#can we ignore the dated and problematic context

[lucy-moderatz]

[silver-soul00]

This is an extremely sensitive post to make because I am going to try yes to dismantle this narrative that someone have about Tyler, but still trying to be somewhat amenable to confrontation.

I had already made posts inherent in the problematic nature of the ship with Tyler and how unsuitable he is as a partner (or in general just impossible for him to have feelings for Wednesday with the information we have now).

“Tyler genuinely smiled after talking to Wednesday.”

A smile is not necessarily a sign of genuineness. Social psychology teaches us that a smile can be used as a tool to manipulate or reassure.

In the context of the series, Tyler proves adept at earning Wednesday's trust through seemingly sincere behavior.

For example, the way he engages her on their “first date” is carefully constructed to leverage her passions and preferences, a classic example of “emotional mirroring,” a manipulative technique that creates an apparent connection.

Obviously, the date was carried out to cheat and remove Wednesday from her room so that Laurel could enter Wednesday's room and carry out the plan (with Thing stabbed I might add)

Moreover, Tyler's smile may reflect personal satisfaction with her success in manipulating her, rather than genuine feelings.

This type of behavior is common in manipulators, who use nonverbal signals to build a false perception of trust and affection.

“He said he liked killing because he was possessed by the Hyde.”

Tyler's statement during interrogation, “I enjoyed it,” cannot be ignored as simply an expression of his Hyde. Although it is true that the Hyde is a monstrous aspect of his personality, the relationship between the “monster” and the human in Tyler is complex.

Studies of individuals with dissociative behavior show that the sense of pleasure felt in negative actions, even under pressure, is often indicative of an at least partially consensual will.

Moreover, the way Tyler expresses himself suggests not distress or remorse, but complacency. This is a sign of moral disengagement, a psychological mechanism in which a person justifies his actions through emotional detachment.

“Wednesday was furious because of betrayal, not because of the murders.”

Reducing Wednesday's anger to personal betrayal alone ignores the depth of her character. Wednesday is motivated by a strong sense of justice, as seen in her constant efforts to uncover the truth and protect others, particularly the marginalized.

Her reaction is a combination of anger at personal betrayal and outrage at the murders committed by Tyler.

The episode in which Eugene is almost killed is emblematic: Wednesday is devastated by the idea of losing a friend to Tyler's senseless violence.

Her guilt and determination to avenge him show that she considers the murders a central issue, not a secondary one.

"He was tortured, drugged, abused to unlock the Hyde”

It is true that Laurel manipulates and unlocks Tyler's Hyde side through cruel methods.

Tyler is a victim of abuse and there is no compromise on that...but once the Hyde is active, Tyler shows that he is a willing participant in Laurel's plans.

There are no signs that Tyler tries to resist or escape his condition.

On the contrary, he fully immerses himself in the role of assassin and enjoys tormenting Wednesday during the scene in the police station.

This kind of behavior is consistent with what the theory of submission to coercive power describes: an individual who is initially a victim can become an active perpetrator if he or she derives benefit or pleasure from the new condition.

“Wednesday is not an angel, she hurt normies and almost tortured Tyler.”

Comparing Wednesday's actions to Tyler's is a classic example of whataboutism, a rhetorical technique that seeks to distract from the actions of one character by highlighting the flaws of another.

Remember that Tyler still harmed and hurt loved ones in Wednesday's

Wednesday's actions, while questionable, are always motivated by a sense of justice or self-defense.

Her extreme behaviors (such as the piranhas in the pool) are directed against people who have done harm, while Tyler targets innocent victims to satisfy his own instincts or to please Laurel.

Wednesday is not perfect but through the series understands when she is wrong or not, such as admiring Wheems only on the finale.

On this point, however, the novel did a better job, where the vigilante mentality is felt more and she thinks so much about the fact that she cares what people think.

“Tyler hated her so much he kissed her and planned a date.”

The argument that Tyler could not hate Wednesday because he kissed her and planned a date is naive. Emotional manipulation often involves seemingly romantic acts to gain the victim's trust.

Tyler exploits Wednesday's feelings to distract her from the truth and to assure her that he is “on her side.”

This is an example of emotional triangulation, a manipulative technique in which the manipulator alternates between affection and betrayal to confuse and control the victim.

"They liked each other and were in a toxic situation, not a toxic relationship"

Tyler and Wednesday's relationship is inherently toxic because it is based on lies, manipulation, and violence.

According to healthy relationship theories, an authentic relationship requires mutual trust, respect and open communication. None of this is present between Tyler and Wednesday.

Their dynamic is defined by a profound inequality: Tyler is in control of information and exploits Wednesday's emotional vulnerability, while she is kept in the dark about her true nature. This asymmetry is the very definition of a toxic relationship.

But in general, this post presents a common narrative that tends to confuse victimization and personal responsibility.

Being a victim does not eliminate personal responsibility

The fact that Tyler was abused, drugged, and manipulated to activate his Hyde is a significant element of his background. However, the psychology of victimization makes it clear that undergoing trauma does not automatically justify all of an individual's subsequent actions.

According to the concept of posttrauma agency, an abused person still has a decision-making capacity, even if it is affected by the trauma suffered.

After his Hyde is activated, Tyler shows no signs of inner conflict or attempts to rebel against Laurel, his manipulator.

On the contrary, he embraces his role complacently, declaring that he took pleasure in killing.

This behavior suggests a conscious choice to indulge his dark nature, despite the Hyde's traumatic origin.

“Wednesday loves murder, so they are meant to be together.”

This statement is based on a superficial understanding of Wednesday's character. Although Wednesday has a fascination with the macabre and a dark personality, she is not motivated by a sadistic pleasure in killing. On the contrary, her actions are guided by a strong sense of justice.

For example:

The piranhas in the pool are punishment for those who bullied his brother.

Her obsession with the Hyde case stems from a desire to protect her friends and other students at Nevermore.

Wednesday never kills without a reason related to justice or self-defense.

Tyler, in contrast, shows a pleasure in committing murder.

This pleasure is completely incompatible with Wednesday's worldview.

Their apparent affinity is superficial: she loves the macabre in an aesthetic and moral sense, while he embraces destructive mayhem without remorse.

The “innocent victim” narrative in social psychology

The idea that being a victim of abuse automatically makes one an innocent person is common, but psychologically incorrect. In reality, traumatized people may develop destructive or abusive behaviors toward others, but this does not eliminate their moral responsibility.

According to the “cycle of abuse” theory, victims of abuse can sometimes become perpetrators, but this does not excuse them from their actions. Tyler is a victim of Laurel, but he becomes an active accomplice in her plan. He shows awareness and pleasure in his actions, which go beyond mere submission to Laurel's control.

The manipulation of Wednesday's emotions.

Tyler not only kills, but also exploits Wednesday's feelings to manipulate her. He presents himself as the sweet, caring guy who tries to understand her, but this mask falls away completely when his role as Hyde is revealed.

The scene in the police station is emblematic:

Tyler humiliates Wednesday with a monologue in which he reveals how easy it was to deceive her.

He shows a complete lack of empathy or remorse, using betrayal as a psychological weapon.

This dynamic is not a basis for a healthy relationship, but an example of emotional manipulation and relational toxicity.

The concept of “meant to be together”

The idea that Tyler and Wednesday are “meant to be together” because they both have a dark side completely ignores the foundations of healthy relationships. According to John Gottman's relationship theories, successful relationships are based on:

- Mutual trust

- Respect

- Honest communication

None of these elements are present between Tyler and Wednesday.

On the contrary, their relationship is based on deception, betrayal, and violence. The fact that Tyler and Wednesday share an interest in the macabre is not enough to build a relationship, especially when this interest manifests itself in completely opposite ways.

Relationships similar to the one hypothesized between Tyler and Wednesday, which are based on dynamics of manipulation, deception, and trauma, are often considered highly problematic.

According to the work of Lundy Bancroft in her book Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men,” relationships in which one partner manipulates the other cannot be considered healthy. Manipulation, such as that displayed by Tyler toward Wednesday, undermines mutual trust and creates an environment of emotional control and abuse.

Healthy relationships require transparency and respect.

Tyler exploits Wednesday's feelings by building a connection based on lies and betrayal.

This type of behavior creates an unbalanced power dynamic in which one partner maintains control by exploiting the other's emotional vulnerability.

Victimization does not excuse toxic behaviors

Abuse cycle theory (Walker, 1979) shows how victims of abuse can develop abusive behaviors, but emphasizes that this does not excuse or justify such actions. Tyler, despite his traumatic past and manipulation by Laurel, demonstrates an active pleasure in killing and manipulation.

Furthermore, a study by McNulty and Fincham (2008) on forgiveness and personal responsibility in relationships points out that:

Suffering trauma does not eliminate personal responsibility for subsequent actions.

Healthy relationships require mutual commitment to avoid destructive behavior, even in the presence of trauma.

Tyler, as far as we have seen, does not show remorse or an attempt to right his wrongs, which makes it difficult to imagine a redemptive relationship with Wednesday.

The importance of equality and respect

According to Gottman's model of successful relationships (The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work), relationships flourish when partners share a sense of mutual respect and engage in open communication.

However, in the Tyler-Wednesday dynamic, Tyler exploits an advantageous position by knowing the truth about his identity as Hyde while Wednesday is kept in the dark.

