#also of course my life examples are monogamous

[freepassbound]

11: favorite pet names?

13: would you consider being with multiple people romantically?

19: which spots are your sensitive spots?

11: Favorite pet names?

Just about any kind of affectionate diminutive will have me instantly melting. 😅🙈

But really, for maximum effectiveness, I think they should develop organically within a relationship.

13: Would you consider being with multiple people romantically?

At this point in my development, I would have to say no. I don't have any issue with it, per se - it's more that I feel I should figure out how to be with one person before thinking about ramping up the difficulty level?

19: Which spots are your sensitive spots?

Other than my brain? 🤭

The real answer is that I don't know that I have enough experience to really know?

I did find, though, that I enjoyed having my nipples played with a lot more than I would have thought. 🥴🙈

Also having my head & hair scritched or stroked makes me very pliable.

[tryingahandinholdingapen]

thanks to a pretty equal combination of @.doveywovy's posts about tobiizu, and one particular fic which I keep meaning to write a rec for on account of it permanently changing my understanding of the ship (currently my favourite blog and fiv respectively ngl. I'll link the fic in question too),,,,my favourite depiction of izuna x tobirama is absolutely yandere4yandere

I firmly believe though that they absolutely don't take the same approach to their respective insanity. they're both freaks yes but not in the same way, that would be far too simple. often in ways that complement each other! which is why they (sort of) function as a ship,,,but not the same way

for example let's say there's a depiction of them with yandere type characterisation right and specifically looking at that trope of like "only I can have you" right?

I'm pretty sure that if we assume they both held that as something important to them, Izuna would approach it differently to Tobirama

Izuna would be like "only I can have you" <- mandate reinforced with bloodshed

Tobirama on the other hand would be like "only I can have you" <- law of the universe, more difficult to disprove than gravity

and this would influence their behaviour because it would mean that Izuna would be more of the stereotypical yandere in that he reacts with threats, considerable violence and even murder to anyone he THINKS may have even considered Tobirama in a romantic or sexual light for 0.0001 seconds. He considers that type of behaviour from others to threaten his own relationship with Tobirama, which of course is not acceptable in any form. "Only I can have you" is a mandate that Izuna reinforces with bloodshed, and frequently at that. So far, by some miracle, nobody's made a problem of his behaviour (surely its not been completely unnoticed? maybe people are too scared to bring it up or maybe Izuna's strengths are so far outweighing the drawbacks still? who knows, who cares. Not Izuna)

Tobirama on the other hand cares considerably less about the potential for anyone else to for example flirt with Izuna - or even vice versa - than can be considered normal for a serious, exclusive+monogamous relationship. Like most people would probably be upset if they were in a monogamous relationship and saw their boyfriend snogging someone else but Tobirama does not care at all. This is because in order for Tobirama to feel upset or threatened by the idea of Izuna cheating on him or potentially breaking up with him, he'd first have to ACKNOWLEDGE that as a possibility and he just...Doesn't. Tobirama is Izuna's only partner and the only person he has ever or will care for in the same sense, and as far as Tobirama is concerned this is a truth more fundamental than gravity; "only I can have you" is a simple fact of life. Someone has definitely tried to mention to him before 'hey I think I saw your boyfriend on a date with someone else yesterday...Doesn't that bother you? That he might love someone else? Might break up with you to be with them?' and Tobirama has just stared at them like they're the most stupid person alive. Complete incomprehension of the concept. No, obviously he's not worried about that, same as he's not worried the sky will suddenly turn green or gravity will decide to reverse itself. It's not a physical possibility so why worry about it? That would just be a waste of time and effort

Izuna constantly reinforces Tobirama's understanding of the world by the way. Because Izuna is very pretty and he will absolutely flirt with people or even have sex with them BUT he also not infrequently kills them afterwards, and basically always returns to Tobirama bitching about how inferior that other person was to Tobirama in x and y way and how Tobirama is so much better at z but hey Izuna got such-and-such information out of that person, or managed to secure such-and-such from this person via seduction, so he did it anyway, and Tobirama had better appreciate what he does for him. So Tobirama's there like 'as I said. Izuna doesn't give a shit about anyone except me. He's just very good at manipulating others for his own benefit and it's very sexy of him tbh'

This overall leads to a very weird dynamic where all three things are true

1) Izuna and Tobirama are in a closed monogamous relationship, theoretically?

2) If you breathe in Tobirama's direction for too long, or god forbid, make eye contact, Izuna may kill you for making a move on his man

3) You could have three rounds of sex with Izuna right in front of Tobirama and Tobirama would be v smugly watching like look at my boyfriend go he's gonna wring this moron of every resource they've got I'm so proud

[nalyra-dreaming]

I enjoy your blog and I’m not trying to be argumentative; just some friendly debate, but I notice you and Virginia both frequently reduce the entire Antoinette ordeal to Louis’ feeding habits and Lestat’s need for attention and adoration. Don’t you think Lestat had to have at least a little love for Antoinette? He had to love her on some level not to kill her right off the bat. This is apparent in the scene before Louis is playing cards before Doris tells him Jonah is there, Lestat is standing up close to the stage, completely entranced watching Antoinette perform like there is no one else in the room. Louis isn’t even present to make jealous. He slept with her and didn't kill her before Loustat was having serious problems like lack of intimacy. He stayed with her just as long as he stayed with Louis. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that man ever had any intention of being in a monogamous relationship.

Hey nonny!

(All good, you can be argumentative, as long as you're kind it's all fine, I just won't accept hate or insults anymore^^, hope that makes sense! Also, I really don't see that as argumentative^^)

I think @virginiaisforvampires and I just ... shorten the Antoinette discussion at times (by now) because it's been... a theme.

Like, the fandom latched onto the jealousy angle so massively, the asks wrt her were so numerous, the human cheating AUs on Ao3 so prevalent... the vampiric aspect seems to be often overlooked.

I think you're referring to my ask with the open relationship?

Because of course Antoinette was more.

(this is long, so the rest under the cut:)

She became more when he did not kill her as a feeding fling. (And I still stand by the fact that they must have had a lot of feeding flings, for example Louis is not really taken aback by soldiers in their bedroom - the same bedroom he gets so sharp about with Antoinette, which is another detail.)

So yes, Lestat apparently slept with her and didn't kill her. We don't get to see it, but it is insinuated.

But there is a lot more to Antoinette, and that is why some think she might show up again later. I am not sure if you're familiar with "the musician" from IWTV, "Antoine" from the later books?

Let me recap:

In IWTV we have the unnamed "musician". Louis never bothers to find out his name, even though it is clear that Lestat turns him. That unnamed musician then gets into the crossfire of Claudia's attempt on Lestat's life, and Louis... forgets about him. But he did know about him from the beginning:

"Lestat had a musician friend in the Rue Dumaine. We had seen him at a recital in the home of a Madame LeClair, who lived there also, which was at that time an extremely fashionable street; and this Madame LeClair, with whom Lestat was also occasionally amusing himself, had found the musician a room in another mansion nearby, where Lestat visited him often. I told you he played with his victims, made friends with them, seduced them into trusting and liking him, even loving him, before he killed. So he apparently played with this young boy, though it had gone on longer than any other such friendship I had ever observed." [..] "I could not tell whether he had actually become fond of a mortal in spite of himself or was simply moving towards a particularly grand betrayal and cruelty. Several times he’d indicated to Claudia and me that he was headed out to kill the boy directly, but he had not. And, of course, I never asked him what he felt because it wasn’t worth the great uproar my question would have produced. Lestat entranced with a mortal! He probably would have destroyed the parlor furniture in a rage."

(Interesting tidbit about the rage, which they picked up for the show!)

