#and to deny a person of any representation is to make them into a monster

[tio-trile]

Something something vampires have no reflection so he can't even try to see his brother's face anymore when he looks into the mirror

[boy-gender]

Hi! You can answer this publicly or privately, but I figured maybe someone else might have a similar question? I just wanted to ask about your personal reasons for using it/its pronouns.

I ask bc I've come across two different characters, now, in media I enjoy, that use it/its pronouns. And I've enjoyed seeing it! They're both two of my favorite characters in their respective media. And i think im kinda questioning whether or not my excitement for these characters (particularly when pronouns are discussed bc they're both great characters outside of that fact) is just bc it's nice to see representation, even beyond they/them pronouns, or if maybe I should consider it/its for myself? I'm not sure, I just thought hearing other people's experiences could potentially help me figure that out. Thank you for your time!

Happy to answer!

First of all, whatever pronouns you want to use is entirely up to you! Nobody gets to tell you what to use and what not to use, or what to try out and change later if you don't like it. If you feel like you want to try a set of pronouns, try it! If it doesn't jive, just change it again. There is no limit to how many pronouns or labels you can use, try, drop, pick up again, or how many times you change it. If it sounds like it/its makes you happy, go for it, even if it just "just" because of characters you like. There's nothing wrong with being influenced by the stories that are important to you.

My reason for using it is mostly trauma-based. All my life I've felt a significant disconnect from my own body, but I didn't realize I had a dissociative disorder until I was like 24. A combination of child abuse causing the disorder, where I never felt like my body was/is me, just that I'm a thing inhabiting the body, possessing it like a spirit- and also lifelong bullying and ostracizing by my peers both contributed to it. There are many times I don't feel like a man or a woman, or a nonbinary person, or any type of person at all. I was dehumanized; I had my humanity stripped from me, including my gender. Fat autistic weird 'girls' aren't treated like girls, intersex tomboys aren't treated like boys, we're treated like monsters. Like kicked dogs. I existed only to be abused by the people around me- my parents and teachers who were supposed to protect me, and the peers who should have been my friends and community. Freaks don't have genders, those are for people. And I was constantly reminded that I did not count as a person.

I very much associate the bullying I endured with my gender nonconformity. I was an afab intersex person- I was a girl of age like 13 with a moustache and beard growing in. I was fat, and my fat never distributed to the 'desired' places for a girl (also, this was like 2008. There was no 'desired place' for fat on girls). Other kids knew or sensed things were different about me- that I was queer in multiple ways, that I had several mental illnesses, that I was fat and ugly and was friends only with other rejects, meaning nobody gave a shit what happened to us. There would be no one to come to our defense no matter how severely we were harmed. We didn't matter.

When I found out I was a system, it put a lot into perspective. The disconnect from the body, from my identity, from my own memories (which are all in third person) made more sense. My other is not human. At first I assumed the "it-ness" was because of this, but actually he doesn't like to be called it at all. It hurts him. It doesn't fit. The it-ness is from me. It's an expression of the gender experience I was denied, a reclamation of the othering I suffered. I don't count as human. I will never be worth being human, or having typical human experiences. I will never be allowed into the club. But it turns out there are other clubs out here- humanity and the cisgender binary are not the only options. I no longer see my othering as "be human or just die," but as "not human? Cool, come try one of these other myriad things." There are so many more things you can be besides human.

This makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Firstly, good. People should be uncomfortable with the cruelty I endured and the marks it left. People should be uncomfortable that they probably participated in othering people as children, and maybe even still do it as adults, and they should be uncomfortable that society is raising their children to continue to do this. It is, in a way, a little bit like my pronouns being fuck/you, or examine/yourselves. Some of it's shock value, and I like that.

Secondly, the shit I get the most is from other trans people, saying I'm somehow harming the trans community because other people call us "its" as an insult. If someone were to call me a she, that is incorrect, and could be used as an insult- they're misgendering me, they're trying to hurt me. This is not the fault of the word "she" and I'm not going to go up to a trans woman and say "this word hurts me, so you cant use it. No more she/her pronouns for you." We are not all going to have the same comfort level with words. I don't like being called a dyke, but dykes do. Some people don't like being called queer, but lots of us do. Some people don't like being called it, but I do. Either way, I get to decide what I am called, and other people get to decide what they are called, and nobody else gets to veto someone's identity. If someone doesn't like calling me it? Then they don't have to talk to me. If they won't respect my pronouns, they're not any better than people who would call me she or her. I don't need their input or validation.

If you do decide to try out it pronouns, I would say be prepared for backlash, but also don't let it effect you. Block people liberally, joyously even. Don't argue. Don't bother. You do not have to justify who you are. And, consider "soft launching" your pronouns! Maybe tell a couple close friends, or just the internet, and if it goes well, expand to other people, and then other people. Roll it out in stages while you get comfortable and try things and assess. You don't owe anyone a coming out; you can decide if, when, how, and to whom you explain yourself, if you ever do it at all.

As an aside, I want to make a distinction here- I'm not otherkin. I don't say I don't count as human because I am some other type of creature just in a human body this reincarnation. This is not a spiritual belief, or even a psych-kin thing. This is purely a product of trauma, something that was foisted upon me that I am now reclaiming, not something innate to my identity. I don't want people to conflate my experience with that of otherkin and be like "see? you're not really [whatever], you're just traumatized!" I hope people will not use my experience to police other people's identities. I am speaking only for myself.

Hope this helps. If you have any more specific questions, feel free to reach out!

[maryellencarter]

Every so often, rotating posts in your mind on tumblr dot hell as you do, you find yourself face to squamous tendril with a previously undescribed Lovecraftian discourse monster, and you have to figure out how the hell to provide a scientific description of the beast.

Which is to say: I have identified a gap in how people talk about queer representation. A gap both so wide and so unnoticed that it contributes largely to misunderstandings, accusations, flamewars, and callouts.

You, and each of us, likely agree with one and only one of these two statements:

* "Queer representation includes any explicit depiction of queer activity, negative or positive. An evil lesbian dominatrix who uses hitting on the heroine to demonstrate her evil, a same-sex teacher/underage student relationship, or an unpleasant and unattractive authority figure shown with a harem of multiple sexes, are all technically queer representation. Additionally, having queer representation does not by itself make a work more valuable or less valuable."

* "Queer representation is a positive factor that always makes a work more valuable. Therefore, it is extremely important to select carefully among depictions of queer activity, and apply the positive label of Representation only to the ones that we personally identify with and/or wish people to emulate. Additionally, if a person describes a specific depiction as Representation, it is certain that the person identifies with it personally and/or wishes people to emulate it."

As you can see, a person who agrees with the second statement is likely to be absolutely horrified by some of the things that get called "queer representation" by a person who agrees with the first statement -- because they believe that calling something queer representation is an endorsement of the *kind* of queer behavior it depicts, that only socially desirable queer behavior can be called Representation.

At the same time, a person who agrees with the first statement is likely to be baffled and frustrated by some of the things that get called "not queer representation" by a person who agrees with the second statement -- because they believe that denying something the title of Representation requires either a denial that it was queer (or "queer enough"), or a denial that it was depicted.

(I, being a person on the internet, also agree with one and only one of these two statements, but I am trying very hard to represent both of them accurately. And I think it would probably be very helpful to clarity if we could all consider that both viewpoints exist, when having conversations about depictions of queerness in media.)

[thegirlsarealwaysgagged]

DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER, Performance and Pageantry:

There’s a certain expectation that comes with being a system, our representation is few and far between and good representation is even rarer.

There’s a look, a sound, a feeling that is expected of systems. We’re meant to be monsters, completely inhospitable and disorderly. We’re supposed to forever be the child that in their eyes was destroyed, few understand that this was the brain’s way of preventing destruction.

We can’t have any sense of normalcy, or identity, or wholeness, because everyone, even subconsciously, views us as broken individuals that are solely defined by our traumas. We can’t take pride in our plurality, because then we are faking it. We have to perform, but we can’t perform too much because then we are acting.