Recall how betrayed Wednesday felt because, thinking placing trust after so long might be good for her, she eventually found herself stabbed in the back

The relationship is based on systematic deception, which makes genuine trust impossible.

Gottman points out that without a foundation of respect and transparency, relationships are doomed to failure or, worse, become toxic.

The idealization of toxic relationships

A study by Knox et al. (2000) on the idealization of toxic relationships in the media shows that romantic narratives involving manipulation and toxicity can negatively influence audience perceptions of real relationships.

Young viewers, in particular, tend to normalize abusive behaviors when portrayed as romantic or inevitable.

In the case of Tyler and Wednesday, the idea that “both are dark and therefore meant to be together” is an example of this idealization:

It ignores the real harm caused by manipulation and violence.

It romanticizes a dynamic that, in real life, would be devastating to the psychological well-being of both partners.

Psychological impacts on victims of manipulation

Studies on victims of emotional manipulation, such as Stark's (2007) in Coercive Control, reveal that relationships such as the one hypothesized between Tyler and Wednesday can lead to:

Chronic distrust: The difficulty of trusting others after such a profound experience of betrayal.

Emotional trauma: Victims of manipulation often suffer from anxiety, depression and a distorted perception of future relationships.

Self-isolation: Wednesday, already naturally inclined to protect her emotions, may further close herself off from the world after being betrayed in such a brutal way. But still in this case we could specify that Wednesday will be even more careful about placing her trust, since right now she trusts Enid and the other Nevermore friends who fought against Crackstone much more

IN CONCLUSION

Remembering that this is yes an analysis but not necessarily a gallows, anyone who appreciates the ship is not necessarily a bad person, you simply have to bring data and sources to the table when you have to discuss and from my perspective rather than romanticize this relationship, it would be more constructive to use their dynamic as a narrative example of how toxic relationships can negatively affect both partners and serve as a warning to recognize and avoid similar dynamics in real life.

Rather create stories where Tyler is not a murderer, Weyler stories like this I would love to read so much

[eri-pl]

Melian saw the darkness in Thingol's eyes and married him anyway

Long, chaotic stream of thought below cut (no, nobody owes anybody a relationship)

I'm not saying Idril should have married Maeglin, or whatever. I'm perfectly fine with "Idril didn't want to date Maeglin because she was not into it, and/or he was her cousin and whatever". She had every right not to. Same as everyone.

I'm just saying "saw the darkness in his eyes" is a very weird way of phrasing it. Especially when we look at the three cases of "darkness in eyes" (all essentially fatal):

Melkor (seen by Varda, in the context of romantic rejection)

Feanor (seen by Galadriel in the context of I have no idea) (also I'm sure Nerdanel wasn't blind either. But, as I said, "darkness in eyes" is not a good reason to not get in a relationship, not by itself. "I can't handle this darkness" is a good reason. Nerdanel could handle a lot)

Maeglin (seen by Idril, in the context of romantic rejection)

What do those three have in common?

One of the interpretations (not the one where Thingol easily fits however) is "they're great, best they can, but still not good enough":

Melkor is the most Vala, but he was also the first Vala and he "grew up" being the only finite being he new. and he hated it, he despised himself for being less (it is clear to me from the description of his obsessio with the Flame etc)

Feanor was the most Elf to even elf, but also Finwe wanted more kids, so obviously Feanor got the message that he wasn't enough.

Maeglin was brilliant, and an only child, but also his father was the super-stern, avoidant-attachment tangle of cold trauma that was Eol. I'm sure he got a consistent message of "you aren't enough".

So, there's this inherent not-enoughness. (How is this a reason to not date someone??? I mean, sure, it results in behaviors and problems, but really, really, we could phrase those rejections differently.)

(Or maybe it was "she saw he's going to be evil" but I hate this concept, it rubs wrong with free will to me)

Am I bashing Tolkien? Not really. You know, what vibe I get from those darknesses? CSL's relationship to Susan. You know, "the character he obviously hated". The character he based most on himself.

"Saw the darkness in his eyes" (and hated him for it) really feels like the author looking at himself. So of course I'm not going to bash him, he bashed himself too much already.

So what was that part about Thingol? Just a click-bait?

Melian was an Ainu. Thingol was an Incarnate,. In a world where the very existence of incarnates is a result of the discord, a result (or at least everyone believes so) of evil. of course he would have tons of darkness in his eyes! His very existence is something that shouldn't be if everything went well!

(BTW Feanor "killed" his mother and Maeglin was a child of a marriage that was terrible and not even a valid marriage tbh. they both have very much of the "their existence is the result of some evil" syndrome)

And I'm not saying Melian owed Thingol to marry him. No, she did not. But she saw the opportunity and she chose to and that's passing awesome.

(And then the same motif with Luthien and Beren who was a Men and as we all know, Men are problematic, even compared to Elves.)

And I know this started from Tolkien's wife, but still, the fact that it's always this gender setup... It's interesting in many ways.

I'm not even saying that Idril owed Maeglin (or any other sombination of those) a friendship, or a therapy. No. She set her bounduaries and it was a good thing to do, you need to know your limits and needs and all that.

But when someone can afford it, can afford to look at the darkness, and go forward anyway... it's passing awesome.

Also, going back from metaphysics into attachment styles and relationships and marrying a sad person... One day the darkness will be too much to handle. Not for B&L who lived a short life, but Thingol often ignored Melian, and Feanor and Nerdanel even separated.

But it is normal. And it doesn't make the relationship wrong.

You can handle only a finite amount of someone else's emotions (if you choose to handle them at all, which, again, you are not obliged to) and the point of it is for them to grow and learn to not need your help anymore. It is difficult and doesn't always work and it is normal. It is human.

My point is than it is better to support someone for as long as you are able to without herming yourself and then let them handle it on their own, than to not support someone at all. But again, sometimes "as much as you can afford" is zero, and it is ok. It is ok to not interact with difficult people.

Just please, don't say "I saw a darkness in his eyes". Say "I cannot handle this" or "I have other emotional commitments", or "I need my strength elsewhere" or "I need time and peace to heal" or something like that. It is about your rights, not their wrongs.

You don't owe anyone a relationship, friendship, or anything. But nobody is inherently undeserving of relationship or friendship, or fully incapable of it (some people need more help than others though).

ps: "passing" is a term I borrowed from "le Morte d'Arthur" and it means something like "exceeding expectations". I like it.

And, leaving the theme of romance, I could probably write another long post about how the opposite of "darkness in his eyes" is the light of the Trees in eyes of the Elves (except: Feanor had both) and why I'm not as big a fan of the trees as everyone in the canon (they were a good thing, but not as absolute as everyone paints it) and what Valinor was and what it was not and how the very existence of Valinor is the essence of "you have darkness in your eyes, you can't play with us" attitude but also my expectations are way too high and it's easy to complain in hindsight

Maybe one day I will post something more coherent about it.

Just... let's end this on saying that seeing the darkness, and calling your beloved beautiful and getting married anyway—

[mrsoftthoughts]

I found so funny when in the pjo fandom someone says that a ship is problematic because is "Incest"...

And then the incest is because they are related on the godly side

I have to explain why say that is completely absurd??

what the fuck did you expect?

Being a series based on Greek and Roman mythology I don't think that a explanation is needed, but as a reminder, Zeus is married with his older sister and basically most beings here are related because all are descendants form the chaos , ofc that Demigods would be "related" to certain degree

And apparently this people is ignoring that in the riordanverse Is canon that Greco-Roman gods don't have dna

I've say this before and I'm gonna say it again here, that doesn't make a lot of sense for me

( ignore the powers that Toa stablished are part of the demigods and no a extension of the ones from their godly parent ,i think that some Demigods being carbon copies of their godly parents is enough reason to think that they are related, not necessarily with dna as we know it, but yeah with something that replace it )

But people saying this is the whole reason why something that haven't been a problem before had to be explained and rick decided to pull out that card

But you know what, since that i never liked that explanation made to errase a problem that doesn't exist, I'm gonna pretend that the gods are fully related just like most species, DNA and everything

And... That doesn't change anything, if gods were actually related a by extend the Demigods, I don't think that it should be such a big deal

Look

When its about a moral and ethical side of all this, it's like walking on eggshells,the comun say that parricide and incest tend to be the only universal tabus didn't come out of the nothing, and the whole scientific side of this is long af, so im gonna summarize it as much as possible

The reason why incest in humans and other species is such a bad idea, is because yours and evoryone genetic code has defects, genes that would cause different diseases if they are expressed, but for fortune are recessive, how you keep it as recessive? Not creating decendency with you own blood, even if the gene don't express itself in the next generation, now you have a individual with atleats two copies of that gene, and if the inbreeding continues, relatively soon too much copys of that exact gene would exist to atleats one don't expressing

This is also why incest gets more dangerous when its between parents-childs or siblings, but is somewhat safe between cousins

But you know what? For this, you need a genetic code having defects for starts, you need that different diseases and anomalies can mess up all this, something that i don't think deitys should have and i seriously doubt theres a possibility of that in first place, i don't see any of the gods over there being the Habsburg 2.0 despite being a family built upon the worse types of inbreeding

And... what happens when you don't see the other person as family is something to discuss in real life

But If whe already erase the problem on the genes side, i really don't think that there's a problem here, you know, in the context of demigod stuff

