similar functions. somewhat unfortunately for them, because most living things know they need to breathe, elves are still perfectly capable of knowing they need to breathe, which means they're capable of suffocating. in theory, an elf raised by people deliberately trying not to teach them about breathing wouldn't have to breathe, but that's not really a good way to raise a child

elves tire more based on time rather than effort. this is a subtle distinction, but means that an elf can exert more effort in a burst than a mortal companion, yet drops from exhaustion as soon as they've reached the limit of how long they can work. most people never notice this, since "the limits of exerted effort" and "the limits of time spent exerting effort" overlap heavily

elves are about five times more likely to die of old age on their birthday than any other day, but only if they're aware of their birthday. this is something most people are aware of, and different cultures grapple with this in different ways

in cultures with different calendars, the previous point also holds true. in cultures without the concept of something equivalent to a "year," elves just die of old age in more or less the same way mortals do

an elf's hair has a length it wants to be, with the specific length varying between individuals. if cut, it will grow faster back to this length. it cannot be grown longer than this by any means

elves tend to be quick to grasp spoken language, but a bit slower when it comes to grasping written language. this isn't always true, and when it is, doesn't tend to manifest past initial language acquisition

in exception to the previous point, elves are prone to grasping pasigraphies at the same (often accelerated) rate with which they grasp spoken languages. if the conditions were ever to arise for a wholly elven-developed language, it would likely have no direct written component, with all writing consisting of a highly contextual pasigraphy

elves stereotypically have exceptional memories when it comes to things that catch their interest. it's not uncommon for elven big-hats to keep a small stash of special expensive candies entirely for the purpose of forcing themselves to have eidetic memory for something they're disinterested in by associating it with extremely positive stimulus

because of the previous point, there is a notable market for making luxury treats aimed specifically at elven academics in cities they frequent

because of the two previous points, elven academics often develop pleasure-deprivation complexes, feeling guilty whenever they experience positive emotions that don't lend themselves to furthering their work

the previous three points are only true if they are generally understood to be true in the location where the individual is raised

if tested, most elves would appear to be colourblind. a deeper examination would reveal that elves only struggle with telling green and blue, and that this difficulty persists into the very concept of green and blue, which they struggle with disentangling in abstract. this is also true of elves with most other colexifications because I got annoyed with constantly reading people on tumblr doing pseudolinguistics and thought it'd be a little funny to have the Symbolic People run on the faulty assumptions I kept seeing

elves can get so sad they just physically die

elves can theoretically recover from any acquired disease provided that they receive adequate and comprehensive treatment for the symptoms

nothing can reduce an elf's pain to the point where they don't notice it. sedatives work, but analgesics simply do not

elves can theoretically die of any disease (no matter how minor it is) if it lasts long enough

in the same vein as the previous point every chronic illness is effectively a terminal one to an elf. the exception to this rule is that an elf will not die of a chronic illness they are born with, even if the same chronic illness would eventually prove to be terminal in a mortal

elves cannot leave permanent footprints, regardless of what they're wearing and where they try to leave them. if an elf were to step in cement, the bootprint would eventually disappear in the same way that it would if they'd stepped in sand

contrary to the previous point, if an elf writes in ink, the ink cannot be smudged or otherwise distorted on accident. the writing can still be lost by destroying the object it's on or deliberately attempting to smudge it, but this requires intention

while elves are exceptionally capable of performing magic without any formal education, this is actually the result of them being able to open the immortal component of their souls to grain, including warped grain, and therefore should never be done. this is true of most demimortals, with the mortal component of their soul being the safeguard that prevents their souls from being torn apart in the same way their ancestors' were

elves grow to be about as tall as is normal for them to be where they are raised. this is a bit counter-intuitive at first blush, but more or less means that an elf (regardless of specific heritage and origin) will grow to the height that is generally understood to be "normal for an elf" in the location where they are growing

in a similar vein to the previous point, an elf raised by mortals with no knowledge of elves (especially without knowledge that the child is an elf) will not show any physical traits of being an elf. this is an unlikely event that requires like three sets of perfect circumstances to happen, but it's not off the table

in a similar vein to the two previous points, dominant cultural understandings have a causal influence on certain other things considered "elven features," but the only evidenced ones besides height are ear length, ear angle, degree of facial hair, number of ribs, and the exact position in the chest where the heart resides

as a final note, elves always have both palmaris longus tendons, unless they are explicitly understood to lack one or both, as with previous points

-

V: Drawing Some Kind of Conclusion From Rambling About Elves. But Not Really.

this is all a very long way of saying that elves (and other demimortals) represent "those who have lost their plot armour" in a setting where the symbolic plane was seemingly once something running parallel to the material world and now exists most prominently as a severed limb bleeding all over it

because no written history of the immortals was preserved in the Advent, knowledge of the old world is heavily slanted towards a mortal perspective, containing only outside views into the symbolic plane's nature

there is nobody left alive who remembers the world before, several generations having passed since then, but to those who were told that they fell from a world of elevated importance and meaning, it can be especially tempting to view the old world as a halcyon paradise that was ruined

what remains is largely conflicting and disputed. most have long since moved on from litigating these things, faced with a world where it would make no difference

[pyromaniacbibliophile]

Bricktober day 14- Time Travel/Modern

@lesmis-prompts

People do you understand how much I love R & Jehan. They are amazing. Also when I discovered this fandom (in June my gods has it only been that long I've got 300 bookmarks of these idiots already) I thought '' hell nah I can't write les mis the fics are all so good and I'm not that good". Cut to-me on day 14 of a Les Mis Writing Challenge, with a hp crossover planned, the beginnings of an afterlife au, and So. Many. Documents. About. Them. ANYYYWAY ENJOY!

---------------------------------

Jehan sighs. Honestly, he is rather surprised something like this hadn’t happened sooner. With such friends as Les Amis and such roommates as Courfeyrac and Grantaire, you take your life into your hands daily. That being said, he really hadn’t expected to come back to Eponine, Gavroche, R, and Courf standing outside next to two slightly singed canvases, looking sheepish as their building burned.

Maybe a little bit of context might help. See, Eponine and Gavroche have been friends with R for years. He doesn’t know the whole story, but from what he’s seen and heard and the fact that more often than not the siblings are sleeping in R’s bed while he’s on the sofa, he can make a few guesses. So that explains their presence.

Jehan had had to leave early that morning for a lecture but neither R nor Courf nor Eponine had any classes, the lucky sods. So that left the three of them in close proximity with the chaos demon that is Gavroche. Obviously, something was going to go wrong. He just hadn't expected it to be this wrong.

He pulled out his phone and texted the Les Amis group chat. 'Hey guys, R, Courf, Gavroche, and Eponine have burnt down our place, we'll need somewhere to sleep tonight. Xxx'

Sending it, he walks over to his friends. “Care to explain what happened here?”

Courf winces. “Jehan! Dear heart! It- is really R’s story to tell!”

“You fucker.” R mutters, before beaming very widely. “Jehan! Fancy seeing you here, dear friend of mine!”

Jehan says nothing but raises an eyebrow.

R gulps. “Well- You see- Er-” He decides being deliberately obtuse is the best idea. “The building’s on fire.”

Jehan internally rolls his eyes, but keeps a stoic expression. His other eyebrow joins the first.

R casts around for something helpful. “I- well, you see- Ah! I rescued your notebooks!” He reaches behind him and produces a large stack of notebooks, varying in shapes and sizes. “And you keep your books at Ferre’s anyway! So everything’s fine!”

“Yes, R, but why did my notebooks need rescuing in the first place?”

R pauses, as if he hadn’t quite thought of that. In all fairness, he probably hadn’t.

“Ah. Well.. Eponine?”

“No. No, I am not being dragged into this.”

“Well, you were there when it happened, and you didn’t stop us, which is- er- makes you an accessory to the crime! Quod Erat Demonstratum and that?” Courf says. Eponine gives him the most deadpan look possible.

"Courfeyrac, I know you aren't quoting law at me. Because that would be a very bad idea, wouldn't it?” She asks dangerously. Eponine doesn't take well to anyone other than Cosette using laws to attempt to coerce her. After all, she knew the criminal justice system of Paris inside out by the time she was ten. Few in their friend group know law better than her.

“Erm-yes. What you said. Anyway, I agree with R, you should tell Jehan what happened.”

“I can do it!” Gavroche interjects, mischief clear in his eyes.

Instantly, three hands shoot over his mouth. “No, really, Gav, that won’t be necessary.”

“Actually, I think I would like to hear Gavroche’s version of events.” Jehan says. He knows that out of the four of them, Gavroche is most likely to tell him the truth, or at least something close to it.

“Are you quite sure?” R asks hopefully.

“Entirely. Gavroche?”

“Now, just out of curiosity, and bear in mind that I'm being generous here, how much would you consider a fair price for this information?" Gavroche enquires, business mode on. Jehan, unfortunately for him, is having none of it.

