#essaying some thoughts

[sroloc--elbisivni]

a Red-Tailed Hawk theory of culture

These photographs are courtesy of this todaysbird post; that post identifies its source as the Macaulay Library but that page won't load for me so I can't confirm. They're here to help me illustrate my point. All of these are examples of real red-tailed hawks.

Speaking of illustrating, this is a screenshot of a duckduckgo search I did two minutes ago for 'red tailed hawk illustration.' You'll notice that most of them follow the same coloration trend, with less variety than the pictures above. In fairness I will note that looking for 'field guide red tailed hawk' promptly yielded a scan from the sibley guide to birds, which represents six varieties in coloration. The information isn't hidden; I'm not suggesting conspiracy. It just struck me as interesting to see the first series of photos when most of the pictures I've seen, and the ones most easily accessible, had a broad and consistent agreement that This Is What A Red-Tailed Hawk Looks Like. Real red-tailed hawks can look any number of ways, but the collective idea of what a red-tailed hawk looks like is fairly set.

So. Metaphor established. Let's talk culture.

I think modern culture tends to embrace the idea that the best sign of authenticity is uniformity. We want a series of markers that can be run against a checklist to confirm yes, this displays the correct signifiers. Yes, this matches our expectations. We know it's a real xyz because it does this-and-such. I don't know what this could be attributed to, though I'm sure you could find any number of things to blame it on. The scientific method requiring repeatable results to prove something. Factory mass-production and the notion of 'the Real McCoy,' the best version of something that works better than the knockoffs. Art authentication where there are often steps required to prove yes this is a real da Vinci. Proliferation of branding and trademark and copyright. The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, and corollary of 'you're not a real fan if you don't do this.'

The thing is, authenticity in culture doesn't work like that.

There are as many ways to participate in a tradition as there are people who participate it. Got any holidays that your family celebrates in a particular way or with a certain thing, even though the holiday is also observed by a broader group of people? Got any regional traditions that are different if you go to the next town or next neighborhood over? There's no singular way to be involved in a culture. Any culture, I would argue. Even in cultural groups that value conformity, or have a single central authority dictating which things are correct, there are going to be people who approach their position in different ways.

Variety in expression is not a sign of cultural weakness. I would argue, in fact, that it's a sign of strength.

We have a great deal of data from the field of biology to demonstrate the limits of singularity. Consider the campaign the WWF ran back in 2008 that's had followup art projects since, where pictures of endangered animals are made using only one pixel per living member of that species to demonstrate how much harder it is to see that species the less data you have to work with. Consider cheetahs, which are all extremely similar in coloration because the species is suffering from genetic bottleneck. Consider the instability of monocultures, especially clonal monocultures, where entire populations can be killed with the same disease or fungus because they share vulnerabilities.

Moving back to cultural considerations: the singular of culture is too often reduced to 'stereotype.'

Maybe what the tendency to boil things down can be attributed to is simple human desire for pattern recognition. We like knowing what things look like. We like having examples to point to and emulate. There's a pleasure in playing to type, in assuming a role, in fitting oneself to a form. Nuance and variations are hard to remember, and often hard to observe in the first place. There is a very real satisfaction in concrete knowledge.

A culture adhering to a singular presentation, however, is often a culture under threat.

In the interest of not being reductive, I'm going to only offer a single example here, from a situation I'm familiar with: late 20th century efforts to revive Breton, a regional minoritized language in France. After the language underwent a period of (often enforced) decline throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, there were efforts to institute public education in Breton for children and adults, encouraging those who did not already speak the language to learn it, thereby avoiding widespread linguistic dormancy. Mari C. Jones wrote an article in 1998 called 'Death of a Language, Birth of an Identity' that called attention to a difference in traditionally Breton-speaking communities vs. people learning it to participate in cultural revival. She pointed out that cultural revivalists were interested in identifying themselves specifically as Breton, forming an association between themselves and their region as a whole. The traditional speakers, however, were far more likely to identify with their local parish, or their larger diocese, with only a faint connection to the idea of being 'Breton' as an identity. The movement that understood their culture as being under threat was the one focused on constructing a stable, singular, pan-Breton identity.

Variation and internal diversity is the sign of an active and self-sustaining cultural community that has the energy to go a lot of different directions at once.

I suppose the overall point I'm driving at is that the more people there are doing something, the more ways that something should be done, and this isn't a sign that something's gone wrong. One realization I came to after thinking about this is that queer microlabels--which I, personally, am rarely interested in engaging with--are a sign of a healthy and thriving culture. Having the time and energy and space to argue about things like this, rather than needing to appeal to a greatest common denominator of your peers in order to get time and energy and space, is a good sign. Growth is the enemy of conformity. An authentic culture is an adaptive one.

Fundamentally, culture is what people do together, and people are always going to do something different eventually. Illustrations are meant to show reality, not dictate it. There's a lot of ways to look like a red-tailed hawk and there are red-tailed hawks out there proving it every day.

[rockwgooglyeyes]

One of the things that's so compelling to me about Eternal Sugar and Hollyberry's storyline, besides the fact that it is wlw, the juxtaposition of happiness and passion is super fascinating. It's easy to compare Eternal Sugar and Hollyberry's dynamic to Shadow Milk and Pure Vanilla because like Shadow Milk, Eternal Sugar is not trying to kill her other half, as she "only wants Hollyberry to be happy." Yet, with Shadow Milk and Pure Vanilla, Shadow Milk wished to corrupt Pure Vanilla in the same way he had been corrupted, and gain someone who fully understood him, as well as to get indirect revenge on Pure Vanilla for being chosen by the Witches instead of him. Shadow Milk did have harmful intentions when he met Pure Vanilla, whereas with Eternal Sugar and Hollyberry, Eternal Sugar has no ill intent.

It could be argued that Eternal Sugar does have ill intent, with her temper and her desire for control, the way she manipulates the people around her so that they remain within her grasp as well as subservient to her, but at the same time, she truly does view her actions as benevolent. She believes that, even if she is hurting people currently, that the ends justify the means, because as long as they stay in her Garden, they can remain happy and healthy forever. If by staying in her Garden, she continues her control over them, well that's just a happy accident!

One of her Arena Loading screen quotes is literally "Your passions will only lead to suffering..." which was such a game changer for me personally, because of the way it frames her motivation. By trapping people in her saccharine web, she is depriving them of their ability to make their own choices and ultimately get hurt, in the name of keeping them safe. Hollyberry's soul jam being passion as a variation on happiness makes a lot of sense, through that lens, because pursuing our passions makes us happy but at the very same time, passion can fizzle out suddenly, or our passions can lead us to ruin. Eternal Sugar tries to subdue the passions of her followers in order to keep them content and complacent, whereas Hollyberry is in direct opposition to that, saying that people should be allowed to go wherever the wind takes them, and her own actions embody that.