Its obvious that no one in camp half blood seems weird two persons from a different cabin dating, why they would? Theres no a family dinamic between them, they're just people

And i really don't think that camp Jupiter or new rome even cares about anyone dating with even a person with the same godly parent ( or two legacy's of the same deity) dating, without camp half blood cabins, they aren't meant to see each other as family, just as another soldier of the legion or other person that resides in the city

There's no ethical problem, it's obvious that it's acceptable for two Demigods of different godly parent date in both camps, two demigods of the same godly parent is on the table for discussion

And all problems caused by inbreeding are cut off because we would be dealing with the Genetics of deitys, that is probably perfect without any flaws interfering here ( and I don't see the legacies in camp Jupiter having genetic diseases cased by inbreeding)

[snow-on-mtsilver]

ranting about my ex [1/2] (there's gonna be a lot of images)

OH BOY SO this person is going around twisting everything without context to make me seem like the bad guy so i'm gonna post a lot of things they have said or done

obviously not everything because i'm not going through all that(and can't jump to blocked messages and don't feel like unblocking just for this) but

gonna start with what started this situation in the first place: jealousy

the FIRST red flag that i should've seen

like??? okay???

but yknow i can brush it off, so i tell them they're allowed to join a server i LITERALLY invited a server to that THEIR IN and MODERATE

then almost two weeks later they're getting jealous over MY FRIEND (note i was also close to other people at this time)

and shock of all shocks: they get upset over matching profile pictures(?????)

which sure ok but like??? you can match platonically??? not to mention "with characters you ship and stuff", saying this to a multishipper, who ships anything non-problematic, also saying this about ANOTHER multishipper who ships anything non-problematic

even if i did something relating to shedletsky and 1x, i didn't know if their hate for shedletsky(for being shedletsky(a ragebaiter) would make them upset if me and azure matched smth like shedletsky and 1x

which like, there's not much we can do here

and with how... eh? the jokes we make can get(eh as in very suggestive), i wouldn't have felt comfortable matching something obviously platonic

then after that they mention this???? and it feels like they were expecting me to be jealous???? like????

i don't even know what to comment for this next part(/neu) but

so anyways at this point i'm getting tired of the constant back and forthing, but i can handle it

gonna step back from the jealousy real quick to mention something that REALLY set me off from them: complete lack of accepting our other at-the-time partner's boundary

for context: our other at-the-time partner doesn't like gore, so they didn't like a mod for a possible smp i suggested (saint suggested the mod)

i'm. gonna let the screenshots speak for themselves (note how saint only got pissy after our partner's headmate sided with me(it's a surprise tool that'll help us later /cj) (these screenshots are semi old but are from the 22nd)(will provide an image with a date after)

(i also have a feeling this is a good time to mention they're oddly obsessed with (fictional but still) flesh and cannibalism)

also please note about that last image that this SAME PERSON was so adamant about having a boundaries channel in public servers (including one with about 300 people)

since it's also on-topic (and also shows how little sense they make), they got upset that an EVEN MORE PUBLIC SERVER(WHICH IS LITERALLY A SERVER FOR A POKEMON-BASED ROBLOX GAME) didn't want them talking about whump (basically angst but physical torture) and then got EVEN MORE mad when they wouldn't add a boundaries channel???

anyways back to the main point they claimed I was "being aggressive"... as they're typing in all caps... after i mention how still begging for a mod that makes their own partner super uncomfortable isn't a good response

so at THIS point i'm getting pissed off, then later on they move to dms, now acting like I started the whole thing...

...then misreading/misinterpreting my response

(next screenshot provides the date) so me, getting pissed off atp, said this, then they claim i ignored THEIR feelings when they didn't care that i didn't feel comfortable having a mod i knew luna was uncomfortable with due to the gore

so i hit them with this

they then send a VOICE MESSAGE (i have mentioned multiple times my voice comprehension is shit and that i get uncomfortable with certain audible stuff)

at this point i'm crashing out in another server (i'm not gonna bother censoring my nickname because honestly i'm not feeling it)

anyways back to dms

so i send this in response

AND I KID YOU NOT (NOTE THAT ONE OF THEIR POINTS WAS "you're not listening" AS THEY THEN PROCEED TO SEND THAT)

the only other message after that from that situation was a voice message of them crying and saying "sorry" on repeat... again... completely ignoring everything i said

so anyways the next night i figure i really can't handle this anymore and sent this (for luna it was just what i said, but obviously i couldn't tell saint that it wasn't just that for them)

which like sure the last two messages are fine

but the first two???? "it didn't really seem like you were acting like yourself" then only mentioning GLITCHY (i feel like stubborn(yknow a prosecutor) would've been a better one to mention but oh no just glitchy can only mention one headmate to make it seem like it's a rare occurrence for me to be super pissed off at something

HOWEVER

I BRING UP THIS BREAKUP FOR A GOOD REASON

THEY COULD NOT HANDLE IT (ALSO SEMI-BACK TO JEALOUSY(AND BACK TO PREVIOUS SCREENSHOTS)

LIKE??? VRO??? "i think i wouldve preferred to keep a delusion that you still loved me" "because i just don't think i can handle it" ????????????????????????????? VRO???????????????????????????????? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU SAY TO SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T FEEL ROMANTIC FEELINGS FOR YOU ANYMORE????

SO, I TRY EXPLAINING THE BEST I CAN WHILE ALSO BEING HONEST ABOUT WHAT WILL SPLIT US APART(also another thing to date this)

(again unsure of what to say for this other than this is just more proof of them being clingy and obsessive(specifically the "pls don't forget about me" message) (for more context this was the same day and they wanted me to watch an unfortunate series of events(?) so when we finished the 2 episodes we said we were gonna watch i said this when they asked if i wanted to do something else)

(FUCKKKK I GOTTA MAKE ANOTHER POST)

[nezumiva]

I assume this will somewhat be addressed in the podcast for Watanagashi, but I've been reading it with a friend(reread in my case), and the first 2 chapters have just been... really bad and pervy? I love the rest of this series, but god this has been a lot, and I know this is not the end of it. How do you deal with it, and address it to new readers?

Yeah...

It is a bit of an ever-present dilemma in Higurashi, unfortunately (and while it improves over time in When They Cry as a whole, it's unfortunately a bit of an issue in a lot of Ryukishi's work). I do think the chapters in and of themselves are very good, to be clear, but those types of jokes do tend to drag it down massively whenever they (however briefly) rear their ugly head. As it pertains to generally recommending the work, I'll get to that in a moment, but first and foremost I think it's just good to know the limits of your friends, if that's the sort of reading situation you're in. For me, and the people I know - we all definitely hate the unnecessary sexual humor, but we all also grew up on a lot of anime and manga, back in the late 90's and early 2000's, which had far less restraint about these things than it should have. Obviously it wasn't good, but while we dislike it, we tend to roll our eyes and muscle past if at all possible. Thankfully, in Higurashi's case, while it is often extremely obnoxious, it is easily ignored in the context of the story at large. That's us, though, and everybody's comfort level for ignoring that sort of thing is different. When it comes to general recommendations, there's just no escaping the huge asterisks you're going to have to attach to the work at large. Like many things I love with less than stellar aspects (problematic stereotypes in One Piece, similarly gross humor in Danganronpa, etc.) there's not often a way to soften the blow of these things for people who wouldn't have been able to power through regardless, and that's completely understandable. (And even if it's less problematic, obviously, Higurashi still has a lot of elements that are difficult to casually stomach regardless, so it does sort of inherently narrow the pool of people you can get into it, lol.) This doesn't really make up for it, obviously, but this is almost doubtlessly a product of the game's release timeline and where it was released, as well. This was a self-published game in the very, very early aughts being marketed to primarily otaku at Comiket. Galge was still very prominent, and while it has thankfully managed to grow beyond the need of being strictly pornographic (and thank god Higurashi never went that far), the kind of sketchy, ecchi variety of shit did unfortunately sell and draw more eyes to a game back then. Given how small 07th Expansion was (they only sold 2 copies of Onikakushi at the time, I believe), I wouldn't doubt they felt the need to shove things like this in to push units. (In a sense, I do think some of the tropes are there to be intentionally subverted. While most people know Higurashi has horror now, they didn't then, so in some respects Ryukishi was ripping the rug out from under people who just thought they were here for a dating sim, but attributing that to every instance of weird shit in Higurashi would obviously be oversimplifying the issue.) TL;DR: Higurashi is definitely a product of its time in many respects, and while I think it is a fantastic story that surpasses its occasional failings with gross sexual humor, that is an unfortunate mark of the time and circles it was made in. It may have been a play to help it sell, or to throw off galge genre readers, or both, but either way it still kinda sucks a lot. That is always unavoidably going to be a huge asterisk when recommending it to anyone in the current day.

