#i'm bad at understanding what's common knowledge

[llamagoddessofficial]

fuck me for thinking we were past this kind of behaviour as a fandom

So it looks like sour-apple-studios is stepping back from creating. Bullying a real human being over 'problematic' depictions of (not real!) characters... in an AU about murder and torture and cannibalism. Makes sense!!!

I've been in this fandom for a decade. It's absolutely fine to dislike a ship. It's absolutely fine to dislike a person because they ship something you don't like. Block whoever you like! Block wherever you like! Your future is yours to command.

But - and it's a big butt - issues always arise when you start to demand for the outright banning of certain subjects/depictions. It's a slippery slope toward right-wing thinking. Do you know who also outright bans the depictions of things they don't like, for the sake of 'protecting' certain groups? It's not the good guys.

Banning difficult subjects is EXTREMELY hard to do delicately. It's common knowledge that people who've experienced a lot of distress often find peace in creating disturbing art. When you ban people from creating around certain subjects, you inevitably accidentally target those who are most vulnerable.

I'm not a proshipper. But I'm also not an anti, either. Because I find it really weird and reductive to boil everyone down to 2 super strict boxes. I believe that, whether or not I like it or understand it, people should be free to create whatever they want.

Who decides what is and isn't 'bad'? Who decides what is and isn't 'allowed'? I don't know what's going on in someone's head. I'm not morally infallible. I'm not the arbiter of all that is/isn't 'good' in the world. And clearly, if you're bullying a real human being over fictional characters, neither are you.

anyway, I wish sour-apple-studios nothing but joy and love

[sukimas]

do people realize that the "youkai expansion project" name is probably another of yukari's computer jokes

[doctorweebmd]

ok my OTHER reflection:

on the one hand its really frustrating to see the posts about docs and healthcare in general on here be so narrow-minded. bad experiences with certain providers have lead to a huge spread of misinformation and mistrust with the whole system. which can and HAS lead to people avoiding 'evil' doctors for perfectly treatable illnesses and dying from them (the vaccine bullshit, anyone?)

but on the other hand. it is TERRIFYING how some of these docs practice medicine. at times i think 'are you just burned out and don't give a shit or are you straight up just stupid?' and i work in critical care. where quite literally every case is life or death. even in the academic sector where there is supposedly a standard of excellence, some doctors i would not let touch my loved ones with a ten foot pole.

and that sucks. i know this is the no nuance piss on the poor webbed site but 'the medical system and people that work for it are fallible and aspects of it are morally questionable at best/unethical at worst' AND 'the field of medicine exists to help people first and foremost and mistrusting/avoiding it can be detrimental in the long run' can and DO co-exist

[ladyseidr]

vanessa headcanons / portrayal notes but i'm too lazy to make her headcanon banner or even write coherent thoughts so you just get a bullet point list:

definitely a reluctant follower but as things progress she gets more. . . attached might be a strong word, but she stops hating glitch so much. this does not last once she escapes him obv

like it's literally: oh funny rabbit guy but this is a glitch i need to figure out -> okay i hate his vibe -> get out of my head i hate you -> i might as well learn to live with you -> i've completely isolated myself from all friends except you so i guess that makes you. . . almost a friend -> post-game deeply traumatizing by the violating of like. literally having her autonomy taken away from her

still carries deep guilt and resentment for the murders during moments where she's fighting back / he's not in control at all

vanessa is the only fucking character in fn.af who would genuinely seek therapy after every thing and i think she should get an award for that

researches the franchise + william af.ton in a lot of detail when The Hell Begins and is horrified but also has to deal with glitch being very fond of his very dead creator

basically, not in the suit: glitch is like an annoying little voice in her head who she has to stop herself from arguing out loud with in the supermarket

in the suit: he's like. not Literally in control but heavily, heavily, heavily influences her thoughts and actions. can make her think almost anything is the right decision

( okay it's not as simple as "in the suit" and "out of the suit," but you catch my drift. she can absolutely "come out of it" while wearing the suit, and she can def be under his control while not )

i said it before but: scene girl in high school. like, she has rainbow extensions when not under glitch's control, of course she was a scene girl

genuinely loves the glamr.ocks, despite everything

generally i don't want to go with her owning / being in complete charge of the pizza.plex because that's silly to me, but i don't have an alternative, esp because like who would it be??? i just shrug.

genuinely concerned abt gregory or any other kid who gets in, esp because she Knows What's Going On. she literally knows that she's a threat herself.