"Gavroche, the building is on fire. I have little doubt that you contributed largely to the fire in question. There are three people here who would, I am sure, happily let you take the blame."

R looks affronted. Courf mutters to Eponine "Damn, busted." She promptly kicks him in the shin.

Ignoring their antics, Jehan continues. "So why don't you tell me precisely what happened, hmm?"

Never let it be said that Jehan, finding his friend in possession of an Inspector for her step-father, turns down the chance to learn such skills as negotiating with criminals, par example.

"All right, but you owe me. See, R was painting and Ep was reading, so I was bored. So I nicked Courf and we went up onto the roof and experimented with the fire escapes. Then we decided that it was a night for marshmallow toasting, so we went back down and stole R's candles and mini marshmallows, as you do. Things were going well until R came out to join us. See, by this point Ep was asleep. So someone had the genius idea to paint something on her face."

"And that someone would have been.."

Gavroche points at Courf, who was currently fighting Eponine. She was winning.

"I see. Go on."

"So, basically, R went and got his paints. Only he tripped on-er-something that might have been left on the floor. Then-"

"Something that might have been left on the floor." Jehan says flatly, staring at Gavroche.

"Well- OK, something I might have left on the floor despite Ep telling me to move it. Does it matter?"

"Please, continue." Jehan states in lieu of an answer.

"Right, so R tripped and the paints hit the candles, which fell over onto the newspaper, which-"

"Hold up a second, there was newspaper?"

Gavroche looks at him like he was an idiot. "Yeah, else the wax would have gotten everywhere."

"Right. Of course."

"Anyway, the newspaper went up in flames, so the cupboard door caught on fire, the one with R's wine in it. So then there was a bang and everything went fiery so Courf grabbed the cat, R got your notebooks and his sketchbooks, Ep got R's current commission and I got his painting of Enj. Then we called the firefighters then you arrived."

Jehan thought through the explanation. In summary, it was everyone's fault but mostly Gavroche and Courf's. So technically he should be a bit mad. Although R had got his notebooks, which was nice. (he already kept his books at Ferre's in case of a scenario like this). "Why did you get the painting of Enjolras?"

Gavroche looked over at the painting in question. "Ah, well, because R's hopelessly in love with Enj and I have it on good authority that Enj feels the same, only neither of them will say anything, so when Enj and Les Amis comes he'll see the painting and maybe realise. Also it's really pretty and R would have been sad if it burned, even if he didn't say so."

"Whatever he's been saying, Jehan, it's all rumour, scandal, and lies!" R shouted across.

"Gavroche, if that works I will buy you a bag of sweets so big the sugar high will last for days." Jehan whispered.

Just then, there was a screech of wheels and Bahorel's van hurtled around the corner. It skidded to a halt, the rear doors opened, and Feuilly, Joly, Bossuet, Musichetta, Cosette, Combeferre, and Enjolras tumbled out.

Bahorel leaped out of the driver's seat and the horde rushed over. While they were all surrounding R, Eponine and Courf, Jehan noticed Enjolras staring at the painting. R noticed and went pink.

"So, last for days you said?"

"Uh-uh, it's not happened yet."

Before Jehan's very eyes, however, Enjolras practically dived across, pounced on R, and kissed him. There was silence.

R said something too quiet for anyone but Enjolras to hear, but whatever it was it made said leader kiss him again.

Only Courf wolf-whistling broke them apart.

Jehan laughed. "Alright, I'll take you to the sweet shop. Bear in mind that if you casually mention this to Ferre, he'd probably buy you a mansion if he had the money. After all, he's been dealing with a lovesick Enjolras for years."

"You reckon? Nice."

[altschmerzes]

THE 13 BOOKS I READ IN 2023 IN ORDER FROM BEST TO WORST + THE PROTAGONIST'S SUPERLATIVE. PART 2.

6. A Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engel. a timeless classic that i love love love. meg is such a fun protagonist and i really enjoyed experiencing this as an adult again. the whole like… helpless devastated rage she feels when she realizes that adults can't just. fix everything? that sequence will always rattle me around like a mason jar fulla beans. she's such a like… man. the way the narrative was like. this isn't fair. it isn't right. it's happening anyway. i'm so sorry, but it's happening anyway. that really got me.

Protagonist: Meg Murry. Most Likely To Have A Profound And Life Altering Impact On Adolescent Weird Girls Who Read Her Book.

7. Whiskeyjack by Victoria Goddard. third book in the series, slightly less fun than the others but only very slightly. i cannot emphasize enough how difficult it was to rank like, 2-8. had some VERY fun stuff with like…. things you learn that then go back and recontextualize everything else. ended on a scene that made me fucking sob which is always a plus in my book. themes of FAMILY and LOYALTY and SACRIFICE. my fucking beloved. yes please. the pov character continues to have a horrible little time. also love that.

Protagonist: (again, series has dual protagonists, so switching back) Peregrine Dart. Most Likely To Be The Unwitting Conduit Of The Deus Ex Machina. Deus Ex Dart.

8. One By One by Ruth Ware. just a really good classic mystery thriller. i love a mystery thriller, and ruth ware seems to always hit for me. managed to pull off a pov switch between two pov characters one of whom had a massive, MASSIVE secret without it seeming completely nonsensical once revealed or relying on the pov character talking in deliberately obtuse or evasive ways that would be really tiresome and insulting if carried through. there was a set of tech bro startup characters that were obnoxious and infuriating in exactly the way that those people are in real life, so points for that for SURE even though i did wanna throttle them.

Protagonist: Erin (Lastname). Most Deserving Of A Tropical Vacation.

9. The Ritual by Adam Nevill. this is the most brutal book i have read in recent memory. possibly at all. this guy gets put all the way through the wringer physically and emotionally and it is visceral in the way it is described. the protagonist was a profoundly unpleasant person a lot of the time but this was deliberate and really engaging, honestly. there were some moments of stark self-reflection from him about the ways in which he did not like who he was and the things he did, and when he recognized how like. unfair and cruel he was being to the others in his head. wasn't as good as the movie, imo, but the changes that they made between the book and film made total sense given the sheer level of interiority in the book. and boy howdy how much interiority. whoof.

Protagonist: Luke. Most Surprising Survival.

10. I Am Not Who You Think I Am by Eric Rickstad. i think the most damning thing that can be said about this book is that i literally can't remember almost anything about it. it was compelling in some ways and there were a few very specific moments that i was really gripped by but most of it was like. a really flat letdown. it was interesting enough as a mystery that i finished it but i don't even really remember why, now.

Protagonist: Wayland Maynard. Most Forgettable Guy.

11. The Darkest Minds by Alexandra Bracken. just. ugh. dystopia ya in a bad way. too complicated and not well established. dumbass colour coding system. it could've been so fun, i love traumatized teenagers with powers and an evil government in all sincerity but this just did not do anything good with it. it looked like it COULD have but it DIDN'T. the love interest character was a DICK. there was some weird gender takes that popped out of nowhere. jump-scared by gender. did enjoy watching the movie though because it was fucking insane and gave me a scene where the protagonist and the love interest shared a passionate embrace over what fully appeared to be the dead body of the love interest's theoretical best friend. amazing. no notes.

Protagonist: Ruby Daly. Most Likely To One Day Decide She's Tired Of Being Nice And She Does Want To Go Apeshit Actually.

12. Reputation by Sarah Vaughan. [VIDEODROME PRESCREEN AUDIENCE REVIEW WHERE THEY JSUT WROTE 'SUCKED' AND GOT SO UPSET ABOUT HOW BAD IT WAS THEY MARKED THE WRONG GENDER] this book was BAD. the writing was bad. the characters were bad and not on purpose. the politics of the book were uh. whoof. what if white girlboss feminism was a novel. points for some of the hardest i've laughed tho at Nice Dick Mike the journalist that the protagonist cannot respect after she sleeps with him and Lady Cop With Bangs, the traitor to womanhood.

Protagonist: Emma Webster. Most Likely To Submit An Extremely Long Post To Reddit Dot Com Slash Am I The Asshole That Leaves Out A Lot Of Like, Extremely Critical Information That When Uncovered All Makes Her Look Really Fucking Bad While She Seems To Still Think It Was Entirely Irrelevant And Honestly Unfair To Even Consider. Gd Forbid Women Do Anything.

UNCATEGORIZED: 21st Century Jocks: Sporting Men And Contemporary Heterosexuality by Eric Anderson. there was simply no way to rank this among the others, it was too completely different. they were all very different books but this was just. entirely different. had a wonderful time with it though!! gave me a lot to think about as someone who thinks a lot

thank you for joining me on this journey. i loved reading books again this year and would wholeheartedly recommend anything ranked 1-9 on this list, provided you like the genre/vibe.