[delectablehallway]

Abby was written well and complexed like any other character in the first season. That hate is irrational. But here are the real reasons~ 1. She's a woman and that's obviously a problem 2. Certain shippers despise any/all LI past and present outside Eddie/Buck regardless 3. The fans infantizied poor baby Buck early on, which leads to 4. People thought they age gap was "weird and gross" 5. They say how she contacted Buck was unethical and she was a "stalker" and a "creep" 6. She didn't prioritize Buck over her sick, dying mother 7. She chose to grieve and find herself AND 8. Connie didn't return (initially) and they fucked her character up! So instead of breaking them up properly offscreen, they wrote that she ghosted/ignored Buck and had him wait "unknowingly" for over a year and their relationship became a running joke that she was "fake" because of her absence... and of course, 3x18 came around, and Abby returned for the train derailment. With a fiance and step kids! 😅 Certain characters' reactions to Abby being there were used out of context to fuel a certain ship... They also didn't like how Buck helped save Sam, the fiance 🙃 and they absolutely hated the "non apology/apology" as it wasn't "good enough" and Abby didn't "deserve" to "make excuses" and Buck didn't get closure because it was "so bad" and they used it to "confirm" how "terrible" she was. They saw it as Buck put in "more effort and cared deeper" than she ever did and Buck had to be "groomed into the relationship" to even date her (sound familiar) And yes, they actively bashed Connie outside of of Abby just like the other (non problematic) actresses/love interest because of their ship.

Yeah this was exactly what I was thinking. Just a whole lot of bullshit.

1) my number one leading theory

2) also my theory

3) and 4) I didn’t think about these, but yeah, I can see that. He’s literally like 26 in the first season gang. Please relax. She was like. In her 30’s. not that bad like. At all.

5) I would say dodgy, probably not a stalker or creep tho. I’d agree that it’s unethical because I’m sure irl you couldn’t get away with that, but sometimes you gotta ignore stuff for the plot. I believe this is one of those times.

6) yeah that’s fucking crazy. Idk what to say here.

7) LIKE BRO. Actually drives me crazy cause this is the one I feel the Abby haters don’t understand about her character. It’s like they see buck as three dimensional and see all his issues, but when it comes to Abby (or any of his (female) love interests) they just see a cardboard cut out and not like. A real person. Who is suffering and needs to start over. Like I think when Abby left, that’s all she could do. She really did need to ‘find herself’ because she’d defined herself by her treatment of others, and not by her actual personality, and she’d spent so long taking care of others she’d neglected to even know who that was.

8) yeah she defs could’ve hit him up when she first knew she wasn’t coming back, but this side of her character is completely off screen. We have no idea what she’s going through or how she’s feeling during this. And like, she hurt Buck and that was not okay, but it’s not inexcusable death penalty justifiable behaviour. Let her be a human being for the love of God.

9) (Sam bit) WHY WOULDNT HE. If you watched any of the show you’d be able to understand that there was no way Buck was leaving that train car without BOTH victims. It’s proven time and time again with him, he will never leave anyone behind. Whether or not Sam was his exes fiancé or a complete stranger, Buck still would’ve fought to save him and put his life on the line for him, because that’s who he is.

10) (apology) I completely disagree. I thought the apology scene was good for both of them. Buck needed to get that off his chest and explain how Abby had hurt him, and Abby needed to explain why she did what she did.

This fandom drives me insane with its treatment of women, particularly love interests of Buck or Eddie. There’s no need to hate someone just because they got in the way of your ship. I love buddie, but I also enjoyed watching Abby and Buck, and I thought they were really cute and good together. I’ve only just gotten to Eddie and Ana’s first date, but they seem cute and I like her, yet the fandom makes her out to be a literal witch. I liked Shannon when she was around and was on her side cause wtf Eddie. But he doesn’t get shit on for the way he treated her?? Hello that’s insane. They hold female characters to a much higher standard than any of the male characters, I hate it sm.

[nokingsonlyfooles]

Head-Wigs and Not Even an Inch

Abigail Thorn made me cry last night.

I mean, I knew this was not outside the realm of possibility. I presumed she would produce a work of stunning artistic beauty and overwhelm my jaded brain with some Profound Meaning. Or, fat chance, maybe she’d trip over something I’d written and tear it to pieces like a hamster going to town on a cardboard tube. Or maybe I’d go back to London, and spill my drink on her shoes in a dark club, and she’d thrash me with a riding crop — that’s slightly more likely than someone with a decent platform noticing my writing, at this point.

But, uh, no. That’s not how it went.

We pay money to get the bonus episodes of Kill James Bond. You should too. In fact, if you don’t, you’ll be lacking some context for this. But most of my work goes out into the void without context, so to hell with it. You can watch a theatrical version of Hedwig and the Angry Inch for free, on YouTube. Or you can probably pirate the film version with a clean conscience, I don’t think any of those performers are seeing much compensation from sales at this point.

We haven’t been listening to the bonus episodes in order. We often try to watch something close to the version of whatever-film they’re doing, and then listen to the episode with context. We’ve heard them mention Hedwig, and it seemed to be a profound, emotional experience. I really wanted to see Hedwig first. Well, we found a Hedwig available for free and we watched it. They tried to update it a bit, and I found that off-putting. A lot of the tropes in play are dated — “#problematic” in some ways, and genuinely hurtful in others. If you’re going to update something like that, you can’t just throw in a reference to Harry Potter and Title 42 and call it good. Preserve it in its original messy form for us, or rewrite the whole thing — if they’ll let you.

The way the actor playing Hedwig moved and sat in her (the character uses she/her and I have no idea about the actor) short skirt bothered me too. She had shorts on underneath, but I don’t think we were supposed to know that yet. “Nobody has ever told this person how they’re supposed to sit in a skirt,” I said to the spouse. Like, it wasn’t even as if she knew and had decided to ignore it. If one were transfeminine, or faking it to get out of East Berlin, someone would’ve mentioned it. “Maybe it’s for the character,” he said. Maybe it was. You could read it that way. But there’s a read on this where transness is artifice, and I don’t like that read very much. I hope that wasn’t what they were going for.

The ending could be read that way too. It’s all very surreal and that has the potential to be read a lot of different ways, but a male (or male-presenting) actor winds up bare-chested in shorts and the female one ends in a wig and a dress and they both seem very happy about it. One could say, “Well! Glad all that gender confusion’s cleared up! Now they’ve stopped pretending to be something they’re not!” I don’t like that the possibility is left open like that. It feels slimy and centrist.

But the music was great and there were some excellent moments and I was eager to hear the whole thing get dissected by some trans folks.

About a half hour into it, they were discussing John Cameron Mitchell, who identified as a gay man at the time and has since refined it to nonbinary with he/him pronouns. Hedwig’s gender is messy — she’s a fictional character written by an enby who was still in egg form, from a time before people were expected to define their transness as binary or nonbinary. Abi acknowledged the nonbinary actor/writer/director, and mentioned that there’s a lot of pressure to define your gender neatly these days… And said, “No.” That’s not it. Hedwig is a woman like her. Period.

I had been saying to the spouse (we talk over the podcast; we get excited) that I saw a lot of myself in Hedwig’s disaster gender, and in that way you could read the ending as her deciding to stop splitting herself between her popular, cis-passing, sellout persona, and the real, messy her. And then Abi cut me off, and I said, laughing, “Oh my god, just hip-check my identity right into the orchestra pit! What… What…” And I started to cry.

I didn’t have my guard up. I didn’t expect it. And I’d never taken a hit quite this way before. This wasn’t being denied the validity of my existence, this was the validity of my artistic merit. Abigail Thorn, a demonstrably smart person with a lot of theatre experience who loves writing and acting, will not be requiring me or John Cameron Mitchell for her interpretation of Hedwig and the Angry Inch. Not even as a possible read. Please, go find yourselves in some other character, enbies. Let the transwomen have her.

…To the point where “Hansel” is treated like a modern-day deadname of a real person, when all we know for sure is that the character got rid of it to get out of East Berlin and she doesn’t use it anymore. It could be like that, but by the end of this, “Hedwig,” another name and gender she did not choose for herself, might be a deadname too. I’m not saying it has to be like that, but it’s not so ridiculous that we need to dismiss it unsaid, is it? Especially given that the goddamn originator of the character has been on a similar journey and decided to keep “John” and he/him for the moment. A person can do that and still kick their assigned gender to the curb, you know?

I didn’t need Hedwig to be about me and only me, I just needed the possibility to be left open and discussed a little bit. Another trans egg movie, but perhaps a nonbinary one this time. Like Speed Racer, it went hard and fell short! That’s all. I didn’t even know I needed that! Until Abi said I couldn’t have it.

The spouse stopped the podcast and comforted my surprised tears. He gave me a nonbinary read — which is not hard to do! — and said I deserve to be seen. I said, “I know why she said it. I do. It’s too close to their (hers and Alice’s) own experience and they don’t want to see anything else. It’s emotion-based. But… But… Nonbinary actor (and writer/director/producer/singer)! …What about Dev?” Dev really took a backseat on this one. They saw themself in Yitzhak, and Yitzhak isn’t the main character, and Abi and Alice were so into Hedwig, and they’re all friends. Yeah. I mean, I understand that too. Back off and let your friends have this one, it’s clearly important to them both.

I wanted to hear the rest of it, because it made Alice and Abi feel seen, and a lot of other trans folks too. Yeah, there’s a lot in it that aged like milk — cringy and outdated even when the film was made — but there’s a lot of valid queer experience in there, too, warts and all. I was surprised as hell that, in the end, Abi supports the “Tommy isn’t real” theory and believes this is a story about uniting one person and making yourself feel whole. And yet, she reiterated, “No.” It’s not about being nonbinary. It’s about reconciling with the male-gendered stuff you try to cut out of you when you transition. Dev and Alice were at least willing to allow that nonbinary was possible, if not quite willing to delve into it, but not Abi. Splitting yourself in two is a binary trans thing! As are many, many other things about Hedwig that I related to.