If our alters are too different from us, they are not real. If they are too similar, then they still are not real. There’s no line we can tread that won’t result in fake claiming, there’s no escaping this idea that DID and the experiences of systems are not real. I have lurked in fake-claiming circles quite a bit and there’s no way for a system to gain respectability in their eyes, even those with diagnoses are accused of exaggerating their symptoms, as though showing the symptoms of your disorder somehow invalidates your experience.

They all say the same thing, even if phrased differently: Systems are a myth.

They talk about the rarity, yet never deny the existence of redheads and would never say that if 158 million people suddenly went missing there wouldn’t be global uproar, discord, panic, and fear. Our existence is simply too daunting for them to comprehend, yet we are expected to bridge the gaps in their understanding by being exactly what they need us to be.

Small, quiet, forgettable. They only can comprehend the broken child but can’t even begin to fathom the adult with complex traumas. The adult with self-awareness, the adult who can keep track of their lost time and who shows up differently for different people in their lives. They can understand and pity the child that is overwhelmed by the multitudes of plurality, but can not show empathy or extend understanding to the adult that wades the waters of the same experience.

I watched a debate about how alters aren’t really different people but rather splits in the same psyche, which is fine though it does oversimplify what that actually entails, but the most infuriating part was that people in that subreddit were trying to argue that as though it would be functionally different. Logically, I know I am a split of psyche, but I have my own memories, own preferences, own skills, which makes me functionally my own person. When cells undergo Mitosis there’s the parent cell and two identical daughter cells, yes they’re genetic copies, but you still have three distinct cells that increase the capacity of a cellular system. Systems and alters are even more complex and individual than that cycle, but we are not given the dignity of being our own persons?

[dreamtydraw]

what IS wrong with a headcanon of Asra being afab and autistic?

Well hi there ✨

Let me explain why this is wrong.

Understand that no hate comes from my words and I am simply trying to explain. If afterward you disagree with my statement feel free to ( nicely ) explain your point of view. I will not go in a debate but I would be interested in reading it to understand.

I have neither read the routes nor the synopsis of the routes so I can't judge based on what is actually in it, it can be good as it can be bad but I am not focusing on that I am focusing on what is used for promotion.

For starters, there is nothing wrong with having personal headcanons that aren't hurtful so, in the case I saw someone saying they hc Asra as autistic because of an observation they did then there would be no problem but the afab one is hurtful. For a reminder to people who are unaware Afab stands for Assigned female at birth and Asra is canonly Amab ( assigned male at birth ) BUT nonbinary. His identity is a representation of the nonbinary community and a good one as it's casual and goes against the stereotypes that "you need to be androgynous or not pass as your assigned gender to be nonbinary." "having any feminine trait or action makes you a woman."

The term trans and nonbinary can be used differently from person to person but what I telling here is that Asra has a specific gender identity that matters to many. A lot of people misgender him because there either are not aware of his identity or because they are against it, changing it is erasing it.

"but if he's nonbinary he can be afab then"

Making Asra afab is erasing his already queer identity, it put the stereotype that nb people who show signs of feminity or androgyny are immediately considered girls. Taking away an already existing représentation to put another one instead is hurtful.

"him being non binary is also a headcanon"

Nope it is canon and comfirmed :

There is no subtext or signs that Asra may be afab and if you want you can compare him to Rainier ( from monster manor, fictif games, written by one of the Arcana writers ) Rainier is canon Afab trans, it's here in subtext and it got confirmed by the creator when people started to make the hc.

Do you want to hc Asra as afab because you like the character and want him to be closer to you? Sure, that's your business but this does not apply here and let me switch to the main reason :

This headcanon is promoted as the same level of canon on the main Instagram account to attract a specific type of people with the marketing that queerness and neurodivergence are trends.

I would have not had this réaction if it was someone going on their days and having those headcanons. I would have still tought about what I said about erasing Amab's nonbinary identity but it would not have mattered because in that context it's a personal creation and I have no right to dictate how people have to feel about their personal creative space.

This is not the case, Dorian is promoting it on the main account that has 117k of followers. This is not simply doing headcanons, it's having your headcanon put in the spotlight with the idea of it attracting people through information that is not confirmed.

I have a big dislike for the Dorian marketing tactic of using the fan content of a well-known ID to milk them more audience but they are a company and this tactic works for them and for people using it to get big promotions and that a fact.

By doing so there is a mix of what is canon and what is not, blurring the line between personal interpretations that can hurt some community and real content that has been the fondation to create a community.

"If you don't like don't interact with it"

Yeah that's what I do, I do not engage with Dorian's content but you can't force me to turn a blind eye on the immense game that is the arcana.

The arcana is and has been notorious for being queer-friendly as a well-known free Otome. The fanbase is HUGE and you can't deny how it impacted a lot of Otome players (like myself). This was one of the most important queer spaces for otome players and still is. It helped people figure out their queer identity ( like me figuring out I was nonbinary after learning that Asra was and doing research afterward ) and have representation trough an enjoyable fiction. As someone still in the otome community and in fandoms that is close to the arcana ( last legacy on Fictif and Touch Starved by red spring studio ), it would be impossible for me to never look at what it become. The og game had its problem that I acknowledge but one thing it got right was its queer representation.

Now going back on the main topic.

Dorian is not Nyx Hydra. Nyx Hydra had its wrong with the promotion of some queerbaiting stuff but at its core, promoting queer games in an environment where there was almost none was a good thing. Dorian does not promote queer content because they want it to be seen and help the queer community, they are promoting queer content as a marketing strategy with the idea that queerness is marketable ( view this tactic as the same as a company selling pride stuff because it gives them a good image ). This applies also to neurodivergence.

Neurodivergence has never been a focus in the Arcana but is a perfectly good topic to explore in fan space. Why? Because it does not have to be focused on, it does not have to be put in your face. The story has never been about autism in any way and the only reason they would put it on focus is because they apply the same tactic as with promoting queerness: it's marketable. Making Asra autistic is not a problem it would be delightful to have a canon autistic LI in a big game ( like cove holden yes I am doing the olba propaganda here ) but it is not canon and trying to squeeze it as a main topic 7 years after it's release feels like an add on rather than a real representation.

Because queerness and neurodivergence are more talked about nowadays media companies are jumping on it to promote themselves. People against it are gonna drag the game and in that way make a promotion out of it and people in this community will check it out because they want to be represented. Again I am not talking about the routes themselves, I don't know the writers, and I don't know their content I am talking about Dorian.

Those promoted headcanons harm the queer community. We already have an existing queer story, changing it with new things on an almost canon level ( because it's promoted by the owner of canon content ) is erasing what we already had and making the new queer labels look bad. Think for a second, some people are gonna see the afab tag and get angry about it because "hey it was supposed to be a man nb" and start to hate on the creators, people who like the hc and possibly afab arcana creator with stigmatization. I am not even exaggerating, this can create hate within the community and even if it comes from a good heart this is not the way it should be added in the fandom.

I think I came across all the points I wanted to try to explain and I tried to really make it understandable to someone for who English isn't their first language.

All my opinions and views on that matter are not to be taken as an exact voice, I am only one player along with thousands of other people but if someone like me feels it should be addressed it's 100% sure that at least a couple of other people feels the same way or agree on some statement.

If you read this far this is a reminder that this is not an open door to start harassing or spreading hate to anyone and I hope my post helped understand what I tried to communicate. Always have critics on what you like and understand it's wrong and good.

[spookyreibones]

The Crux S2: VII of Swords

You cannot deny your nature, nor run from the past forever.

Betrayal, deception & trickery.

They made their choice, moving on from the 2 of swords to the 7 of swords. But what about the other c- no shut up, they don't matter right now. This is the card for the next story beat that happens in session 2.

For the uninitiated, I am making a series of tarot cards for my d&d group, with whom I run a homebrewed campaign. I send them out around 2 days before their respective session. This one made them intensely suspicious of the NPCs' quest they had accepted.