[lloydfrontera]

still thinking of that au way back when and i just picture it being like:

webtoon javier, who hasn't yet realized webnovel lloyd isn't webtoon lloyd feeling sick: you don't have to try so hard you know. i already checked the connection between your soul and your body- webnovel lloyd, who is Convinced his cover is perfect: wHAT

meanwhile:

webnovel javier, in a hushed conference w webtoon lloyd: obviously i'm waiting for master lloyd to tell me himself!! webtoon lloyd, twisting his pinky in his ear as if to clean his ears out from that bs: yeah well. that is never gonna happen sorry. ever. *remembers how he almost had a heart attack overhearing his javier's convo w julian*

about this

wt!javier not having a single subtle bone in his body when it comes to lloyd is so funny to me, like this is the guy who decided he didn't care to pretend to not know lloyd is acting weird, of course he would immediately confront wn!lloyd when he starts acting strange but still be too oblivious to realize this is not his lloyd lmao

and wn!lloyd realizing that oh javier is way more attentive than he gave him credit for and if this javier has noticed something going on when he just switched places with a different version of himself then his own javier definitely has picked up on the difference between him and og!lloyd and that,,,, that is something he's not dealing with right now he's busy he can have a panic attack later he's fine everything is Fine.

also i'm so curious about how wn!javier and wc!lloyd ended up talking about the topic because there is. no way. wn!javier brought up the topic first. he's the king of pretending he doesn't notice the weird thing happening in the background no see he was distracted by the shiny yeah totally for sure. so if anything it had to have been wc!lloyd that took the first step, probably thinking these versions of them had the same arrangement as he and javier did and that it may be very well be worth the risk of losing the plausible deniability they'd worked so hard to keep between them if it meant getting back home faster.

ajdkadjkas he probably tried to be subtle first, just speaking around it, hoping javier would get the hint and they could start working together without having to really acknowledge it, only to get immediately frustrated by how obtuse wn!javier was being, doesn't he know how this works, why is he being so difficult it almost seems like he's deliberately ignoring the signs lloyd is trying to give,,,, oh. Oh.

cue wc!dropping the facade and being as blunt as possible, just shy of grabbing him by the face and telling him "hey i'm not your lloyd so if you can't stop being stupid on purpose and help me get home asap that would be great" lmao

also!!! wn!javier getting the chance to talk about The Topic with lloyd, even if it's not his,,,,, he's such a curious baby he would ask all sorts of questions about him and where he came from, cause he finally has the chance to speak about it but i don't think wc!lloyd would give him much tbh. he can see the Mess that's brewing between this version of them and he has no desire of dipping his spoon on that particular pot aksjdkafd

[lovelanguageisolate]

One of the things about Paradise Lost that works extremely well for me: the stream of consciousness blur of it all that elevates feelings, intentions and sensory experiences over concrete places and instants.

The demons are described as in a "lake with liquid fire" at one point and then in frozen and icy continent in another. Pandaemonium where the demons are forced to meet and co-mingle is cramped and dark, but hell is also a boundless, barren waste.

Satan himself is simultaneously grieving the loss of God's approval and resolving to get as far from God as possible. None of the fallen angels is ever like, "dude, maybe calm down and figure yourself out," even though the devil is, ostensibly, in the details. The choice coheres—congeals—like the keen of an estranged child or bitter screed of a jilted lover, but it is always off-balance, unable to stand on itself, doomed to sink and fall apart, like a foundation lain in quicksand.

And all the while, there are so many embedded clauses that it's often impossible to tell who is doing what or what is being referred to or in what order anything is happening. I'm not an English major and never was, and maybe I don't know how normies wrote in Milton's day, but I'd hazard this is very deliberately chosen and not in the service of the meter.

I think this choice—to be temporally, spatially, causally vague, if not incoherent and contradictory—serves the narrative extremely well.

We get away from the stupid, childish literal-mindedness that plagues so much religious art, especially, I think, in Christianity.

Hell, in Paradise Lost, isn't a particular bat-roosting cave where the AC has gone out. Nor is hell a perpetual time-out room when we don't do what God "wants". Hell is the totality of every way you can be out of harmony with the world, nature, and God at once. We descend deeper into it as Satan's choice to estrange himself from the divine runs to its logical conclusion. This bad conscience, maybe existing from the instant choice entered the picture and it became possible to choose pride over God, doesn't happen once but reverberates throughout mankind's fall too and is replicated in every prideful and obtuse act humanity takes. And in this way, the real spiritual pattern of Milton's Christianity comes to the fore, palpably, where parochial details buttress the story without trapping us.

---

It's appropriate for me to acknowledge and recommend C. S. Lewis' Preface to Paradise Lost, which besides being very good has surely influenced my impression.

[plutobutartsy]

I know some people really do hc those characters because they “act” black, but don’t say everyone does. Some people do purely cause they think it looks nice, or because they want to. /lh /nm

Personally, darlin has never had a set design in my head. The others purely because I saw art of it and it stuck, nothing to do with personality or actions.

And with Hux, people (that I’m aware of at least) hc him as a stoner purely because of his voice and the way he talks? 😭

(not being mean or trying to start a fight, just saying not to lump everyone together cause most aren’t for that reason or are purely coincidences.)

💖

i'm trying to phrase this as nicely as i can but it really feels like you're being deliberately obtuse.

yes, people have different reasons for their headcanons and most probably don't have any malicious intentions at all. that doesn't mean their headcanons don't reenforce racist stereotypes.

"purely because they think it looks nice"

cool, genuinely no malicious intentions here! that means it was pure coincidence that they headcanoned, let's say darlin who often gets characterized to be aggressive, as black. in that case they should be more careful in the future as to not run into this issue of turning a character into a racist stereotype again. once is an accident, twice is a forming pattern.

"purely because i saw art of it and it stuck, nothing to do with personality or actions"

again, no malicious intent here!

if you saw art of it ONCE by ONE person and it stuck: same thing as above, try to be careful and think of possible racist connotations before just taking a headcanon and running with it.

if you saw MULTIPLE people with this headcanon, maybe even to the point you would consider it fanon, think about WHY it's such a popular headcanon in the first place. ask yourself why lasko, a nervous and soft-spoken sweet person, is widely considered to be a skinny white man while darlin, somebody considered to be tough and aggressive, is often portrayed as black or darkskinned. ask yourself if you truly see no racial bias here. if you don't see it then i don't know what to tell you.

"people mostly headcanon hux as a stoner because of his voice and the way he talks"

i am aware of that. but for him to then also coincidentally be one of the only characters they headcanon as black? if i give them the benefit of the doubt then they're still ignorant and need to educate themselves.

i'd also like to reiterate that by no means am i saying that you're only allowed to headcanon specific characters as black or that you're not allowed to headcanon your huxley or darlin as black. the problem comes in when your only poc characters also fall into racist tropes.

i'm saying that if your only non white, darkskinned characters are those that are antagonistic, violent or aggressive you are being racist (or colourist depending on the context). i'm saying that you need to take care to not turn your characters into racist stereotypes and tropes.

your intentions don't matter here. if i slap somebody to get a fly off their face i still slapped them. you can still be racist even when you don't mean to.

mind you, me and other black fans aren't asking for much. we just want you to take these things into consideration before making headcanons.

and not to be rude but your whole "don't say it's everybody" stuff comes off as very patronizing and i'm not having it. i made a general observation about a big part of the fandom and therefore made a generalized statement.

[plumadesatada]

Also, and here's a bit of communication theory for you: check out Grice's maxims.

look up the dude if you want bg info. essentially what he did was study how we communicate effectively and what (previously, until he got on it) unwritten laws we subconciously obey (have been trained by interactions with society to obey??) when communicating.

aka things General You (read: NTs) do without noticing and that you can assume General They (again, read: NTs) do when communicating with you. (and that they WILL assume you implicitly follow, too)

Here, i'll copy-paste an explanation from the internet and then i'll expound on the relevant bit.

The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.

The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the discussion.

The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap, as regards the length of what one says, between the maxims of quantity and manner; this overlap can be explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking of the maxim of quantity (artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however, may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors.

back to me again.

the important bit here is maxim número tres: relation.

of someone opens a communication session with "the trashcan is getting full" out of the blue, you can safely assume that they're not just informing you of a piece of trivia for no reason. there is A Reason they're telling you.