Nevertheless, the ways in which both of their soul jams are twisted by their own personal flaws is what makes it so intriguing to me. Hollyberry's "flights of passion" from her kingdom were her responding to her own restlessness, stress, and fear of stagnation, and it led her to abandoning her son and letting him grow up alone. Eternal Sugar, on the other hand, has many cookies that she cares about and yet she condescends to them and exerts control over them against their will in an effort to maintain their happiness. Eternal Sugar is very much an "ends justify the means" sort of person whereas Hollyberry lives in the moment and impulsively flits from place to place in order to keep running from her past. They both have complicated, kind of fucked up relationships with their sons, they both have devotees who follow them while remaining blind to the true flaws of the person they follow, and they both have their vices.

Hollyberry is constantly running and Eternal Sugar never moves. Hollyberry changes easily to fit whichever role is necessary for the situation while Eternal Sugar is unwilling and unable to change. It's almost like unstoppable force meet immovable object, and their polarity is what's so striking to me. Even as Hollyberry runs away from her problems, she does not allow herself to want things or get close to people, for fear of getting hurt. She may be passionate but she has, as Pavlova Cookie says, a cold and empty heart. That's why what Eternal Sugar says to her is groundbreaking because no one has given Hollyberry permission before, but here, she's can take time and it's not about everyone else, it's about her. Yet, the fact that Eternal Sugar is worried about everyone but herself is a great example of the similarities between them, as they both prioritize others above themselves and ignore their own emotions for the sake of other people. They are inherently so different and so similar, literally different shades of the same color, Hollyberry with her warm undertones and Eternal Sugar with her cool ones.

With Dark Cacao and Mystic Flour, they clash because of the fact that they are both unwilling to compromise on their ideals and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position. With Shadow Milk and Pure Vanilla, they clash because of Pure Vanilla's unwillingness to entertain Shadow Milk's tricks at a certain point, instead seeing through them and cutting through the bullshit to confront the person behind the mask, something that Shadow Milk is extremely uncomfortable with. Burning Spice and Golden Cheese clash because of Burning Spice's lack of care for his own people and Golden Cheese's possessiveness over her hoard, her kingdom, and her unwillingness to sacrifice that. Burning Spice is too free of burdens, to the point that he has no attachments, and Golden Cheese has so many attachments that they both empower her and bog her down.

The diversity through which the juxtaposition between the Beasts and their Heroes is shown truly is impressive because of both the overlap between different duos and the fact that each duo has something unique to just them. Every duo has shared traits between the two members, and every one has similarities between the Beast and the Hero but the ways in which the level of similarity compared to the level of difference changes throughout the depictions is very cool to me because of the way that it shows how people who are similar can clash over the littlest things, and how people who are so different can come together and unite under one banner.

[sinn-bee]

Five of Swords

-Lbh and Lqg during the five years-

“𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑡, 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑎 𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠.”

I loved overlaying the meaning of this card on these two, makes me Insane

Only one more day of me pleading you to take a look at this 🥺 I just think it’s fun to think about

[keferon]

May I ask what were the best transformers media you ever saw/read?

Well Transformers Prime, Transformers 1986 and IDW comics are having the first place that’s for sure

And then the second place is kind of shared by Fall of Cybertron, Exodus, Prime wars trilogy, Robots in disguise(2001) and Transformers One.

The third place goes to G1, Animated, Earthspark, Armada, War for Cybertron Netflix series, Aligned Robots in disguise, Bumblebee, Rise of the Beasts and Cyberverse because I only liked some little parts of them.

And then I also saw some of the Bay movies, Victory and Headmasters and didn’t like them at all.

Separate first place for J-Decker. It is not exactly Transformers but it is a show about giant robots and I loved it

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I came here for the silly haha doodles, but I've stayed for the absolutely blazing commentary in the tags. Your analysis of this story is so so so good! Thanks for all the work and thought you put into this!

I am just a silly little comics blog. I am not hiding anything in the tags, no way. Never.

[teapetal44]

TW: ABUSE, CHILD ABUSE

“He wants to air this dirty laundry to the world does he…? Dabi, you fiend…you’ve been waiting for this moment…when they couldn’t prevent mass destruction…and faith in heroes is wavering.” - chapter 292

I truly, wholeheartedly, believe that MHA as a story upholds the myth of the perfect victim. I do not want to discuss if Horikoshi did that on purpose, or subconsciously because of inner bias – I find no meaning in doing so. For me the execution of an idea, in the grand scheme of the narrative, holds more value than the intention of the author. I’ve also had my fair share of people infantilizing Asian authors in the anime community for their poor writing decisions for one lifetime. It’s patronizing to both the author and the people reading it. Whether or not Horikoshi intended for his themes of abuse to paint the picture they did does not matter, because that’s how it reads as.

MHA puts victims of abuse in narrow boxes and softly dictates what’s an acceptable reaction to said abuse. Victims are continuously walking a tightrope between being deserving of compassion and sympathy and being unredeemable monsters who are too far gone and are only good for martyrdom after being put down.  

Eri fits the clean cut depiction of abuse victims that media usually gears towards. She is untouched by the cruelty around her - she preserves her innocence and kindness. She isn't assertive, but rather meek and passive. She doesn't fight back with force. And when offered help, she is receptive to it. That is not to say that Eri's depiction doesn't have a place in fiction, or that her portrayal can't be representative of the experiences of some - as we all deal with trauma and the inhumanity people throw at us differently. We see the same thing in the portrayal of Fuyumi, who shares many of the qualities discussed above. The same thing applies to her - i personally love the idea of all the siblings having different reaction to their childhood trauma and abuse. It shows that victims are not some type of monolith.

But the narrative treats the "forgiving" or "receptive to help/support" victims of abuse with more grace and with much more kindness. if you are willing to forgive, or the very least be quietly tolerant, the story grants you a happy ending. Forgiveness isn't a bad thing, it is an individual choice - but an abuse victim shouldn't have to do it for them to have a happy ending.

In a vacuum Eri and Fuyumi's character arcs and depictions of abuse are good but it becomes a problem when that's the only experience and type of victim we ever hold in high value or recognize as valid and deserving of compassion. Which the story reinforces.

Touya and Tenko's backstories aren't pretty nor comfortable or easy to sit through. Their responses to abuse aren't either. Reactive abuse is very much real.

[babacontainsmultitudes]

I'm gonna be so fr I actually did feel a little bad for the dollmaker what do you mean it looks like a caterpillar what do you mean it was trying to leave this world???