Louis even encounters Antoine, has a bit of a discussion with him after the initial attack on Lestat:

‘What is it?’ I asked him. ‘What did you need from him? I’m sure he would want me to...’ “ ‘He was my friend!’ He turned on me suddenly, his voice dropping with repressed outrage.

This last bit is important, for the later books, most importantly for "Prince Lestat", which we know Rolin takes from. Because in that book, in chapter 7, we find out what happened to "the musician", Antoine, after that fateful night, when Rue Royale burned (in the book).

Because Antoine did not burn to death (in the show, likely: Louis and Claudia did not know to scatter the ashes), and he survives, hideously burned, needing decades to heal. Lestat reunites with him before he chases after Louis and Claudia (to Europe).

When Antoine later tells of his own story, he says this:

“He was my friend, Lestat,” Antoine confessed. “He told me about his lover, Nicolas, who had been a violinist. He said he couldn’t speak his heart to his little family, to Louis or Claudia, that they would laugh at him. So he spoke his heart only to me.”

There is a LOT in that little paragraph. A lot that fits with what we know from the show, too.

Louis (in the show) tells of Lestat saying that "Antoinette fortifies him against them". Antoinette became more than a passing interest, a passing feeding fling, true, because Lestat can confide in her, can be himself with her, especially later, when things between him and Louis take on a strain. But he never leaves Louis, and I think that is often overlooked - (s)he was never a real threat to Louis, nor Claudia. Lestat left Antoine behind when he goes after them, to try to save them.

Louis on the show makes it seem as if Antoinette was that major threat. And the show (of course^^), sharpened that threat by making Antoine a woman, a white woman, whose very presence represented what Louis could not be in their relationship at the time, namely an official partner.

Louis uses the focus on Antoinette and what she represents to overshadow other things that coincide with the affair. He does the same later, when they are threatened, to shift the focus to Lestat's paranoia. It's clever, because it's built on truth, a "look at my right hand, not at my left" approach. But the real story is much more difficult than that.

And I think that goes for Antoine(tte) as well.

Since Rolin is specifically taking from "Prince Lestat" as well there is no way in hell he has somehow missed reading chapter 7, or has missed Antoine in the later books/chapters.

I for one wouldn't be surprised if she shows up at the trial - or in Dubai. Maybe she's that interior designer, who knows that Louis is missing the natural world....

I don't know. We'll see. But I doubt that the jealousy angle is all there is to it. There are too many discrepancies, even down to the make-up they used for her (which is its own meta). Lestat may have very well loved her, albeit differently than he loves Louis.

As for the monogamous relationship(s)...

Nonny, forgive me, but these are not humans. They are vampires.

They hunt, and kill humans, for food and pleasure. They play with their food, like other predators in our world do, too. They are also inherently hedonistic, looking for pleasure. (Maybe) Especially Lestat is trying to drown himself in the pleasurable things at times, for reasons that the show will still get to. Since the show explicitly added sex to the mix that desire is of course expressed in the hunt for pleasure, too.

But totally apart from "food", and sex... these vampires are a mess, relationship-wise.

When Lestat and Louis are "married" in the later books as Jacob calls it (I bet they'll make that literal in the show^^), that doesn't mean that they don't still love others. Have loved others. Will love others. They are beyond the need to narrow down their love though. And they are "official partners" then.

But it's... a knot of relationships and history.

Some of these people are truly immortal. Like, can not be killed anymore.

Imagine living with that fact (it maybe most famously sends Lestat reeling in "The tale of the Body Thief", for example).

Imagine loving with that fact. Imagine having the time.

[goodqueenaly]

Hi and I hope you are well! I don’t know if this is a weird question, but I’m always fascinated by the legends of the Reach particularly regarding the children of Garth Greenhand, and how that connects to the Faith in those areas. I think I saw a post you wrote some time ago about how for example Rowan Gold Tree’s story might have been adapted by the Faith into a parable about the Mother (apologies if I’m mistaken). I guess my question is, do you think Rowan and the others might have been actually worshipped as gods before the Faith, like Garth might have been? Also if I may ask a second question: do you have thoughts about Floris (my personal fave) how her story fits into Westeros’ patriarchal attitudes towards women? Does the fact that she founded three houses mean that she’s not vilified by the Faith for being non monogamous? Thanks and sorry again for weird questions!!

(I was mistaken, I think it was actually about Rowan’s story as a parable about the Maiden, like that her hair turned into a tree as a sign of being favored by the Maiden? I don’t quite remember who wrote this post.)

I have a vague memory of a post I wrote along similar lines a very long time ago too, but I couldn’t find it, so either I never did or I deleted it. Anyway, I do very much like to headcanon that the myth of Rowan Gold-Tree was co-opted by the Faith during its early establishment in the Reach as a myth about the Maiden - that Rowan, abandoned by her love for a richer rival, prayed to the Maiden in her heartbreak, and the Maiden, guardian and benefactor of virtuous maids, gave Rowan her golden tree, almost Cinderella style, perhaps as a sort of dowry to show that maidenly virtue was literally worth more than gold.

Whatever the particular relationship between the Faith and the myth of Rowan Gold-Tree, do I think that some or all of the legendary children of Garth Greenhand may have been worshiped as gods themselves? Very possibly. We know that there was at least some tradition of Garth being worshiped as or at least considered a god by Westerosi: Yandel notes that “[s]ome even say [Garth Greenhand] was a god” and that “[a] few of the very oldest tales” present Garth as a “considerably darker deity, one who demanded blood sacrifice from his worshippers to ensure a bountiful harvest” and a “green god [who] die[d] every autumn … only to be reborn with the coming of spring”. Yandel also compares Garth to fertility gods and goddesses worshiped by “[m]any of the more primitive peoples of the earth”, as Garth not only “taught men to farm” and “showed them how to plant and sow, how to raise crops and reap the harvest” but also scattered a seemingly divinely plentiful bag of various seeds and “brought the gift of fertility” to people and crops alike. Nor was this early history of Westeros an era without the worship of local deities beyond the old gods: the myth of Durran Godsgrief features a sea god and a goddess of the wind, the people of the Three Sisters worshiped the Lady of the Waved and the Lord of the Skies, and of course the ironborn believe in the eternal divine struggle between the Drowned God and the Storm God.  

So I could see where, depending on the era and the location, various individuals among Garth’s legendary children might have been worshiped as gods or semi-divine heroes themselves. If Garth Greenhand was worshiped as a god for teaching the First Men to sow, cultivate, and reap, might Gilbert of the Vines have been similarly worshiped by the people of the Arbor for teaching these people “to make sweet wine” from their island’s lush native grapes (and indeed, might there have been some local tradition that Gilbert had inherited his father’s fertility and made these grapes grow “so fat and lush across their island”)? If Garth was treated as a god for his apparently mystical and/or divine ability to bring and cultivate life from the land, might Ellyn Ever-Sweet, Rowan Gold-Tree, and/or Rose of Red Lake have been similarly worshiped by the locals of Beesbury, Goldengrove, and/or Red Lake, respectively, for their supernatural, perhaps also seemingly divine, connections to and power over the natural world? If the earliest worshipers of Garth Greenhand offered him blood sacrifices in return for bountiful harvests, might worshipers have given Bors the Breaker similar blood sacrifices in return for grants of strength and courage, since he himself had supposedly drunk the blood of bulls to gain the power of 20 men? If Garth’s divine power included the gift of specifically sexual fertility so strong that he “[made] barren women fruitful with a touch” and caused “[m]aidens [to ripen] in his presence”, “mothers [to bring] forth twins or even triplets when he blessed them”, and “young girls [to flower] at his smile”, then might Harlon and Herndon have been similarly worshiped for the seeming eternal fertility they apparently enjoyed and represented as husbands to their woods witch wife, or Foss the Archer worshiped as a similar roving fertility god casting a welcome eye on maidens as his father had done (with his arrow and apple exploits perhaps a sort of sexual euphemism)? Again, these are just a few creative examples, but the larger point is that I could very well see where Garth’s children may have been seen not only as extensions of his own legend, but gods in their own right who took over aspects of the worship of Garth Greenhand. (To say nothing of whether any of them might have been worshiped for their own persons and/or deeds - if, say, John the Oak, Owen Oakenshield, and/or Brandon of the Bloody Blade might have been viewed as a sort of proto-Warrior or god of war, or if Maris the Maid became a sort of mother goddess for Oldtown and House Hightower.) 

