#we should not erase ourselves in this way

[jasper-ontheoffbeat]

I’M UP HATING POP PSYCHOLOGY. MEMEME

to be more serious: i have empathy for the urge to compartmentalize like this. genuinely, i do— for some, processing trauma feels easier when there are ready-made labels for the things/people that hurt them. i so deeply understand the urge to file away overwhelming chaos; to make sense of the cruel and senseless; to be comforted by pop psych “gotcha” moments and cling to categorizations. i know what it feels like to try to neatly reorganize broken self-concepts and horrifying histories. i’ve dealt with this exact issue myself.

that being said… unfortunately, it just. doesn’t. work.

automatically slapping warning labels on ASPD, NPD, BPD, etc is simply not fair nor accurate. the nuances shouldn’t be ignored: does the concept that mental health matters come with conditions? does furthering the stigma really empower victims, or does it drive offenders away from self-awareness and recovery? does it really help to boil human behavior down to lists and labels, or does it just skew our perceptions of ourselves and others even further? is it productive to focus on condensing things, or should we ultimately focus on understanding the complexities that make generalization ultimately impossible?

this is NOT to say that ANYONE has to entertain or forgive abusive people. not at ALL. i’m also not saying those who don’t care to improve should be forgiven and/or granted the opportunity to keep treating others poorly. there is a stark a difference between acknowledging nuance and normalizing/excusing abuse— you can express pain without making harmful blanket statements. in fact, it’s straight up ignorant to disregard those who are working their asses off in recovery. these disorders can be uniquely challenging to live with, and stigma makes everything 10x worse, especially when trauma, defensiveness, and self-hatred are inseparable from disordered beliefs/behaviors. you have EVERY right to cut off shitty individuals and despise them and feel rage and do whatever you need to do to heal— at the same time, people who present in malignant ways won’t get any better if they’re universally met with hostility. after all, 99% of the time, recovery seems like a far better outcome than total shunning. wouldn’t it be so much better if these people had safe spaces in which they could to learn to never abuse other humans again, and to develop healthier self-concepts?

(i say this as someone who’s been abused horribly countless times by people who present like this, developed BPD as a result, and gone through wild amounts of intensive therapy. i no longer meet the criteria for BPD.)

(of course, there are some acts that are UNFORGIVABLE. those require a… unique approach. i don’t feel qualified to go into that territory because personal experiences have left me way too biased; just know that i don’t mean to erase that line.)

also, re: MBTI/love language/brain development/brain gendering/dark empathy/blah blah blah: the same principle applies. individuals’ psychological makeups and backgrounds are too complex to accurately box in. that is the nature of the human condition, and even though it gets overwhelming, at the end of the day, it’s beautiful! there is no linear pathway for anything, and that is a GOOD thing! at best, all of those words can provide useful loose blueprints for furthering introspection; at worst, they create interpersonal divides that are either based on faulty assumptions or entirely non-existent.

we don’t have to fit into boxes to find community. it’s fine to use things like MBTI and love languages as cute, unweighted bonding tools, BUT in order to truly understand each other’s wants, needs, traits, and issues, we simply need to COMMUNICATE. no matter how isolated we feel in our struggles, WE ARE NOT ALONE. we are all mosaics of the experiences that have shaped us, and we each deserve to be understood as works of art, not as sums of our most basic parts.

tl;dr pop psychology egregiously simplifies human behavior and it is Not helpful as it seems

who up hating pop psychology

[metamercury]

LORD IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE FIC SCENE AND DONT HAVE AN AO3 ACCOUNT YOU ARE DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF FATAL ATTRACTION. TRAVESTY TRAVESTY TRAVESTY

YOU LITERALLY WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING.

[area51-escapee]

Both sides are bad. They’re bad in different ways but also in a lot of the same ways. In a country that that continues to veto all attempts to end a genocide, that still allows the death penalty, that allows its own people to starve on the streets and refuses to spare a fraction of its wealth to migrants and refugees, that constantly reaffirms its “ironclad” support of a genocidal occupation, both sides are in fact bad. Fucking live with it. You can acknowledge that both sides are bad and still vote for the side you believe is less bad, but no one should shut up about this, no one should just sit by silently and ignore this, it is the time to do this, it will always be the time to do this, this country is BAD and we are not helping anyone by closing our eyes and covering our ears because “now is not the time”.

[hiiragi7]

I've been seeing a lot of intersex people on tumblr making the claim that you cannot be born with both a penis and a vagina, and I think that what they are trying to do is fight against the Hermaphrodite stereotype - which involves being born with a "fully formed and fully functional" (under perisex ideas of genital normality - our genitals may be fully formed and fully functional to us even if others do not consider them so) penis and vagina.

The thing is, it's been slowly evolving from correcting misinformation to actively spreading it and erasing the lived experiences of those of us with ambiguous genitals.

I think that part of the reason for this is that most folks in the intersex community trend more towards either side of the genital spectrum, and those of us born with more ambiguous genitals are less common, and those of us who were allowed to remain ambiguous beyond childhood and into adulthood are even less common, much less speaking about it regularly on tumblr. As such, you get a lot of generally well-meaning intersex people just sort of making guesses as to what that experience is like and playing a sort of game of telephone about it.

You can be born with both a penis and a vagina, it just may not look or function the way perisex people would expect a penis or vagina to look or function.

A hypospadic micropenis is still a penis. A shallow vagina that doesn't go anywhere is still a vagina. There are plenty of combinations out there, they just don't fit perisex ideas of normality or what might immediately come to mind when we talk about someone having "both sets of genitals".