And because they assume you assume that what they said had A Reason to be said, they'll assume they won't need to say that reason out loud, thus also observing rule 1 of quantity.

essentially what happens to you:

A: the trashcan is getting full again

B, startled at the non sequitur: huh?? i guess???? (why is A telling me this???) *goes back to doing what they were doing before they were interrupted*

what should happen is:

A: the trashcan is getting full again

B, understanding A wouldn't bring it up for no reason and deducing the unsaid "pls fix it": oh? i'll take the trash out tonight

of course, manipulators will abuse this tendency we have to Deduce How A Piece Of Information Is Relevant to drive you crazy with "what do they want??? what do they WANT?????" feelings, but 90% of people will bring something up because they consider it relevant, and expect you to either know or be able to deduce how its relevant.

most people communicate in Implicitese bc "why waste words when you are perfectly capable of deducing what i'm saying based on knowing that its relevant to the current situation". they're not traumatized or being assholes, they're being Efficient.

if you don't do the dishes/take out the trash/do the laundry/etc, from their side it looks either like you don't care or (worse) you're being deliberately obtuse and pretending not to understand the implicit request

of course, if you let them know (or train them with positive reinforcement i guess....) that you're very sorry but you don't speak Implicitese, would they please take the time to add the request out loud bc you Need that piece of information to be said, it's mostly smooth sailing.

(incidentally, to a person with ADHD *everything* is relevant *all* the time, hence NT being annoyed at what they perceive to be non-sequiturs. they just can't do the olympic mental leaps to deduce how what we just said is relevant to the conversation.

example: my mom coming home and breaking the silence with "she doesn't like coffee" and my reply "there's a pet shop near my job that has a sale on dog beds" making perfect sense to us bc we can substitute context, while my non-adhd sister sits there looking at us like we're aliens.

what we communicated was actually "hey, so, remember that conversation last week about what to get your aunt for her birthday? yeah, no, the espresso machine is no-go. she won't use it." "frick. then what are we getting her?? wait, i remember you mentioned she was planning on getting a dog. how about something for the dog? nice and practical" and so on.)

Hello this is just to say that I am very interested in that post you mentioned maybe making about indirect communication!

So to define Direct and Indirect communication with a pair of examples real fast:

Direct communication: "Hey, can you do the dishes?" Indirect communication: "There's dishes in the sink." (Please wash them.)

Indirect communication tends to trip a lot of ND, but especially Autistic people up because the implied request in the parentheses... doesn't always come through. So you don't do the dishes, and the Indirect communicator gets frustrated because they thought they had made that request perfectly clearly.

Which, in their defense, they did! ...in their micro-cultural language.

See, the actual purpose of Indirect Communication is to provide some extra verbal personal space and non-aggression measures in micro-cultures where people's personal autonomy has been compromised but there is also a high degree of understood social context.

Hm. That's a weird sentence. Let's try some more examples.

Indirect communication is most common in places or situations where people's ability to stay in their own lane is compromised, but everyone also shares the same base knowledge of what's going on. One example is in large cities, where people are PHYSICALLY up in each other's personal space because they're physically crowded. So cities have etiquette like "Don't make eye contact on public transit unless you actually need to address someone", so that, if people can't stop violating your personal space, they can at least signal non-aggression and give you some privacy. People raised in large cities, or who have lived there for a while all learn these unspoken rules by trial and error, some of us with more errors and trials than others.

Thus, in physically compact situations, "There's dishes in the sink" means "There's dishes in the sink." (I trust that you are already familiar with the social rules that dictate that dishes need to be done, and assume the reason you haven't done them is because you haven't seen the sink yet. I won't insult your intelligence by elaborating on the Do The Dishes Rule, because I know you are smart <3)

Speaking of Privacy, the other place indirect communication is common is in situations where people have Limited Privacy and thus everyone knows what's going on with them, and they know what's going on with everyone else, whether they want to or not. Close-knit families and religious communities often have this shared no-privacy pool, but it can also happen with you and two roommates in a 100sq ft apartment, or on a research vessel in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Since y'all are up in each other's business, indirect communication is there to prevent hostility in close quarters.

This, in a low-privacy situation, "There's dishes in the sink." means "There's dishes in the sink." (I know you are a good and responsible roommate who is maybe a little forgetful, and I trust you to have enough context from living in the live feed of everyone's life to know that I need them done. I won't insult you by suggesting your motivation was malicious in any way, and i trust you to do them <3)

So, to an indirect communicator, that was a perfectly clear request to do the dishes because OF COURSE you'd know what they meant- literally everyone else they deal with is in on this shared knowledge of social rules and daily updates. And not elaborating on that request is an affectionate sign of trust in your competence.

Except, you know. You're not.

So, you try to explain to your indie friend that "There's dishes in the sink." only sounds like an observation, and your brain will not auto-fill in the request like theirs does, so if you want me to do the dishes, just ask with words, okay?

And your indie friend understands this! but then instead of going "Hey, can you do the dishes?" they instead don't say ANYTHING until they're really frustrated with the state of the kitchen, and communicate VERY directly at you, and with great anger.

What happened?

So remember how indirect communication exists to prevent hostility and violence? That's because the threat of hostility and violence is VERY, VERY REAL.

Like you, your indirect communication friend made some mistakes while learning The Unsaid Rules and How To Use The Shared Information Pool, and the social hammer came down on them HARD. Ostracization, ridicule, maybe even actual, psychical harm. So they grew very, very afraid of violating those secret rules, and doubly so with people they like, so your indirect communication friend is facing this HUGE EMOTIONAL BLOCK when it comes to directly communicating with you, because to someone who grew up with their boundaries compromised and the threat of hostility if they violate the communication rules, communicating directly with someone they love feels really, really, really mean and they don't want to hurt or lose you.

For real, "Hey, please do the dishes" sounds like "Hey, please do the dishes." (You fucking moron who doesn't give a shit about our home and probably hates me) to them, and they don't want to talk like that to you. It's like how we never like picking the mean dialogue option in video games.

So instead they... just don't say anything at all, rather than risk a potential confrontation, and then the dishes don't get done and it turns into a REAL confrontation.

What a headache.

So what are we gonna do?

Well, you can't control your friend's actions, emotional reactions or interpersonal skills, but you can manage yours, and you're gonna have to meet them halfway, and it's gonna feel like training a skittish cat that coming out from under the couch is safe. Several-pronged approach:

DO NOT PUNISH BEHAVIOR YOU WANT TO SEE. When your friend does manage to say "Hey, please do the dishes?" don't go "UUUUGH IN A MINUTE." even if you are in the middle of something else and their timing sucks, which is probably does. Stick to either neutral responses ("Cool, let me finish this paragraph and I'll get on that") to positive responses ("Oh, sure! Thanks for letting me know!")

REWARD THE BEHAVIOR YOU WANT TO SEE. -and then actually go do the dishes to demonstrate that this approach not only is safe, it's effective. Also, praise your friend when they do a good job communicating with you. "Hey, thanks for actually asking me to do the dishes, that was really helpful." or "You're doing a great job navigating and giving me directions, this is much less stressful than the GPS" or "Thanks for being honest about how I was annoying you and bringing it up before it became a huge issue." This will kind of feel like you're an actor on sesame street teaching big bird how to say please and thank you, but honestly? that was the age most of us learned our communication skills, and we return to that teaching method because BY GOD IT WORKS.

MODEL THE BEHAVIORS YOU WANT TO SEE. Humans learn by copying, so lead by example with the kind of communication that helps you, and explain why it helps. "Hey friend, a question so I can schedule some stuff- Do you have any plans this weekend I should know about, or am I clear to paint the bathroom?"

This is the one that sucks but YOU GOTTA MEET THEM HALFWAY AND LEARN ABOUT THE CONTEXT POOL. Can't make everyone learn, and Indirect communication has it's uses (especially in modern jobs and social media), so you gotta learn their style too. I literally have a discord server that's just me where I keep notes on the life events and conditions of my friends, coworkers, neighbors and loved ones because I know I won't remember that shit, but they will kind of expect me to, and it's been a lifesaver in both not blundering into social faux pas, and actually getting around my crap memory to know them better. You can also model hybrid communication and practice your indirect skills by using an indirect request opener, but then saying the rest of the implied context aloud: "Hey, there's dishes in the sink. I know you'll do that ASAP because you're cool, I just wanted to make sure you knew they were there and needed to be washed, thanks <3"

Accept that some people aren't gonna change for reasons that are beyond their control and probably have nothing to do with you, and decide what you're willing to invest in learning to deal with them. I still have to play 5D words chess with my mother-in-law, who was raised in a close-physical-space-AND-no-privacy culture and is an excruciatingly anxious indirect communicator as a result. I can't make her go to therapy for the anxiety, and until she does, her ability to communicate effectively probably won't improve. It's got nothing to do with me, even if I'm the person she's most frequently at odds with. As a result, I have extremely limited contact with her. I don't see her for more than a few hours at a time, when we have an activity to do together, and only a handful of times a year. More than that, and I get brainworms by proxy, so for my sanity, I've limited what I am willing to do with her. Maybe your indirect communicator is someone worth effectively learning a second language for, like a lover. Maybe they're someone you can cut out of your life entirely without issue, like a manger at a retail job you can quit. You'll have to decide.

Anyway, that's my raised-bilingual ADHD/Autism Direct/indirect communicator ramble, hope it helps.