As far as Florys the Fox goes … eh. I think that strict monogamy was not an entirely consistent or mandated practiced among the First Men before the arrival of the Andals, including in the Reach: not only do the myths of both Florys and the twin ancestors of House Tarly feature as their protagonists participants in polygamous (and, indeed, polyandrous) marriages, but King Garland II successfully brought Oldtown into the Gardener kingdom by putting aside his wives, plural, to marry Lymond Hightower’s daughter. Nor indeed should we ignore the fact that Florys seems to have been considered clever not just for having three husbands but for keeping each a secret from the others - a suggestion, perhaps, that the expected (read: patriarchal) order of the universe, playfully subverted by the literally extraordinary Florys, was that a woman should be the submissive partner to a single man, rather than the dominant mistress keeping three men at her nuptial leisure. So I think the pre-Andal Reach may have accepted two beliefs as true at the same time - namely, a patriarchal world in which women were expected to serve and obey men and also a pro-polygamy world in which a demigod/heroine/goddess figure could be lauded for having kept multiple husbands simultaneously without being caught. 

Too, I think it’s possible that just as septons and maesters downplayed the mythology and divinity of Garth Greenhand in later accounts - with Yandel noting that legends of Garth Greenhand, “though cherished by the smallfolk, are largely discounted by both the maesters of the Citadel and the septons of the Faith, who share the view that Garth Greenhand was a man, not a god” - so these same post-Andal Invasion academics may have deemphasized the myths surrounding Florys the Fox, including her celebrated polyandry. Perhaps dynastically persnickety maesters or septons argued that Florys had not really been married to three men, but rather that the myths had conflated her marriage to the ancestor of House Ball/Peake/Florent with marriages by other women, or perhaps remarriages by Florys, to the ancestors of the other two Houses. Perhaps the myth was bowdlerized to have Florys merely be courted by the founders of each of these Houses, rather than having her marrying each, with Florys perhaps then serving as more of a spiritual or romantic ancestress rather than a literal matriarch of this bloodline. Of course, it’s also possible that septons did look down on and preach against Florys for her polygamous marriages, branding her a “wanton” - though to what extent they could or would do so, while also looking to convert these powerful aristocratic families of the Reach, is speculative at best. 

[proxylynn]

Blorbo: Fat Tony (very underrated character on this blog)

{That he is. *summons him from the dead*}

[Don Marion Anthony D'Amico, better known as Fat Tony, is one of the best characters on the show and his lore is, for whatever reason, the most well-maintained in the show. Or it was till they fucking killed him off but then replaced him with his identical cousin then proceeded to treat him as if he was the real Tony. THAT'S BULLSHIT! This is the "Tale of Two Skinners" all over again. But I'll leave my venomous rant for the end. I want to gush over this sweet man first.

Unlike Sideshow Bob, the show brings in Fat Tony a lot but not too much so that he gets stale (his celebrity VA is expensive but he loves the character so much he is always happy to do episodes). Tony is a guy who had humble dreams and then one thing led to another, next thing he knew he was henching with the mob before doing so well he climbed the ranks to become the boss himself. While cliché as it is that tough guys can't show weakness, Tony was a good man when it came to his crew and his eventual family, which brought him respect...except from The Calebresis but they ain't a problem no more. A faithful husband, loving father, and caring boss, Tony held loyalty all around him. His only negatives were of course his business dealings. And while some are often silly (such as putting cotton balls on ferrets to pass off as toy poodles or selling rat milk to schools), others are very very bad. Like, wow I didn't notice this as a kid but holy shit kind of bad.

Some examples are the following...Illegal fireworks, bootleg merchandise, gambling, sabotage, illegal trafficking (tobacco & alcohol), organized crime, bribery, smuggling, extortion, money laundering, murder, prostitution, loansharking, kidnapping, counterfeiting, highway robbery, faulty construction, numbers, smuggling heroin, arson, and forging legal documentation such as birth certificates and passports.

Still, as bad as all that is, he hardly ever suffered from consciousness. But when he did, man, they hit hard. His wife dies "whacked by natural causes" (it's questionable but plausible). He gets shot to hell and put in a coma. And the worst one, the betrayal of someone he considered his best friend which is too much for his overworked heart...he dies of a heart attack and joins his wife with his grave beside hers. This would have been an ok send-off...But they fucked it up!

Fit Tony, then later Fit-Fat Tony, and now known as the New and Improved Fat Tony (<- big fucking lie!) pisses me off to no end 'cause while I like more Tony lore, I hate how he's portrayed while carrying Tony's name. (They literally named this guy Marion Anthony Paul D'Amico...WTF?!) This faker holds none of real Tony's charm.

OG Tony was monogamous and died a widower/single father.

FitFake Tony is married but is a bigamist, having no issue with having mistresses. (He's implied to have a daughter but that's in the noncanon comics)

OG Tony cared about his crew, he showed them respect, and he was held with such regards that none but the stupid would dare stand to him.

FitFake Tony sees the crew as tools, he comes across as really too soft and not all that intimidating, and the members of the crew have turned on him multiple times.

The real kicker is this guy lives in his dead cousin's home, now lives his life, and is raising his son. I can't imagine the mental shit Michael has to deal with as an 8-year-old in a mob family who had to go through his mom dying, then his dad also kicks the bucket, but suddenly a look-a-like is now in his home but acts completely different. My child needs some therapy.

I can only hope that in the new season, there's some fixing done. I want to still enjoy Tony, I really do. But please, stop dragging his name through the mud. They used him in a Jersey Shore parody for fuck's sake! *groans* Look how they massacred my boy.]

[thestupidhelmet]

Do you think Jay's womanizing could be explained by his father's and uncles' constant bragging about his conquests when he was growing up? It would make sense for him to turn out like you described, but the way he turned out in the actual show could also make a lot of sense if you imagine his father and uncles sharing TMI about their own sex lives or saying things like: "don't settle down, sleep with as many girls as you can, that's the life" or "you are twelve and you still haven't kissed a girl? You need to get right on it, you're behind!" This kind of upbringing would produce a womanizer but the show could have delved more into that and had Jay tell more stories about his home life than just "my mom is mad that I set the carpet on fire"

I think it's a plausible possibility -- without Jackie being his mother or in his life. But Jackie would've made Jay the center of her life, especially with Kelso stepping out in her regularly (a reasonable extrapolation based on his T7S characterization and their relationship in both T7S and T9S).

Jackie would not want Jay emulating his father, despite that -- or because -- she can't disentangle her romantic feelings from Kelso. While she's her T7S S1-S4 controlling and somewhat violent self to T9S Kelso, she could very well treat Jay in a much more loving way. We know she's capable of it with the right influences and motivation.

With a mom who respects, loves, and supports him, Jay would (hopefully) not develop the misogyny Kelso and his male siblings have due, in large part, to their mother's inability to parent so many children and give the attention each needs. As Eric tells Kelso in "Stolen Car" (T7S S1), Kelso's parents have seven kids and won't notice Kelso is missing or have the wherewithal to care that one was arrested.

Of course, Kelso's father is equally responsible. But from what we see of him in "Career Day" (T7S 1x18), he's not turned into his emotions. He's a worker, possibly a workaholic. He's not the dad to play a baseball game with his kids or take them to a baseball game.