favorite animals? cats and horses

took the help wa.nted job because, like. she needed the money + she's absolutely a gamer so it seemed fun. especially because she had never played VR before

doesn't have a favorite color and will argue if you try to get her to pick. definitely enjoys bright colors, though

absolutely thought fazb.ear entertainment was full of shit from the start, but she wasn't actually that familiar with the history, so

literally will adopt gregory post-game. tries to act kind of like a big sister but never had any siblings so she's incredibly lost fdhskfashfjdlsah

introvert, but enjoys having a small, close group of friends. she ghosts them during the glitch stuff, but the ones that matter are there for her when she gets back ( and def understand when she. . . kinda explains what was going on )

although "i adopted a kid" "you w h a t " FDHFKDSHJFHS

has absolutely nothing to do with her parents, for valid reasons

completely traumatized post-game to the point that she questions whether her own thoughts are "really" hers. she seriously doubts her own sanity at times, is often scared she didn't "actually" get rid of glitch, and questions her ability ( and worthiness, given her actions under brainwashing ) to take care of herself, much less gregory

like i mention on her page, i'm open to writing any ending and don't treat one as canon on this blog. however, it should be noted that i'm not a fan of the burnt.rap ending ( fully biased by the fact that i don't like burnt.rap's existence ). that's not to say i'm not willing to write it, but i'm prob not interested in writing directly with burnt.rap himself

as also mentioned on her page, she's a lesbian, so there won't be any shipping with her and glitch or william ( or any man lmao ). if glitch still wants to be weird, that's on him, but she won't be receptive period.

loves creative stuff!! is an artist ( esp with pencils or digital, but can paint a bit ), enjoys decorating her apartment, and adores dressing up in pretty clothes!

also genuinely enjoys programming. yes, it is soured for her post-game.

will self-sabotage herself even pre-game ( eating nothing but takeout, not getting outside enough, isolating, etc ). therapy helps post-game.

[emometalhead]

I think my most controversial Star Trek: Next Gen opinions are that I like Wesley, but I don't really like Riker.

[flimsy-roost]

I realized the other day that the reason I didn't watch much TV as a teenager (and why I'm only now catching up on late aughts/early teens media that I missed), is because I literally didn't understand how to use our TV. My parents got a new system, and it had three remotes with a Venn diagram of functions. If someone left the TV on an unfamiliar mode, I didn't know how to get back to where I wanted to be, so I just stopped watching TV on my own altogether.

I explained all this to my therapist, because I didn't know if this was more related to my then-unnoticed autism, or to my relationship with my parents at the time (we had issues less/unrelated to neurodivergency). She told me something interesting.

In children's autism assessments, a common test is to give them a straightforward task that they cannot reasonably perform, like opening an overtight jar. The "real" test is to see, when they realize that they cannot do it on their own, if they approach a caregiver for help. Children that do not seek help are more likely to be autistic than those that do.

This aligns with the compulsory independence I've noticed to be common in autistic adults, particularly articulated by those with lower support needs and/or who were evaluated later in life. It just genuinely does not occur to us to ask for help, to the point that we abandon many tasks that we could easily perform with minor assistance. I had assumed it was due to a shared common social trauma (ie bad experiences with asking for help in the past), but the fact that this trait is a childhood test metric hints at something deeper.

My therapist told me that the extremely pathologizing main theory is that this has something to do with theory of mind, that is doesn't occur to us that other people may have skills that we do not. I can't speak for my early childhood self, or for all autistic people, but I don't buy this. Even if I'm aware that someone else has knowledge that I do not (as with my parents understanding of our TV), asking for help still doesn't present itself as an option. Why?

My best guess, using only myself as a model, is due to the static wall of a communication barrier. I struggle a lot to make myself understood, to articulate the thing in my brain well enough that it will appear identically (or at least close enough) in somebody else's brain. I need to be actively aware of myself and my audience. I need to know the correct words, the correct sentence structure, and a close-enough tone, cadence, and body language. I need draft scripts to react to possible responses, because if I get caught too off guard, I may need several minutes to construct an appropriate response. In simple day-to-day interactions, I can get by okay. In a few very specific situations, I can excel. When given the opportunity, I can write more clearly than I am ever capable of speaking.

When I'm in a situation where I need help, I don't have many of my components of communication. I don't always know what my audience knows. I don't have sufficient vocabulary to explain what I need. I don't know what information is relevant to convey, and the order in which I should convey it. I don't often understand the degree of help I need, so I can come across inappropriately urgent or overly relaxed. I have no ability to preplan scripts because I don't even know the basic plot of the situation.

I can stumble though with one or two deficiencies, but if I'm missing too much, me and the potential helper become mutually unintelligible. I have learned the limits of what I can expect from myself, and it is conceptualized as a real and physical barrier. I am not a runner, so running a 5k tomorrow does not present itself as an option to me. In the same way, if I have subconscious knowledge that an interaction is beyond my capability, it does not present itself as an option to me. It's the minimum communication requirements that prevent me from asking for help, not anything to do with the concept of help itself.

Maybe. This is the theory of one person. I'm curious if anyone else vibes with this at all.