This isn't even getting into our own perceptions of ourselves and how we label our genitals, as well. Just like how a transmasc individual may refer to his bottom growth as a dick, intersex folk label their genitals a variety of different ways regardless of what others think a penis, vulva, vagina etc "should" look like or what they're "medically" considered to have.

Anyway, just something I've noticed and wanted to talk about a bit. We can combat stereotypes without throwing each other under the bus.

[bean-spring]

Hot take and not to be a killjoy or the shipping police but people treating Viktor or Jinx's aroace headcanons as if they were canon is not the revolutionary take people think it is.

Headcanons are always all right but we have to acknowledge that they are somehow damaging when they apply to stereotypes. It might not be the case for everyone but most of the time people unconsciously assume that disability/mental illness=asexuality. These headcanons erase the freedom of attraction from people who are already seen as unable to have sexual/romantic experiences/desires, when it's completely untrue and harmful.

You can headcanon Viktor and Jinx as aroace, but I have seen people changing their minds once Viktor is no longer disabled (s2 with all of his other forms) and Jinx is no longer as mentally ill (alternate universe Powder). And it speaks wonders of how people see these characters.

"I never thought about Jinx being able to feel romantic/sexual attraction until s2!" To believe she's actually only capable of that when she's not "damaged" is incredibly disturbing. Especially since Jinx has always had a bit of a flirty personality too.

"I've always seen Viktor as asexual, I don't know why!" That's fine. You can headcanon him as ace. But I believe there is a reason behind it, most of the time, if for some inexplicable reason the "vibes" of the disabled character are making you think he's ace.

I say all of this being aroaspec myself, by the way. Headcanon all you want but going to people's posts commenting how "it's weird for you that they have romantic/sexual plots when they're clearly aroace" is not a win at all. It's a headcanon, after all, and it should be treated as such, and that's fine. But it also is damaging to spread stereotypes like these.

Of course the disabled character is asexual. Of course the mentally ill character is aromantic. It's not as revolutionary as you might think, tbh.

Fandom is not activism and it's all right to have any headcanons you want BUT some of them are filled with damaging stuff and perhaps we should look into ourselves more before treating these assumptions as something canon.

[taliabhattwrites]

"Epistemicide" is a term you should become very familiar with in all discussions regarding trans oppression.

It sounds fancier than it is. The term is related to the concept of epistemic injustice. In essence, trans people have historically been subject to a form of epistemicide: our stories, histories, testimonials, ways of life, all erased and buried to maintain the patriarchal myth of dichotomous, naturalized, immutable sex.

We are then further marginalized through epistemic injustice, prevented from participating in the processes of knowledge-production, our testimonies devalued, our voices suppressed and our identities defined for us, not by us. The perception of us shaped by others, instead of ourselves. The conversation about us dominated by the voices of those who'd rather stamp us out, shouting over us constantly.

If you're not accounting for this as a central mechanism animating transphobia, you're missing a lot of the picture.

[reggiespoon]

I think that is very heteronormative, so I am ride or die for Saintspierre as protest.

I know I've been in your asks before but I need a lecture on the ship "Saintspierre". I don't know the historical context behind it and why they get villanized so much. I'm a newbie when it comes to history. Thank you! :)

Hello again! So Saintspierre is the ship between Robespierre & Saint-Just of the French Revolution, who are often depicted as queer-coded villains in adaptations of the Revolution to serve as a counterpart to the Straight and Manly ™️ Danton. This happens because reactionaries are eager to push the narrative of 1789 being "the Good Revolution" and 1792 as "the Bad Revolution." Danton represents the Good Revolutionary, who advocates for change but is against offending too many moderates, while Robespierre is the Bad Revolutionary who brought on the Reign of Terror. They make Danton out to be a tragic victim who heroically tried to stop the Terror (even though he had a major hand in starting it and was corrupt af) and Robespierre out to be a gay psychopath who killed him out of jealousy. You can see this in La Revolution Francais (1989), Danton (1983), the BBC documentary, and many other adaptations.

For example, LRF goes out of its way to depict Danton as a loving family man, with a frankly excessive number of scenes of him making out with his two wives, while ignoring how he was a creep who sexually harassed women and that his second wife was 16. His close ally Camille is also depicted as very loving with his wife Lucile. Meanwhile, Robespierre is never shown being affectionate toward any women. The only person he has multiple close interactions with, besides his childhood friend Camille, is Saint-Just, who struts into his attention in part 2 and ruthlessly replaces Camille at Robespierre's side. Literally, Saint-Just's only character traits in this movie are being pretty and zealously urging Robespierre to kill Camille specifically. They even made up a scene where Saint-Just sends thugs to beat Camille up while making Camille think it was Robespierre who did it, so he can cause an irrevocable break between them. They give him no backstory, no explanation for his motivations, and completely erase his military accomplishments. He's just an homme fatale who lures Robespierre to the dark side with his pretty hair. This is a common tactic in works that struggle to reconcile the fact that Robespierre was on record being a pacifist who opposed the death penalty, opposed the war, and fought for the rights of the poor, with the propaganda that he was a monster responsible for the Terror. They blame his fall on Saint-Just.

Another tactic they use to villainize Robespierre is exaggerating his vanity. There is ALWAYS a scene where Robespierre gets his wig pampered. I mean, yeah, he DID care a lot about his appearance and never stepped out of the house looking like shit...but Danton wore a wig too. 99% of Danton's historical portraits have him in a wig, yet these works have him conveniently ditching it in most scenes to rock his Messy & Manly Natural Hair, and you will NEVER catch them showing Danton caring for his wig. No, only fops like Robespierre do that...even though it was just the norm at the time for lawyers to wear wigs. They put shady emphasis on Robespierre following 18th century fashion norms that have now become feminized, like wigs, lace cuffs, and stockings, to further queer-code him.