But for Kelso and Casey, at least, their anger and resentment at their upbringing is transferred onto all women since their mother is likely the parent who was physically present and doing most of the parenting -- and probably at her wits' end with seven of them to raise.

Jackie has one child in T9S. Despite that she's a Jackie whose relationship with Hyde is cut from her core, her core still contains her potential to love unconditionally, her emotional insight, her reflex to be helpful and supportive, her potential to be self-aware. Jay would've gotten the best of Jackie while growing up with the discipline and boundaries Kelso is incapable of giving him.

For example, he wouldn't have stolen Nate's bike because Jackie would've made sure Jay had the best of everything, partly to (over)compensate for the father he has and her toxic relationship with him.

Kelso's sex talk(s) would consist of "doing it as much and as often as you can. That'll prove you're the hottest guy around, and everyone'll look up to you. Also, most chicks'll expect you to be monogamous. Just tell them you are and have sex with whoever you want. It worked for me. Your mom still married me --twice -- despite all the cheating I do -- I mean did. Yeah. 'Cause she'd rather be with the hottest cheater than the loserist monogamist."

(^^^ This is before the third divorce and third remarriage).

Jackie's sex talks would also be romantic relationship talks. First, she'd tell him to ignore everything his dad said. Then she'd say, "Find out who the girl you like really is. It's easy to ignore red flags if you want an idea of a girl badly enough. Don't mistake what's fantasy for what's real.

"If you don't want to be 'tied down' to one girl, that's okay. Just be honest with the girls you date. Let them know you aren't interested in being anyone's full-time boyfriend. Then they have the choice to hook up with you or not. You wouldn't want a girl you really, really like to lie to you about that, right? And being silent about the truth is the same as lying."

Jay might ask her why she stays "with Dad" or keeps going back to him.

Jackie says, "You are a wonderful, smart, creative boy. You can be whoever you want. Have what you truly want. Don't settle for less than what you're worth."

Jay says, "Wait ... are you telling me you settled for Dad? Why?"

Jackie says, "I'm telling you that you don't have to settle."

Jackie refuses to elaborate, but Jay wants to know why his great mom would settle for his not-so-great dad. This would be a driving force because it's an inextricable part of his own identity (as forged by his upbringing).

[user-needs-new-hyperfixation]

Hello, can I ask what do you mean "in canon it's impossible for Sherlock to settle down with a woman"? Like, as a fan of Holmes and always read the books since middle school, I'm kinda confuse here, I don't mean anything negative. Sorry, do you think Poirot (from Agatha Christie) is also queer?

Maybe because I grew up with very religious mother and lived in anti-LGBTQ country, I'm kinda slow in picking up subtext. Like until now I'm still kinda confuse with my friend who have ships from any fandoms (but I still love to hear and read her headcanons or fics about those characters)....

I really agree with you, I've seen many Holmes' adaptations (cartoon, tv series, manga) but Yuumori is clearly the closest to Doyle's works. Do you think the mangaka also love to read Holmes' books?

Story time! (Welcome to "Hyper answers asks like an old lady going on an hour long barely-on-topic tangent at the slightest prompting.)

I totally get where you're coming from, I was raised in like...knockoff Southern Baptist churches. Growing up, homosexuality was presented to me as a sexual perversion incapable of involving real love. It's kind of silly, but it's true: a ship was a big part of changing that for me. I read Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle as a teenager, and Kurogane and Fai had something that was inescapably romantic and beautiful but never strictly sexual (tho the potential is certainly there). Between that and an online community of LGBTQ+ adults who were incredibly patient and kind towards me even when I was suuuuper ignorant, I started to open up towards queer relationships as...well, just relationships. Relationships that can encompass sex and also encompass love and friendship and communication and partnership and all those other things I'd been taught were exclusive to monogamous straight people. And then, even as terrified as I was, I was eventually able to face the fact that I'd always had crushes on girls just as often as crushes on guys. So yeah, there's a reason Kurofai is my ship of all ships, the actual One True Pairing for me. Because it cracked open a door just enough that I could slowly lever it open the rest of the way. There seem to be quite a lot of anecdotes like this: women enjoying BL/mlm ships is often seen as fetishy (which can certainly be part of it) but for some reason I can't fully articulate it also seems to sometimes be a means for girls and women to explore their own not-straightness.

ANYWAY. SHERLOCK HOLMES. Tbh I'm not gonna go too in-depth because I would bet good money that there are a bunch of scholarly articles on Holmes' queerness. People have probably done their doctorate theses on this! Much smarter and more well-read folks than I have already covered the topic. For me, it really boils down to: he never outright expresses sexual or romantic interest in anyone (we must resist the urge to assume his respect for Irene Adler is romantic just because he is a man and she is a woman). He's almost certainly on the asexual spectrum. But when he does exhibit symptoms one might associate with romantic and/or sexual interest (particularly romantic, imo), it's always towards men (usually Watson, of course). For example, notable flirt John Watson saying that Holmes blushes at his compliments the way a girl does is...suggestive.

The whole thing is complicated by Watson being (in my opinion at least) an unreliable and sometimes downright petty narrator. He keeps going on spiels about Holmes being cold and heartless, only to turn around and describe him greeting his friends warmly and being emotionally moved by music and baby-talking puppies and charming old ladies. It makes Watson sometimes come across as one of those allo people who are so unable to conceive of a life without romantic and/or sexual desire that they start dehumanizing those who don't experience it. Alternatively and maybe more charitably, he just has a big ol' crush on Holmes, is understandably alarmed by it given the time period, and gets bitchy and defensive when he feels it might not be reciprocated.

But ultimately...do I think Arthur Conan Doyle sat down at a desk in the late 19th century/early 20th century and was like "I am going to write some ace queer representation for the tumblr girlies (gn)"? Obviously not. 😅 I do think he might have set out to create a character who very deliberately did not need to have the otherwise almost obligatory straight romantic side-plot. Holmes is never in any way set up as having a life headed towards marriage and children, in spite of how typical that was for the time. The companionship he does express a need and desire for comes in the form of another man. He's "lost without [his] Boswell." He sneakily buys Watson's practice out from under him so he'll be free to move back in and go on more adventures with him. He threatens violence when Watson is hurt. Etc etc. I think it's very fair to interpret it all through a queer lens, the quibble would be more in whether that queerness ever manifests sexually.

I definitely think the Yuumori creators have not only read ACD but also other fiction based on the stories, possibly even including some very old pastiches like this one. I love how seemingly nerdy they are about it haha! The series is full of easter eggs and callouts to other Holmesian works.

As for Poirot, I know very little about the character beyond a few episodes of the show I watched as a young'un, but that is not the mustache of a straight man (I'm joking I'm joking I have absolutely no opinion on that one! 🤣)

Thanks for the ask, and for actually reading this ramble if you got this far! 😅

[variousqueerthings]

also interesting because I just watched a video doing a rundown on the history of queerness in doctor who, which naturally had a lot dedicated to aro and/or ace reads of the doctor, which at one point discussed that ofc reading the alien character specifically as such can be alienating (not... that as an aroace person my own reads would be attempting to alienate... myself... although also here insert other discussion about how the aliens often are just the blank slate upon which non-normative behaviours are placed, so it makes sense to see the neurodivergent/disabled/queer/otherwise othered body reflected from them, while also understanding that this means the world views you as inherently alien, while also being like "sure, yeah, I always have done," while also knowing that's dehumanisation, while also...)