Perhaps the scar-faced countryside folk who are unusually good with guns aren't the holiest people out there. Just a thought! Fanning the flames, one of the NPCs grew antsy during dinner, as if he'd been wearing tight clothes for too long. His wife gave him a knowing look and put their child to sleep, and he then headed out to the backyard, claiming to go check on the night guard, but a keen-eyed bard caught the hint of a bipedal canine running off into the night.

If werewolves are normal, then why would he hide it? They live amongst society happily, but some see them as barbaric criminals which is partially true as a significant part of the turned (as opposed to born werewolves) are or were criminals. And they don't like the government? Dunno, maybe there's something cooking there?

Here's the song that goes along with the card! I didn't send it out along with the card for my group but I will for the future ones :3

Well, that's as much as I'll reveal above the cut and before issuing the respective SPOILER WARNING for my d&d group and STAY AWAY.

Aight, so last time we mentioned the symbolism of the eye being stabbed: it represents turning a blind eye to what is clearly obvious. This is what would happen if they took Sergio's (rural doctor) quest, which on the surface looks far more noble as it means saving a monster-infested village.

However, the 2nd time the party saw the two NPCs that give out the quest they literally slammed a tied-up person's head on the police officer's desk, divvying up the bounty amongst themselves. They have scars all over their bodies and faces, smell of gunpowder and wield guns with the same familiarity that most use pens. There's no denying that these folk are rough. But hey, that doesn't mean they're bad people. Right?? Right?

Both in the world's lore and in metagame symbolism, werewolves are a representation of savagery. To some, turned werewolves invite side-eyes and bag-clutching as most of them have violent pasts. However, it is an undeniable and inextricable part of our world: our savagery, violence and ruthlessness.

The seven of swords paired with the werewolf reminds us that though we may try to hide it, this part of us is so deeply rooted that it cannot be hidden or denied (hence the accompanying text 'you cannot deny your nature').

The party didn't ally themselves with a known criminal, making the 'right' choice and remaining in the good graces of the law. But is it really right? Honourable? Were you not motivated by self-interest? Is that any better than the criminal who desperately wants to get her brother out of jail?

The werewolf in the card and the one the bard saw is Jace, the co-quest giver of the Honeymeadow/Honourable questline. He is a turned werewolf, being bitten in a skirmish with an opposing gang when he and the rest of the folk belonged to the Santorini gang. They lied, stole, killed and shot people like every other gang of criminals. All NPCs except the child, who was sheltered, were involved in the violent criminal life. They have paid off their bounties and renounced their old life of crime, being lawful and helpful citizens, but the past is not something we can run from or hide. It is a part of us, and this is the pill they (particularly Jace) must swallow moving onwards with life.

Jace hides that he is a werewolf from his son because he is afraid Jaime (son) will see him as even more of a monster. Jaime was born into the gang, sheltered, yes, but aware of the violent life his parents and relatives lived outside the quiet comfort of the gang's campsite. He knows his parents are criminals. He also knows they have morals and a good heart, but it terrifies Jace that his son might see him as anything but a monster, which is why he hides that part of himself from his son and the party. He doesn't trust the party to keep it a secret.

Overall, the party and the questgivers & co don't quite trust each other. But they need each other. At least for now.

[sainteclectic]

npd soul is also very good! I'm partial to npd mind personally, something about his unrelenting standards for himself and others, need for logical perfection, and overall sense of self-importance despite denying himself weaknesses that make up that "self." he denies that he has emotions because that would make him less perfect. that would be a flaw, and he can't have those. he's the logical one, the most efficient one, not the petty one with a bruised ego. I've seen others talk about this headcanon nd I think it's neat.

I like aspd heart, though I don't have any clear evidence to point to. I think it would fit in the themes of nuanced mental health discussion. let the heart have the disorder many deem "heartless"- but beyond that personal reasoning, I think his disregard for conventional rules but strong sense of personal morals, willing to do things people deem as "immoral" for what he believes is just, along with his lack of considering consequences for those actions is something to consider.

contrary to popular belief, many people with aspd have a strong moral code. it's something a lot of them will discuss! they don't have any regard for conventional morality as defined by the justice system, but a lot of them have their own personal codes. it might not be what you consider moral, but they're not entirely without morals like people believe. for example, someone with aspd may be aggressive towards people they perceive as weak because of their belief in survival of the fittest (rather than what most see as senseless malice). heart displays this in a way by doing something many consider immoral because of his strongly held conviction that mind's attitude is harmful. it's not a good action to take, but he's acting out of what he believes is just.

they're talked about like aimless monsters, and some medical associations even discourage giving them psychiatric help, and recommend that aspd not be treated at all unless court ordered. this pushes more of them into the industrial prison complex, which further stigmatizes aspd as the "evil person disorder." so on a personal level, I want to offer a chance for positive representation that these people so rarely get.

bpd soul propaganda

his relationships with heart and mind are extremely tumultuous. he alternates between encouraging support and harsh criticism. he wants them to be close and loves them, but he's easily frustrated by their conflict and despises them for it.

he seeks a stability that seems impossible for him to achieve. when he doesn't feel like he can be stable, he threatens suicide because it feels like his only option. suicidal and self-destructive behavior is really common in bpd, especially in response to interpersonal distress and instability.

he has very little sense of self. identity isn't something he feels like he has the right to have (since personal separation is contradictory to trying to be Whole), but also, it seems like something he just can't get a grip on even if he tried.

I think that he has extreme attachment issues in concord. he's terrified that things will go wrong again, worried one of them will get hurt or disappear whenever he's not keeping an eye on them. he wants to know exactly where they are and be told when they're leaving because otherwise he'll panic about their absence.

on that note, his fears of hurting them or ruining things when things seem stable are something a lot of people with bpd struggle with. there's this underlying fear that the things "inherently wrong with you" will ruin everything you touch, either because of personal experience or internalized demonization.

if you headcanon Whole as a distinct person, that would be his favorite person. the extreme, almost religious idealization and having your entire sense of self revolving around a person (or really, the perception of perfection you have of a person) is a clear sign of having a favorite person. the abandonment issues would also be the worst with Whole, for obvious reasons

also i think it would be neat if this was a more widespread concept

[egg-emperor]

Dunno if you’ve talked about this, but which iteration of eggman was your favorite?

Personally I really liked both Satam eggman and adventure eggman. They both seem like genuine threats who could destroy the entire world,

I like SATam due to how terrifying he was to me as a kid. He took over the world, he’s already made the bad end, and he’s not afraid to kill if he really needs too. Also I hold onto this version of eggman for the nostalgia

I just like adventure a little more cuz they somehow made eggman feel more human during the arc, and I think it helps make him more… terrifying in my opinion cuz he isn’t just some crazy dude, he’s a dude with aspirations and ideals, he’s had a life and feels closer then any villain who feels so far away. Eggman isn’t just eggman, he’s human. And the idea that a human could be like him is horrifying, because we are just so close to them biologically enough that we feel disturbed.

Idk I like thinking about stuff like that hehehehehe-

Oh geez this ask is long lmao.

I have a very simple answer, for me it's game canon Eggman in his entirety, classic and modern, before anything else. Just every game because he's consistent and is the better part of the writing in some games because of it. I'm very lucky to have him as my favorite. They've always known exactly who they want him to be, what he wants to do, and how they want to present him and do it well and find ways to put him in many fun interesting situations while staying true to it. He's the perfect character for both darker and serious and more light hearted funny moments and stories and when both sides are balanced, it's even better.

I do agree that the Adventure games are a highlight for his character with the amount of focus on the great evil he's capable of, his sly cunning ability, and how he's a serious threat in ways nobody can deny but I love all of him before and after too. He's consistently evil and a great threat, regardless of the amount of focus on it and the humor, though it seems he could do with more because people try to deny he's still as evil as he used to be. But I do love how he can be funny too and how it can emphasize and add impact to the great evil he's capable of because he reminds you he's not a joke, he's still a very serious threat.