[koipudding]

jing yuan, who loves when you’re wearing his clothes, and you return them to him. it’s so domestic and simple but he craves it. (gn reader, not a serious drabble.) reader is characterized as smaller than jy, interpret as you wish.

wc: 470

The clothes smell like you, of course. The laundry detergent you bought, your shampoo and the little scent beads you like to put in the washing machine. He doesn’t mind the musk that lingers on his old shirts after you clean the whole house, no of course not. Jing Yuan adores smelling your musk, lotion and conditioner melding together and melting into his shirt.

You go out to buy new scent beads every other month, a tiny little jar of them. Jing Yuan swears to anyone who listens that you’re doing this on purpose. Mixing your shampoo and lotion to match with the scent beads, changing the fabric softener to mess with his head (and laundry). He laments this to Fu Xuan, Qingzu, and Yanqing, who all beg you to stick to one routine before the General loses his sanity (of course, everyone groans and ignores him. they’ve had enough of his marital escapades, and they just tell him to marry you again if he’s this smitten. Thus, after a decade of marriage, Jing Yuan has rewritten his vows.) He likes these little variances in his routine, the little harmless surprise that keeps him on his toes.

(He swears it's just because you picked it out. You know it's because it reminds him that there's finally a home for him to return to.)

"I'm back, do you know what the others said during the meeting, they were planning on handing off more paperwork, but I insisted mimi and you would--" He stops in his tracks. This must be unfair. Divine Punishment? Did he anger Lan? his ancestors?

Jing Yuan sees you wearing nothing but some socks, his shorts and t-shirt (both of which hang off of your smaller frame). He runs over, pace quickening.

You yelp quietly, backing away before he pounces onto you, bearing all of his weight onto you. He can't help it, you're so cute wearing his outfit, doing laundry and making dinner.

“You smell so good.” he buries his face into your neck, inhaling the sun on your skin, lotion he bought for you, and the conditioner you've taken from his stash.

“And you smell icky.” You push him off gently, but his arms only tighten. He just got back from work, and he reeks of sweat. But you can’t ignore how your heart races whenever he gets up to these antics, and you can’t help but indulge in his whims. 

This is a regular habit. He barely removes his armor before running to you, and clings to you like a sullen child, asking about dinner and how his darling and mimi have been. You can only sigh and pat his head while he recharges in your lap (or, in Yanqing’s words: naps.) 

"thank you, for everything," He whispers into your ear, "You're doing great, sweetheart."

a/n: I was talking to a coworker abt how the only thing that brings me joy now is a 2d man (jy) and buying new scent beads/laundry scent boosters or sample perfume. then I had this idea. also that ending bit :,) sending good vibes to all with my first fic of the new yr!

[elvyn]

doodles some of my favs from One Piece because after two years I'm finally almost up to date with this anime😭

[shorthaltsjester]

endlessly thinking thoughts about cr characters, morality, and selfishness (likely place for me to be, given that my day job includes endlessly researching ethics and meaning of life) but in light of bell’s hells most recent illustration of their insularity and individualism, I’ve been really like. Trying to unpack why I find it particularly egregious in this party when obviously mighty nein were notoriously self-interested, especially at the beginning, and when vox machina had quite a few moments where their horses were far higher than they had any reason to be. And again, I really want to make it clear her that I don’t hold self-interest or selfishness to be some abhorrent and unforgivable thing, in fact I think its incredibly normal especially given the context of main characters in a story told through game mechanics that flourish on the interest of the individuals making the choices. I’ve written before about how one of the throughlines that I’ve seen in laura’s pcs (since I’m someone who particularly enjoys looking at the moral outlooks characters develop) is a common thread of morality that’s highly dependent on their own interests. And like, this is a positive throughline to me! Without getting into my own views on morality, it is particularly compelling to me for characters with isolated upbringing (which applies to vex, jester, and imogen, each in different ways) to develop a moral code informed by that isolation, and in vex we see her moral code is ‘anything goes if it protects those I hold dear’, in jester we see a moral code that doesn’t care about morality as much as it cares about the chance to care and be cared for, and in imogen we see a moral code developed in response to her very unique experience of hearing the darkest parts of people and judging them on those (which to be clear, i am not judging her for that fact, I think it makes extreme sense for someone who hears the thoughts the people have to be horrified by those things, but it does mean her moral system is almost completely backwards, where intention holds more weight than action, which perhaps makes sense of the popularity of defending all of her ideas and choices and the Right Ones by certain parts of the fandom that insist leftism is hidden in the dnd real play). And that’s all to say that, out of the cr parties we’ve seen, I don’t think any single member of bell’s hells is uniquely more or less selfish or more or less of an asshole than previous characters. And in fact, I tend to be quite fond of selfish characters, I have a well documented history of cherishing them well beyond the cr fandom. But the point is that my calling something or someone self-interested is not a value judgement in this context, it's a descriptive claim about the traits a character exhibited.

Imogen, who has insisted time and time again re: the values of the accord that she would not be swayed by the temptation of predathos because she recognizes the importance of this fight, only to turn around and pretty immediately open herself up to predathos to fulfil the most threatening part of ludinus’ plan is self-interested. I cannot conceive of any other way to describe her choices. And her being self-interested doesn’t mean she can’t also be altruistic at times, but I will be clear that I don’t think her risking killing herself as she attempts to bring down the god-eater that she released is particularly selfless. In my best faith interpretation I’d say she’s pretty middle of the road in that choice. But I bring all this up because a comparison I’ve been seeing is that bell’s hells aren’t as mean as the mighty nein or even vox machina in certain moments and that it doesn’t make sense for the fandom to view bell’s hells as likely to be villains when the same wasn’t true of the previous two campaigns, and I think I have to pretty emphatically disagree, and not because I don’t think there aren’t moments in both campaigns that feature extremely high levels of assholery and villainry from pcs – I mean, some of my favourite cr characters are percy and jester, both of whom i’d say are ‘good guys’ due to the pure luck of the found familys they fell in with and both of whom often suggested plans that were. Not okay. To say the least. But ignoring the difference between suggesting fucked up plans and walking your god-eater infused bestie back towards the troops sent to support you in keeping that entity contained, the other big difference I’ve noticed in my own introspection on how I react to bh vs mn and vm, as well as which things i cherish about previous campaigns that were really missing from c3 to what I think is the story and the character’s detriment (staying away from the shape of the narrative, just because others have made posts that put words together better about that than I can) is that while members of vm and mn remained self-interest to the end of their campaigns and have reasserted those habits in appearances since, the parties as entities working in exandria had both, to echo ashton’s apt suggestion to ludinus, grown up.