but, when it's consciously done, when does this alien being (whatever narrative we're looking at) resonate through the lens of xyz because we're interested in how social structures built Not on today's earth human constructs could end up in wildly interesting different spaces in which what is non-normative to us is presented as normative to them (thus making an argument of stop being such freaks against trans kids, for example), and also when do we read those characters as incongruent with their own societies (I think also here of star trek's the outcast and rejoined, which blend queerness as we recognise it in our societies with characters who break alien normative structures as expressions of an alien queerness, and then there's ofc left hand of darkness in which gender-and-sexuality is at the centre of the political narrative and it's queer on multiple in-universe and out-of-universe levels)

for example, the doctor isn't really an outsider timelord if we look at them through the lens of genderbending regeneration -- that's normalised in that society in canon, and the interesting thing there is usually how that interacts with human social constructs and politics of gender and as a scifi way of deconstructing and dissembling real life consturcts... but they are clearly an outsider in terms of many other things they do, for example seeming neurodivergent if looked at through a human lens and a timelord lens

so where do aromantic and asexual reads fit in there?

well to start with aro!doctor -- I am into the science-fiction ability to create societies with completely different expressions of "connection" that eschew simple human monogamous ideas and histories, but if we were to take that second lens as well of "what if the doctor is aromantic as an identity and not simply as an alien," the doctor continuously (with the exception of romana and the master) creates deep connections with beings that don't have a particularly long lifespan/aren't timelords, especially considering they're near-immortal. and with romana and the master there seems to be a different set of rules happening there than anything one might describe as uncomplicatedly romantic, bitter exes vibe of the doctor/the master acknowledged

the doctor interests me from the lens of "aromantic as non-normative/queer from the pov from both our and timelord society" because they seem to continuously struggle with people not accepting the connections that they're offering them. the doctor's way of having a relationship is often not "enough", isn't easy to describe/vague, and people get jealous or angry or feel betrayed for reasons that isn't the doctor's fault, because there simply seems to be a lack of language to properly describe it in easy digestible terms

that is... a very aromantic experience

and then sometimes the doctor will just have little non-romantic connections that work, like donna -- and, despite not being my favourite seasons, the bits where the doctor simply lives with/drops in on the ponds is very sweet. and the tardis of course. am a "doctor-and-the-tardis are a matching pair and one without the other is wrong, but it's not romantic" person at heart, beyond anything else

(I am interested in how this will play once my rewatch gets me back to 13 and I can watch until the end, because I know yaz confesses that she's in love with the doctor near the end, and the doctor has an interesting reaction from what I understand)

(I guess at this point asexuality is another post)

but yeah. I think I'm not saying anything new with regards to the writing of aliens (and android and otherwise non-human characters), in that obviously one would like to imagine some interest in exploring these forms of non-normativity outside of "well that's an alien" (she's an alien and he's gay) but also there's reasons we're all so into aliens

genderbending genderfluid regenerating aliens is all well and good, but it only becomes really interesting in this case when we see trans/non-binary/genderfluid/genderbending humans (as is coming up soon! and I hope we see many more actors of the trans and gender non-conforming persuasion on this show!) similarly -- while I do think we have had more than a taste (donna my heart and soul honestly) of that non-alloromantic queerplatonic vibes doctor-companion dynamic -- I'd be fascinated in what a consciously aro (and maybe ace also) companion opposite the doctor would be like, how that would restructure their relationship with the doctor, compared to others who had expectations that the doctor couldn't ever hope to fulfill, like rose, martha (although they did let down martha in many ways that had nothing to do with romance), amy, possibly yaz, (here the confession that I never did get much of what was going on with clara but maybe this watch will clarify for me), possibly sarah-jane, possibly river song although she seems to have just kind of gone with it I guess, possibly romana... heck, possibly the master (I guess possibly that american woman from the movie, I forget her name... I cannot remember rn if other companions ever expressed an interest like that in them, but if so, then them too)

also I just want to rub moffat's face in it if I'm being honest. writing snide commentary about what was described as "asexual" doctor pre-nu!who, in a way that very much encompassed aroness (because romance-and-sex has so often been and still is put under one header), and totally misunderstanding why fans were into it or why it's interesting, and then being obsessed ever since with his weird little crusade of making doctor who "sexier" and alloromantic and imo utterly failing, despite it all

[minetteskvareninova]

You're missing the point of that post. It's not about slut shaming and it's not some weird double standard against Rhaenyra & Targaryens. Its the fact that politically, Rhaenyra could've avoided everything very easily but chose not too. Her making really poor choices bc of her entitlement that being Royal, Targaryen, and knowing the prophecy is a big part of her character. It's the fact that Targaryen Exceptionalism, Feudalism & Succession Crisises are really stupid ways of governance and only ruins those around them. This whole system is a house of cards that can be so easily broken simply over hair color. It's almost willful misreading to say it's about slut shaming.

But of course, and that uppity German Struensee would've gotten away with his reforms if only he could keep it in his pants innit Juliana

*sigh* For all of you who still didn't get it:

I used Carolina Mathilda as an example, because unlike book!Rhaenyra (jury's still out on show!Rhaenyra, I honestly get SOME of the reasons why people don't like her, even if my ultimate judgement of her is way more positive) for one reason, and one reason only: she is, both in history and in the movie, unquestionably sympathetic.

For those of you who don't know, En kongelig affaere, or A Royal Affair, is a Danish film that adapts the story of queen Carolina Mathilda of Denmark, whose affair with her mentally ill husband's doctor Johann Friedrich Struensee was used by Struensee's enemies to boosts his charges of treason. The real issue was, of course, court power politics - the king's detachment of reality was so intense he was almost completely incapable of doing his job, and Struensee used that to basically rule in his stead, which of course earned him many enemies. Even worse, his pro-enlightenment policies (although think less Robespierre and more emperor Joseph II.) sparked outrage among the nobility; Joseph II. is an apt comparison here, although he didn't have the added baggage of being a lowborn man seizing power behind the scenes and (allegedly) having an affair with the queen. Jury's still out on whether that particular charge is based on truth, but it's certainly possible, and the movie went with "yes", just because it makes for a better story. In any case, Struensee ended up being executed, while Carolina Mathilda survived, but was torn away from her children and sent into exile. The movie is relatively faithful retelling of a certain quite plausible version of the story, also it has a superb script, great costumes and cast packed to the gills with amazing actors (Mads Mikkelsen, Alicia Vikander, for those in the know also Mikkel Boe Fosgard and Tryne Dyrnholm) - basically, if you can find it, go watch it, after surviving Hot D y'all deserve some real cinema.

Now, in the movie, it's heartbreakingly easy to sympathize with Carolina Mathilda. When she is just a teenager, she is married off to her severely mentally ill cousin, who constantly mistreats her and seems to kinda hate her, plus her affair with Struensee is motivated by genuine romantic feelings. Noone in their right mind would call Carolina Mathilda "entitled" for it (I HOPE). And sure, Rhaenyra is much less miserable than her, but her emotional life is in a similarly hopeless spot, where she can only find actual romance outside of marriage. Plus, unlike Carolina Mathilda, there is no deception involved, at least with her husband - she still has to gaslight the rest of the country, but them's the breaks, what would you have her do, NOT give birth to the prince of my heart Jacaerys Targaryen?! Like, people, you are calling a woman entitled, because she is in a loving monogamous relationship with someone who isn't her (gay) husband. I don't know if it's slut-shaming, but it most certainly isn't FAIR.

What I think confuses people about this comparison is that both book and show!Rhaenyra can be called spoiled and entitled (keyword is CAN; I personally don't agree with this assessment of her either, but let's say for the sake of the argument) for a lot of other things. She has certainly done her fair share of mistakes and I get the general dislike of her - I myself dislike show!Alicent in much the same way, it really depends what actions and character flaws personally irritate you more. But again, having a loving monogamous relationship, with the consent of her husband no less, is just not the kind of mistake I can imagine anyone hating her for. Yes, yes, it is hypocritical to subscribe to a feudal order that abhors bastards while having bastards yourself, but crucially, it's the kind of hypocrisy that many noblemen parttake in with no reprecussions whatsoever, from Corlys to Bobby B. And, again, Rhaenyra's affair with Harwin actually MORE excusable, because unlike Corlys' relationship with Marilda, it doesn't get in the way of an otherwise loving marriage (unless it happened before his marriage to Rhaenys in the show - it didn't in the books, but also in the books the Hull boys might be Laenor's, it's complicated), and unlike Bobby B, she is far from a hedonist serial philanderer. We can debate whether any of that would be WRONG per se, but it certainly would be LESS UNDERSTANDABLE.