That's something I love too, how he's human. He's a unique looking cartoony one that's extremely intelligent and capable of amazing out of this world things, but human. I love how he isn't a cyborg/robot/etc, doesn't look generically evil, and has human feelings and passions. You don't have to be nice and empathic to be "human" and I don't know why people think so. He already is just by species lol and if we're talking characterization, he has moments of depth and personal insight without changing his entire being because personality wise, he's already an accurate narcissistic evil bastard.

He's a great representation of how humans can indeed be very evil, selfish, and capable of very terrible things. Eggman has done very evil things that make him a monster but there are also aspects that remind us he's still human just like us, like how he's very passionate about things he enjoys and has dreams and goals he wishes to accomplish, also his determination and confidence to work hard and fight for what he wants. But while those things can be done in harmless and innocent ways, Eggman is deeply selfish and evil and wants to accomplish it through doing terrible things, which isn't unrealistic.

Humans can be monsters and do terrible things and in many ways, he reflects that well in realistic ways, while also being able to go beyond what's possible in real life in fiction, so he can do even more. He can be relatable in terms of species and certain aspects of his interests/hobbies, hopes and dreams, and emotions but he's also capable of terrible things that only the worst people comparable to monsters could want to do, not just without a care or remorse but even enjoying it at times. And both sides are realistic regardless of personal relatability of the audience and that makes him all the more terrifying.

I love thinking about it too, it's a part of what makes him so interesting. He's earned the title of monster with all the worst things he's done but it doesn't revoke his humanity, it is realistic, and it adds impact. It's fantastic! That's why being 100% human, regardless of his differences and his evil, which other people can also really be like even if we don't personally relate, is very appealing over being nonhuman. And instead of the idea that because he's human he must have empathy and goodness (which isn't even true for everyone irl), the way he's human like us and reminds us we're capable of horrible things is gloriously messed up and exciting to me. XD 💜

[thetimelordbatgirl]

Lily going off about the monster high stuff doesn't even make sense? Its childrens fiction, you know where characters can be anything and are HUMANIZED to be relatable for children. Children find it easier than older audiences to relate to any kind of character from talking sponges to Ninja Turtles. These characters are nonhuman to be enjoyable characters for kids but the characters themselves are humanized for kids to connect with. Which is exactly what Monster High does, the characters are monsters but they are humanized and treated like people. So if nonhuman cartoon characters are literally nonhuman because its a fun cartoon for kids and the characters are humanized and treated like people then what the hell is the problem with LGBT rep if the LGBT rep if it isn't demonized as "unnatural" and treated as normal. Again its almost like cartoon characters are nonhuman because its meant to be fun for kids who aren't sitting there like "This werewolf character isn't human therefor I in no way see them as personified in any way and cannot connect with this character in any way" Its almost like nonhuman characters exist because its meant to be FUN.

Its kind of ironic that Lily often gets mad at kids shows for becoming dark and less fun and such, but when you got a franchise like Monster High that was made to appeal to kids and in my opinion, is easy to sit down and just watch and have fun with it, Lily...instantly brands it as bad basically. Like, Monster High's whole appeal was at the time, to appeal to kids basically and yeah, there were some problems with it that should be called out (the obvious one being body issues and I think there was a controversy over Clawdeen saying in her bio, she shaves her legs, something that was eye-brow raising with the audience it was targeted to), but Lily doesn't really call out actual valid problems. She just loses her shit over the idea of someone rewriting MH with representation that Mattel had denied the MH team each time they came up with a character who could be LGBT+. It's the Encanto fandom thing all over again: Lily not addressing actual problems and instead stuff that wasn't problems. Heck, she even like the Encanto Fandom thing, brands everyone who does this whole LGBT+ monsters thing as....white people only doing it:

Like...she really loves to do this, huh? Its also a pretty bad representation of a topic that started as just wanting to write representation in Monster High, but I digress.

And like, let's be real: she'll refuse to acknowledge its clearly in the name that its going to be about monsters, as its called Monster High, just like Spongebob is going to be about a sponge and TMNT is about turtles. She'll also refuse to acknowledge that in childrens programing, its pretty common to go with stuff like characters who are monsters, but the plot always treats them like you'd treat human characters. You can learn lessons via these shows a-lot and in Monster High's case, it always used each new ghoul and manster as a way to tell the audience to be proud of who they were and just be themselves, a pretty positive message for its audience as some kids likely sadly feared being themselves a-lot and sometimes may view stuff they do as flaws, but Monster High was teaching their audience to be proud of themselves basically, flaws and all. Which is why it hurt obviously likely for the person who wanted Lily's writing advice, that MH didn't have any LGBT+ rep until the current reboot, aka non-binary Frankie and Deuce having two moms. But Lily, who demands representation in kids stuff constantly...unless its anime then she's fine with it being censored or she bats for Disney who restricted Dana Terrace constantly with The Owl House cause Lily doesn't like Dana nowadays, basically says no, monster high shouldn't do representation cause shocker, the thing called Monster High is about MONSTERS, and even when still discussing this topic, posted:

Like...we still in the topic here from Monster High, and she ironically went dark completely with the idea for werewolves. Let's be real: Lily probably thinks kids do think like that with monsters, because she can't acknowledge unlike her, kids can relate to non-human characters and don't think like she does.

[nixthelapin]

It’s a nice thought, but Colt didn’t make Félix out of love. It was stated that he was made from Colt’s jealousy of the Agreste’s getting pregnant first. He may have wanted a child for more than just being an heir, but that chance of love didn’t extend to what he considered a monster. He was offended at Gabriel’s offer at first because it was “sorcery,” and even when he did give in and use the Peacock, he clearly was terrified of his choice- he’s even afraid to touch Amelie’s pregnant belly. The illness (which I honestly don’t think he knew about as a consequence, I doubt he would’ve gone through with it) only justified his hatred of magic and his “monster” son in his mind. Not to mention, abusive behavior doesn’t just come out of nowhere. Colt may have hated Félix because he was made of magic (and the reason for his illness), but hatred alone doesn’t cause someone to scream at a child, tear up their toys, give them commands like a dog (literally using “sit” and “walk”), and punch walls at the thought of them (one such instance almost killed Félix btw). Those kinds of anger issues and worldviews are present beforehand, they don’t just pop up out of no where. And even if these behaviors only come out with Félix (which I really doubt), that’s just because Colt had an excuse to. People like that are often only kept in check by social standards, so when they have an acceptable reason (like their child being a “monster”), then they can finally let loose.

A personal example: my grandfather was abusive to his three daughters (one being my mom). It wasn’t clear at first that he would be, though. When my oldest aunt was born (firstborn), he was elated, and he loved her. Then she started expressing her own opinions that didn’t line up with his, then the hatred kicked in, and so did the physical and verbal abuse. That didn’t just happen because she changed her mind with him- he was already a huge asshole who was full of himself and loved to control people. (And I didn’t even touch on what he did to the other two!)

I’ll agree with you on this, though: Colt probably wouldn’t understand why Félix hates him. Why? To this day, my grandfather still denies and he ever hurt any of his kids, and is shocked why none of them want any contact with him. It’s narcissism, plain and simple.

If you’re interested, there’s a really good one-shot about Félix using the kwagatama to speak with his father for closure: https://archiveofourown.org/works/47812315. I highly recommend it! I think it’s a realistic representation of what abusive parents look like and how they came to be what they are.

Felix and His Father

Yeah no everybody loves talking about how Emelie is still alive as a memory inside the peacock miraculous, that Adrien could talk to her through the little rock thingy the kwamis make – that as i type i realize i should just search the name of it but im on a roll now

BUT let's focus for a quick second that the one that holds the peacock miraculous is Felix, who also had his father wield its power to bring him to life. Can we talk about that for a moment?

Felix meeting the younger version of his father, who was still strong and healthy, untouched by the consequences of a broken miraculous. A man with a strong sense of duty and responsibility, who out of braveness and love for a child (that doesn't yet exist), sacrificed his life and health to bring his heir to life.