As an enby who came up with the “splitting yourself in two” metaphor while still in egg form, for a fictional character of my own who is also still in egg form, please let me tell you — please let me tell someone — that that’s not true. I didn’t meet Hedwig until last night, but I know about performing your acceptable, cis-passing, assigned gender and hiding all the “garbage” that doesn’t fit. I know what it is to be crammed into a false persona that gets a lot of love, while the real you, when you let it out, is only worthy of snarling punk lyrics into a mic at a dingy seafood restaurant with a hostile audience.

And, oh my god, do I know what it is to have a piece of you that will not come off, and prevents you from fitting fully into either binary gender. It can feel like a broken piece, like a scar, like a botched surgery you didn’t need that was inflicted on you… But it doesn’t have to be literally that. Hedwig, both the play and the person, doesn’t seem to have much use for physical reality. She’s here to unload her emotional reality, and she doesn’t care about any other real things she might damage along the way.

KJB were rather amazed that Hedwig chose to redefine herself by a (medically impossible) surgical accident. How brave of her to own her trauma like that. But I wonder, is it trauma? Or is it the only path a nonbinary egg in 1998 could see to gain an outside that expressed his inside? This isn’t what any of you wanted me to have, this isn’t even what I want to have, but it’s still me. It’s what I have to work with. (All signs point to “Tommy,” as a character, being at least a closeted gay guy who would’ve been fine if the “front of” Hedwig had been a penis, but it isn’t. It’s not quite anything at all, and he flees because that’s just too much for him to handle. Hedwig already is one of those androgynes she envies; she doesn’t need an Adam, she doesn’t need him. But she loves him/her cis-passing self, and she’s not yet ready to let him go.)

I don’t know what it is to actually try living as the other binary gender, I wasn’t active enough in queer circles to really feel that pressure to conform to the binary before I hatched. But I see it now, and I feel the same instinctive revulsion that Hedwig feels about being a divorced housewife in a trailer in Arizona. That’s not me either! Did I spend all this time and energy escaping one box, only to be trapped in another? Must I content myself with this simply because I don’t want to go back to the way I was? Is this only way I can get a green card that lets me access a queer space? To put on an ugly wig and pretend I’m more palatable?

To me, the revelation about wigs is not “I could be happy as ANY woman!” but, “This is a performance… This is all a fucking performance! This isn’t me, this is a hat someone put on my head. It comes off! I can have another hat! I can have all the hats!” And, selfishly, she denies Yitzhak that same joy, because he wears it better and seems happier. Hedwig clings to her suffering so tightly, it’s such a fundamental part of her identity, that she can’t bear to be around trans joy. No. There is no room for trans joy here, only trans spite. This story is about me. I don’t like transwomen, I don’t like transmen, and I sure as hell don’t like myself (yet)! In the end, after a lot more suffering, she’s willing to let that go.

In the end, Abi says she knows a lot of transwomen who seem to model themselves on Hedwig, and she wants them to know that isn’t how they have to be. They don’t have to choose between being just like a cis woman, or being a monstrous, chaotic, damaged other. You can be… Better than cis! Yes, says the cast of KJB, laughing, we are better than you! We are THE FUTURE! Three friends, having a ball on a podcast, trans joy at its finest — but you don’t find humour in feigning cruelty if you haven’t had some of that cruelty directed at you. This joy formed around a grain of spite. Not only does one often feel they have to be better than cis people, but when you’re still unhatched and stuck on the outside looking in, trans folks really do seem better than you. At least they know what their deal is.

I get it. I do. Because Hedwig fits me too. We all have our reasons to put on that perfectly ridiculous blonde wig and take the form of Hedwig, the Destroyer. Hedwig, the Chaotic. Hedwig, the Liar. Hedwig, the Truth. Hedwig, the Unrepentant Disaster. Hedwig, give me strength! But, it comes off. Look. It is literally a head-wig, a costume for your brain. I know sometimes you find a new wig and you really, really like it, and you become very attached and you want it to be just yours forever and ever, maybe even to the point of calling it your real hair, but… Someone else could still wear that same wig and feel just as happy as you, or maybe even happier. Maybe you’ll find a wig you like even better too. Transitioning isn’t just one and done, and Hedwigs don’t have to be forever. We do know this, don’t we?

Gender is a performance. Gender is a Hedwig. A lot of other things that you consider immutable parts of your identity are Hedwigs too. They are as real as any other social construct, but if you don’t like them or need them, you can just take them off. Sometimes it’s hard and it hurts, but I promise you can. Like Hedwig the character, or whoever that is, does. Inevitably, she must pick some new clothes, maybe new pronouns and a new name, too, but she’s not obligated to do that on camera for us. We can’t force her to say “Aha, see? This identity suited me all along!” No. We’re not entitled to know her or define her. She will be doing that for herself, later, as a whole person. What is so scary about the ending, what makes it look like a detransition instead of a synthesis, is that we insist on gendering her naked body as a male head-wig. Wouldn’t she wear something else if that wasn’t who she was? Well, maybe not. Or maybe so, but it’s her decision, not ours. Self-expression is not the Self, it just helps to define and validate the Self. Hedwigs are extremely fucking important for defining and validating the Self!

So, you know, you have to be willing to share.

[near-seth-experience]

ok, (mostly) rhetorical question for the room, and i might ignore replies on this one since it could stir the pot a little bit, but:

Given that it's 2024, and it's now reasonably well-known that JKR has been a piece of shit human being for years now, do y'all find it weird that people still openly advertise that they're obsessed with Harry Potter?

I generally try not to yuck people's yums, and I understand that an argument can be made for "separating the art from the artist" and all that, which is an entirely separate discussion to be had (i personally believe it's a case-by-case kind of thing where context, timing, and the messages present in the artist's work are all very relevant), and I get that we all pretty much grew up enjoying the movies regardless of whether or not we actually read the books, and we spent our formative years sorting ourselves into houses and all that, but, I don't know...

This might be a bit of a spicy take for me to rant about out of nowhere, but it's kind of grown into a red-flag for me when someone mentions liking HP in their dating profiles, and I'll automatically swipe Nope on them. Something about this case in particular just kinda feels off to me. Like... Is your fandom so important to you and so heavily integrated into your identity that you'll turn a blind eye to it's creator actively being problematic? or are you genuinely that blissfully ignorant to all of JKR's shenanigans? Either way, it's kinda yikes to me, and neither seems like a particularly good quality in a partner 🚩

[sophieinwonderland]

"A lot of your sources" is a weird way to say less than half. Only 4 sources according to you are "not true"

Let me just preface this by saying that I'm not arguing against their main point. Some of their sources do show that "system" was used to refer to a collection of alters in MPD shortly before it was used in the Internal Family Systems

And it's not that the others sources are "not true." It's just that they don't back up the point and even contradict it. Like I said, what these sources actually prove is that there was a lack of a consistent definition of a system at the time.

Yes, the image showing "systems of personalities" does demonstrate that the word was used in this way prior to the Internal Family System therapy. But what the other sources show is that "system" was used as a broad term with a broad meaning in relation to multiplicity.

It isn't even just that you should ignore the four bad sources. It's that including a bunch of sources showing completely different definitions of "system" makes the argument weaker.

At the same time as this proves system didn't come from IFS, it also proved system is a broad term used in a ton of different ways even in the context of multiplicity.

It makes sense why these sources would be included even if they don't adhere to the current modern definition because you use the very same tactic when arguing for the terms "endogenic" and "tulpamacy" by arguing that histories are irrelevant and that intent matters. You give yourself leniency but deny others it. Why?

I believe my argument for the word "endogenic" is that it doesn't have a history and was never used to refer to systems at all prior to its coining in the pro-endo community in 2014. I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Why obscure the dates of the sources you show screenshots of? When was the second screenshot's research conducted? The third? What sources are moot and which are correct? Date your data, because so far you only debunk two sources from 1985 and then drop the ball on the rest by not showing us where you got the screenshots from

All of the screenshot dates are in the post I reblogged. It's not like I'm hiding any of them. 🙄

Three I addressed are from 1985, the other from 1986. I didn't touch any from 1988

(even though you somehow take issue with "weakly integrated" being used for systems. Do you not subscribe to the ToSD?)

I don't take issue with it. At least, not in the way you're suggesting.

The emphasis on "weakly integrated" there is because it's in contrast to the other systems of a person without MPD, which would be presumably more "strongly integrated."

If you read the whole section, it becomes abundantly clear that this is a context where everyone has an "ego system," and the ego states in MPD are merely the "weakly integrated" ego systems.

But regardless, the current online usage of "system" started with Astraea's web and the rest of the bastards over at Empowered Multiplicity: Weaponized Ableism nicking it along with many other terms from the preexisting DID community with the intent of denying them it in their attempt to de-medicalize the disorder, fearmonger and push people away from treatment, and own those "basket-cases" because "everyone is abused as a child, you're not special", so… What is your defense against that? It better not be arguing in favor of that ableist rape apologist by saying they're just "a little problematic but so valuable to the community" again, because you having done it once is embarrassing, I'd hate to see you try it again.