[lgbtpolitics]

@peakedlesbian So I thought I would just make a new post rather than turn on reblogs given the OG post was getting long anyway. It’s been a while, sorry about that, but my response is here anyway:

The thing one calls 'genital preferences' disappears the moment one ascertains that sexuality is based on biological sex. Then any attraction to biological sex or genitals is simply just one's sexuality. 

That’s not strictly true though, if a woman doesn’t like penises there’s a considerable chance she wouldn’t want sex with a post-op trans man, even if they detransitioned - whichever way you look at it, the fact is that some women have penises, be they trans women or detransitioned cis women.

The issue of relevance is unchanged by any of this though; do women (and indeed men) have an obligation to like all genitals, is not the same question as is it possible for all women to like all genitals. They shouldn’t be inherently equated.

For the vast majority of non- terminally online people, for whom sexuality is on the basis of biological sex, 

The idea that being trans or thinking about trans people is an affectation of the terminally online is simply false, there are lots of people who do not sit around analysing this stuff on the internet who also think about their own attraction, or lack thereof to trans people.

calling it 'genital preferences' actually comes across as extremely in poor taste, evoking the idea that  a person's attractions to a certain sex(es) is a 'preference' 

Yes I can see that the word “preference” is a sticking point for many people who responded to the OG post - it’s not meant to be this literal, people have always interchanged “sexual orientation” and “sexual preference” even when they have a full understanding that it is more than a preference. I hear what you’re saying about the implications, and I do believe that language is important in this regards, but it’s jumping the gun a bit to suggest that any use of the term conveys an affinity for conversion therapy.

for eg: a woman who only wants to date pre-op trans women is a lesbian, right?

You put this in pink, so I’ll answer - that’s very oddly specific but I guess so. I can also ask you the same question; is a woman who only wants to date post-op detransitioned women a lesbian?

I think you're being somewhat deliberately obtuse here. Obviously the purpose of my point here isn't to say the law itself puts down what homosexuality means — the point is that what is anti-gay laws has a 100% overlap with anti-same sex laws

I'm not being deliberately obtuse - you are suggesting that the laws define homosexuality, and the ways in which laws are enforced dictate what does or doesn't "count" as gay. This doesn't even really make sense with our understanding of sexuality, regardless of whether we assume gender identity matters or not. Anti-gay laws haven't always correlated with anti-same-sex attraction either, lots of laws have been based around cross-dressing as well and have heavily featured sexual activity rather than attraction itself.

Anyone concerning themselves with such advocacy has to know what they mean and entail.

This, at least, I can agree with. If you intend to advocate for people affected by a given law or societal discrimination, you need to understand the ways in which this affects people. However, this doesn't innately change whether or not you "count" as gay - gay people who remain single are less likely (or not at all likely depending on context) to actually be prosecuted, it doesn't make them less gay. Lesbians aren't less gay than gay men, despite the laws being generally about gay men not gay women.

Why is that? What explains this coincidentally huge overlap?

Well obviously the vast majority of people are cisgender, so of course most of gay rights will be about same sex relationships.

Why is that? Have cross-sex couples ever been threatened by anti same-sex rights? Has a cross-sex couple ever had to check what legality their marital union would be permitted or denied in the eyes of the law of the country they live (on the basis of sex alone)?

I assume that by this you mean like a trans woman and a cis woman or a trans man and cis man?

In which case, yes people can be threatened by this, if someone has legally changed their gender their marriage certainly might be void, if someone is perceived as a gay couple, they will face social and legal discriminations. You are saying "on the basis of sex alone" but I feel like this is shifting the goalposts - you are effectively asking me whether this would be true if they simply weren't trans, which kind of defeats the whole point of the conversation.

Also, If there are some same-sex couples that are straight, doesn't that mean that recognizing same-sex couples actually falls into a concern for straight couples, straight rights and straight pride too?

I'm not entirely sure what this means?

You're not making sense per your own definition here. How are you claiming that there are two different definitions of sexualities when the thing concerning them, the importance of the legal status

It's not my definition lol it's yours - as you say, the actual sexualities predate the words homosexual bisexual etc, they also predate any laws against them. They would also continue to exist if those laws had never been made. Sexuality is not dictated by external factors, is the point that I am making.

Heterosexual is exclusive opposite-sex attraction. For the second question, you have answered that yourself, haven't you?

Well if you understand that heterosexuality can be independent of laws then you must understand that homosexuality is the same? And yes it does answer my own question, because the point is that "oppressed" is not a sexuality, the sexuality remains the same regardless of oppression.

what or who a woman is exactly.

This is spiralling SO far beyond the original point now, so I'll try to keep this brief; we both know I can't give you a simple definition of a woman without first trying to define gender itself, which you don't even believe in, rendering that quite pointless. If you are genuinely concerned that we are misunderstanding each other, we can say for the sake of the argument, however circular it may be, that a woman is one who identifies as one. If you just wanna discuss the intricacies of defining gender, that will have to wait another day.

I really don't care about a person's past and I don't know what importance that information is carrying here ; especially when a cis woman dating a trans woman suffices

It's not real information it's a hypothetical, and I really feel that your last sentence demonstrates the point; you are distinctly less interested in a discussion about sexual orientation on the whole, and how it is or isn't affected by trans people, and more concerned with trans women, and scrutinising lesbians.

Yes, that does make her same-sex attracted. She is in a relationship that depending on time and place — could be an incredibly dangerous, life-threatening undertaking or completely normal. All of this on the basis of the couple's biological sexes alone. A heterosexual couple has never had to undergo that.

Ok tbf I didn't specify but in this hypothetical they don't live somewhere with laws against same sex relationships. This just doesn't really make sense, she's not attracted to women, if this hypothetical woman actually tried to act like she genuinely understood bisexual and lesbian experiences it would be really crass.

Btw, what was the point of 'dates cis men her whole life', to establish her stolid heterosexuality? That because she's had her dating roster chock-ful of cis men, her heterosexuality is infallible and would never let her date someone she thought of as a 'not a man'?

?? It's a hypothetical, it's just vaguely establishing her sexual identity, liking and dating only cis men her whole life doesn't make it impossible for her to suddenly find women attractive but it's considerably less likely. Tbh I was operating under the assumption that we both believe sexuality doesn't change, I appreciate you might not have said that outright, but I don't believe someone can stop being gay or straight. The point of mentioning previous relationships was to say that her current trans bf looks pretty much the same as the others i.e, nothing is particularly different about her taste in men.

I'm judging.

Well that's weird but okay.

Such a union is not legally recognized in majority countries even today and even criminalized with punishment. Of course, she should have access to LGB spaces, why wouldn't she?

Well that's just a bit daft like idek what to say to that, if we assume she is in one of these countries then I kind of see it, but even then we circle back to whether these laws actually define the sexuality, I mean people can be criminalized for supporting gay people too, so like... yeah this just doesn't make any sense.

Would this couple have not needed for the same-sex marriage law of their country to pass in order to get married?

Or they would need his gender to be legally recognised, it is undoubtedly difficult to date while being trans/your partner being trans too.

do you believe her coupling would not have sent her to conversion therapy in the wrong place, on the basis of sex of her partner and herself?

Sure, but people have also been sent to conversion therapy for being gender non-conforming, or assumed to be gay for other reasons, that doesn't actually make her bisexual.

when gay marriage gets legalized anywhere, what is it that gets legalized: the fact that two people who identify as 'gay' can marry, or the fact that two people belonging to the same sex can marry?

Well, strictly speaking, it means that two people legally recognised as the same gender can get married, so it really depends on where the country in question stands on legally changing gender. And the answer to all your follow-up questions is the same.

And this is a pothole in your whole idea that the laws define homosexuality, the law is not always based on biological sex or gender identity, it really depends on the law.

If a country, for that matter, bans same-sex marriage, it's not necessarily a gay issue, is it? Gay rights are about same-gender attraction and relationships, that are independent of the sexes of the couple, correct?

This is just pedantry - as above, the vast majority of people are cisgender, so there's no reason to draw lines like this. The vast majority of social issues do not only affect one marginalised group, but many do specifically target one group. The fact that a handful of straight couples could be targeted because one of them is trans doesn't mean that this becomes totally divorced from gay people. In fact this is one of the reasons we talk of LGBT people as a collective.

Moreover, homophobia is the hatred or bigotry of homosexuality, which is same-gender attraction, right? Do you happen to know what the hatred for same-sex attraction is called?

Same answer as above - drawing a hard line between same gender and same-sex is ridiculous given that 9 times out of 10 they will be the same thing anyway. The hatred of them is the same thing, there aren't two separate bigotries depending on whether someone might date a trans person.

What are same-sex attracted people called, if there's a word for that?

Again, see above.

No trans woman has a vagina or vulva. No person of the male sex does — unless you consider the surgical neo-vagina, in which you're gonna have to go out of your way to avoid just how NOT a vagina or vulva a neo-vagina is.