It is not entitled to want a fulfilling romantic relationship even in a situation that isn't exactly conductive to it. How is that a hard concept to grasp, I really don't know. Maybe y'all should just read or watch more things dealing with romantic relationships under these circumstances - I highly recommend starting with A Royal Affair, seriously, you guys, it is so good.

[asherlockstudy]

Have you listened to ear biscuits 400..? Just wondering if you thought anything of Link’s comment at the very start of the podcast before talking about the Brandy Carlisle concert. “I need to contextualize the concert as another data point on the narrative journey of my sexual orientation.” I haven’t seen much if any conversation about this when to me it’s the most glaring piece of evidence I’ve seen of him hinting at something. Have I lost my mind? Am i missing something? SOS

I believe Link was making a joke in reference to the fact that he was called a butch lesbian and the previous episode was all about it and now he was going to a concert where most of the attendees were lesbians, so he kinda joked it was another evidence of him being a butch lesbian, whatever that could ever mean lol

But of course it doesn't change the fact that he has been making a lot of implications about his whole #new_me, living his best life, the challenging journey of exploration he is on and all that he's been saying all year long and even more so since August. The use of such particular language - "narrative journey of my sexual orientation" - doesn't add up well with his latest insistence that he is your typical middle aged straight monogamous married man. Unless we have a case of real life queerbaiting, right? Like, he is queenbaiting on his real self?! I don't know.

In short, I mean this was a joke about going to a concert full of lesbians but is also an unintentional example of how the way he verbalizes and phrases and contextualizes his thoughts has become very specific and consistently conveying a pattern and a type of identity he otherwise denies.

[aquadestinyswriting]

Happy Thoughts Thursday!!

What are your characters' thoughts on multi-person relationships?

Hi Imperium, I'm so sorry it's taken so long to answer this. I needed a bit of time to properly think about this question, then life happened.

I'll be answering for the Main Four characters here, as I'm the most familiar with them, and this gives me an opportunity to dive into the question properly.

Selene

Selene honestly doesn't have any trouble with mutli-person romantic and/or sexual relationships. For other people. However, for herself, she'd really prefer to be in a monogamous relationship. This is almost entirely due to her issues with abandonment and her general cultural upbringing for the short time she lived with her biological family. As someone who is aroace and extremely sex-repulsed, Selene is also very insecure about Edwin leaving her due to the pressures of societal norms.

Speaking of the a-spec community, Selene is quite happy to both see and be involved in multi-person platonic relationships, QPRS included.

Edwin

Edwin, I think, is probably someone who prefers monogamy for any relationships that he is personally involved in. Like Selene, he honestly doesn't mind that polygamy/polyamory exists and, as long as all involved consent and are happy, it's none of his business what other people get up to in their personal relationships. He's much more open to multi-person platonic relationships, having lived in Fangthane for a little over a decade and seeing what cridhe-dàime looks like in that cultural context.

Meredith and Yoruk

I'm putting these two together for what will become a fairly obvious reason (and is probably already obvious to anyone that's read my post-campaign stuff). Neither are against multi-person relationships at all. While neither are necessarily interested in polyamory or polygamy for themselves, they're not going to blink at anyone involved in those kinds of relationships.

While Meredith and Yoruk are both in a monogamous marriage, as Meredith considers Elowyn her cridhe-dàime (which is basically the dwarven in-universe equivalent of a QPR partner) both of them consider the woodling a part of their relationship as well. Neither of them are romantically or sexually attracted* to, or involved with Elowyn in that regard, and that part of the relationship is purely platonic. However, as far as most of Fangthane is concerned, the three of them are basically considered to be part of one family unit so if, for example, Meredith got hurt then the messenger will simply find whichever of Yoruk or Elowyn is closer to tell them and assume that the other will be told in due course.

*There is an argument to be made that Merri probably was attracted to Elowyn at some point, given all the unintentional flirting those two did during the early parts of their adventure. If she was, Merri neither acknowledged or acted on it.

[eldritchsurveys]

1208.

Do you ever get super bad buzzing in your ears? >> I don't. The other day I had a random short-lived tinnitus episode for the first time and I have learned that that is thee most annoying shit ever fucking invented. Hope that never becomes an actual condition for me. Do you know anyone who has actually been in an alcohol or drug related crash? >> I do not.

What is so wrong with cigarettes? >> The cancer risk is pretty dire. Also, they stink and they make you and your house etc stink.

Did you celebrate Fathers Day? >> Absolutely not.

Do you actually think you’re funny? >> Sure, sometimes. It takes skill to be funny on command, but being funny on occasion is something everyone's capable of doing.

Have you ever had a deep conversation with someone who was high on anything? >> Of course. It's one of my favourite things to do.

Do you ever wonder if there really is someone who can complement your personality well enough to stay together for the rest of your life? >> No, I don't wonder that. There are several implications about this statement that don't jive with my personal desires or worldview -- although it doesn't mention romance, I can tell it's referencing the monogamous romantic/domestic union ideal that I don't at all subscribe to. I am married but in my view this domestic arrangement is incomplete without a third; most of the dissatisfaction I feel in my domestic arrangement is because I have complex and varied needs that this person cannot provide for, which would be accounted for with a third person of somewhat different disposition. When I have needs conflicts with a person, my inclination is to find another source for that need, not discard the one person because they cannot be all things to me. In conclusion, no, there is no one who can "complement my personality" well enough to be the sole source of intimate relational contact for my entire life, and that's a feature, not a bug.

Do you hate how being bisexual is like a trend? >> This isn't a thing. Next.

Have you ever gotten a professional massage? >> I have not. I don't feel comfortable with a stranger having that much contact with my body.

Do you have a good relationship with your first love? .

What is something you’re currently nervous about? .

Do you have a popup blocker installed on your computer? >> I have uBlock Origin.

Do you feel like you have life figured out? >> I wasn't aware I was supposed to be "figuring out" life. And here I was just living it like some kind of noob.

Have you ever used a laptop in a coffee shop? >> Sure. What was the last worst feeling you felt? >> I did have food poisoning last month. That was a lot of worst feelings, physical and emotional. Do you ever tend to over-analyse? >> I have a penchant for rumination, yeah.

Do you know anyone that like, no matter WHAT, they’re always pissed off? >> I don't know anyone like that.

How do you react when you’re pissed off? >> It depends.

What celebrity did your most current ex resemble? . What is something creepy that has happened to you (or someone you know) recently? . If you named your car or family car, what would you call it? .

What would you do if you were faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy (at your current age)? .

What does it take for someone to earn your trust? >> There are many forms of trust, and the ways to earn different forms of trust are varied, as are the ways to lose it.

Is there anything you should be worried about? >> What does this even mean? Either I am worried about something or I'm not. If I'm not worried about it, then why would I insist to myself that I should be worried about it? Make it make sense. Are you dealing with any health-related problems right now? >> I am not.

Do you think you should fight for love? >> I'm gonna need an example of this. Are you experiencing problems within a current relationship? >> Not as far as I can tell, aside from the stuff in my own mind.

When you need a temporary escape, what do you do? .