I have absolutely no idea who you're talking about or where those quotes come from, but I doubt they're relevant or representative of the entire non-disordered community at the time.

If we're going to try to invalidate things by throwing out personal attacks against people involved, we could also just as easily discuss one of the Theory of Structural Dissociation's creators abusing a patient for decades.

See! I can play that game too!

But I really... just don't know what you're talking about. You try to blame the use of the word system in the non-disordered community on the Astraea Household, the only ones you mention by name, but if I recall correctly, they largely just identified as a Household and thought system was too medicalized.

And as I've discussed before, the non-disordered community broke off of the MPD/DID community that existed at the time, self-identifying as as having MPD or DID because that was basically the only forms of multiplicity known or discussed at the time. I think the creators of Dark Personalities were actually diagnosed before rejecting the label. Words weren't stolen. They were just... kept.

Just wanting to share this, as it's relevant to the ongoing argument over who gets to use the term "system" in relation to plurality, multiplicity, and dissociative disorders.

TL, DR: It most likely originated in 1987 with Internal Family Systems therapy, which posits that everyone is a system, became popular with therapists using that model with their clients, and by the early 1990s was clearly in use by plurals of all stripes, regardless of origin or diagnostic status.

[psychic-refugee]

I always find posts like this so funny.

There’s no proof it didn’t happen…like how do you prove something doesn’t exist? Here’s all the lack of it *motions to thin air*

Then they say there’s all this proof it did happen…sure, if by proof you mean SS that you DO NOT SCRUTINIZE AT ALL. It’s only proof if you don’t ask any reasonable questions like…when and where did this happen and to whom? What do the SS have to do with the rumours? None of these can be answered.

I’ve googled, I’ve gone on twitter, and I’ve gone on Tumblr. There are no named victims, there is no crime specified in the SS, and there is no date of when it happened. The SS do not support the rumours in the tweets.

All I’ve seen are SS of a bitter Pick Me Girl who after six years is still mad she wasn’t chosen as his girlfriend, and no context conversations about someone ELSE as the perpetrator. Like what does any of that prove?

When confronted with those questions and other SS conflicting with the rumours, they tend to go with the strawman of “well, he was a bad person six years ago, when he was a teenager.”

Like ok, I’m choosing to give him grace for being a teenager for whatever I subjectively deem “problematic.” But again, what does his subjective “bad” behaviour as a teenager have to do with the rumours?

Also, lets make a deal. In ten years when you’re no longer a teenager, I promise I’ll give you the same grace for harassing a celebrity you don’t know based off of nothing.

It’s also a typical response of resorting to misogynistic slurs. For defending women, they really like to use degrading language towards women. They also like to imply those “defending” PHW are only doing so from physical attraction.

It’s a stark doublethink dichotomy. I especially like the resounding hypocrisy.

Always believe women…unless they’re going against the accusations, then they’re “cunts” who are blindly following dick or were paid off.

We only have his word that he didn’t do it…when there’s only ever been Somebody’s word against his that something happened.

There are cherry picked statements…when all they have are SS of partial conversations, that also have nothing to do with the rumours.

How dare you question victims on why they waited to speak up…why did it take six months for him to say something?

Do these people immediately forget what they write? Or are they blind to what they’re writing? Like how can people take any of them seriously?

There is a reason why they’re being ignored by Netflix, YSL, and other companies.

The antis are toddlers having a temper tantrum, as we can see from these posts.

[phoenixyfriend]

Asking for a friend but could you maybe post what you wrote about each couple in the problematic ship test, they're super funny and I'm struggeling to get them but keep failling and I'm tired :(

thx <3

Sure!

Context:

The rarepair quiz

The femslash quiz

The #problematic ship quiz

Fanon vs Canon

Disclaimer from the start of the quiz: you must recognize that, as a quiz about problematic ships, this will contain references to hot-button topics, namely clonecest, dating within the jedi lineage as pseudo-incest, and age differences. It will also make pointed jabs at some ships for comedic purposes. From this point forward, you take your experience into your own hands.

Rexsoka - Rex/Ahsoka The big one! We are here for ambiguously-shaped relationships that are nonetheless incredibly devoted and intense. They COULD be best friends... or they could be basically married. It doesn't matter! They are two halves of the same black ops specialist.

Jangobi - Jango/Obi-Wan One of these men is an incompetent but well-meaning older brother/dad. One of them is an absentee father to over three million. Together they are... something.

Obitine - Obi-Wan/Satine We are not here for a HAPPY ENDING. We are here for the DRAMA and the TRAUMA and the PINING and DYING IN EACH OTHERS' ARMS.

Jangosoka - Jango/Ahsoka ...................listen, she goes back in time, kicks his ass, and accidentally makes him fall in love with her. I don't know what else to tell you. I've written tens of thousands of words on them.

Bosoka - Bo-Katan/Ahsoka The important part is Ahsoka murdering something and then Bo-Katan killing villains and sending the body parts to her as a courting gift. (I only ship it as a time-travel, but Bo-Katan's age is ambiguous enough that they COULD be in the same age group? As you will.)

Chewku - Chewbacca/Dooku Literally why

DarthFett - Vader/Boba The inherent eroticism of sending this bastard in armor to go kill things for you. Maybe hire him to hunt you for the sport of it. Have some fun with the game. Attempted murder is love.

ObiLeia - Obi-Wan/Leia I know my flowers AND I know a bitch when I see one!

MaulObi - Maul/Obi-Wan What's love without extreme trauma and multiple attempted murders.

Jinmi - Qui-Gon/Shmi He's just very GALLANT to her and we're going to ignore the inherent power imbalance of it because he's such a gentleman to her, and only her, in TPM.

CodyWan - Cody/Obi-Wan The main thing here is that a lot of the people who DO ship it are the same people who are judging me (and others) for enjoying other results from this quiz, and yet... shipping a thirteen-year-old slave with his boss, who is three times his age, and is legally a person when the technically 13yo guy isn't exactly... I mean, it sure is problematic! We don't talk about it much, but it sure is a thing that is in the text! It's not pure and lacking in problems!

Barrissoka - Barriss/Ahsoka Sometimes your girlfriend (20F) frames you (16F) for terrorism and ruins your life. It's fine. Everything is fine. Don't worry about it. You can fix her.

Blyla - Bly/Aayla YES it's a gross abuse of power, but consider this: she pretty.

Codexwalker - Cody/Anakin/Rex Rex is in love with Anakin and Cody wants to ruin That Jedi and also egging Rex on, and when you grow up in a population of three million identical faces, it doesn't ping the Westermarck effect at all, so it's not hitting the incest button, especially when you've got this whining mess of a Skywalker to take apart together.

QuiRael - Qui-Gon/Rael It's not incest but it sure does sound like it if you don't know anything about Jedi Lineages

Anidala - Anakin/Padme YES he choked me out almost to death while I was nine months pregnant on a lava planet. NO I am not giving up on him. I can still fix him.

Obikin - Obi-Wan/Anakin Okay I'm not actually an active shipper of this one, BUT if you don't think time-travel fics where young oblivious Obi-Wan has an immediate crush on his-age-or-older Anakin, which Anakin tries his hardest to ignore while other time-travelers laugh at him for it, is THE ABSOLUTE FUNNIEST THING EVER--

JangoShmi - Jango/Shmi Do they have shared traumas? Yes. Do they have a massive power imbalance? Also yes. Do we care? Only insofar as it makes an interesting fic.

Windwalker - Mace/Anakin Sometimes. Sometimes you have a rage crush on an authority figure. It doesn't go anywhere, but you ARE a teenager with a lot of time and a lot of adrenaline and a magic sword...

ObiAniDala - Obi-Wan/Anakin/Padme We are going to ignore so many things... OR we could feed into it. Anakin's already got enough issues, let's just use his complex and messy relationships with Obi-Wan and Padme to make it all ten times worse.

Padme/Sabe It's literally just the handmaiden/feudal lord meme, but you don't have to believe me. Here's a Sabe quote from the actual novel: "Of course I [love her]. It's a complicated relationship. She can order me to my death, and I will go. And she knows it. We've worked hard to maintain a balance we will never truly have. As far as I can see, she will always pick Naboo, and I will always pick her."

[izzymcfeegles]

Yet another post about Sebastian Stan:

I'm seriously tired of making these posts, but over the past few days, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding Sebastian's most recent IG post, and as a result,more things are resurfacing and its become impossible for me to ignore. I'm going to try my best to give a fair assessment, but if I'm being honest, this all appears to be a pretty troublesome pattern of behavior. Before I get into any of that, I think it's important to mention where I stand on cancel culture. As someone who is a longtime fan of wrestling and classic rock, I'm no stranger to seeing some of my favorite artists act in ways that would be considered unacceptable by today's standards. I do think that stan Twitter has a tendency to be a bit harsh when it comes to judging things that people have done in the past. That being said:

Context is important. The reality is that there were many things that were considered to be socially acceptable at one point in time, that we've since learned can be harmful, particularly to those who are marginalized on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Something that was considered to be acceptable 2005, we later find can be toxic and harmful. Do I think it's productive to cancel for someone for something they did decades ago that was considered to be acceptable at the time? Not necessarily. However, if this person continues to exhibit the same behaviors to this day, then yes, they should be rightfully taken to task.