So what you mean is, that the sole requirement for being attractive to a lesbian is a natural, non-surgically altered vagina? So, in answer to above, lesbians cannot be attracted to post-op trans men or detransitioned women?

This is the point where you are just projecting your own feelings onto others - a surgical vagina is not a literal vulva, no, but it often can and does seem the same or similar for a sexual partner. The thing is that you're trying to draw hard lines where there aren't any - how similar does it need to be to still "count" as a lesbian? What if technology carries on improving, at what point does this become "acceptable"?

And that's precisely why I say you're drawing on a "female essence", you say that doesn't exist, and I agree, but then you are saying that no matter what one looks like, lesbians can ONLY be attracted to these who were born with a vagina, even if an AMAB person has genitals much more similar to a vulva, and an AFAB person has genitals much more similar to a penis, a lesbian can still only be attracted to the AFAB person? Your proposition that you base your ideas on material reality starts to break down here.

This is the same reason it's considered offensive to ask homosexual people "but what about this specific person? What I'd there's a Mr/Mrs. Right with exactly your sense of humour?"

But it's not the same though, and again we come full circle to there being two different questions - saying an individual lesbian doesn't find trans women attractive and that she shouldn't have to try to change that is not actually the same as saying that no lesbians can ever be attracted to trans women. And this is the precise problem with equating them, you are acting as though it is borderline sexual harassment for other lesbians to date a trans woman, or even just be vaguely open to the idea, and still maintain that they are lesbians. I agree with you that, in any context really, people shouldn't be pushing someone else to "try out" any given group of people. But acknowledging trans women can be attractive is not doing that.

what is gender? Is it a construct? How many genders are there? Do animals have gender identities?

Sorry but I'm gonna leave this out because it's a whole other tangent and this is already comically long.

I've tried to make this so only you can reblog, let me know if you can't reblog either, and ill just turn on normal reblogs.

[arsenicpanda]

Thing is when it comes to ships, shipper goggles are such a huge factor that they cloud everything else. BH shippers see things one way JT shippers another, then there's (those few of us) who ship both BH and JT who see things differently again, when you're a shipper it's hard to see things objectively. Focusing more on BH, let's take last weeks episode, when JH had those flashes of memory BHs saw it as this massive conformation that he's still in love with Betty, I personally didn't see it that way, I saw shock and him looking slightly uncomfortable, and he was so relieved Tabitha texted him, he loves Tabitha and they make each other happy i believe that wholeheartedly, and his reaponse even in text form seemed so heartfelt to me. But let's say that the BH stans were right in theie interpretation, the part of me that ships BH can't celebrate that, because again as in S5 any hint of remaining feeling between them is from JH, Betty from what we've been shown on screen has no romantic feelings left for Jughead, so I cannot be happy with him ending in a relationship where he's with someone who doesn't love him the same way, or worse have him end up being someone Betty settles for when Archie and Veronica inevitably reunite, why would I want that when I can have Jabitha, a relationship that is mutual and I think beautiful, where both parties are equal and actually LOVE EACH OTHER. I'm not saying I'm not open to a BH reunion but I don't see how they can realistically write one now that does any of these characters justice. Also I like to believe I'm generally a good person but there's a small part of me like 0.005% that doesn't want BH to get back together simply because I find the racist way they talk about Tabitha and the way they act like JHs only purpose is to be Betty's security blanket disgusting.

You are correct, shipper goggles extremely affect how a person views a show, and, speaking in a general sense, I think that is both fascinating and frustrating. Fascinating because it can lead to such a diverse collection of reads on a text (regardless of medium), and frustrating because it can sometimes feel like people are being willfully obtuse about what is going on in a text. I have certainly predicted the future events in a series incorrectly because of my shipper goggles (*cough*atla*cough*), and, when that happens (as it has many times), I always like to look back and go “oh, what did I miss?” as well as “how stupid were the things that I missed?” because I am judgmental.

I find the disconnect with the end of 6x14 to be more tiring than anything, because it was very obviously a deliberate set up to go “oooo, look at this, could bh be returning? Or will we stick with jt? Tune in next week and every week after that until we finally address this!” and both stir up conversation on twitter as well as pull bh fans back into the show to increase ratings, which are certainly flagging (although, per Parrot Analytics, Riverdale has a 32.62x demand distribution, which is marked as “exceptional” and is a level of demand that only 0.2% of all tv shows in the market have, and it also ranks in the 99th percentile in the Teen genre ; additionally, while its current demand rank is #78, its peak rank during the past week was #38, so it’s doing pretty well for itself). And it did stir up conversation! That night bh trended and everything! And a number of people also talked about how the episode was disrespectful to Tabitha (which it was)! Their plan worked! Yes, it was disrespectful to Tabitha, and yes, if this is the set up for a bh reunion, it’s the worst possible set up for one, but it got people talking and possibly returning!

The cynicism of it all gets to me, the placement of buzz over story and character.

But, that aside, we’re basically back where we were after 5x10 aired and everyone had different interpretations of Jughead’s Betty hallucination and the bunker scene with Tabitha. And I hate it here, it’s so tiring. Unsurprisingly, they didn’t address the matter in the next episode, and we’re just going to sit on it for god know how long, and I am tired, let’s just commit to one direction and go, please, and do it in a non-bullshit way, one that doesn’t ruin Jughead.

As for your bit on Betty (man did I take a while to get here), I think there is wiggle room to interpret her as having interest in Jughead. I still believe that the close up of Kevin during the jt moment at the end of 5x18 was meant to set up a scene in 5x19 where Kevin told Betty about jt getting together that was cut for time and/or characterization, because why else would he be there? And, even though that moment isn’t there, I can’t help but at least want to interpret Betty’s relationship with Archie through that lens (as well as her rushing to save him in 5x17 and also a couple of other moments in that episode) for Betty/Jughead/Tabitha reasons. And we get some concern from her about Jughead in…5x07? That moment where Archie goes “Well, at least he’s got Tabitha” and her face in the reverse shot can be interpreted in multiple ways. And the mind reading scenes are a goddamn free-for-all, and of course chemistry is subjective, so that’s a factor in reading her scenes with Jughead as well. So, there’s room, basically.

I would argue that there are a couple of moments for Jughead→Betty in 5a, as well as a couple in 5b that shipper goggles can read in a romantic way, but I think that, once we get to 5b, and particularly those last moments in 5x14, we close the door on romantic Jughead→Betty and enter fully into Jughead→Tabitha and getting Jughead sober and in a place where Jughead and Tabitha can date without risk of Jughead’s Issues ruining it, basically. And then they have three episodes (5x17-5x19) of Jughead just supporting Tabitha and helping her in every way he can to kind of even out their relationship so that it’s equal, and it’s not just Tabitha supporting Jughead; they support each other. And after that, when we get to 6b (the Riverdale part of s6), it’s just a matter of who needs support in a given episode (Jughead’s hearing loss, Tabitha’s trouble with saving Pop’s, Tabitha brings Jughead Pop’s to eat, Jughead always does the dishes, etc, etc). They’re equal, and they clearly love each other; it’s just a matter of when we get that parallel to the Rivervale love confession.

(Although, in defense of bh, there’s also the bh makeout to save the world from 6x05 looming overhead, and, as with Betty, 6x14 is pretty much a free-for-all.)

ANYWAY

My interpretation of Betty is “I would like to believe she is settling for Archie because Jughead and Tabitha are dating each other and she doesn’t know how to slide into that, but, realistically, the intent is likely that she probably wants to be with Archie to some unknown degree but will break up with him for drama reasons involve her threat aura and fear of hurting people or something and then start dating Agent Drake, and then idk what will happen from there.” I think she and Jughead will have some more friendly interactions and we’ll either get a 6x05 parallel or a flash to their kiss in 6x05 during some important moment or something idk, idk, that one is super up for grabs.

But yeah, I agree, I don’t see a good way back to bh for multiple reasons, as I’ve said before. It would involve a mess of racist tropes and be deeply uncomfortable, and “Tabitha has tried to save Jughead 1384 times, but yeah, Jughead ends up with Betty” would be absolutely bizarre as a storytelling choice, so I’ve got nothing there.

Also, I have been fortunate to largely avoid seeing the more racist discussions of Tabitha and jt by bh fans because I filtered out every possible anti jt tag the second I started shipping it and unfollowed people who made that kind of post but didn’t tag it, but I have certainly have had the displeasure of seeing some of those posts in the past and heard about them from other jt fans, and it’s just so disappointing, isn’t it? The bh fandom had picked up on the racist way ba fans have talked about Veronica, but multiple people fail to notice when they dip into similar racist tropes themselves. Ah, how difficult it is to see the splinter in your own eye.

(Let it be known that jt fans are not innocent either; I have seen a few too many people across various parts of the internet who focus too heavily on how much Tabitha cares for and supports Jughead, and it can drift a bit too close to being all about how much a Black woman helps a white guy with no regard for reciprocity for my taste. The same can be true for bjt fans, just broadening Jughead to Jughead and Betty.)