Like one moment I think of is beau and fjord’s convo in the nein hells episode, because beau is being her asshole self and fjord is being his ‘I care about My People and I’ll think about the rest later’ self (i say affectionately but certain parts of the fandom I recognize would view derogatorily) – clearly they’re not the kindest people as they discuss bell’s hells, but two notable things are (a) they still treat the hells with the respect and use their means to help them prepare for the battle coming, even when they hear the horrifying thought that the hells aren’t certain they’ll choose to save the gods, all the nein request is that they choose the kind option (b) they say none of their doubts to the hells themselves – likely because they have the empathy to realizes that its a high stress situation that won’t be made better by a reminding the hells how small and likely ineffectual in the universe they are – and their comments about cannon fodder are ones made in jest to each other. Even taking that in the worst faith interpretation, the jokes that beau and fjord make in a private conversation has absolutely zero influence on bh. This is quite different than bells hells, after like. as clearly betraying the accord they promised to assist (even if their intentions are ‘good’) as is possible, belittling the religious armies sent to support their endeavor to keep predathos sealed as they all feel the weight of an irrevocable change occurring in exandria, one bells hells has first account knowledge now that it IS incredibly willing to eat mortals, and laudna and ashton, the members of bells hells most often cited by certain fandom spaces as characters who have gone through so much and it only made them kind and strong, look into the faces of people facing literally existential threat and laugh and mock them. That is, mighty nein as individuals is comprised of some of the, perhaps, most asshole pcs, but The Mighty Nein as a party is committed to treating others the best they can, to leaving things better than they found them (a quote that I think is particularly exemplary of the dynamics of self-interest at play in the mighty nein, since it originated as a blatant illustration of molly’s notion of self-importance but developed to become a kind of commandment that the nein became committed to fulfilling). The opposite is true of bell’s hells, where orym and dorian at least both seem to have motivation beyond themselves, imogen’s changes but has shown she is capable of letting go of her ‘intention reigns’ requisitely individualistic perspective, and chetney plays up his selfishness but has shown himself to care quite a bit for people beyond their party but bell’s hells as an entity is uh, pretty self-interested.

To clarify some of my thoughts here in the spirit of the wicked renaissance happening rn, I’ve always felt that for good was an incredibly apt song for the mighty nein, because it really nails that feeling that perhaps they didn’t change each other as individuals to become better people on the grand scale, maybe they’ve just changed each other permanently, but they (and I would agree with this) view each other as having changed each other for the better (e.g., I don’t know if I could say whether jester is a morally better Individual at the end of the campaign, but I can say with certainty that she fulfils and makes moral choices in her work as a member of the mighty nein). And I don’t know if this can be said about bell’s hells – I think they have certainly influenced each other and changed how alone many of those characters felt, and that is not a slight on the story, it can be a great centre for a story to focus on how a relinquishment of the feeling that one is alone in the world can change them. But for the most part, that hasn’t been bh’s story, their story instead has been about validating their refusal to become anything beyond what they insist was out of their control. And not to get to annoying philosophy student about it but bell’s hells are maybe some of the most explicit examples of sartrian bad faith I’ve seen in fiction in a hot minute, because their insistence that they treat their wounds as incurable and entirely out of their hands has led to them limiting their own potential because many of them ignore their responsibility as people to make choices in their own lives. In contrast, at the end of the campaign, mighty nein are still assholes as we all like to refer to them as, but in the context of an apocalypse, I think I’d prefer the assholes like fjord – who is certainly being truthful when he says he doesn’t care about what harm comes to 200 people when jester is at risk but who also, as they traverse into aeor, is insistent that their group won’t be running away from whatever apocalyptic threat awaits them, even if that means dying in the fight – than I would an asshole like ashton – who promises to fight for the little guys but who then turns around and acts upon a philosophy that says the strongest will survive. When you look at the mighty nein, it is incredibly easy to see the fingerprints of change they’ve left upon one another, and even to see the boundaries they place on one another’s asocial behaviours through their presence in one another’s lives (more recently the group chastising jester’s fond words about ludinus is a good example, but others are yasha’s pressuring caleb and essek to move on from their wizard talks as they collect paper in aeor instead of venturing further toward the battle they have to fight, or fjord and jester’s frustrated conversation in the ukotoa reunion about how fjord made a stupid decision and he doesn’t regret but he feels dejected and jester checking him on the fact that they still need to figure out a solution). It takes some extrapolation to see how bells hells have changed each other in more than aesthetic ways, if they have at all. Because the catalyst for change is pressure to do so, and aside from moments where it was truly change or be left behind, bh doesn’t challenge each other unless forced to by morri’s trials or delilah’s interruption and on the very odd occasion an interesting game of rollies-spin-the-bottle. 

And it’s interesting because the asshole behaviour of the mighty nein, like bell’s hells, stems from being left on the outskirts of society and the mistreatment that comes with that, so seemingly the change from being alone to being with others is one that actually insists upon being challenged to grow and change. I mean, just looking at the starting points of the characters, there’s an intriguing amount of stark similarities between their pasts; jester and fearne were both people loved dearly by the family they grew up with but who were loved within the confines of a gilded cage, ashton and beau both have an glaring self awareness that their anger at the world has a very particular source (their parents) but use that as justification rather than a means of self reflection, yasha and orym are trying to navigate a world in the wake of an incomprehensible loss and a sense of duty, fjord and imogen are both seeking out knowledge of their own powers and unknowingly retreading the paths of their missing and presumed dead parental figures. The idea that bell’s hells are uniquely mistreated by society in the history of cr player characters is, politely, laughable. Absolutely they’re mistreated, and I think it could be fair to say these characters are more defined by their isolation than others but I think that has more to do with the lack of downtime rp than it has to do with the context of their suffering.

What I have loved about the mighty nein is that in their realization that the bonds they forge with each other are undermining the truths most of them had taken to be true – that they were alone and without a place in the world – they are also forced to realize that no longer being alone and isolated comes with the weight of social responsibility. And this was born out of a willingness the mighty nein had to call each other out and that the players had to allow their characters to be wrong and get called on it. Because that’s the friction of living with other people on the small party scale and the large world scale – in the mighty nein’s ability to survive as a people who cared for each other even when they didn’t agree or when they made decisions that they couldn’t understand, they were constantly developing their ability to care for the very same world that left them alone. Because in campaign two, the world as a whole had the role that the gods have in campaign 3 – why should a party of nobodies, treated like shit by the world and the people in it go through the effort of saving it?