THOUGH, it's true that even historically, Robespierre was seen as a strange man in many ways. There are many contemporary accounts that rail on him for repeating things, being socially awkward, being blunt and callous, hating physical contact, having no emotions, being incapable of love--when from a modern lens, it's clear to me that he was just autistic. Like omg, leave the man alone. But when people want to villainize someone, they latch onto the traits that make them seem odd, that stray from typical societal expectations. When it comes to Robespierre, his villainization thus becomes very gendered, homophobic, and ableist, because he was 36 and unmarried and didn't abuse his power to sexually harass women and cared about his appearance and had a large female following and was most likely autistic. Meanwhile, Saint-Just gets exaggerated as a breathtakingly handsome twink who wore an earring and has a fancy bathroom that Camille roasted him for. Like omg, how dare a man have running water in his bathroom and not look like shit in the 18th century!!

Personally, I ship Robespierre & Saint-Just as a form of rebellion against this villainization. If they were gay, so WHAT? It would be cute. Fuck the homophobes. They did have a very touching relationship with each other. They shared many similar ideas and complemented each other's personalities and Saint-Just chose to defend Robespierre to the end even though he could've easily saved himself on the basis of his military merits by staying out of the drama. The fact that he was prevented from finishing his last speech, in which he defended Robespierre, is one of the saddest things in the whole goddamn Revolution.

Is there historical basis for their relationship being explicitly romantic? Most of their correspondences have been burnt, so we don't have much, but I ship it regardless in a historical fiction, What If? kind of way. Robespierre and Eleonore aren't romantically confirmed either, but nobody bats an eye when mainstream media or even historians treat them as "canon." I think that is very heteronormative, so I am ride or die for Saintspierre as protest. Some historians have pointed out that we have no records of any warm interactions between them, but I think they understood each other in a way that didn't require pleasantries, and that's what makes them so compelling to me. There's Charlotte Robespierre's infamous casual revelation that Saint-Just was Maximilien's 2nd favorite revolutionary, just after his own brother and OVER Camille. Then the Duplay testimony that Saint-Just would go up to Robespierre's room without saying hi to anyone else. It's these little things!!

Anyway, I'm leaving out a lot of details about precisely what Robespierre & Saint-Just were and weren't responsible for in history, but just know that they were two of the only clean, honest political leaders of the time. Never took a bribe, never embezzled, meant everything they said, were genuinely committed to the ideals they spouted. It's incredibly unfair that they, along with the other leftist paragon Marat, ended up with the worst reputations.

[feralkwe]

idk how else to explain it to people but it should be pretty fucking obvious why it is absolutely ludicrous to allow the united states fucking government to set the criteria as to who is and is not recognized as native/indigenous/ndn when they spent literal centuries trying to undermine and erase the fact that we exist at all.

it's no coincidence that some of the criteria involved in becoming federally recognized as a tribe requires documentation that the government actively worked to suppress. that they require the tracing of continuous existence back to colonial contact should tell you why it's a bullshit metric. that the fact that you have to have heaps of money to get federal recognition is something that you should take a long, hard look at before calling members of over 400 non-recognized tribes 'pretendians'.

the use of blood quantum as a measurement alone makes their authority null and void.

indigeneity is not about blood quantum or government permission. it is about family, culture, and community. i for one would appreciate it if non-natives fucked all the way off on this topic, and if fellow ndns would stop the infighting over it long enough to realize that all we're doing is perpetuating colonizer violence and genocide by allowing non-natives to set the definition of who we are and what we get to call ourselves.

fuck you. stop doing the colonizer's job for them.

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[swordsandflowercrowns]

I was explaining this to a friend recently and I think it's an important distinction to make: not all queerplatonic relationships look the same.

A good way I've found to illustrate what exactly a qpr is, is to say "a qpr is to relationships what nonbinary is to gender". While both of these traditionally function on a binary (male/female, platonic/romantic), by defining our personal outlooks and experiences of the concepts of gender and relationships with new terms, we challenge the boundaries that society has put in place.

And yes, whilst redefining what actually constitutes romantic or platonic relationships, or male and female identities, and what makes them different (and acknowledging where they overlap, or where they can expand past what we traditionally expect) is important to increasing our understanding, so is providing options entirely outside of those two boxes.

And that's what it is - options. It's very easy to trivialise the concept of nonbinary and simply make gender into a trinary, rather than a binary. Male/female/nonbinary, which goes against the very purpose of the nonbinary label. This further erases the spectrum of gender. It's the same with relationships - by giving a strict set of instructions on how a qpr must look and act, you are simply creating a trinary. The point of the concept of qprs is to acknowledge that there are relationships between people that may overlap platonic and romantic, or fall partially within one and partially outside, or ones that are entirely separate from either category.

There are an infinite amount of ways a relationship can manifest, and if the people in the relationship feel that queerplatonic best describes their partnership without romance, or their affection without commitment, or their feelings towards each other that aren't quite what romantic or platonic is to them, or any other reason that rebels against amatonormativity, then they can choose to use that term. Queerplatonic covers the widest range of relationships that come in all shapes and sizes.

I think it's so important when discussing topics like relationships and gender to consciously make the effort to keep queering our ideas of the concepts - to remember that a spectrum is a spectrum. Labels can be useful for finding community, identifying your experiences and validating your struggles, but as soon as you try to start hyper-defining them, you lose the radical nature of queering our understanding of ourselves and our relationships. We name these concepts in order to give a voice to our subversion of society's arbitrary rules and expectations, not to police each other into conforming to a particular understanding of how a person (with a certain label) "should" act or be.