How long did your last feelings of heartbreak last? . Do you ever go shopping with your parents (not including grocery shopping)? . When the weather is chilly but humid, what kind of things do you tend to wear? >> This is the bane of my existence. I choose to dress more for the humidity than the temperature, but this isn't ideal, it's just... lesser of two evils, I guess. When you’re walking somewhere, do you bring an iPod to listen to? >> I use my phone for music, but yeah, same principle.

Have you ever had some kind of sleep-disorder before? How did it affect your daily life? >> I have not. That's the last damn thing I need. Have you ever had food poisoning before? Describe the experience: >> I've had it twice and the experience is fucking awful, I'm sure I don't need to describe it to anyone. Have you ever read anything by Chuck Palahniuk? What did you think? >> A long, long time ago. Long enough ago that at this point it's basically like I've never read him at all. How do you tend to amuse yourself on long car journeys? .

Do you find that caffeinated or alcoholic drinks make you pee more than normal? >> This is not a phenomenon I've observed. Like, yeah, when I've been out drinking I will pee more, but that's because I've ingested more liquid per hour than I usually do, not because of some magic property of alcohol that makes me pee more.

How often do you need to charge your phone and iPod (on average)? >> Every 24 to 48 hours, I guess. Do you still enjoy watching Disney movies? >> There is no "still" because I didn't see most Disney movies until I was an adult anyway (the only one I recall seeing as a child was The Lion King). I have enjoyed most of the ones I've seen.

What are some interests you have in common with your parents? .

How old were you when your parents trusted you to stay home alone all day? >> I was never allowed to do this. Ever. How long do you like to date someone before you bring them home to meet your parents? .

If you could go to one country for two weeks, all expenses paid, where would you go and why? >> I mean, any.

Do you drink more or less water than is recommended? >> I don't know or care. I'm just trying to drink as much as I can whilst also not making a big fucking deal out of it, because that won't help.

Do you like taking walks? >> I do. I would prefer a less populated area to walk in, but hey.

Do you go on vacation with your family a lot? Where was the last place you went? .

What do your parents think about piercings and tattoos? Do you agree with them? >> He was very conservative about them and I have never in my life agreed with that.

Which is the funniest name you’ve ever heard? >> This morning I was on Reddit and on the city sub there was a missing-person post for a girl named Penelope Wise. But her nickname was Penny. Penny Wise. 🎈

What are your religious beliefs? Are these the same as your parents’? >> I am a god cosplaying as a person for a while. That's my religious belief. Next question.

Do you find it difficult to get to sleep early when you have to be up for something the next day? >> Sometimes my mind gets hung up on the "having to be up early the next day" thing and anxiety is the death of a good night's sleep, so...

Do you still enjoy coloring in coloring books? >> Sure.

Do you remember the Land Before Time movies? Who was your favorite character? >> I've never seen them. What’s your favorite genre of book to read? .

Who has more influence over your taste in music - friends or family? .

When someone talks to you constantly, do you get fed up and easily irritated with them? >> If this were to happen to me, yeah, I'd definitely get irritable after a while. That's just overstimulating. Are you one of those people who texts back instantly? >> I respond to messages as soon as I see them, usually.

Do you think going to college / university is the best option after you’ve left school? >> It certainly wouldn't have been for me.

Is it easy to sleep late in your house, or are other people pretty noisy in the mornings? >> It isn't easy for me to sleep in my house, period, because I have an upstairs neighbour with an erratic schedule. Sleep at night, be woken up by him. Sleep in the day, be woken up by him. Lose/lose.

Do you prefer watching movies alone or with other people? >> I wouldn't say I have a preference. Like, if someone wanted to watch a movie with me, that's fine and acceptable. I just usually watch them alone because... that's the situation I'm in. But also it is easier to focus on more dense movies when I don't have someone else's presence constantly nagging at me.

What’s your favourite place to get pizza from? .

Do you ever do something, and then wonder how many people are currently doing the same thing as you? >> This might have been a passing thought I've had once or twice, idk. When’s the last time the power went out in your house? >> Last month sometime. Is there a laundry basket in your room? If yes, what color is it? >> I have a collapsible hamper, it's white mesh.

Do you like those different flavored Tootsie Rolls? >> I do not.

Do you keep your shoes on a shoe rack, or just throw them somewhere? >> I have five total pairs of shoes and they're just lined up against the wall by my wardrobe.

Think of the last verbal argument you were in; what caused it? . Does your refrigerator have one door or two? >> Two, one for the freezer and one for the fridge...

Do you smoosh bugs, or just let ‘em go? >> I let them go about their business. Every time I've smooshed a bug it's been by accident -- like the other day when I was walking and a gnat flew right onto my lip and got stuck there and of course brushing it off just kills it because they're fucking. impossibly tiny.

Do you know anyone who collects stamps? >> I do not.

What was the last thing you deleted off of your computer? >> A PDF I had downloaded a long time ago that I finally paged through and decided I didn't want to keep.

[tayfabe75]

Any ideas concerning the new bonus track unveiled to day The Albatross. ? Some are saying it’s related to The Albatross hotel fire that was next to the Bowery building back in 1903 , others are thinking it’s that problem that does not allow to you to complete something ie an albatross around my neck . The titles of the tracks are interesting so far The manuscript. The Bolter . The Albatross. lots of The….

Oh, boy! All I really knew about albatrosses before all this was how cute they were lol Annoyingly, by the time I woke up - the internet had already done hours of homework before I even knew what songs were played or what announcement was made!

That said, I'm just going to compile everything I've seen or come across since 'The Albatross' announcement:

The albatross can fly for years without landing

I saw people making the connection that albatrosses fly for specifically six years straight without landing. I'm… not very impressed with this takeaway. Well, I'm SUPER impressed if they can perform those incredible physical feats, but I don't personally think Taylor would single out that animal fact and use it to shade a past relationship. So, what else? I saw a fact that "while albatrosses are socially monogamous, the truth is that they get around when no one else is watching". (heh!)

The albatross symbolizes guilt, anxiety, & hindrance

Merriam-webster describes an albatross as "something that causes persistent deep concern or anxiety". Dictionary.com describes an albatross as "a seemingly inescapable moral or emotional burden, as of guilt or responsibility".

I also saw a definition of an albatross as a "continuing problem that makes it difficult or impossible to do or achieve something." If you want to see something quite eerie, check out the Britannica Dictionary's examples of 'albatross' in this context:

Fame has become an albatross that prevents her from leading a normal and happy life. Fame has become an albatross around her neck.

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

The above definitions stem from the expression "albatross around the neck", which originates from a poem called 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner' by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "in which the narrator kills an albatross - a large white bird deemed an omen of good fortune. This act is thought to curse his ship, so he must then wear the albatross around his neck."

And wouldn't you know it? This poem was adapted into a film starring Clara Bow! (I believe credit goes to gaylorgremlin on Twitter). The film is presumed lost, which is a nice segue into...

The Albatross Hotel on Coney Island

Turns out Taylor might've given us a clue by singing Coney Island after announcing The Albatross (I believe credit goes to Taylor Throwbacks on Twitter):

(You can read more about this here!)

L'Albatros & Poètes Maudits

Of course, as a 'Tatty', I was happy to stumble across the Charles Baudelaire connection: L'Albatros (I believe credit goes to midnightmete0rs on Twitter):

The user goes on to quote Matty's lyric from 'Part of the Band':

"I was Rimbaud and he was Paul Verlaine"

The translation of the poem is interesting, I'm seeing some recurrent "Tatty" themes, here:

The poet is like this prince of the clouds Who haunts the storm and mocks the archer But exiled on earth surrounded by jeers His giant wings make him helpless to walk

Oh, and "poètes maudits" translates to "cursed poets"… Cursed, of course, being a synonym of Tortured! And also gives Dear Reader vibes, eh? I've also taken note of the recurrent "the's"...