A man who didn't yet regret the choice of the broken power, a man who still didn't know the pain of his life fading away, a man whose only goal in life was to fulfill his duty as the head of the family even if his life depended on it (and it did). A man who did not resent his son for existing, but cherished his life as his greatest treasure, his prize for a life mission accomplished.

A man who does not understand why his child hates him so much.

[coolbeesbro]

Hey did you hear that there going to be a Luca short on Nov. 12th?

I did and I feel like this big ol jumble of mixed emotions over it. This is gonna probably be a lot more of an answer to this than you expected, so sorry about this in advance, but I have a LOT to say about it so strap in!

First and foremost, don't get me wrong, I am SO excited at the prospect of more Luca content coming our way, but at the same time it worries me after how hard Disney's been denying that Luca was an LGBT+ film (or could be).

One can argue that Luca, at the very least, is a damn good allegory for being part of the LGBT+ community in a bigoted town. And it would make sense to push that further for Luca and Alberto having something more there; after all, being outed as a sea monster isn't just a struggle Luca is facing alone. It's both him and Alberto walking that line to stay hidden. It's a struggle they both face together. Then there's the threat Luca faces of being sent away to The Deep "for his own good" because his parents worry for his safety and would rather hide him away than let him be who he is as a person for fear that he'll get hate-crimed. Then there's the fact Alberto was abandoned by his father, "I'm just the kid that ruins everything." leaving him waiting on the island alone in hopes that his father would change his mind and come back for him. Then there's the outing scene we get, with Luca shouting Sea Monster and pointing at Alberto so he could keep himself hidden and safe. (theres so much more pointing towards them being gay, but this is already going to be absurdly long so I'll cut it here).

Despite there being so many things pointing towards that relationship between Luca and Alberto, here's why the short we're getting has me feeling a little bit antsy.

This goes a lot more into the MO of Disney as a whole, since their main focus is always in profit first. It's not necessarily about the idea that American/European audiences wouldn't buy products and support a film with LGBT+ themes. It has more to do with their popularity in China. Disney has a very large market there, and it would be a significant impact in how well a film does in the eyes of Disney (they don't necessarily care about views, more so how much money they can make off the movie/tv show/etc). So if the movie/show gets censored and pulled out of China, there goes a lot of their profit.

Lets hop over to some advertisements we've all seen on the Luca Official Instagram account, because it would be dumb to overlook the rainbow text and video edits. That was absolutely a marketing scheme on Disney's behalf aimed at selling more products to the LGBT+ community, because it's just subtle enough to keep us interested without raising any red flags over in China. Once more, Disney only cares about selling product, and if that means giving us the illusion of making something cannon without actually going through with it they will. It absolutely kills me because deep down I wish there was something more to it than that (and god I'm ready and willing to be proven wrong about this I really am) but there just isn't.

Even if the short itself has no luberto content, my fear is that they'll push for one of them getting in a het relationship (weather it be Luca and Giulia, Luca and some other girl, or Alberto and some other girl) as a way of "damage control" to point away from the possibility of Luca and Alberto being gay in cannon. Luca as a whole has been a very successful movie in Disney's eyes, and the potential for that to crash and burn in China's market is a big factor here.

I would love nothing more than to get more underdogs content with like, a reunion between Luca, Giulia and Alberto at the start of their next summer. I think that could be really sweet and would be a perfect little addition to the movie. And there's a very good chance that's probably what we're getting here, but that small smidgen of doubt that Disney would push for a more heterosexual narrative with this makes me uncomfortable.

Growing up, I had next to nothing as far as representation in the media and had to turn to fannon content to get any form of inclusion. It makes me so happy to see younger people now getting the representation they deserve (like with Steven Universe, Adventure Time, The Owl House, Kipo and so much more). And in that regard, it makes me sad that we would get so close, and then have it get ripped from our hands. It's frustrating and feels like a few steps back.

Anyways, sorry, I know that was defiantly a lot more than you were asking for, but I needed to explain myself so it didn't come across as me being nervous over nothing. Whatever happens will happen, so we'll see when we get there. Regardless, I'll still stick to the content I'm creating for the fandom because if Disney clowns on us, at lease there's still the fannon to rely on.

[notori]

Alright so while I admit this thought tends to spark in my mind when thinking about Imodna, this isn’t solely about them. They just happen to be the ship that it’s happening in most recently, which I personally am most obsessed with.

And I’m not even saying this to shame anyone or get people to stop thinking or feeling what they want, but rather, to explain something.

I feel as though things like social media, advertising, other bores of modern life which have commodified sex has prompted a generation of people to think that sex in a relationship cheapens it and therefore the 'truest of loves’ out there do not have sex. There is this notion I see a lot where people put non-sexual relationships on a pedestal with beliefs like “They don’t need sex to be in love - their relationship is superior.”

Now, QPRs among AroAces are great! Aro people are great! Ace people are great!

However, sex - especially queer sex - has been vilified, even criminalized, throughout modern history even to this day. To argue that a sexless relationship is the ‘purer’ one - especially when you do so referring to a queer couple - can, at the very least, come off as damaging to the community. If you don’t want to admit it does actively damage the community.

It is why I, and many others, can get defensive and frustrated when this happens, because it feels like a betrayal. Showing off same-sex platonic or familial love is not new, nor groundbreaking, nor anything in desperate need of representation. So, to take something between two women that can so clearly be seen as romantic and a) attempt to deny it, or b) claim that romance or sex would tarnish it or make it inferior to the ‘pure gal pals besties sisters’ relationship... It just hurts. And to have it come from within the queer community only twists the knife.

And in fact it only makes the situation more tense. By denying that relationships without a kiss or sex are romantic, it then forces a kiss or sex in order to really drill it in that it is romantic. Which is counter to the idea of liberating a relationship’s labels.

Imodna specific below:

If the people involved in the ship have expressed that they are Aro/Ace (which, if we bring it back to Imodna specifically, has been done on CR before with Grog and Cad) that’s one thing. But they haven’t.

In fact, sexuality and desire have been major character points for both of them. Imogen’s whole up-and-down repeating arcs have been around the theme of desire, of giving in, of letting herself be free to be herself. That is queer narrative. Laudna’s sexuality, so clearly summed up in this post, is so overt yet constantly deflected from herself. She is an undeniably sexual being who has been trained to believe that she is not - or should not be. That is queer narrative and feminist narrative.

Neither of them have been shown to be aromantic either. Even if you want to deny Imogen’s pining for Laudna, she loved Samuel, and has at the very least not shown any outright dislike for romance. At the most extreme, she is neutral on romance - and that’s only if you deny the many hours of Imodna supercut content.

Laudna too, although it is more complicated. Personally, I feel as though claiming Laudna is aromantic is in itself arophobic because the reason she, specifically, is “unable to access that part of her brain” is because of trauma. To claim Laudna is aromantic is like saying that aromantic people become so because of trauma - not an inherent orientation. Laudna has been unable to access the romantic part of her brain because she died, an undeniably traumatic experience. Being chased out of towns for being a monster also would have added to internalizing the belief that romance (or sex) were not ‘for her’ and so she had no need to bring that part of her brain back. However, she experienced romantic attraction pre-death (even if Andy was a tool who did not deserve her attraction). So, rather than her being aromantic as an orientation, she is more representative of people who lost their ability to feel love due to trauma.

All in all, look, I’m not out to hate on anyone, I’m just so tired and frustrated. There are wonderful female friendships across literature, film and TV, and even CR specifically. I argue that Imodna is just not one of them.

[girl4music]

FIRST KILL - SEASON 2 - FIXES/CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS

All the minor flaws of ‘First Kill’ can easily be fixed with a continuation and what they have learned from the fans and critics can be applied to Season 2. I really think the flaws of the show so far are genuinely just time constraints. They just need to find a way to write the show as well as they can under the limit/restriction of 8 40 minute episodes per season.

In terms of the production:

Less loud music and better audio mixing/editing: Don’t have a song every other scene. Ya’ll don’t need to spend more on music license for the show than you do on the actual show itself. All that music is distracting from the engagement of what the viewer is watching. It does not elevate anything. Of course have music but not so much of it. And dear god - GET A BETTER AUDIO MIXER/EDITOR because the audio mixing/editing is absolutely horrendous. Some scenes you can’t even hear what the characters are saying!