In Sebastian's case, he has a documented history of saying and doing things that are ignorant and tone-deaf. In the early 2010's he made an comment about playing Bucky as a "transvestite," a word that is considered to be dated and offensive to Trans people. If I'm being honest, if I saw the interview the date it aired, I probably wouldn't have blinked twice as I was not as educated on Trans issues at that time. I now know that the comment was unacceptable and hope Sebastian does too.

Regarding the Jeff!Seb pedo memes, I'd be lying if I said my edgy 2009 self wouldn't have found them funny at one point, however in 2017, my adult self was not amused. And coming from someone who was playing an abuser at the time, liking those memes was a bad look. Same goes for the Kneegate meme, especially when you consider the amount of hatred black NFL players were receiving from people including the President of the United States for kneeling in protest during the national anthem. It was tasteless, tone-deaf, and he should have known better. The fact that his "apology" over the incident was surrounded by quotes, and as some fans speculated, copied and pasted did not help matters. Mind you, many fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and forgive him, and for a while things seemed okay.

Fast forward to 2020. After the man made it a point to shame Miami spring breakers for vacationing during the pandemic, he is seen months later vacationing in Ibiza and later Tulum. The fact that he used his money and Romanian passport to go on vacation while many of us were either stuck at home or worse, putting our lives at risk to put food on the table, understandably did not sit well with many people, especially when taking his previous comments about pandemic vacationers into account. The fact that his traveling partner is a socialite who has a history of doing cultural appropriation, including doing brown face and using the word "savage" in reference to her friend doing a native war cry made it sting even more. I'm not going to go into depth about her because she doesn't deserve the attention and this is about holding Sebastian accountable, but the fact that he is still with her and they appear to be inseparable, it's clear that her history of CA is a non-issue for him. Make what you will of that.

Moving to recent actions. The current project Sebastian is working on is controversial in its own right. As someone who has been a Mötley Crüe fan for almost 20 years, I am familiar with the history of that relationship and how toxic is was and will never defend Tommy and the abuse Pamela suffered at his hand. While my issue is mostly with the producers, it doesn't change the fact Sebastian and Lily are still willfully participating in a series that Pamela herself does not wish to be made.

Sebastian's most recent post seems to be catalyst for the most recent wave of Twitter outrage. I am well aware that Tommy is/was a practicing Buddhist and that things like Buddha statues were part of his home decor. That's not the issue. The issue lies in the face Sebastian chose to make in the photo where he appears to be prying to the statue, along with the caption "find your zen fuckerz." Once again, I am aware of Tommy's speech patterns and get that it was "in character," but to use the combination of that photo and that caption as a non-Buddhist, it's understandable why some Buddhist fans were offended and saw it as disrespectful. And as a non-Buddist, I don't think it's right to tell these people what they should and should not be offended by.

So for those of you who hate paragraphs, TL/DR:

Sebastian has a documented history of ignorant behavior and posts and as of now does not seem to be interested in addressing these things and learning about why the aforementioned behaviors are problematic and why some fans are hurt. This is not okay and we should not be defending him.

I understand that for many of you, he has been a source of joy. Bucky is still my comfort character and I will always be grateful to Seb for portraying the him with the nuance and care he deserves. I'm not asking anyone to stop staning Bucky or to take down your Seb x Reader fanfics. Life is short and you're entitled to the things that make you happy. Just understand that his actions have hurt a lot of people and why fans are upset and lashing out. While I do not condone any threats or doxxing aimed at his direction, the same goes to people who criticize him. I've seen people go to some vile lengths to defend him, from going after Pamela, a victim of abuse, to telling Buddhists how they should feel about their own religion, to anons telling the blogs who call him out to go kill themselves. None of this is ok. At the end of the day, Sebastian is a 38-year-old white man who has a great deal of money and influence and has more social capital than the people calling him out. He will be fine regardless of what happens and does not need people to protect him. The same cannot be said about the people he hurt through his actions.

[lulu-zodiac]

Disclaimer: This is gonna be long so no obligation to respond.

Thank you for the post about J2’s friendship being theirs and not for us to begrudge them patching things up.

I have a really good friend that has Jared like tendencies. And by Jared like tendencies I mean she acts like a brat if she feels left out (even though no one is actually leaving her out of anything), she says questionable and ignorant things sometimes, and only recently realized we’re serious when we ask her to not say certain things because it’s not funny and it makes us uncomfortable.

She’s also my ride or die. In fact, we were so close in college that people actually thought we were dating. If I ever need her, she’s there and will push her ego aside and make sure I have what you need. On a good day she’s funny, usually pretty adorable, and very sentimental, loving, and affectionate. (she has a lot of good days)

Is she sometimes problematic? Yes.

And we call her out regularly because she settles somewhere at the bottom of the learning curve when it comes to social interactions.

Is she still my friend? Yes.

Because, I love her. We have history and if there are things she needs to work on, I’m going to stick by her and help her do that.

All that is to say, if J2 did fall out but both parties are ready and willing to mend the relationship and better themselves, I’m happy for them.

Like my friend, I think there’s more to Jared than his problematic tweets. And Jensen probably leaned pretty heavily on that friendship during a time when his whole life was turned upside down. We joke a lot on here and that’s fine, but I think it’s important we take a minute to acknowledge that J2’s relationship is likely an important one to both of them and that makes it one worth preserving.

thank you so much for sharing this. i think you raise such valid and interesting points.

what you say is a really important reminder of the fact that, just because there are problematic elements to a person or relationship, doesn't mean there aren't also valuable things there or things worth preserving. like you say, only the two people in that relationship will know if that's right for them - and i think it's so important to respect the fact that they're the only ones who can make that call for themselves. nobody else will ever know what the inside of their relationship is like, and you're right, so many friendships are a mix of good and bad stuff. the good doesn't outweigh the bad, and the bad doesn't cancel out the good. both can exist at once, and that can be a really difficult thing to deal with and reconcile sometimes.

you're right, all jokes aside, i think it's important to remember the significant role jared has played in jensen's life, which means that when jared does something objectively shitty, jensen isn't just responding to that, he's also responding to their friendship as a whole, which is just context none of us will ever fully understand.

to an outsider, who doesn't know either of them in reality, jared has done a lot of things that make it hard for me to respect or like him. that's fine. but jensen has over a decade of friendship with him, and everything that comes with that. we should all trust him to know what's right for him and jared, and their friendship. they're the only ones who have to deal with the reality of it.

[nightswithkookmin]

Hey Goldy, why do you think jk could've been homophobic in the early years? I genuinely want to know becuz i didn't really feel that way myself . And when according to you did he become woke? And what do u think about jimin in this case?

I think JK could have been homophobic????

Have you been snooping around my Ko-fi page??? I don't recall ever saying anything like that on here...

Are you on Ko-fi? You can ask directly on Ko-fi if you have any questions with regards to any of the posts on there. Simply DM.

I said that, because I had read somewhere Jungkook was straight and was dating a trainee before 2015 when he and JM started fully dating but then those same peopele claimed somehow that JK was too young to be gay at the time or to be doing Jimin prior to 2015- in that context then to me, if he wasn't closeted and gay then he'd come off as very homophobic especially in the way he acted around JM and treated JM in that period in my opinion.

If he wasn't too young to be straight, he wasn't too young to be gay. I knew I liked girls at the age of seven ish. Never acted on it and shied away from gals mostly until highschool when I came across much older queer gals- Some have claimed they knew they liked girls much earlier than that.

I mean I'd assume straight people knew they were straight even in kindergarten. Why does it gotta be any different for gay people. It's really bizarre to me.

That's not to say I don't think Jikook weren't problematic or didn't have issues.

For JK I can say, toxic masculinity, internalized homophobia and immaturity marked his earlier phase- not just him but Jimin and everyone in bangtan too (minus the internalized homophobia of course) in my opinion. Which I think we've talked about on here a few times now.

I understand certain conversations make some people uncomfortable especially ones surrounding BTS and homophobia, misogyny cultural appropriation, gay culture appropriation etc.

As I said on Ko-fi, if Jungkook wasn't queer/gay back then, then I'm afraid, to me, a lot of the things he'd said and done around around JM was quite homophobic.

But since I believe he was gay, they just come off as internalized homophobia to me.

And by that I mean things he'd say similar to RM talking bout how 'Jimin tries a lot to be masculine even though he's not' and gets elbowed by Jin to shut up because it's something you just don't say to effeminate men like JM or especially gay men. It comes across as a homophobic slur or microaggression (if JM is in deed gay- which I think he is.)

Or all the crying jokes bangtan makes about JK most times and the constant attack on Jikook's masculinity in the group- being gay doesn't make you less of a man💀

You'll understand if you've seen JK's face drop at certain 'jokes' certain people in the group throw his way.

When did Jungkook become woke????

That's like asking me when did BTS become woke.

Sounds very sarcastic but whatever.

Don't think I can point to you a particular date in this instance just that there's been a very visible gradual shift in the way he thinks, behaves or carry himself within the group over the years.

When he stopped saying things like men shouldn't wear rings on their pinky or that men shouldn't check their selfies after taking them- to which JM replies in frustration 'men, men, men, what the heck is men!'

When he started unlearning the toxic masculine stuff and started embracing his true nature?

It's been a journey for him I'd say.