Lastly, and this one is a little more silly, but… Taylor's Grammys dress sort of looked like an albatross, lol!

Thanks so much for the ask! I'm happy to have a place to compile this mess for reference later 🤍🖤

[las-lus]

No don't worry!! Not a dumb question at all!

What is different is that whenever you're adding more people to your relationship, you need to work through some things!

Monogamy teaches us that your romantic partner is the most important person in your life, that will fulfill you and your dreams. We are used to being your partner's priority all the time.

But if you're dating two people, even if you consider them both your priority/the most important people, you will need to share that time and attention. Compromising in your own relationship with your on partner(s) is, of course, important in any relationship, but its harder when you add more.

I think its easier if i use a personal example! I hope you dont mind 😅

My partner used to date a close friend of mine, and while we weren't a throuple we were frequently together. However both me and his girlfriend have depression and we had a crisis at the same time. Both of us were used to relying on him and neither of us could leave the house. He had to choose who to help. That was hard for all three of us. He weighed our situations and chose her (which was the best call at the time btw). That felt like shit to me. I felt left behind, betrayed, and I had to take a lot of time to deal with the idea that I wasn't his priority when I wanted him to be.

And. Listen. I had been non-monogamous for almost 8 years by the time that happened. I had no idea how much i still relied on that idea, because that situation had never happened before.

And it felt shit for my partner, because he felt like he was betraying me. And whenever he feels like shit he wants time alone - which is the opposite of what I need. AND it also sucked for his girlfriend, because it felt like she had hurt me.

And we had that situation a few times after that. It got easier because we put in the effort to make it easier. But this means getting a bigger support network and knowing the difference between what you need and what you want.

I want to say, I think a lot of monogamous relationships can face a similar issue! Your romantic partner doesn't have to be the most important person in your life, and sometimes you can't be there for someone you love. But when you're dating more than one person this becomes the default.

A lot of monogamous couples get jealous of things like playing too much videogame or having friends, lmao, so keep that in mind.

Aaaand also welcome to your journey! I said its a lot of work but it's also so much fun and worth it. And honestly its the kind of work that makes life easier and lighter. Don't be too afraid about making mistakes either, hurting people is part of life, the important thing is apologizing and trying to get better!

Oh god this is a long reply I'm sorry lmao. Feel free to dm if you want to talk tho ^^

hello!!

what makes a throuple harder than other poly relationships? is it not just a three-person polycule? do people seriously try to force throuples? why not just "oh A and B are dating and B loves C and it just so happens to work out that A also loves C and WAOW how cool! C loves A too! crazy!" like??? is this actually a problem???? people try to force this???? what????????

I think a large part of people's discomfort come with some of the problems common in unicorn hunting 🦄 . Which is to say, yeah, trying to force a triad, or force it to be a closed tried. Some people have also had bad experiences with breakups -- if you break up with one but want to keep dating the other, its pretty easy for that to spiral into something very messy one way or the other. And then there's this belief that there's gonna be One True Couple 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 and A Third Wheel 🛞🚴.

Which like, all these things are possible. But there are a lot of people on this bitch of an Earth and I think stranger things have happened than *checks notes* exactly three people being happy loving each other. 🤷

[kitsu-katsu]

Rant time

That one friend that made me go on a full rant at 3am once because on good omens (this post) also watches the QSMP

And she geinds my gears with shipping stuff, tbh

Like, we'll be talking about canon couples, fun dyos and dynamics, CCs we didn't expect to be so fun together, etc, and of course, being SO romance obsessed, she needs everyone to have a commited explicitly romantic relationship with at least one other person

So when, for example, the canonically platonic couples who have a kid together come around, she CANNOT accept that it's explicitly platonic and not romantic and that it's canon

We talk about Jaiden and Roier, I talked about Roier and Cellbit having their thing (this was like a month ago, there wasn't a wedding in the works yet) and Jaiden being very supportive of whatever Roier wants to do, and how great a duo they are as besties and that it's really cool that they're explicitly platonic. She immediately tried to dig into it to make up a romantic drama with Jaiden and Roier, and when I said that they're canonically aroace and gay she just went "omg, they're starving the fans of that ship though!! Sapopeta should get between that" (context, Sapopeta was Maxo's character in Karmaland and notoriously shipped luckity and did everything in his power to get them together and fine with eachother again)

Then we were talking about how Missa and Phil haven't seen eachother again yet, and we started explaining it to another friend who doesn't watch the qsmp. We talked about Forever wanting Phil, and then havung a fight with Missa over Phil, but it ticked me after that whole Jaiden and Roier thing, how she started with "they have this romance, I mean uh... What do you call it?", So I went "they're canonically a platonic pair, they raise a son together", and she immediately went again "yeah that, so like a romance, right, and in come Forever wanting to steal Phil..."

And MAN. We really need more platonic pairs of characters doing "couply" things and qprs more often so that people can start to FUCKING GET IT, 'cause my god, it's exhausting

Like could you not invalidate my whole life experience as an aroace and also go against what creators themselves have said for the sake of focusing always on a very typical amatonormative romance? If it goes against amatonormativity, EXPLORE THAT, don't erase it just for the sake of imagining a kiss, where's the fun in varied dynamics if everyone's in a monogamous amatonormative relationship

[topoillogical]

My theory of polyamory is that . Well if you want to have a primary partner that's fine. My relationship/polycule is non-heirarchical, but I genuinely don't have a problem with other models. The thing is, having a primary partner allows you to have a person whose priority is *always with you*. In non-heirarchical relationships, the amount of sacrifices you have to make in your relationships increases significantly. This is fine, but can be difficult as well, especially (if not mostly) because of such strong cultural expectations that someones partner should always put them above their other friends/relationships.

Like to give some examples of things that arent reasonable to expect in non-heirarchical poly:

- legal marriage

- living alone together

- being their plus one to all important events

- etc

Now, all of these CAN happen in non-heirarchical, including marriage (it's all about communication, being legally bonded =/= being the most important) but you absolutely cannot assume that you should be the one to get them. You will have to miss some aspects of a monogamous partnership .

Okay, time to jump completely to a different style of poly. Solo poly! Solo poly is like.... it's kind of like having a primary partner except that primary partner is yourself

What I mean is, solo poly people tend to live alone and see their relationships as supplements to their life that they really value, but not as the core. They make sacrifices for their partners because they care about them, but won't generally plan their lives around their partners (I.e. how someone with a secondary partner tends not to plan their lives around them, but rather around their primary), and other such things.

Okay enough preamble heres my theory. Theory: people who have primary partners are living polyamorously within the "monogamous lifestyle". There are differences between their relationship and monogamous ones of course, but for the most part they can model their relationship on the typical monogamous path, relate to their monogamous peers, etc... meanwhile solo poly people are polyamorous people who are living polyamorously within the "single lifestyle". They can consider their life through the lens that a single person might, and may appear in passing as identical to a single person through their day-to-day lifestyle and behaviour.

So basically, if you're in monogamous society, and you want to stick to the norm, you have two lifestyle options. Single or monogamously partnered. And our society has ten thousand billion expectations and cultural rules or what these lifestyles should look like. And if you're a poly person, you can basically choose one of these styles and be a weirdo (bc society is not pro poly generally) but a weirdo who fits into one of the standard relationship schema.

But if you're like, anything else, wow are you completely charting the fucking deep sea

Like I'm non hierarchical poly, and it's like.... it's like... you have to derive a lot of things for yourself! You can base things on experience and understand what is and isnt right in a monogamous relationship from what you've seen and heard, but in polyamory who fucking knows? You have to decide. But also... you GET to decide. Which is nice. It's extremely freeing and extremely alienating. It's actually like completely divorcing yourself from the expectations of society. I highly reccomend, but it can be really hard sometimes just for.... the whole novelty and uncertainty of it all