[bluesyjean]

I appreciate the thought you put into the psychology behind them. I can see how you could get there, and it's at least on brand for Five to indulge in a fantasy world. I hate it but still intellectually can say: "okay fine, but why are we doing this." It didn't help it feel less jarring that they followed it up with Five being angry at Diego(??) for reacting completely fairly when he found out.

I agree that we needed more time to buy it. Especially after they spent the last two seasons carefully building up Diego and Lila, it's crazy to think this was the plan all along.

Really wish they'd kept that deleted scene (that doesn't look like it ever got edited after it was filmed) to at least help the audience see the psychological breakdown that led to the greenhouse. I don't think I'd ever be able to get on board, but they might at least feel like the same characters.

The seven years in the subway made everything that much worse for everyone involved. I'm all for mess and poor character choices, but I cannot think of a single ship with a more depressing arc.

Now I've had time to think (rationally) I really do have to disagree with the fandom consensus that Fivela was out of character - I say this as someone who prefers the platonic relationship. Let me explain:

The main arguement I see is "they would never do that" but one of the biggest and best pieces of advice I've seen on fiction writing is: it's not "would they do that" it's "what would drive them to do that". Everyone is capable of anything and everything if given the right motivation and circumstances, and the same is true of fictional characters.

Five and Lila both have incredibly good reasons to do what they did. The problem is a lack of time. No time is spent on their plotline, and the lack of insight that's given to the audience as to why they would act this way affects the reception of this development hugely. No time is allowed to show the repercussions, and how this is dealt with and what decisions are made. Fivela needed two seasons all to itself to explain everything - one to show their development in the subway, and one to show everything after.

If the showrunners wanted to do Fivela, they needed bare minimum a full 10 episode season, ideally with episodes that are actually longer than normal (Steve, 10 minutes is not enough to count for anything). They shouldn't have tried to tackle something that complex without the time to spend on it.

See, a combination of problems led to Fivela, beginning with the most obvious, isolation. It seriously fucks people up, it seriously fucked Five up, and it seriously fucked Lila up in the subway. Not just the loneliness but the lack of support, medical facilities, knowing no one will turn up to save you. Basic necessities like food, water, hygiene. Everything is now entirely on Fivela to gather for themselves, and if they don't find it, they can't have it regardless of how badly they need it. That alone is a tremendous amount of stress.

Add onto that, Fivela became the only support each other had, essentially invoking a sort of stockholm syndrome where they began to see each other as a sort of saviour, each other's knight in shining armour. It's not unbelievable that they'd begin blurring the lines between platonic and romantic and even sexual love when they rely on each other's goodwill to survive (Five moreso in the emotional sense, and Lila moreso in the experience/knowledge sense).

For Lila in particular, her survival method has always been her connections to people. She feels intensely, and attaches herself to others with that same intensity. Even after a lifetime of living amongst conniving, backstabbing manipulators at the commission, she still attached to Diego and in a (platonic, spiteful, playful) way, to Five. In the subway she is stripped of all but one connection. Of course she felt it intensely, of course she clung to it.

As for the cheating - Lila obviously had a choice, and she made the wrong one. She hurt Diego, betrayed his trust. But she was in an incredibly traumatic situation, and forming unhealthy bonds with her sole companion was her coping mechanism. And she figures this out for herself! As soon as she knows she can leave she drops her coping mechanism and returns to make things right for Diego. Diego doesn't have to forgive her, but in most situations, where one spouse believes the other to be dead/missing/unreachable for YEARS it's not weird for them to move on.

Five's survival method has always been blending reality with fantasy. Delores is the prime example, and I honestly don't understand the debate that Five was cheating on her. She's a fantasy he used to cope with the apocalypse, she doesn't exist outside of his head and that's a blaring alarm. It means that unlike Lila, who snapped out of her fantasy once she left her traumatic circumstance, Five is unable to separate fantasy from reality even when outside of a triggering situation. This is why Five taking Delores back to the department store was a huge moment in S1, he was taking the first step in healing and approaching a better mindset. He may not have been able to acknowledge that Delores isn't real, but he was able to recognise that she served a purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled so she should be returned to where she belonged, separate from Five.

I don't think that Five is unaware of what Delores is, I think he subconsciously knows that she's a mannequin. Hence his general inoffense at others describing her as a mannequin, or calling him mad for being with her. He knows his situation, he just can't confront it himself, especially not while still under incredible stress and physical threat.

The reason Delores and Five's inablility to distinguish reality is important is because Five and Lila treated their relationship as a fantasy, except Lila was able to resurface from it while Five was not. I don't want to excuse his actions, but given that this has been a severe, near debilitating (it affects his relationships) problem for Five since S1, I think his being a vulnerable, chronically mentally ill person needs to be considered when looking at his actions.

This is also a major reason as to why Five hid the journal from Lila, because showing Lila meant leaving that fantasy, and Five needs fantasy to cope. Again, still a dick move and not an excuse, but an understable one. (Add on top of this that The Handler likely waited until Five had given up on going home before rescuing him...)

I think it's highly likely that what Five has with both Delores and Lila is a projection of what he thinks normalcy looks like, and safety along with it. He waited until he was an adult to actually marry Delores, before that she was likely just considered a friend or maybe girlfriend, because that's the normal thing to do. When you're an adult, you should be married, you should probably also be scolded for drinking too much or being too mean. That's what wives/spouses do in Five's mind. He created Delores as the one "normal" thing, so that he could retreat for a minute and pretend everything was okay and just take a breather.

He did the same for Lila. With the addition of the deleted scene/blooper where Five dreams about Lila while in the subway, it seems as though Five was becoming worried that Lila was also losing her mind, maybe becoming like him. The way he suggests them taking a break, he seems to be doing it for her benefit (if he was alone, I don't think he would have. I think he would have continued to hunt for answers until he lost his mind, died, or found his answer).