CGI: I personally don’t care about the CGI but sure, that can have improvements just so it shuts people up because I’m sick of that being critiqued so much when it doesn’t even really matter all that much. The CGI might be an eyesore but it has nothing to do with the storyline so I don’t see why people care that much about seeing poorly rendered images of monsters. I have tolerated bad visual graphics all through my life watching my favourite shows and it has never made me love them any less for it. Only STORY matters. If you guys care about that shit then I’m sure if they get a better budget for Season 2 they’ll improve on it.

In terms of the writing:

I genuinely think that they need to spend more time explaining the vampire/hunter mythos and lore and less time on Calliette. I love them but if you constantly bombard me with them without development elsewhere, I’ll get tired of them real fast. Given Cal and Jules are in the “enemies” phase of their relationship now, that’s likely what’s going to happen.

Give me Calliette sexual intimacy - but make it earned. A lot of the steamy scenes between them in Season 1 didn’t feel earned. They were good - but they kinda just happened without rhyme or reason. And that can be detrimental to the actual representation because it can feel cheap and insulting to lesbians and WLW. The chemistry between Sarah Catherine and Imani is so great that this isn’t necessarily a problem for me. I can simply put it down to teenage hormones why they get so sexual with each other so quickly. But for Season 2 - I expect logic when it comes to this and genuine emotional connection. Don’t ignore all of that to give good representation because it can actually do the opposite. Build up to the sex and make it make sense within the story.

Other than that. I don’t really think they need to change or improve anything else. I think they have a good premise going so far and all it needs is continuation. I have very few quarrels with this show. I trust the creators enough to do what they do with it.

One thing I will mention that the cast/crew need to acknowledge is the fact that Jews are calling it out for antisemitism. They need to explain themselves. Maybe have the cast give a message at the end of each episode that uses the Adam/Eve/Lilith Judaism teachings explaining that they don’t mean anything by it like the Xena cast did with Hinduism. I’m not Jewish, … in fact I’m not religious at all … so I can’t speak on this. But I won’t deny that there’s issues that need to be addressed here by the people who are part of the show if they are aware they’re being called out.

I do not think they need to change or improve on the “cheese” or the “cringe” - what some people are referring to as “camp”. That’s part of the charm of the show so really I’d keep that in. And maybe actually make it go camp. That would be cool. I miss that. At the moment, I do not get “camp” from this show at all and the only reason I can think of why this might be is because I probably have an entirely different definition of what “camp” is to most people having grown up with watching it in Xena and Charmed. Thus camp has always been a very positive genre for me. And I think ‘First Kill’ has the potential to go camp.

Let’s just wait and see where they take the show before we go dumping on it for it’s flaws when it’s only just being introduced to us and the mainstream. A continuation will fix/change/improve most of them.

[cjcroen1393]

You know what? Screw it! I’m gonna explain to everyone WHY I call myself a yaoi fanboy and WHY i don’t bash the genre or its fans.

With all those asks I’ve been getting trying to start discourse, I feel like I might as well.

Before I go on, I’m not going to go too deep into any personal shit obviously but I don’t entirely need to in order to do this. Still, like JaidenAnimations, I’ll only be giving the cliff notes version, okay? Okay.

(That said, this still ended up being longer than I anticipated so under a cut it goes!)

So I first started to notice how not-straight I was around high school and at that same time I was getting really really into anime and manga. I was also becoming a major troper, perusing TV Tropes on a nigh constant basis. Yes, this is relevant because they had a whole library of anime and manga for me to discover.

And of course there was also Fanfiction.net, Deviantart and Tumblr itself. Those were pretty big influences.

So why are these relevant? Well it’s because these are all where I discovered how much I liked seeing anime guys kiss. And that was also part of how I came to terms with the fact that I was bisexual.

I think it started out small. Ouran High School Host Club, not yaoi but contains many references to the genre, was my first “proper” anime, and I got into Hetalia later on. Later, while waiting for episodes of Monster on SyFy channel’s anime block, I watched Descendants of Darkness, which isn’t yaoi but is kinda “yaoi adjacent” if that makes sense. I really enjoyed it, but more specifically I loved it for the strong, affectionate bond its two male leads had. It wasn’t a perfect show, no, but it was enjoyable and it was easily my first peek into what would someday become my fondness for yaoi.

Next I got into Gravitation, I believe, my first actual yaoi and likely the most quintessential of them. It was a fun show for me, but I won’t deny, it was problematic to a degree. Still, I enjoyed it and Ryuichi Sakuma remains one of my favorite anime characters to this day.

and of course, over the course of all this, I was getting really big on reading gay fanfics.

Now how did all of this help me come to terms with my sexuality? Well, you may not believe this, but it kinda…and I hate this fuckin’ term but “normalized” same gender relationships for me? Like, the more yaoi or yaoi adjacent works I read and watched, the more I thought “yes, it is normal for me to be attracted to other men; it is okay for me to want a romantic relationship with another man”.

I’m not gonna pretend it wasn’t problematic of course. A lot of yaoi is problematic; aside from the…questionable relationship the genre has with consent, it should still be remembered that most yaoi—not all, but most—is written by straight women, for straight women and with a straight woman’s understanding of how gay or mspec men work. I am not denying that, and I generally avoided the skeevier shit, like all those ones where the “dominant” partner is portrayed as predatory and gross.

BUT—and this is very important—regardless of that, yaoi was still an outlet for me. An outlet through which I could explore my sexuality and become more comfortable with it. I didn’t have a lot of exposure to works that do lgbtqa+ representation better—the only western media exposed myself to was a bunch of cartoons where the gays were either non existent or stereotypical side characters and frickin’ Harry Potter which was determined to never have any lgbt rep at all—nor did I have a lot of works that went into detail about mlm relationships. Yaoi and anime/manga that borrowed from the genre was my main outlet to explore that stuff…and it helped me a lot.

And here’s the thing: I don’t even do yaoi shit anymore. I still ship gay couples more than straight ones but I don’t think in terms of the yaoi genre anymore. And for good reason! We now have plenty of gay representation in media! It’s wonderful and I’m happy about that! I’m ecstatic! I’m so glad we as a community have been getting better representation over the years. Even in the anime industry, we got stuff like Nabari no Ou, Yuri on Ice, Sk8 the Infinity, etc., works that are either explicitly lgbt or have undertones thereof and sometimes are even written by lgbt authors (the author of Nabari no Ou is non-binary, for example).

And yet…I can’t really bring myself to rail against yaoi or to bash it or its fans or do anything of the sort like that. Because while it may be a slightly cursed and embarrassing memory for me…it still helped me more than it harmed me. I know my experiences are not the same as everyone else’s, I understand that. And again, I know the yaoi genre has issues. I’m not denying that at all.

But at the same time, I would really, REALLY like it if y’all didn’t treat my experiences as invalid, simply because of the media I used as an outlet or god forbid, my identity as a bisexual.

Anyway, I just had to share my thoughts on this matter. Sorry it was so long. Peace out everyone.

[blasphemous-tiefling]

I think part of the reason why there’s so much discord in the MCU fandom has something to do with the varying directors for TFA, The Avengers, Winter Soldier, AOU, Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame. And really, the backbone of the issue is how the different directors and how the audience interprets Steve’s character. Strap in. Because this is a long rant on a topic that normal people really don’t care about.