As for that 0.005%, I get that, I do. A fandom’s behavior can often shape our opinions about a ship for the better and the worse, and the occasional spiteful desire is, I think, normal. Just don’t get carried away, y’know?

Anyway, that was long and rambling. I think I answered everything? Please tell me if I didn’t.

[thewadapan]

Had a pretty similar reaction to @fipindustries on this one immediately bringing Cloud Atlas to mind, a story I know only in the form of its batshit little trailer. I've always figured that I'd hate that one if I actually tried to read/watch it, purely based on vibes.

It also recalls Ghost Quartet, a sort-of-musical (more of a concept album, I guess?) which casts its four singers as these people being reincarnated across different places and points in history. Ghost Quartet is, alas, borderline incomprehensible. The most legible bit is set in a contemporary time, as Wales suggests here, centring on the protagonist's reaction to a stranger getting hit by a subway train—except they're not a stranger, their lives are entangled in their other incarnations, etc.

There's the point-and-click adventure game Broken Age, which allows you to jump between two entirely-separate time periods, pitched to be as dissimilar from one another as possible: one set on a spaceship in the future, and one set in a fantasy world. The two "sides" of the game are entirely independent, but recurring themes and elements crop up across both, culminating in a big twist at the halfway point where it turns out that (rot13.com) gur gjb fvqrf npghnyyl gnxr cynpr pbagrzcbenarbhfyl, jvgu gur fcnprfuvc npghnyyl orvat gur tvnag zbafgre (na navzngebavp) frra va gur snagnfl frpgvbaf. I never actually played the game much past that point.

Or in Cabin in the Woods, there's a bureaucratic organisation which secretly conspires to trap victims in a horror movie which must proceed according to certain "rules"; in a sense, all horror movies are the same horror movie, the same events recurring in abstract, just with different players and aesthetic trappings. Except there, the tension is in these people being forced into a mold, made to act stupid, against their nature, etc—rather than there being some underlying truth to these people which always emerges in spite of radically different contexts.

You've got The Tatami Galaxy, where each episode takes as its premise "what if the protagonist joined this student society instead?" So although events proceed in radically different ways, often straddling genres, there is nonetheless a "ground truth" of the characters and the setting, which builds up over the course of the series. I don't reckon you ever see a single iteration of the character's time at uni go from start to finish, but rather, you're meant to build up a complete impression from these disparate snapshots.

And in Almost Nowhere, the varying layers of reality in the form of "crashes" see characters recur in new contexts, maybe under different names, in non-chronological order. Very much taking the idea of like, the coffee-shop AU, and making it an integral part of the plot, going, hey, isn't this fucked up? What if what happened in the coffee-shop AU actually mattered to the big sci-fi war? Makes your head spin, that one, though largely because it's deliberately obtuse, nearly buckling under the weight of its own metaphysics.

There are also stories where the "alternate realities" take the form of stories-within-the-story, with the characters roleplaying as heightened versions of themselves for whatever reason. You see this in Cockatiel x Chameleon, where the sex scenes are presented from an in-universe perspective, despite actually just being erotic roleplay between the characters. And in Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, the games designed by the main characters often reflect events in their real lives, culminating in a section where we slip entirely into one of the game worlds, and the character relationship plays out there instead of in real life.

The thing is obviously none of those examples are what Wales is describing.

Like, I swear this concept crops up from time to time, mostly in the form of prophecy, reincarnation, or metanarrative, but now I'm scratching my head wondering if anyone's tried this exact take on it. Surely they have, right? There are so many attempts which seem to be angling at similar themes, similar gimmicks, but this particular premise seems like such a slam-dunk to me.

Hell, Worth the Candle kind of has it too, not just because of the mirroring between the real-world Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, Arthur/Uther's historical adventures, and Joon's present-day adventures... but also in the construction of the story itself, which explicitly discusses how the events of the story tie into the real real world. The truly "real" events are never shown to the reader, and we are left to infer what might have happened and how they might have felt based on the fictional content of the story.

What Worth the Candle is maybe missing is a chapter where the curtain is pulled back entirely, and it veers into straight autofiction. That's a gimmick I've wanted to use for a long, long time. I've always liked the idea of telling a story where each chapter translates the same small cast into a different genre, a different setting entirely with its own rules, but with the personalities, character dynamics, and conflicts carrying across. And then in the midst of all this, one of the chapters would be autofiction, something that really happened to me, which would suddenly anchor the story and provide a lens through which to view all the other chapters. For me it's about getting across that idea of "emotional truth", where a straight retelling of real-world events would fail to communicate how it actually felt to be living it, so you have to layer on these fantastical lenses through which to view the same basic proceedings.

I'm not tired of multiversal fiction yet, not by a long shot; I feel like the general public is hitting genre fatigue while mass media has yet to even scratch the surface of different takes on the concept, such as this one. But I don't think the multiverse is strictly necessary to portray these themes and emotions; the key thing is parallels, symmetries, counterfactuals, whatever the exact mechanism for those may be.

I find myself comparing the multiversal version of this story against the metafictional version—where it's an indecisive author completely rewriting the setting, jumping from genre to genre in an attempt to pin down the emotional reality and find the version of the story which would best sell. To me, there's no real difference between those stories, but I feel like readers would be much more willing to take a multiversal gimmick at face value, where a metafictional framing device would invite lots of the "If it's not real, then it doesn't matter!" idiocy that plagued Worth the Candle in the end. Maybe the trick is not to explain it at all, not to have the chapters directly reference the events of the other realities in any way, and just jump from one to the next, let the reader interpret how they like...

Pitchposting: The Waves

Here's the logline: a hero flits between universes where everything is different and yet all characters recur. The love interest is the same, whether she's a pirate captain, a cubicle worker, a bard, whatever. The villain is the same, whether he's a rear admiral, a corporate tyrant, or an evil overlord.

Multiverse stories are often about the path not traveled, the way that the world might be different. This would be a story about commonality, everything staying the same.

So there are some number of stories being told here, and the shape of all of them is exactly identical, all hitting the beats at the same time. A death in one means a death in the other, but our protagonist is only in one place at a time, so we see each beat only once and infer the rest. A car chase in one story is a ship chase in another. The climactic battle where soldiers crash against the castle walls becomes a climactic battle where the pirate horde smashes against the walls of a fort, and that turns into a modern cityscape where rioters smash against the walls of a towering skyscraper.

My vision here is that we do grand changes as we move between stories, only to find that everything is equivalent.

So what do you do with this? What's this sort of structure for? What cool stories or scenes does it lend itself to?

My first thought is to break it, naturally. If there are five or six realities that we're cycling through, maybe our protagonist can get just one of them onto a different track, one where fate has something else in store. I don't know how you would do this, there's this neat scene in my head where we go "all is lost -> all is lost -> all is lost -> all is ... wait, what's that?!".

My second thought is that having multiple realities moving in perfect synchronicity with each other allows for a way to really underscore a character, say something about them with thick red marker. The elemental thing that's supposed to define a tragedy is that the bad ending is something that came from within the character, right? Something that they could have stopped, if only they had been a different kind of person. The seeds of their downfall laying within them. So isn't there something nice about seeing that this is invariant? That the worlds are different, circumstances are different, but the choices are the same? You'd have to be incredibly careful with this (and the whole thing, really), because I think in constructing different parallels you might end up with something that the audience doesn't consider parallel. But it could work, layering the emotional beats on top of each other.

My third thought is what I think should have been my first thought: the story is one about mastery, coming to know and understand the rules, "winning" across all realities because of understanding, ideally with some kind of character synthesis along the way. I think this is ... well, difficult, given the rules as I've been talking about them. If there's a "twist", then it should be a twist that happens across all realities simultaneously. If there's something gained or lost, it should always have a parallel. I cannot immediately think of some clever way of breaking this system - something that the reader would understand to be clever or at least worthwhile. (I say reader, but this would be better in a visual medium.) Maybe "breaking it" in a different way is the ideal, pulling the realities into each other, swapping conceits and genres. But this, too, would take a lot of planning to pull off, and you'd need to be careful about these set pieces.

So if I were serious about this (which I'm not, this is pitchposting,) I would start out with our characters, then build some worlds around them, trying for maximum variation in those worlds. The plotting is also pretty vital, particularly the "standard" plot whether you're going to break that or not. I do really like the idea of having a single "mundane" world, a place of office buildings and stakes that are measured in lunch breaks and water cooler conversations. I want the swings to be extreme, but the parallels blindingly obvious when they're put in front of you.

To be clear, I'm not sure that this structure/gimmick could actually work. In a text medium, which is what I primarily work with, I think you'd have to spend too much time on blocking and descriptions and detail whenever you switched realities. Switching scenes can be rough even in the best of circumstances.