He doesn't see his version of "a break" aka break from reality, to be unhealthy, and so he shows Lila how to "cope". Lo and Behold, he finds the most normal thing he can - domestic bliss, Lila, the woman/wife, is at home most often in the garden, while Five, the man/husband, is away hunting, gathering, provdiding. It's an incredibly stereotypical view, but that's exactly why Five likes it. It's normal, and he sees normal as safe (normal means no powers, no missions, no apocalypse).

This isn't to say that Lila had no part in this, she also has issues with "normal". She tried to force normal on her family (affenctionately), probably why there's no discussion on her parents being alive, because she wants normal. It's also why she acts like the typical overwhelmed mum, because she feels she needs to be normal. This isn't the whole of her issues at home (bad writing and forced conflict mainly), Diego also has issues with belitting Lila and resentment. His masculinity and need to prove himself a "man" also causes issues. But Lila has been trying to be normal without really knowing how, and so when Five begins doing the exact same thing in the subway? Lila knows how to play that game.

This was very Five centric and I apologise, if there's more to add on Lila from a Lila fan I'd welcome it!

Essentially, I think that Fivela was understandable, and the characters would do that. I also think that despite Fivela adding salt to an already bitter ending, Fivela was one of the better episodes of S4. It was just the wrong plotline to try and do with so little time.

Also Steve needed to treat it like the psychology mindfuck that it was and not the cutesy romance drama he thinks it is.

[webanglikethat]

to every single queer person out there—trans, gay, bi, pan, ace, nonbinary, however you identify—let me just say this: I am so, so fucking sorry. SO, SO, SO FUCKING SORRY. I am furious. I’m pissed off beyond words. english seems like a forgotten skill as I'm typing this. I am so sorry.

we never deserved this. we never fucking deserved this.

I am sorry that you’ve been betrayed like this, that we’ve all been betrayed like this. I’m sorry that SO MANY of our damn votes weren’t counted, like we don’t even matter. like we’re just numbers on a page that they can toss out without a thought. like we can just be erased, as if we do not exist, like we’re puzzle pieces that don’t fit into their perfect picture, so they just throw us out, discarded, like we were never there in the first place. I’m sorry she just conceded, just gave up. left us hanging. just handed us over like we’re some afterthought, like we’re collateral damage in this disgusting twisted fucking game. as if our lives, our rights, everything we fought for, meant nothing. she just rolled over and let us get steamrolled, like we’re just noise, just numbers on a page, just nothing worth fighting for. do they even care that real people, people who trusted her, who put their hopes in her, are being crushed by this? and not only in the US. we ALL believed in her. and ... she ... just ... she was gone. just like that. and we’re the ones who have to pay the price. we’re the ones left with our futures on the line, wondering what rights we’ll have tomorrow, if we’ll even be safe tomorrow. and she just… gave it all up. handed us over to people who are hell-bent on erasing us, who’ve been clear from day one about what they think of us, what they want to take away. how do we even make sense of that? how do we believe in ANYONE? how can you abandon us in the lion's den and yet demand compassion and trust? to trust in the very hands that have left us to bleed, to burn, to fight alone?

we deserve better. we deserved someone who would stand with us when it mattered, who wouldn’t just throw in the towel and walk away when things got tough. we’re not just collateral. we’re not disposable. we’re human beings with lives, with love, with the right to exist without fear. we aren't statistics, diagrams, names forgotten on a wall. we are queer, and we are real. and she ... just left us to face down a nightmare she knows damn well is coming. so how dare they tell us to “keep faith” when they’ve shown us that our lives were never worth the fight to them. we needed someone who would dig in and say, “no, you can’t have them. not now, not ever.” and instead? we were left out in the cold to fend for ourselves. like always. like fucking always. and this isn’t just some political setback for us. this is our lives, our right to exist. we’ve fought and bled and stood through hell just to claim an inch of ground to live openly, to love who we love, and to be who we are. we deserved so much more than empty promises. and we won’t forget this.

right now, it feels like every warning, every fear we’ve had has come to life in the worst way. and let’s be real—what’s next is terrifying. I will not sugarcoat it. rights are going to be stripped away, our existence denied, our safety threatened. trump hasn’t hidden it; he’s promised it. this was supposed to be our home too. but they’re pushing us out, forcing us to hide. so please, if you need to, go back into the closet. change states if that’s what it takes. hell, think about leaving the country if you can, because it’s becoming clear that staying might mean risking everything. you do not owe anyone anything, just think of yourself first. you are your own priority.

and god .. Love. Love—something so pure, something so simple—has been twisted into a reason for others to hate us, to fear us, to hurt us. we were never supposed to be the ones people saw as a “threat.” that label should belong to hatred, to racism, to homophobia, to everything that has poisoned this world. but instead, somehow we are the ones they call dangerous. we are the ones they want to erase. and it’s maddening. what kind of world are we living in, where the fight to just exist is an endless battle? was it not love that led Eve to take that fateful bite, trusting in the bond she shared with Adam? and if love is the foundation upon which humanity was built, how can we be faulted for following its lead? of all the things we could hate, and we chose love.

if this moment feels like it’s too much, if it feels like everything you’ve fought for, every piece of yourself you’ve worked to own, every right, every dream, every bit of safety is collapsing around you -- I get it. I feel it in my bones. it feels like drowning, like being swallowed whole by a storm that never ends. the shore seems so far away. but listen to me: don’t you fucking dare let them break you. don’t let them get that satisfaction. don’t give them that power. we are not here to let monsters erase us. we’re here to outlast every single one of them. we’re here to survive and thrive. we are queer, we are real, we exist, we will continue to exist.