Joe Johnston created a Steve Rogers that was eager, begging to go to war. I absolutely adored the line in AOU when Steve says, “What kind of monster would let a German scientist experiment on them to protect their country?” Because I feel that sums up Steve in TFA pretty well. He’s anti-bully. He wants to fight. But his whole life he’s been put down, stomped on. Steve repeatedly enlisting is both selfish and selfless. His conversation with Bucky in TFA is a great example of this. Steve says, “There are men laying down their lives. I got no right to do any less than them. That’s what you don’t understand. This isn’t about me.” And Bucky says, “Right. Because you’ve got nothing to prove.” And that’s it. Yes, Steve wants to fight because he’s always been bullied and doesn’t want anyone else to feel that way. Yes, Steve wants to fight because he wants to defend his country. But also Steve wants to fight because no one has ever given him a chance. Steve wants to fight because he wants his life to mean something. Steve wants to die in battle because he thinks it’s honorable. He wants to prove himself. Steve wants it so desperately for both selfless and selfish reasons, which is why he was so willing to take the serum despite the fact that Erskine told him about past failures. There’s even a certain selfishness to his sacrifice at the end of TFA. Many stories that involve sacrifice ride the line of selfishness and selflessness. By sacrificing himself, you could argue Steve is taking “the easy way out.” He’s distraught over Bucky’s death. He’s won the battle he’s been fighting since getting the super soldier serum. By sacrificing himself, Steve can effectively end the troubles caused by the Tesseract and leave without dealing with the consequences of his sacrifice. This point is a bit of a stretch, and not something that I personally agree with, but the thought it there.

Joss Whedon takes that selflessness and turns it into irrefutable righteousness, and it’s disgusting. Steve has a few goofy lines in The Avengers and AOU that I’ll laugh at, but ultimately, everything he does seems so out of character for him. His constant nagging and arguing with Tony is so unnecessary and doesn’t build friendship. His desire to do everything S.H.I.E.L.D. tells him to do is completely incorrect because Steve went against the military and broke the 107th out of the Hydra facility without permission and repeatedly did whatever he wanted without asking. His incessant need to have all the Avengers do as he says is totalitarian and unbearable to watch. Truthfully, this is where I think people misunderstand Steve the most because not everyone watches every solo movie. The Avengers movies are the biggies that most people won’t miss. So general audiences only see this righteous, dictator Steve Rogers and that really pisses me off.

This is one of the only times you’ll hear me praise the Russos, so get ready- Thank goodness Winter Soldier and Civil War follow Joe Johnston’s characterization of Steve. They even dig into his selfishness and rebellious streak, which I adore. Steve isn’t one to just blindly follow orders. Hello? Does “not a perfect solider but a good man” ring any bells? Perfect soldiers follow orders. Good men fight for what’s right even when the world is telling them not to. That’s who Steve Rogers is. What I adore about Winter Soldier so much is that we see Steve attempting to be this perfect soldier, but it’s just not sitting well with him. Something is fishy and weird. He talks to Peggy about her life. She says her only regret is that Steve didn’t get to live his. Steve talks to Sam about possibly getting out of government work. Sam is that representation for Steve- having a hard time finding out why he’s really in it to begin with. The entire film is about Steve going against the government, military, and S.H.I.E.L.D. with both selfish and selfless desires. He knows he needs to do something because Hydra is growing in S.H.I.E.L.D. but he also doesn’t want anything to do with it anyway, so why not tear it all down? Once Bucky is revealed as the Winter Soldier, Steve puts his life on the line to try to get him back. It’s selfish really. When Steve takes off his helmet and drops his shield, he made the decision to die because he wasn’t gonna continue to live without Bucky. Despite the fact that Steve made friends with Natasha and Sam, he didn’t care. All that mattered to him in that moment was James Bucky Barnes. This is very reminiscent of TFA when Steve breaks Bucky out of the Hydra lab. As the world’s only successful super soldier, Steve could’ve been very valuable to the American government and military. He was even doing mild good by helping sell bonds. But that didn’t matter. His country and his military was no longer priority number one. When it comes to Steve Rogers, nothing and no one means more to him than Bucky. Steve and Sam’s conversation that I previously mentioned also parallels this. After Sam lost Riley, he didn’t want to be in the military anymore. He said he felt like he was up there just to watch, nothing he could do. This is a direct parallel to how Steve feels about Bucky.

Civil War, while a trash movie, sticks with Steve’s selfish yet selfless motivations. “What if this panel sends us somewhere we don’t think we should go? What if there is somewhere we need to go and they don’t let us?” Not wanting to surrender his right to choose is Steve Rogers. He just put down S.H.I.E.L.D.- an organization that was giving him demands. Why would he sign his life away to the American government again? Corporations can be run by greed and corruption- something Steve doesn’t want the world to be full of but also something he doesn’t want his world to be ruled by. When Bucky is framed for killing King T’Chaka, Steve knows the Accords will bring Bucky in and possibly execute him. He can’t let that happen. And he asks Natasha not to get in his way because he doesn’t want anyone else to get hurt. He knows how dangerous Bucky can be, but he doesn’t want Bucky or anyone else getting hurt or in trouble due to this sticky Accords situation. Both selfish and selfless. I don’t even want to get into later in the film, but I guess I will. Guys, there’s no world, no universe, no place in time that Steve wouldn’t try to stop Zemo. Tony never even gave him the chance to explain himself. It was either, “Come with us or we fight.” Steve gathered that team together- not to fight Tony but to fight Zemo. It was never his intention to fight with Tony. He was just trying to stop Zemo. Now, when Tony learns about his parents’ death, anger is a valid emotion. Physically fighting and attacking Steve and Bucky to the point of death? Not valid or even remotely reasonable. It makes no sense as to why Tony would be that angry at Bucky- someone who was tortured and brainwashed to do what he did. Steve had his reasons for not telling Tony considering that when it comes to Steve Rogers, nothing and no one means more to him than Bucky. Of course, Steve was going to hide the truth from Tony in an effort to protect Tony, Bucky, and himself. Selfish yet selfless.

Infinity War gives us the glorious lines of “I’m not looking for forgiveness. And I’m way past asking permission. Earth just lost her best defender. So we’re here to fight. And if you wanna stand in our way, we’ll fight you too.” and “We don’t trade lives.” These lines beautifully sum up Steve’s rebelliousness and need to fight while also not risking others’ lives. He’ll always risk himself first. There’s not much to say about this film considering it’s mostly action and Steve shares the screen with just about every other superhero, so we’re not given a lot of time. But overall, the Russos kept that same Steve Rogers.

And then Endgame does a complete 180 and decides to serve us Joss Whedon’s Steve with a conservative, pro-military, unbelievably illogical twist. Steve’s obsession with Peggy in this film is so out of place. She would’ve died seven years prior in the MCU. Steve’s been living in the present with Natasha, Sam, Bucky, Wanda, Vision, and T’Challa. That was his family. He lost Sam, Bucky, Wanda, Vision, and T’Challa in the Infinity War. It only makes sense that he would be fighting for them in Endgame. Yet he’s not. We’re beat over the head about how much he misses Peggy and it’s so unbelievably weird. Steve is never allowed to mourn Sam and Bucky specifically despite the fact that they were his number one companions. He never mentions them. Never has a touching reunion with Bucky. Barely has any reaction to Natasha’s death. It’s disgusting honestly. This is not “I will fight to my death for the people I love” Steve Rogers. And the ending is the most pathetic of all. There’s no world, no universe, no place in time that Steve would willingly go almost a hundred years away from Bucky and Sam, somewhere he wouldn’t fight for others. “Pretending you could live without a war.” I mean, come on. He’s Steven Grant Rogers. It’s disgusting to paint him as this man who would throw away his friendships and a world that is being bullied all for some girl he kissed once and barely knew. No. No, no. Not my Steve Rogers.

I give the directors a little too much crap. I’m fully aware that a whole team of people make these movies, but you can’t deny that Steve changes from movie to movie depending on the director. Endgame is the exception in which the directors were the same, yet they diverged completely from their original interpretation of the character. I’ve heard people say that it had to be an anti-gay agenda- that ending Steve’s story with Bucky would’ve been too gay even if they weren’t romantically involved, but I still think that’s pathetic. Honestly, I would’ve rather seen Steve die than have his character trashed and pooped on like this. From a narrative perspective, what happened in Endgame is not okay. Marvel Studios’ treatment towards “sideline” characters like Natasha, Rhodey, Sam, and Bucky- particularly in Infinity War and Endgame- is not okay. Yeah, I’m aware I get too heated over this fictional universe. But the characters are the only reason I stick around. The stories are lackluster for me. I’ve never been one to watch movies for action sequences. But I’ve always been in love with Steve Rogers as a character- complicatedly riding the line of selflessness and selfishness, dedicating himself wholeheartedly to a cause and to the people he loves. When in the end that character was completely scrapped and shredded in the garbage disposal like crust on bread or the skin of an apple, I’m gonna be angry for a long time.