And the mighty nein answered, in their own imperfection and assholery, that nothing is ever just one thing – one of the things I cherish most about campaign 2 is its commitment to ambiguity, allowing the complexity of the world to go unsolved because there is no solution to the fact that life is immense and sometimes incoherent. I don’t think its a coincidence that I’ve seen some of the people lamenting the idiocy of fandom members like me who think that it actually isnt a leftist win to destroy the world in the hopes of spontaneous justice arising in c3 are the same people who criticised c2’s conclusion with the cerberus assembly for not being leftist (a word which for them means . the aesthetic image of a rebellion sparked and not the unending commitment to doing what you practically can to make life more just for those around you – whether they’re particularly kind to you or not) enough. The conclusion of c2 emphasizes that the choice to make the world a better place isn’t something that can be achieved in one single sweeping action that will wipe the boards clean – there is no murder of all the members of the cerberus assembly that would’ve solved the problems that caused the assembly’s power. There is no forcing of the god’s out of exandria that will deal with the actual issue undergirding both bh and their blorbo-moralized fans' criticism of the gods, which is that mortals are cursed with the burden of free will, and being mistreated by other mortals means constantly having to try and make sense of the fact that someone chose to do something cruel to you (and, sometimes, that you made a choice that allowed that cruelty to occur) – a burden made much heavier when the person who hurt you is your cult-indoctrinated mother, or your cult leader father, or the person in the mirror. The mighty nein take up this fight, and the complexities of their individual identities begin to heal in the light of a commitment in their relationship as friends and as a team to improve the world, even on the small scale. Bell’s hells remain gridlocked and stagnant and unwilling to change in an unspoken turf war of self-interest because they’ve insisted (influenced in part by the context of the campaign 3 narrative but, as others have aptly pointed out, that narrative was much more influenced by bh’s lack of curiosity regarding anything except their own minds) upon finding a solution to a problem they’ve decided is earth-shatteringly (quite literally, to the people of ruidus) unjust based on, aside from encounters where fellow mortals were the primary oppressors, their own testimony of the god’s not listening to them and the obvious villain’s parallel testimony. Something I’ve really been chewing on lately is caduceus words to fjord about his role as a paladin of the wildmother – that maybe it just means that someday, someone will pray for a miracle, and there fjord’ll be and the weight that has given that fjord’s bond to ukotoa came from his desperation not to die and his willingness to accept whatever help would be offered, that fjord could now be the person that reaches out to someone in need, and that the hand he offers won’t come with a curse.  And I think that’s really the poignant difference between bh and mn for me, that for bh, their experiences of injustice, though did make them personally bitter, did not make them morally misanthropic.

Comparatively, Bell’s Hells chose to ensure that, because the gods never answered their prayers, they shouldn’t be permitted to answer anyone else’s. Is this an understandable position? Sure, for the walls of a preschool, not really for a group of characters that I will ever be in any way inclined to view as something close to heroes. While it’s true that there are parts of life that are beyond our control – somethings happen to us that we have no say in, and they cause injuries both physical and mental that we are left to heal without any rhyme or reason, it is still our responsibility to heal them. And if you choose not to, well, then you’ve chosen not to, and are responsible for the consequences and judgements that choice might amount to.

Anyway, sorry this is all over the place but TLDR: calling bell’s hells as a party self-interested is actually just descriptively correct – they can save members of the party made up of their close friends and still be self-interested – and while the individual members of bell’s hells actually aren’t all that uniquely self-interested in the history of cr pcs, the party is uniquely self-interested in how they’ve chosen to navigate the world an their responsibility to the people in it.

[miraculan-draws]

Ok so. You aren't gonna get Activism Bonus Points as a knight in shining armor for condemning the intersection of horror/and romance. People did it with Hannibal, Interview, Killing Eve, you can go as far back as Wuthering Heights and see the same shallow and lukewarm takes. Which is what Gothic Romance is—its horror and romance. It's not like. An aesthetic. It's not Romance but with black lace. Decrying it with every new story doesn't make you look righteous. it makes you look illiterate.

We have BEEN discussing. The psychology behind this sort of romance since FOREVER. Women and queer men (really the whole queer umbrella) are known to gravitate towards these kinds of love stories because culturally and historically that desire is "something to be ashamed of." So how do you justify wanting, when your kind of wanting is condemning? Worth shunning? A secret?

Take YOUR want out of the equation. Make the story about someone wanting YOU so badly that they don't take no for an answer, a "no/never/I won't give in to you" that can be given for propriety's sake as a verbal alibi. But it takes agency to toss ASIDE ones agency in the first place.

It's the same people clutching their pearls about pulp monster stories. With "bodice ripper" stories. (Same basic principle behind CNC in kink spaces honestly) And REALLY it's fitting that the centennial reproduction of Nosferatu is what started it back up because above ALL OF THESE—is the mack daddy of them all, vampire literature.

There is a line in Nosferatu 2024: "I am an appetite. Nothing more." And it took my breath away because THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT BABY. Vampire stories are never JUST a creature feature. They are never face value. They represent something, and it's mercurial—I believe Rolin Jones referred to vampires as "a dark mirror" to human wants and appetites, and how if you repress something hard enough it'll always rot and turn ugly and cruel.

"I am an appetite." You can read between the lines better when you're not shaking your head no for the imaginary social media jury.

And if this is something you routinely cannot catch on to, can't relate to, makes you uncomfortable beyond what you can tolerate, then there's no shame in just avoiding the genre altogether. (Fantasy/Adventure with romance as a side plot will probably be closer to something for you. Even Dark Fantasy will probably scratch the itch if you keep finding yourself starting and quitting gothic romances)

[dreadfuldevotee]

"The Vampire Chronicles characters are exercises in the cycle of trauma and abuse and how they are capable of complex emotions and receiving and giving love and empathy alongside all the horrible shit they do to one another" and "Anne Rice herself was a bigot and had some shitty personal beliefs and just because the genre is Gothic Horror doesn't mean you ignore the way those ideas bleed into the writing. Not all commentary is good commentary" are two sentiments that can and SHOULD co-exist, what the fuck are we doing.

[laughhardrunfastbekindsblog]

I cannot get over how much this one scene informs us of Tech's priorities, personality, and how much he cares about his squad.

THE SCENE: "Replacements," season 1 episode 3; the Marauder is in dire need of repairs

This scene is often played for laughs (and let's be real, it IS hilarious). There's Tech, completely ignoring Echo's not-so-subtle hints to help fix the ship, instead prioritizing tinkering with his gadgets because his definition of "critical systems" is apparently vastly different than others'. Result? The ship crashes.

But... Tech is RIGHT to be concerned about the chips.

He has been warning his brothers about the chips since Order 66, multiple times throughout "Aftermath" and "Cut and Run."

2. He suspected Crosshair was susceptible to the effects of the chip early on.

3. He saw firsthand the friction caused between Crosshair and the rest of the squad due to the chip, with the ultimate result that Crosshair attacked the squad and shot Wrecker.

OF COURSE he is going to prioritize creating a device that will test the functionality of their own chips - and I think he has two reasons for this.

First: Prevent further catastrophe by making sure no one else on the squad is at imminent risk of acting out like Crosshair did.