their power, their hatred, their cruelty—it won’t last forever. I know it's difficult to see the light at the end of this tunnel. but they are the ones who don’t belong in a world built on compassion, on love, on freedom. You are the real thing. You are here. You deserve to be here, and you deserve to feel safe, loved, and free.

if you’re feeling like there’s no point anymore, if this all feels like it’s too damn much to take, please just hang on. this fight is brutal, and sometimes it feels like it never ends. but I’m begging you—don’t give up. don’t let them have that final victory. don’t let them silence your voice, your light, your life. scream, cry, punch walls, call someone, reach out, hold on to whatever will keep you here another day, another hour. do whatever you have to do to survive this moment. because you’re needed. we need you. the world needs you.

you might not see it now, but you are a part of something big, something powerful, something they wish they could destroy but never will. you’re part of a legacy of resilience, of love, of defiance against hatred. every queer person, every person who has ever had to stand up against a world that told them they shouldn’t exist, that they should be crucified, erased, beaten up, has carried that legacy forward, passed it down so we could be here. so you could be here. and they did not survive all they did, did not fight, did not sacrifice so much just for us to lose hope. we’re still here because others fought and held on. now, it’s our turn. we owe it to them, to ourselves, to hold on with everything we have, to fight with everything in us.

and one day, I promise you, I truly pinkie promise you, that you’re going to wake up in a world that has moved beyond these hateful voices. one day, you will wake up in a world that sees you, that values you, where you don’t have to fight just to exist. you deserve to live in it, to walk in the sunlight without fear, without shame. they don’t get to take that from you. they don’t get to erase you. they don’t get to win.

this moment is hard. it’s beyond hard. but you, every single one of you, are worth it. you are not alone in this fight. you are surrounded by countless others who feel this too, who know this pain, who are holding on right alongside you.

so please, hold on. you belong, and nothing they do can change that. they cannot snuff out your light. they cannot erase your legacy. they cannot undo the love you were born to spread.

stay. fight like hell. be louder, be prouder, be everything they tell you not to be. because you are worth every ounce of this battle. and we will see the day they’re gone. we will make it through.

we too shall rise from the ashes.

to my queer family, my phoenix.

[fairuzfan]

I have concern that I may still be technically zionist despite claiming to be pro-palestine. This is because I knew very little about Palestine when October 7th happened, so in the time since I have been reluctant to have a stance on a two-state or one-Palestinian-state solution. I know now that almost all of Isreal is stolen land and recognize Isreal only exists due to colonialism, it took me a long time to learn that but I know it now. Before I knew that, I knew that regardless of the prior history that in current day Palestine is being subjected to a genocide. However, I struggle with politics and therefore struggle with understanding how a one-Palestinian-state could be achieved and have concern about what would happen to any genuinely innocent people who live in Isreal. To be clear, Isreal as a whole is guilty and I just have concern about what will happen to the portion of people in Isreal who are just as horrified as the rest of the world at what their government is doing. I do not personally know any Palestinians, so I have not known who to talk to about this especially since I do not want to overstep in any way. Theres more context I could provide but I wont because this is roughly the gist of where I am currently at when it comes to my concerns about whether or not I am still zionist. Do you have any reccomendations as to what I can do about my concerns? I am not sure whether or not I am overstepping right now by asking you this, but I do not know any other Palestians on a personal level that I can go to.

hey thanks for sending this in. i think we all have zionist biases that we have to unlearn, even i catch myself falling for it sometimes. so it's not necessarily a moral failing if you're trying to undo the zionism you've been taught. thanks for trying to undo it!

i do want to correct you a bit thought, in that *all* of israel is stolen land because israel is a settler colonial society. until it is relabeled as "Palestine" it can't not be stolen land.

I guess my advice is that you read scholarship and perspectives on palestinian thought and heritage. i can't tell you what a free palestine will look like but i can tell you what i imagine it to be. but what i can tell you is that the state of israel is fully intent on erasing all traces of palestinian life no matter what.

i guess i can tell you why "two state solutions" don't really work because there is no.... prevention of settlement building in the west bank and they'll never really promote *not* settling in the west bank. like i really cannot imagine a world where there aren't settlers on palestinian land no matter the case. and that's even not allowing palestinians the right of return to their homes and expecting them to give up what they dedicated their lives to. many palestinians in the west bank and gaza are themselves refugees because they were displaced in '48. so no matter what, palestinians will always get the short end of the stick and told to "just deal with it."

plus, why are we concerned with the supposed future danger towards israelis when the current, very real danger towards palestinians exists? shouldn't we prioritize actual events over hypothetical ones? why should we concern ourselves with the future when for palestinians its not a guarantee? i have no idea what's going to happen to gaza, for example.... shouldn't we prioritize that gaza lives on today?

i think i would question why you think israelis are inherently in danger in a one state solution? like do you assume that palestinians will all universally commit violence on all israelis? is it because you believe that hamas wants to kill every single israeli jew no matter what? if so, i think that's where your problem lies — in the assumption that peace can only be achieved through segregation just in a lighter form (because the state of israel relies on segregation as a principal of its existence as a jewish state). what about the palestinians who fear living side by side with the same people who raped, tortured, and murdered them for 75 years, or advocated for their deaths? aren't they inherently in more danger?

i mean palestinians have consistently been painted as the villains for more than 75 years. like in every aspect. i think to really truly be antizionist you need to prioritize palestinian concerns and worries over israeli ones because of how.... unwilling much of the world is to even consider them.

approaching zionism from an idea of an inequality structure is also necessary — rather than assuming its a one off system, we examine it as a perpetuation of multiple types of systems of inequality embedded into one. i recommend the institute for the critical study of zionism (click) for more information on this. There's also this book by Ismail Zayid written in the 80's (click) about the longtime violence the ideology of zionism has done to multiple communities, not just palestinians.