Whenever he second guesses himself and hesitates to touch JM in certain places-even to this day( a certain titanic run episode comes to mind)

He reaches for JM's waist, stops and holds his shoulder instead. There's a cut a his hand is now on JM's waist- clearly he was cued by the director or someone to hold JM's waist to make it more entertaining.

Now I wouldn't say this act is homophobic per se. Plus, he's not the only one who some times get confused around JM and hesitate to touch him- Tae does that too.

There's that TXT member who froze entirely when JM touched him.

But I can't ignore that JK's hesitation comes from him thinking it's inappropriate for him being a guy to hold JM in certain places like that- which is interesting because they be playing with each other's dixk and shit. You'd think that's more gay no?

Men are nasty and do nasty things like hitting eachother's private region for play or squeezing eachother's nipples and shit- Apparently, that's not gay. To them.

But suddenly, holding hands or placing their hands on a man's waist is gay because it's intimate and something a couple would do- very heteronormative I'd say.

Sounds familiar?

'Sounds like something a couple would do' then the members would proceed to act embarrassed by it.

And this was what, like a few months ago?

Toxic masculinity is at the heart of homophobia. One usually follows the other. If you can spot toxic masculinity in JK, you should be able to spot his internalized homophobic tendencies.

That being said. He's grown now. Way mature than before. Occasionally does some ignorant shit but he's way better than before- in my opinion💀

They shouldn't kiss and act grossed out. If it grosses you out don't do it in the first place that's just rude. I think you know what I mean.

Like RM says, they were all a bit in the mud, unsophisticated in their formative years and I don't think that excluded JM and JK( not gonna go into JK's problematic moments on here or recount them)

As to whether or not some of the things he said in those days were homophobic or not I think it depends on perspective and one's own understanding of anti homosexual tendencies and behaviors.

If not then ignorance is bliss I guess.

What do I think about Jimin???

I think he's gay. Lol.

But he's had his own toxic manly man moments.

'We are men and men shouldn't pop their booty'

Men shouldn't pop their booty? He tried it. Lol.

From the top, make it drop honey😏

Calling Hobi gay as a joke???

'I think he likes men a little too much'

Sir, sit down. A few years later, you are gay too. Very gay. More so gay than Hobi💀

This you???💀

Not sure how to steer this conversation because I feel you don't know exactly what that blog on JK and homophobia is about.

Anywho, thanks for the question. Love it.

I'm gonna answer all your questions. I love them🤤💜

Signed,

GOLDY

[qqueenofhades]

Some additional points about that grave find in Finland that you may or may not find interesting. And that may or may not be dated, because I studied history 20 years ago. That said, I'm not sure if 1000 years ago is firmly middle-ages in this context? At least back in my uni days, they told us that here middle ages got going slowly during 1100's and 1200's when Sweden started converting the population to Christianity and the prehistorical era gradually ended. Maybe they teach differently now.

More about the grave. I don't know why The Guardian would talk about Vikings in this context at all, because the erstwhile population of current day Finland is not considered to have been Vikings, afaik. They were similarly warlike, and the graves from that era have a lot of weapons, and they certainly encountered Vikings, but they never participated in the raiding, and isn't that what makes Vikings Vikings? Their language and religion was also different. But anyway. I don't mean to correct you because the larger point stands. When I saw the headline in a Finnish news paper about that grave and traditional gender roles my first thought was, well, maybe the gender roles hadn't become traditional then yet. Just some additional context, which could be illuminating or could be totally dated.

I did the stupid thing and sent you asks about the Suontaka burial before reading the Cambridge article about it: I'm reading it now, and my comments seem fairly useless. Feel free to ignore with extreme prejudice. We're in agreement on the guardian article.

Aha, well, we all make mistakes from time to time, so no worries! However, since you do touch on a few points that I would like to discuss, I'm going to go ahead and answer, whether for you or anyone else who might find it useful. (It's the teacher in me, I'm afraid.)

First, I have to say that I had a definite "eeegh" moment at the idea that the eleventh/twelfth century isn't "medieval" in Finland just because it (at least prior to the Baltic/Northern crusades, if we're considering them to begin with the Wendish Crusade in 1147) wasn't yet fully Christianized. Scholars pretty universally accept "medieval history" as referring to the time period between 500--1500 CE (the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Renaissance). These, of course, are horribly Eurocentric frames of reference, but there you have it. Any event or culture taking place within that span of dates, no matter where in the world it is or what its socio-political circumstances may be, is medieval. We have to call out the pernicious equivalence of "medieval" with "Western Christian European," since that seems to be the underlying assumption. This is also what makes people mistakenly think that the medieval world (which, y'know, was just as big as it is now) is exclusively about white Christian Europe, and that no other global regions have a medieval history. Either way, the eleventh/twelfth century is actually closer to the end of the medieval era than it is to the start. I'm certainly not suggesting that you were consciously implying this; I have no trouble believing that that is indeed how they taught it twenty years ago. But yeah, the idea that still-largely-pagan eleventh-century Finland couldn't be "medieval" until it's Christian is definitely not the case as understood now.

The idea that anywhere in eleventh-century Europe is still "prehistorical" in any sense of the word is likewise a little baffling, tbh. Once more, it associates "history" only with "Christianity," and that would get quite a bit of pushback if included in a paper on medieval studies today. That is what also annoys me deeply when I see people describing the pre-Columbian Americas as "prehistoric" (read: pre-white-people-historic). If the chief marker of "history" is "written history," sure, there is a very narrow pedagogical argument to be made that these societies don't have narratives or chronicles in the standard historiographical sense. But also, uh, European colonialism and conquest destroyed vast swathes of records that we have never been able to read, understand, or even access, because they're just not there anymore. There is ample evidence that the ancient (and I do mean ANCIENT, up to thousands of years BCE) and early-to-late-medieval Mesoamerican societies had complex systems of writing, astronomy, calendar-keeping, and other history-recording practices, right up until 1492. There are something like four (FOUR) pre-Columbian Mayan scrolls still in existence, out of probably thousands and thousands, because the Spanish destroyed the rest. So "prehistoric," unless you're literally referring to the Stone Age, is never a politically neutral word or a word to use uncritically...

...and speaking of the Stone Age, we actually have histories for that too! Or rather (iirc) the Ice Age, because for example, Aboriginal Australians transmit their history orally and require each new generation to memorize it, word for word, exactly as taught to them. Some of these histories stretch back over ten thousand years, which means that we actually have first-person accounts of life during the end of the Ice Age, and scientists recently discovered that these traditional narratives accurately reflected the archaeological and geological record of Australia during the time period in question. (Indigenous people know what they're talking about and should be listened to, example number 85,000.) Of course, the Western-white-supremacist model of historiography calls these just "legends" or "myths" or "folktales" rather than history, because I guess not writing it down in a chronicle as a monk in a European Christian monastery in the year 1015 or whatever doesn't qualify as history for some people. (I don't have strong opinions about this or anything. Welp.)

I likewise don't know why the Guardian article brought up the Vikings, aside from the fact that they were quoting someone who explicitly used the Vikings in a hypothetical scenario about "traditional gender roles." This person expressed surprise that an intersex person living in a medieval Scandinavian society could rise to a high social role, by citing the widespread belief that "Vikings" were all dedicated to being very manly at all times and nobody with feminine qualities/feminine-coded social power could rule over them. I don't know if this was just a bad phrasing (plus, it obviously overlooks the often-egalitarian nature of medieval Scandinavian societies and plays into the favored white supremacist stereotype of the Vikings as some Master Aryan Race Where Men Were Men, etc) or what, but yeah, it's wrong across the board. Viking is the name of an occupation, not an ethnicity. It comes from the word wicing, meaning "seafarer" or "sea raider," and referred only to those guys who went out on their longships and stole a lot of stuff from their neighbors, most notably in the eighth to eleventh centuries. Their families back at home were part of the exact same society and benefited from those raids, but strictly speaking, they weren't vikings. We use the word "Viking" to describe any member of a medieval Scandinavian society, but it's similar to describing everyone living in the eighteenth-century Caribbean, no matter who they were or their social status or ethnic background, as "pirates," which is obviously inaccurate.

As you correctly point out, the Finns aren't considered quite the same as the Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes (as anyone can tell from looking at their written language; N/D/S are mutually intelligible and derive from the same linguistic family, while Finnish is COMPLETELY different and comes from an altogether separate branch of the tree) and therefore it's even more baffling that the person quoted in the Guardian article would cite them as an example of a "Viking" society. Likewise as you note, the whole phrase "traditional gender roles" is intensely problematic in most contexts, and especially here. It assumes that modern Western ideals of sex and gender have been static and unchanging throughout history, and that means that we tend to read our own (biased) assumptions onto the historical record and then get surprised when, shock of shock, they don't fit. The burial at Suontaka seems to have been of a biologically intersex person (i.e. someone with Klinefelter syndrome), but this is also the case when it comes to people assigned the usual male or female at birth, without any complicating genetic conditions. I'm working on a book review for an entire edited volume that discusses the intense gender-fluidity and proto-transgenderism in some medieval saints' lives, and how obviously the fact that they have been held up as a holy example, while explicitly subverting the so-called Traditional Gender Roles of the Middle Ages, means that it was (and is) a lot more complicated than shallow stereotypes and Bad Medievalism would have it.

Anyway, this is long enough (especially considering that you graciously offered me the chance to ignore it) so I think we'll stop here for now. But yes, there you have it. :)