Can you imagine what could happen if anyone else became susceptible to the chip's effects? (Oh yeah, we can: we see exactly what happens with Wrecker on Bracca.) Tech's not losing another family member the way he just lost Crosshair.

Second: Support his theory that Crosshair's actions ARE a result of the chip. (Omega talked to Crosshair about this (in a roundabout way) in the brig, but it's Tech who mentions this possibility to the squad.)

And if they can find a reason, a solid explanation, for why Crosshair has turned on them, maybe they can find a way to help him.

Tech is logical and rational. He understands people by analyzing them, finding reasons to explain their motives and actions; and by understanding them, he can come up with a plan to fix the situation. And that's exactly what he's doing here: by proving his theories about the inhibitor chips, he can better help his family.

So, as much as I still laugh over Tech's nonchalant "We're fine" as they're LITERALLY CRASHING, I also find it so dang heartwarming and sweet that Tech was SO focused on saving his team in other, equally crucial ways ❤️

[literallyjusttoa]

"A Jester can mock, and the King cannot fight

For the gift of free thought is the jester's one right."

A sweet golden prince who lived up in the sky,

Listened to his families' terrible fights,

The ceiling would rumble, the tile would shake,

The throne room was fragile, and soon it would break.

He'd attempt to speak, but it never went right,

His father would rage, and he'd lose every fight,

As decades passed by, it soon became clear,

The King saw his son as a monster to fear.

The Prince quickly followed every command,

Only to be trapped by his father's cruel hand,

Years of destruction with no end in sight,

This war would not end with a large act of might.

And so the Prince stopped fighting fire with fire,

And instead he pulled out his golden stringed lyre,

Since he had no respect, he would leave the King's cage,

And swap out the throne room for a shining stage.

He taunted with wit and he giggled with guile,

And even his sorrow he shared with a smile,

His father's gaze lessened, his temper was tame,

As his once "Golden Prince" treated life like a game.

The centuries passed and the mirth never ceased,

The sun never set on the first son of Greece,

He danced for his siblings and bit down his pain,

Since each peal of laughter meant there'd be less rain.

There's only one role for which there are no rules,

So who is the jester, and who is the fool?

[p0rk-guts]

Yapping about The Stolas Animation™️ everyone's been in a tizzy about because this is MY blog and I get to treat it like my personal diary.

Not going into the surrounding drama of the video because i hate drama and it's always a fucking headache. I'm gonna talk about the content of the animation, the song, and my interpretation of them together!!! (Contains discussions of suicide. Obviously)

First off. THE ANIMATION IS AMAZING. But you already knew that. The portrayal of Stolas we see for the first two thirds of it is clearly something dissimilar to his portrayal throughout the entire series thus far—much more callous and cold than playful and cheeky like we knew him to be—so to me it seemed like a portrayal of how Blitz sees Stolas and how he thinks Stolas truly felt of feels about him. Especially since each of those scenes was interjected with clips of Blitzo staggering through that white empty mind scape with the golden feathers like we saw when he was tripping and imagining him in truth seekers.

I also love how the lyrics so perfectly line up to what's happening—"who's gonna rescue you when you're lost at sea? Who's gonna love you if it isn't me?" These lyrics precede clips where Moxxie and Millie— who HAVE rescued him and who WILL love him even if Stolas won't— showing us how Blitz is so deep in his self hatred that he can't even see that despite thinking he isn't loved or worthy of loving that he IS.

The clips of Stolas are more than just Blitz's mind fucking with him though, for us we see just how ironic it is that Stolas could be saying any of this in the FIRST place. "Who's gonna rescue you when you're lost at sea": Stolas NEVER rescued Blitz in any way! (Headcanon here but) Stolas' obsessive yearning for him just made Blitz mirror those feelings of affection in late season 2 (because there were NO signs of Blitz reciprocating or feeling anything other than disdain and ANNOYANCE for Stolas initially)! He wanted that equally returned love and not to once again miss expectations and miss what he saw as his fleeting chance for love!

Anyways anyways ranted and got off topic. If anything Blitz was always the one rescuing Stolas. I also think it's interesting that that lyric fell on a clip of Stolas mocking at one of the goetia parties despite the fact that he was always miserable at them. You could even say that Blitz trying to steal the book -> their night together -> Stolas divorcing Stella was some roundabout instance of Blitz "rescuing" Stolas from his loveless marriage. But that's more of a crazy take I think Stolas would have floating around in his head

And my FAVORITE line of the animatic (and probably the whole song)— "And who's gonna love you if it isn't me?". Obviously. Like we said. He has love surrounding him already! Even in Loona too I guess! Pairing this lyric with Stella wrapped around his arm looking withdrawn while he stands front and center not even acknowledging her?? From the fictitious Blitz perspective we're shown, I saw this as Blitz seeing himself as an unnecessary stain in Stolas' perfect pristine life. Technically, he's married, or was (does Blitz even know they're divorced??? Lol I don't remember), and his entire presence just detracts from this fictitious image of high class excellence and composure he had.

Meanwhile, Stolas did try to maintain their marriage the best he could, but he never loved Stella at every point in the story we've seen so far he doesn't consider her at all. Tbf, she's pretty abusive and insane, but he really did jump through hoops to excuse his cheating and later on didn't even consider how her presence in Octavia's life could affect her (these are all tied to greater issues with the show ignoring Stella's existence but I digress).

Stella is just a prop in this image. She was just a tool for Paimon to get Stolas to produce an heir and keep the goetia conveyor belt moving, and likely even a tool to her own (largely) absent family so she could be used to grow familial wealth and status. Beyond her "liking to torment him", she's never shown to have ANY other feelings about. Anything really. Other than what, liking parties? Her reserved portrayal alludes to her having more feelings and thoughts about everything happening around her but whether it's to keep up appearances or to deny her own emotions, she stifles it all. 100% get how everyone's been saying her .2 seconds of screentime here characterize her more than the entire show does.

Then we switch gears to the real Stolas, getting dressed in something very similar to Paimon's clothes (which someone else pointed out I did NAWT notice that on my own). I have two (ish) theories on what this was about but I'm not sold on them so feel free to tell me what you think this was all about.

Maybe Stolas was putting the clothes on for some unrelated event—some goetian responsibility he forgot he was supposed to attend to— or maybe it was something like him reminiscing on all he's lost after the divorce and the trial (if this takes place post trial. Not sure). One of these maybe, or he got dressed up specifically for his suicide. I could see his romantic and fanciful nature driving him to do something like that.