[mybg3notebook]

Loving your analyses of Astarion's behaviour and character so far! It has really reaffirmed in my eyes just how much of a bastard he really is. (I say that fondly, of course.) Do you have any thoughts on why the general reaction on tumblr has leaned so much towards woobifying him? After looking at his actual (explicit and implicit) morals in game it seems quite odd that some people are reading him as an edgy soft boi who just needs a hug from the right person to fix him.

Hello!

Thank you very much! I really enjoy seeing chars in a deep way. It makes me change my opinion on them, sometimes. That's why I like to do these analysis, even though it's a lot of work for a person who doesn't speak English as a native.

Lol, please, I won't be offended. Astarion is a bastard in the whole sense of the word, lol.

However, I find Astarion an interesting evil (evil neutral imo) char to explore the narration of “abuser who found a greater abuser”, with all the topics I talked about in those posts. I would feel a bit disappointed if Larian suddenly changes him into a man who always had a gold heart (because for that, you need to give hints, even in EA, and none of that has been seen so far).

An example of how this is done is with Shadowheart, she is evil and she supports a lot of cruelty that Astarion does too, but we got meta-knowledge (and not so much meta when we see her heavily drunk after killing the tieflings) that gives us enough reasons to believe she has some heart in her, despite Shar and her teachings. I do not support the idea of “she is a softie”, because she is not, but she doesn't have the same level of cruelty nor revels in murder so much as Astarion does. They represent different degrees of evilness. What plays in her favour is her face, which gives the idea of more softness than she truly has; the same happens with Astarion. Lae'Zel is less cruel than Astarion in general, with more logical reasons to be so because her brainwashed culture made her to be more pragmatic than a taster of cruelty, and yet, she receives a lot of more hate in the fandom... and it is clear to me why: she is not “beautiful” in the traditional white euro-centric standard sense.

And this is my point to answer your question (remember all this is personal opinion): I think there are many reasons why people woobify Astarion (not only in tumblr, but also in Reddit or in Larian Forums, it's a big part of the EA fandom).

First and foremost, I believe it's his appearance. If he were a bugbear or a goblin, few in this fandom would give a thought about his abuse, his pain, Cazador, etc. They would focus on his “bastard” side and leave it at that (again, Lae'Zel has this treatment). I want to make clear that I'm not questioning people's taste, everyone can like whatever they want to. I'm saying that, for me, there it proof enough to sustain this idea that Astarion is woobified because he is beautiful: when you read that a lot of people in this fandom never had an interest in Larian's previous games, or isometric rpgs, or even turn-based combat games (there are some people who are giving feedback against the game being a turned-based combat one! It's the nonsense because it's basically Larian's style), but they bought bg3 because they saw Astarion, even though they knew nothing about him.... All this, clearly, shows to me that a lot of people approached this game for only one char, for only his design (a big amount of them say it explicitly), and it is not far-fetched to know that people justify more easily beautiful villains than ugly ones. We can explore a lot of examples of this in many fandoms. People can love villains because they have real complex reasons to be so (like Loghain in DAO), but they also can like whimsical villains just because they are “hot”. I feel this is Astarion's case, he is a “beautiful villain” who apparently has always been evil. His reasons for his whimsical evilness is more like “it's always been in his nature”. Unless the family part has a different role in his backstory (mirror option) and it's not a mere line for a player to play a “good aligned” Astarion when picked as Origin. I don't like to read much about it in that scene because the game still doesn't have companion Tags; those options in the mirror can be there just for the player to pick, flavoured with each origin, but not necessarily the three of them are canon. This will be seen once we have the companion tags activated as it happened in DOS2.

What we can say for sure is that Larian knew what they were doing when they picked Astarion's design; they choose a dangerous white guy with white hair and evil alignment: an archetype that catches a lot of people in many fandoms.

Part of his woobyfication process has a deep root there, in my opinion. Again, if he were a bugbear, a goblin, a githyanki, a monster-humanoid... we would not have 90% of the EA fandom collapsed with his image, or Larian focused on him to the point that after 4 patches he had new scenes, lines, corrections, and development, while Wyll is still there, sitting in the bench of “the less developed chars” (with around 2k less lines than the rest of the chars, and his personal quest bugged since the first day). Yes, I don't like the preference on one single companion when I am seeing the “future Beast” (from DOS2) in Wyll.

Second, he is a vampire. Vampires are a great element in any fantasy narrative. You know you will have a lot of fans behind a vampire char. Not by chance Vampire The Masquerade is one, if not the most important product of White Wolf, which keeps still giving them a lot of profit despite being decades old. Vampires are always a good element of personal horror, of lack of control of your own body, and also an allegory of abuse, power, and rape. This concept of “being a monster without control” that they embody helps a bit more for the woobification.

Third, people tend to mix a lot headcanon with what a character gives us as canon. We can have a long useless discussion about which is more worthy: canon or headcanon, or about why one should or should not respect canon, but putting all that discussion aside, and considering the previous two points, I see that a small part of his woobyfication comes from the fact that people love denial and self-projection instead of analysing of what they are given (and let's be honest, we know in tumblr, reddit and others social networks, people lack of reading comprehension skills, which makes analysis all about self projection without a real effort in understanding the character's perspective. It's all about the player unilateral perspective. How can you analyse a char you didn’t play with or explored in all its paths? ).

So if their beautiful character is behaving in a way they don't want to, they start considering him “random” (I read this so much that confuses me, because Astarion has clear patterns for everyone who wants to see them, like the rest of the companions. He is not random, he follows pretty well all what I listed here, that list helps you to predict what he will disapprove or approve) so they end up filling this apparent “randomness” with headcanons and self-projections. Don't get me wrong, I don't despise headcanons, I love them, I have a lot of them and create with them. But I also like honest analysis and separate what I want from what I get from a company (to correctly give them feedback, otherwise I will be giving them my headcanons).

If you don't want an aspect of a given char, and you want to deny it, it's perfectly fine. Do it, it's your entertainment, but be honest with the fandom about it, acknowledge this is a personal denial you enjoy. And mainly, don't use headcanons and self-projections to attack the rest of the chars you don't like in their own tags. We know how aggressive some people in this fandom are, and it's a bit frustrating to see aggression without the slightest effort in understanding the character they hate.

There is also something sad to say, related to self-projection, that contributes to Astarion's woobyfication too: a lot of players are survivors of abuse who connect with him from trauma, and I can understand if denying his past is a way to help them to release any kind of pain or need for vengeance against their abusers. It's a natural and totally understandable projection. The woobyfication, then, ends up in an intense self-projection where they give to the char something that they needed because their own trauma.

This is why I would like Larian to give us other survivor chars that people can project onto, whose stories are really about survivors of abuse who were not evil in the beginning. Because I feel a lot of people approached Astarion as a narration of a “victim who will become a victimiser” or as a “bad behaved victim”, instead of what I think it's shown: an abuser who found a greater abuser (and his story is about punishment of the abuser and the concept of justice in a world which has none), so trauma survivors will end up with disappointment if they think Astarion is something similar to the representation of what they experienced. Plus, vampirism is never good to use as allegories of abusers/victims because the relationship Sire/Childe is too sick and twisted. So, again, this is a mere opinion from all what I've been reading since the game came out.

I hope Larian sticks to the narration they seem to follow with Astarion: an abuser who found a greater one, and now wants to become the next Cazador, and this woobifycation doesn't change the real potential of a dark deep story that I believe they want to give us: not every char is redeemable, and sometimes evilness is capricious. We had chars like these in bg1 and bg2 after all.