Here's a great reading list by palipunk about different aspects of palestinian thought and culture (click). i suggest looking through them to help decolonize our way of thought.

i might add on to this later if i think of something else to say.

[galene-gothic]

“you need to belong to you”

romanticise yourself, not celebrities:

i’ll start by saying that fans sexualising the one direction members at liam payne’s funeral, as if it was not a funeral but a normal appearance is truly disheartening and disgusting. it shows how far we have strayed away from ourselves, how far we have strayed away from basic human decency, empathy and understanding. fans singing ‘strip that down’ after he passed away in his memory or supposedly to honour him needs to be studied too (like literally, there’s no way people are that stupid, it’s like our ability to understand what’s appropriate and what’s not has been completely erased from within us). another thing is how after he passed away everyone started harassing his ex girlfriend who talked about his allegedly abusive behaviour as if it was her fault. “he was so much receiving hate” or maybe he was being held accountable for something that he may have done? it’s always ‘girl’s girl’, ‘women support women’ and ‘always believe the victim’ until your favourite is involved.

also, something that has been really acceptable recently (especially in the entertainment industry) has been home-wrecking. i genuinely think that the man is more at fault in such situations but that doesn’t mean that we don’t hold the woman accountable because it is very dishonourable to be attracted to unavailable people even if they are the ones coming onto you. even if you’re attracted, you’re supposed to have enough self respect and discernment to not just go with the flow of emotions and instincts. the most unfortunate of it all is how we abandon basic human decency and morals in order to defend these celebrities. yes, i’m talking about people who make excuses “but she just dated someone’s ex”. yes, two weeks after the guy had a break up with his previous girlfriend and they were already talking. also, being with a man who has a son who’s around two years old and an ex girlfriend (a single mother at that), and singing “too bad your ex don’t do it for you” is just not it. it is their life and they’re celebrities, and this is not intended to be a post of hatred. i just hope that us humans as a collective have the understanding of right from wrong. let’s stop over-idealising celebrities and defending everything they do. taeil, a former nct member who turned out to be a sex offender despite his sweet and innocent public persona, and the burning sun scandal are all proof of how illusionary it all truly is. the diddy situation is proof that maybe just maybe, your life is better than theirs. yes, you may not possess enormous wealth or fame, you may not be regarded as a sex icon, or whatever it may be.

let’s learn how to see our blessings in the present moment even if it is hard and especially learn how to center our lives around ourselves. we are allowed to look up to celebrities, watch them and like them but let’s not separate from our life, truth, morality and integrity in favour of celebrities - ranging from pop stars to k-pop idols to actors and actresses. we should not think that we are better than them either but we should know ourselves enough to know that we are as great as we can be, that will come with time and practice. lastly, we should become less digital and more present, go out for a walk, try and touch grass even if it’s by yourself, without the company of anyone else. learn how to make a star of yourself. you do not need to be a celebrity or even just good looking to try and be your best self. now read the previous line again, the goal is to be ‘your best self’ and the first step to being that is going to require being yourself first. also, being your own because the body is just a vessel, do you really belong to you or are you easily consumed by others and circumstances? it is impossible to not be affected by your circumstances and surroundings at all but two people who go through the exact same situation or similar ones will come out of it differently - one will be at a loss, unable to even have a personal moral code or values, or even if they want to be a certain way, feel a certain way or maintain a certain mindset and life, they aren’t able to do so while the other person will grow to become more whole, they develop stronger morals and values, and are not only able to live accordingly but also instill the same onto others, not by words but through actions because nothing is more effective than leading by example. so, you need to belong to you, always. even if you admire others, you need to belong to you. even if you are curious about others, you need to belong to you. even if you desire connections, you need to belong to you.

[spaghettiposts]

Devotion

Wanda Maximoff x Sorcerer!Reader

Summery: You could never escape Wanda, much less the Scarlet Witch. Even bound to a chair, you couldn’t help but fall into her again. Your precious witch.

Warnings: Dark Obsessive Wanda, sorta possessive, you’re tied to a chair, hurt/comfort, Wanda’s been feeling neglected, established relationship? Not really Wanda’s just obsessed with you, toxic relationship maybe

Word count: 1.1k

A/n: I had a dream Wanda tied us to a chair, sue me. This honestly got way softer than I intended LMAO

“I was wondering when you’d wake up…” The words rang through your ears as you regained consciousness again, your eyelids fluttering opening to the sight of Wanda— no, The Scarlet Witch—before you. A sly smirk played on her lips, illuminated softly by the dim glow of red candles flickering around the room. She took a leisurely sip from her coffee mug before making it vanish with a flick of her wrists. 

Your eyes squinted against the candlelight, trying to see through the madness that seemed to swirl behind her red irises. Something you tried to search into, only to be blocked out. She simply smiled at you, taunting you, teasing, her eyes darting lower to which you followed her gaze.

Now you understood why you couldn’t feel your arms, they were tied up to the chair, every inch of you.  “Wands…what’s going on?” You managed, attempting to keep your voice steady as you tested the restraints. 

“Oh Detka, there’s no use in struggling,” She purred, chuckling in such a condescending tone it sent shivers down your spine. You would be lying if you didn’t admit you had found Wanda attractive before. 

Right now that wasn’t the time for that, again you tried to reach into your head. Desperately trying to recall what led to this moment, but your memories were clouded completely until all your focus was on her. 

And her only. 

Your eyes weren’t familiar with your surroundings whatsoever, figuring it was a reality Wanda made for just the two of you. It resembled a home, something the witch had always dreamed of, something you failed to provide with all your lessons. 