(didn't have much to say on the portraits around him all turning into Blitz. It's a pretty straightforward showing of his mental decline and destructive obsession. Overall fantastic detail I missed on the first watch)

Then, when he kills himself, he chose to do it in the middle of the street, directly across from and FACING I.M.P.'s place of residence. Which is. Insane to me. Placing it there felt so purposeful with the light glinting off of the horns on the building. Was it meant to be a "look what you made me do" type deal? Some sort of final "fuck you" for all Blitz had done ("""making""" Stolas love him and then not reciprocating)? A last desperate attempt to be seen and acknowledged?

Well who knows fr but that's all my analysis for the animation. Dwinni ate down idc. This was a peak fandom event honestly. But yeah uh what do YOU 🫵🏾 think

[taradactyls]

So I could be totally wrong but, I believe it was sort of expected that men/gentlemen lose their virginity before marriage in regency times. But I also there’s some fandom ‘debate’ about whether or not Mr Darcy would’ve had sex before getting married. So I was just curious about what your canon for Mr Darcy in T3W is. Is he a virgin or not?

I knew someone would ask me this eventually, haha. I've actually had really long conversations with my beta reader about this trying to figure it out. It sounds like this might all be stuff that you’ve already seen discussed in the fandom, but I’ve never thought about it deeply before and so these are new thoughts to me.

I keep going over the historical real-world likelihood, the authorial intent, and the text itself but I’m still not 100%. I’ll explain my thinking and what I find most likely, but here’s your warning that it’s not a clear cut yes/no.

Because on one hand, at that time period it was most common for men in his position to have seen sex workers or have casual encounters/mistresses with women from their estates. Though I do absolutely believe not all men did that, no matter how much wealth and power they had. To go back some centuries, William the Conqueror seemed to be famously celibate (no hints of male lovers either according to the biography I read) until his marriage, and there's no evidence of affairs after it either. The best guesses as to why are that it was due to his religious devotion and the problems that had arisen from himself being a bastard and not wanting to recreate that situation. Concerns over religion and illegitimate children would certainly still have been applicable in the regency to men who thought that way. And in modern times I've seen sex workers say that when an 18/21yo is booked in by his family/friends to 'become a man' often they end up just talking and agree to lie about the encounter. After all, it’s not like every man wants casual sex, even if they aren’t demisexual or something in that vein. But, statistically speaking, the precedent of regency gentlemen would make Darcy not a virgin.

On the other hand, just how aware was Jane Austen, the very religious daughter of a country rector, of the commonness of this? There’s a huge difference between knowing affairs and sex workers existed (and no one who had seen a Georgian newspaper could be blind to this) and realising that the majority of wealthy men saw sex workers at some point even if they condemned the more public and profligate affairs. The literature for young ladies at the time paints extramarital sex - including the lust of men outside of marriage - as pretty universally bad and dangerous. This message is seen from 'Pamela' and other gothic fiction to non-fiction conduct books which Jane Austen would have encountered. Here's something I found in 'Letters to a Young Lady' by the reverend John Bennett which I found particularly interesting as it's in direct conversation with other opinions of the era:

"A reformed rake makes the best husband." Does he? It would be very extraordinary, if he should. Besides, are you very certain, that you have power to reform him? It is a matter, that requires some deliberation. This reformation, if it is to be accomplished, must take place before marriage. Then if ever, is the period of your power. But how will you be assured that he is reformed? If he appears so, is he not insidiously concealing his vices, to gain your affections? And when he knows, they are secured, may he not, gradually, throw off the mask, and be dissipated, as before? Profligacy of this kind is seldom eradicated. It resembles some cutaneous disorders, which appear to be healed, and yet are, continually, making themselves visible by fresh eruptions. A man, who has carried on a criminal intercourse with immoral women is not to be trusted, His opinion of all females is an insult to their delicacy. His attachment is to sex alone, under particular modifications.

The definition of a rake is more than a man who has seen a sex worker once, it's about appearance and general conduct too, but again, would that distinction be made to young ladies? Because they seem to simply be continuously taught 'lust when unmarried is bad and beware men who you know engage in extramarital sex.' As a side note, Jane Austen certainly knew at least something about the mechanics of sex: her letters and literature she read alludes to it, and she grew up around farm animals in the countryside which is an education in itself.

We can also see from this exert that the school of thought seems to be 'reformed rake' vs 'never a rake' in contention for the title of best husband, there's no debate over whether a current rake is unsuitable for a young lady. And, from Willoughby to Wickham to Crawford, I think we have a very clear idea of Jane Austen's ideas of how likely it is notably promiscuous men can reform. This does not preclude the possibility that her disparaging commentary around their lust is based more on over-indulgence or the class of women they seduce, but it's undoubtedly a condemnation of such men directly in line with the first part of what John Bennett says so it's no stretch to believe she saw merit in the follow-on conclusions of the second part as well. Whether she would view it with enough merit to consider celibacy the only respectable option for unmarried men is a bit unclearer.

I did consider that perhaps Jane Austen consciously treated this as a grey area where she couldn’t possibly know what young men did (the same reasoning is why we never see the men in the dining room after the ladies retire, etc) and so didn't hold an opinion on men's extramarital encounters with sex workers/lower-class women at all, but I think there actually are enough hints in her works that this isn’t the case. Though, unsurprisingly, given the delicacy of the subject, there’s no direct mention of sex workers or gentlemen having casual lovers from among the lower-classes in her texts.

That also prevents us from definitively knowing whether she thought extramarital sex was so common, and as unremarkable, as most gentlemen treated it. But we do see from her commentary around the consequences of Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford's elopement that she had criticism of the double standards men and women were held to when violating sexual virtue. Another indication that she perhaps expected good men to be capable of waiting until marriage in the way that she very clearly believed women should. At the very least, a man who often indulges in extramarital sex does not seem to be one who would be considered highly by Jane Austen.

She makes a point of saying, in regards to not liking his wife, that Mr Bennet “was not of a disposition to seek comfort for the disappointment which his own imprudence had brought on, in any of those pleasures which too often console the unfortunate for their folly or their vice.” This must include affairs, though cheating on a wife cannot be a 1:1 equivalent of single young men sleeping around before marriage. However, the latter is generally critically accepted to be one of the flaws that Darcy lays at Wickham’s door along with gambling when talking about their youth and his “vicious propensities" and "want of principle." Though this could be argued that it’s more the extent or publicity of it (but remembering that it couldn't be anything uncommon enough that it couldn't be hidden from Darcy Sr. or explained away) rather than the act itself, or maybe seductions instead of paying women offering those services. I also believe Persuasion mentioning Sunday travelling as proof of thoughtless/immoral activity supports the idea that Jane Austen might have been religious enough that she would never create a hero who had extramarital sex.

So, taken all together this would make Darcy potentially a virgin, or, since I couldn't find absolute evidence of her opinions, leave enough room that he isn’t but extramarital sex isn’t a regular (or perhaps recent) thing and he would never have had anything so established as a mistress.