But it's an idea that I've had rolling around in my head, and if I can't do something with it, then I hope it can at least spark something in someone else.

[sheryl-lee]

changes*tumblr*com/post/692141171135447040/ -- so apparently, even after all of the negative feedback, tumblr will still be going through with the mp4 change. they really don't care about gifmakers or our feedback, i'm pretty sure they've never even bothered to acknowledge our complaints in the first place.

yup i'm honestly not surprised, just pissed off. it's very typical of st*ff to ignore any valid concerns that its userbase has and go forward with implementing changes that are unnecessary and wildly harmful to a large percentage of said userbase. like... the quality of the conversions don't matter to us - the fact that our gifs are being converted at all is what we're upset about. the decision on st*ff's part to be so obtuse about that is just frustrating. we've repeatedly outlined the specifics of why this whole idea is bullshit and they still don't seem to be willing to listen.

st*ff basically saying "look see the mp4 quality is minimally better now so stfu" is so condescending and emphasizes to me that they truly don't give a shit about their users, and that they are deliberately ignoring the fact that this change will fundamentally alter the gifmaking process.

the fucking quality doesn't matter if the gifs aren't gifs anymore. there's no point in using ps to make a gif and export it as such when the entire gif is rendered into a 2 second video that alters the medium of the image, and i'm sure that there will be plenty of bugs and glitches and other additional issues that content creators will have to deal with once the change is fully implemented, because it's tumblr dot com. we can barely put up with the various issues we have to deal with as is - no one is going to stay on this site if we have to navigate this on top of everything else. and i'm sure that any workarounds that exist to avoid the mp4 conversion will have their own glitches, or tumblr will crack down on them over time until it can't be avoided. it's truly so fucking dumb and quite honestly i don't have the capacity to deal with it.

i love gifmaking and creating but i've never felt as discouraged and honestly disinterested in gifmaking as i do right now. i've been giffing on here for about 4-5 years and i've put up with a lot of bullshit, but this may be enough to make me quit, if not for a little bit than possibly for good. and i hate that, but i have enough going on in my personal life as is and i don't think i have the energy or mental capacity to create with so many obstacles. gifmaking should be fun and a way to communicate with others, but when all i see is a lack of interaction, people stealing/reposting my content, persistent negativity, and additional problems forced on me by the website i create for, there's little to no enjoyment remaining for me.

[juliansummerhayes]

We're here for such a brief time

“Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, the hours are going by. The past increases, the future recedes. Possibilities decreasing, regrets mounting.” ― Haruki Murakami, Dance Dance Dance

Good morning from a pitch-black and wet Devon.

When will this rain let up?

As usual, it's just me and the puppy.

The coffee is extra strong and I've Max Richter playing quietly in the background. My little Pixelbook has a pair of inbuilt speakers that emit a wonderful, mellifluous sound.

It's my time; yes, it's early, but I don't have to worry about being disturbed or having to wrestle with the vicissitudes of the day.

The rubric (as always) is quite deliberate. It emerged as I was slowly pressing my coffee through my Aeropress. I've recently purchased a copper filter to cut down on the paper filters that I was going through at a rate of knots and it now takes twice as long to press the coffee through to the cup. That's a good thing. It makes me appreciate the brew and the whole experience.

Age is a funny thing. It's a bit like the apocryphal story of the two fishes being told they're swimming in water only to metaphorically look up and ask:

"What's water?"

I mean what is age?

The number of days since you were born?

The lived experience?

The change of appearance?

The losses suffered?

The feeling of getting old?

Memories, i.e. thoughts?

I'll be honest, I don't really know -- and that's not me being obtuse. All I can say is that one minute you're here, the next minute there -- unless the Grim Reaper has come to take you!

I think often about my late father-in-law, Brian; he was roughly the same age as me (54) when I first met my wife-to-be. I can still see him now stripped off to his waste, pottering around his garden outside the farmhouse that he owned in Totnes. And I now think to myself about what's occurred in my life -- say 30 years -- since that time and his eventual death in July 2020. What really have I done? Got married. Started a family. Changed jobs a gazillion times. Run myself ragged trying to find my purpose. And a whole host of other very unremarkable and unnoteworthy things.

And then I think about how quickly the time has passed. Sure, time is a fiction but I've a strong feeling of how quickly those 30 odd years have flown by and what happened to Brian and Aneta (my late mother-in-law) during the time that I might have left.

Perhaps I'm being too deep, too melancholic about the whole affair. As I'm often told, I should just get on with 'it' -- i.e. to live my life to the fullest extent. But that's not what I'm drawn to; namely, the always-on, fist-pumping, high on my own self-importance type of lifestyle. As I've said many times here and elsewhere, I'm fixated on leading a nice quiet life. That means when my time comes I won't be clinging to death scared or worried about all the things I should have done or might have done but instead will be at peace with everything.

Of course, I don't know that, do I? I might be wracked with all sorts of grievance and disappointment but if there's to be any wisdom in my later years, it's not going to come by pretending, as so many people appear to believe, that they're still middle-aged with a little less give a sh*t. Or they're desperate to cling to their youth and not accept the grace, mercy and peace that comes with the passing of years.

Is this simply a coded message to say that I'm scared of death? I don't think so. I do know that as you age life takes on a repeat -- my early mornings are a good example -- and there's only so much psychic juice in the tank before things run dry. In any event, I can't know possibly when the end will come or how will it come. All there is now, as hackneyed as that is, and typing these few words and being fully alive to the moment is all there is; all there can ever be and to that extent trying to future gaze is a complete waste of time.

Perhaps in the end none of this matters. No one will remember me when I'm gone. Oh sure my kids might light a candle for me or pour over my myriad failings as a father but give it time and like all those people in the graveyards of the last century, they're quickly forgotten. And in a way that's how it should be. After all, as a species, we're not that important and our legacy, such as it is, won't be anything to remark on save to say we took a lot more than we ever gave.

If you think I'm being too hard on myself or have this all wrong then I'm fine with that. All I can do is report in on my emotional and metaphysical state, however, and whenever that shows up.

Blessings.

Julian

[tonguethulhu]

Insinuating that being white is an automatic privilege and that it will shield me from the rest of the world is blatantly false. Suggesting that ignorance or complacency of my privilege is in support of white supremacy is in and of itself substantiating that idea.

If you tell me that all white people are automatically better off because of their skin color, you are the one that is pushing the agenda of white supremacy.

If I go to the Projects, like Gary Indiana, which I live by - I will not automatically be treated better, in fact this will make me a target. If I visit Mexico, while being white on a Tuesday, I will be seen as a target for some. Some people deliberately commit hate crimes against white people. Y'all are just complacent with accepting white people as the empirical boogey-man for any and all issues and just ignore that literally every other country on the planet has some sort of racial issue that isn't inherently white-related.

Yes, being white is a privilege in the US, I'm not denying this, but it's not some magical shield that protects me from all injustices and racism. There's also this implication that white people can't possibly be the victim of discrimination, since it'd have to be systemic - as if individual biases and government based oppression are all the same thing.

A great example is that everyone on this site gulps down Japanese media very consistently, but never call them out on their very obtuse racism. Are you going to cancel Dragon Ball because of Mr. Popo? What about Pokemon for Jynx? How do you address the racism that South Korea perpetuates against the Vietnamese?

Because I really get the impression that racism is fine as long as you aren't white.

[queeranarchism]

I'm glad you're like one of the few blogs on here that actually gives a shit about ace people like it shocks me when people say there's no ace oppression because as someone who lives in a VERY conservative country do you really think I could come out as ace without the same treats if forced marriage and correctional rape that other lgbt people do? The ace discourse is a pretty good example of western neoliberal thinking... Oppression only exists in a way that they want to process It 1/4

people that hate asexuals and mock them at every turn don't actually give a shit about queer people around the world unless they fit into the kind of queerness they're used to. Let's not forget that the lgbt labels have been created in a western context and do not necessarily fit with people everywhere, therefore the tired joke of ace people being cringy losers spread in memes really shows that conservatives with no empathy for people they don't understand can exist within any community 

If I'm not accepted by str8 ppl or the lgbt community then where the fuck am I supposed to go? And the idea that the isolation of not being accepted by anyone wouldn't lead to suicidal thoughts is deliberately obtuse... It is a prelude to saying that even if that was the case the use of resources to prevent that suicide would simply be robbing someone else of said resources bc "you don't really need it". The only conclusion I can draw from this is that some people just want asexuals dead 

As a west African nb ace I can say that yes the hardest part of my identity to deal with is my asexuality because as in most cultures heterosexuality is seen as the default and no asexuality is not a substitute. Hearing my family talk about wanting me to be married and have children terrifies me because it never comes with the caveat of whether I want to or not and the possibility of having these things forced upon me is very real. Long story short: fuck your narrow minded western aphobia

^^^^^

Thank you so much for writing all of this.