Still, despite knowing how unfair and neglectful you had been to her, you knew this wasn’t how to fix things, “Wanda, this isn’t right. Let me go.” 

But she only laughed, approaching you the next second. She bent down to your level and you sucked in a breath, her cold finger grazing underneath your chin, forcing you to look at her as she slid into your lap effortlessly. 

“Mhmm now why should I? You look so good for me, sitting there.” She murmured, her lips brushing against yours as her hands roamed across your body, landing to rest on your shoulders. You’d also be lying if you said you weren’t equally as affected. “You know we haven’t gotten time for ourselves since…well, Strange.” Her nose scrunching in distaste at the mention of your mentor.

“Honey, I'm his apprentice. I have to spend my time there, surely you understand?” You spoke softly, trying to reason for your obligations. “I’ve always devoted myself to you.”

“You call abandoning me devotion?” She scoffed, not for a second believing you, and yet again her eyes returned to their crimson color. Your unresponsiveness only pissed her off further, rolling her eyes and withdrawing from you with a wounded expression written across her face. 

With another sigh, you bowed your head, knowing that the little progress you had made had been erased in milliseconds. Biting back the frustration, you reminded yourself of the delicacy of the situation. You had to be careful. 

Wanda shifted in your lap, her gaze averted and hurt. Part of you longed to reach out to her, whisper all the things she needed to hear and make her believe you, but your hands were pulled back by their restraints. Damn, you were really starting to hate these things. 

“Untie my hands?” You asked softly, gesturing towards the ropes. Wanda’s eyes snapped to yours, looking at you in disbelief.

“No.” She muttered darkly, “You’ll only run from me.” She explained, her words falling heavy. Slowly, she shifted, positioning herself in a way that allowed you to cradle her, her nose brushing your cheek, gently nuzzling against you. 

Your lips parted, so that’s what it was? Wanda was afraid. She wasn’t just upset; she was afraid of losing you. You understood what she needed, to be reminded of your so-called devotion, understood again. When her head landed to rest on your shoulder, you took your chances, risking your life to ever so gently place a kiss on her head. 

You felt Wanda stiffen against you, but she nestled in closer, tilting her head just the slightest bit. Though the position was quite awkward and strained your neck, you persisted, peppering slow lingering kisses across her face. A soft smile tugged at her lips, and you took the opportunity to ask again, “I just want to hold you, untie me?” 

Reluctantly, Wanda opened her eyes, not really wanting to move but deciding to trust you when you gave her a crooked smile. Without much effort, she complied, reaching behind you to loosen the ropes on your hands. As the knots came undone, you sighed in relief, rubbing at your wrist to ease the soreness. 

“Thank you.” You whispered, pulling Wanda close as you wrapped your arms around her. She hummed in response, pressing her lips to your neck. You put considerable thought into your next words, you had missed these moments with Wanda, moments where the world wasn’t red it was just green.

“I’ll talk to Strange tomorrow, to let him know I’m pausing my lessons.” You said into the silence, and Wanda’s arms tightened around you. 

“Really?” 

“Really, I need to show my girl she’s my priority after all.” You affirmed and Wanda smiled, Wanda—no longer just the Scarlet Witch, but the woman who held your heart entirely. With a gentle touch, she pressed her lips against yours in a loving embrace; satisfied with your answer. 

You smiled into the kiss, absorbing as much of her as you could. Eventually, you broke away, but Wanda was quick to lean her head against yours, and a breathy chuckle escaped her lips, echoing yours. Unable to resist, you pressed a soft kiss to Wanda’s nose, enjoying the way it scrunched up in response. The witch blushed shyly and buried between the crook of your neck, and you had trouble believing this girl was set to be the destroyer of worlds.

The thought only made you hold her further. The sudden weight of responsibility bore down on you. It wasn’t how you wanted things to go, but it was how it had to be. For Wanda’s safety and the promise of gaining your future with her, undisturbed.

Swallowing hard, you brushed loose strands of hair from her face, tucking them behind her ear and taking one last look. Recalling what you had been taught, you chanted the familiar spell you had been practicing, murmuring it softly in her ear to ease her. Her eyes drooped heavily before she went completely limp against you and all you could hope was that she’d understand. 

Carefully, you untied the ropes holding your legs together before shrugging them off. You stood up, mindful of Wanda, tightening your grip around her, lifting her up properly. As you walked down the unfamiliar path, slowly transforming back into what it used to be, you were determined to prove your devotion to Wanda.

But first, you’d help her fulfill her own destiny, no matter the cost.

Even if she didn’t quite understand it.

[spacelazarwolf]

at the end of the day, it all comes back to the patriarchal/cisnormative idea that there is one uniting experience for men and one for women. it is not more progressive to reject the idea of one objective “male/female experience” if you are going to immediately replace it with the idea of one objective “man/woman experience.” forcing trans people to be silent about our experiences or pressuring us to represent ourselves in a way that isn’t authentic just so we can fit in this box is transphobic.

you should not look at the conversation around pregnancy related reproductive rights and go “well trans women are women so this affects them too and if you say it doesn’t you’re transphobic!!” this validates the idea that carrying a baby is inherent to womanhood, which is a patriarchal norm i could have sworn we were trying to abolish, all while completely erasing other trans people from a conversation that we should be centered in. if you do not believe that pregnancy should be inherent to womanhood, then there is no need to insist that trans women must be centered in these conversations. if you do not believe that (the overwhelming majority of) trans women being unable to carry a baby means they aren’t actually women, then there is absolutely no need to give legitimacy to the patriarchal idea that pregnancy related issues are inherent to womanhood.