I’ve also been wondering, if Darcy isn’t a virgin, who would he have slept with? I’ve been musing on arguments for and against each option for weeks at this point. No romantasy has ever made me think about a fictional man's sexual habits so much as the question of Darcy's sexual history. What is my life.

Sex workers are an obvious answer, and the visits wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. Discretion was part of their job, it was a clean transaction with no further responsibilities towards them, and effective (and reusable, ew) condoms existed at this time so there was little risk of children and no ability to exactly determine the paternity even if there was an accident. It was a fairly ‘responsible’ choice if one wanted no strings attached. In opposition to this, syphilis was rampant at the time, and had been known to spread sexually for centuries. Sex workers were at greater risk of it than anyone else and so the more sensible and risk-averse someone is (and I think Mr Darcy would be careful) the less likely they would be to visit sex workers. Contracting something that was known as potentially deadly and capable of making a future wife infertile if it spread to her could make any intelligent and cautious man think twice.

Servants and tenants of the estate are another simple and common answer. Less risk of stds, it can be based on actual attraction more than money (though money might still change hands), and is a bit more intimate. But Wickham’s called wicked for something very similar, when he dallies (whether he only got to serious flirting, kissing, or sleeping with them I don’t think we can conclusively say) with the common women of Meryton: “his intrigues, all honoured with the title of seduction, had been extended into every tradesman's family.” And it isn't as though Wickham had any personal duty towards those people beyond the claims of basic dignity. Darcy, who is shown to have such respect and understanding for his responsibilities towards the people of his estate and duties of a landlord, would keenly feel if any of his actions were leading his servants/tenants astray and down immoral paths. Servants, especially, were considered directly under the protection of the family whose house they worked in. I think it's undoubtable that Mrs Reynolds (whose was responsible for the wellbeing - both physically and spiritually - of the female servants) would not think so well of Mr Darcy if he had experimented with maids in his youth. It would reflect badly on her if a family entrusted their daughter to her care and she 'lost her virtue' under her watch. Daughters/widows of others living on the estate not under the roof of Pemberley House are a little more likely, but still, if he did have an affair with any of them I can only think it possible when he was much younger and did not feel his duties quite so strongly. Of course lots of real men didn't care about any of this, but Darcy is so far from being depicted as careless about his duties that the narrative makes a point of how exceptional his quality of care was. Frankly, it's undeniable that none of Jane Austen's heroes were flippant about their responsibilities towards those under their protection. I cannot serious entertain an interpretation that makes Darcy not, at his current age, at least, cognizant of the contemporary problems inherent in sleeping with servants or others on his estate.

A servant in a friend’s house would remove some of that personal responsibility, but transfer it to instead be leading his friend’s servants astray and in a manner which he is less able to know about if a child did result. That latter remains a problem even if we move the setting to his college, so not particularly likely for his character as we know it… though it wouldn’t be unusual for someone to be more unthinking and reckless in their teenage years than they are at twenty-eight so I don’t think having sex then can be ruled out. Kissing I can much more easily believe, especially when at Oxford or Cambridge, but every scenario of sleeping with a lower-class woman has some compelling arguments against it especially the closer we get to the time of the novel.

Men did of course also have affairs with women of ranks similar to their own, though given Jane Austen’s well-known feelings towards men who ‘ruined’ the virtue of young ladies we can safely say that Darcy never slept with an unwed middle- or upper-class woman. Any decent man would have married them out of duty if it got so far; but if he was the sort to let it get so far, I think it impossible Jane Austen would consider him respectable. Widows are a possibility, but again, the respectable thing to do would be to marry them. Perhaps a poorer merchant’s widow would be low enough that marriage is off the table but high enough that the ‘leading astray’ aspect loses its master-servant responsibilities (though the male-female ‘protect the gentler sex’ aspect remains) but his social circle didn’t facilitate meeting many ladies like that. Plus, an affair with a woman in society would remove many layers of privacy and anonymity that sex-workers and lower-class lovers provided by simply being unremarkable to the world at large. It carries a far greater risk of scandal and a heavier sense of immorality in the terms of respecting a woman’s purity which classism prevented from applying so heavily to lower-class women.

I think it’s important to note here that something that removes the need to think about duties of landlords towards the lower-classes or gentlemen towards gentlewomen is having affairs with other men of a similar rank. But, aside from the risk of scandal and what could be called the irresponsibility of engaging in illegal acts, it’s almost certain that Jane Austen would never have supported this. For a devout author in this era the way I’m calculating likelihoods makes it not even a possibility. But if you want to write a different fanfiction (and perhaps something like a break-up could explain why Darcy doesn’t seem to have any closer friend than someone whom he must have only met two or so years ago despite being in society for years before that) it does have that advantage over affairs with women of equal- and lower-classes. I support alternate interpretations entirely – it just isn’t how I’m deciding things in this instance.

I keep coming back to the conclusion that, at the very least, Darcy hasn’t had sex recently and it was never a common occurrence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jane Austen felt he hadn’t done it ever. Kissing, as we can see from all the parlour games at the time, wasn’t viewed as harshly, so I think he’s likely made out with someone before. But in almost every situation it does seem that the responsible and religious thing to do (which Jane Austen values so highly) is for it to never have progressed to sex. I also don’t think it conflicts with his canon characterisation to say that he wouldn’t regard sexual experience as a crucial element of his life thus far, and his personality isn’t driven to pursue pleasure for himself, so it’s entirely possible that he would never go out of his way to seek it. So, I’m inclined to think that the authorial and textual evidence is in favour of Darcy being a virgin even if the real-world contemporary standard is the opposite. (Though both leave enough room for exceptions that I’m not going to argue with anyone who feels differently; and even if you agree with all my points, you might simply weight authorial intent/textual evidence/contemporary likelihoods differently than I do and come to a different conclusion).

Remember that even if Darcy is a virgin this wouldn’t necessarily equate to lack of knowledge, only experience. There were plenty of books and artwork focused on sex, and Darcy, studious man that he is, would no doubt pay attention to what knowledge his friends/male relatives shared. Though some of it (Looking especially at you, 'Fanny Hill, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure') should NEVER be an example of appropriate practice for taking a woman's virginity. Darcy would almost certainly have been taught directly or learnt through exposure to other men talking to make sex good for a woman – it was a commonly held misconception (since Elizabethan England, I believe) that women had to orgasm to conceive. It would be in his interests as an empathetic husband, and head of a family, to know how to please his wife.

Basically, I’m convinced Darcy isn’t very experienced, if at all, and will be learning with Elizabeth. But he does have a lot of theoretical knowledge which he’s paid careful attention to and is eager to apply.