[jeaninelatragedia]

wait, doesn't personality predate ideology? ideology doesn't create personality, right? (genuine question, i want to learn more)

"personality predates ideology" is a quirky little rhetorical sleight of hand that implies that: 1. people have an innate inclination toward certain or other aspects of personality, 2. ideologies form out of the emotional impulse of (a certain group of) people. what this boils down to then, if we sit down and analyze it, is that it implies certain people are naturally and innately predisposed to agree with particular ideologies, beliefs, etc. this is, to put it mildly, incredibly idealistic and very very dangerous.

this is a belief that's taken a lot of forms and different ways of being expressed, so specifically what i'm honing in on is the time famous gringo comedian Brennan Lee Mulligan said the quiet part out loud in an interview. quote: "people are not motivated by ideological codes, people are motivated by impulse and construct ideological codes to justify and rationalize what they were already going to do. [...] on the level of individuals and civilization, personality predates ideology, meaning that before you were a fascist, you were a bully and an asshole." again, i think this is symptomatic of a larger, yes, ideological trend, and i don't take like, personal issue with the fact this one guy belives that. if anything i'm thankful, because him saying it this way makes the surrounding concept much more easy to analyze!

so let's move around the center thesis point and analyze the surrounding context. many ideologues have spoken at length about the fact that understanding fascism as some kind of catch-all badpersonist ideology is (to not use the also correct term "unserious") not just untrue, but detrimental to how we can study the material weight and implications of fascist ideologies, as opposed to other ideologies that are, frankly, equally as violent and reactionary. "bully" and "asshole" are terms that mean nothing other than like, a vague social idea of "person who other people find abrasive toward those disenfranchised in a setting of comradery" or really just "person who others don't like very much"! to claim that there are people who are fundamentally predisposed (from birth in some models, but really even without that) to being "bad people" as individuals, that then go and adopt the "ideology by and for bad people" is, well. calling it reactionary is genuinely lowballing it. and that kind of sets the tone for the idea, right?

to get really dialectical with it and get into the negative flipside of the idea, think of the common non-denominational leftist slogan of "i wasn't radicalized to the left, i just have empathy and care about people". it's kind of the flip-side to this belief, right? "i don't need a strong framework to inform my political conceptualization, all i need is hope and to #lovethyneighbor! that's true leftism!" but that's not really effective, is it? i don't make the allusion to christianity for no reason, many christians who live good, sinless, charitable lives, are also like, insanely reactionary in a lot of very particular topics! feelings are fickle, and often do not reflect material reality. and so is "personality", so is "belief", these are frameworks that reduce the human experience into the very point at the start, that flatten discursive knowledge, scientific analysis, etc., into being secondary (if even relevant!) against "impulse" and "instinct". personally, i think it's a bleak view!

the first line about "ideological codes" and "impulse" seems to think it's putting the cart squarely after the horse, but looking closer at it, it's doing the exact opposite. sure, a child is not birthed with a fully fledged ideological framework, but a child is not birthed with a fully charted path of "impulses", either. and this is because a child (and therefore all people!) does not exist in an empty vaccuum, their mind does not develop away from a historical context.

people are shaped by context, people interface with other people, and the people of the present grapple constantly with the weight of history. the weight of a history that, in fact, crystalizes ideology within those who live in it! people do not develop ideological frameworks by themselves, their ideological frameworks are shaped by their context. and the same goes for their personality, for their "impulses", for their "instinct". all of these things are built and trained, not innate. people are not, in fact, motivated squarely by an ideological dogma, but they aren't motivated by base impulse either! people are motivated by context, a context that includes both the interpersonal and the broader ideological machinations that have existed ever since society has.

now we circle back to the core phrase. "personality predates ideology", and to your question, which i'll translate for ease of answering into: "does ideology create personality?" both the ideas of "ideology" and "personality" are... very broad concepts, to say the least. at a glance, it definitely seems like a chicken and egg situation. but just like with the chicken and the egg, it's a solvable issue! it's just an answer that may seem unsatisfying without its context.

in short, neither is really true! personality, being the vague thing it is, can't be much argued to have a "starting point", if we define it by a particular set of social traits that form an "identity". what we can say is that the personality of one or multiple individuals did not give rise to the fact that ideological frameworks began to be created as society began to set. ideological frameworks are also messy to define, even if we limit ourselves to the idea of "political ideologies". but what's certain is that, in the thousands of years of human history, frameworks to define society were needed for the sake of, well, defining said society! and that had less to do with personality than it did with the material conditions that shaped societies, and therefore, the people in said societies.

think of the context of the world (geography, biology, every influencial factor on the first societies) as a line, from which the individual personalities of the people in that context split off. eventually the ideology that forms society splits off the same line of context too, and they almost immediately begin to weave together, like a single thread turning into a woven rope. the ideology of the society in which the individual is raised is influential in their personality, and as society develops, ideology too becomes part of the context that informs that individual development, that shapes the individual's personality. but ideology is now so natural in society, it's not able to be influenced by the individual, but rather, by history as a whole.

so, the answer is twofold. the personalities of each and every human individually in all of history were not informed by ideology, because ideology developed with society, and they're both vague terms to define when looking at such a long timeframe. but both those ancient personalities and ideologies were built by their context. and as generations grew within society, ideology became part of that very same context. and now, in the modern day, the ideologies of the world are so inextricably woven into the context of each individual's life, that claiming that ideology is not a major factor in the development of the individual's personality can only really be said if your idea of "personality" is an intrinsic characteristic of a person, and not something shaped by their context. for what i'd argue is basically all of human history, i'd say yes, personality is (mostly if not entirely) created by the ideological context of the individual.

(as an aside: it's also important to understand that even with this model, personality is not actually relevant to ideology! ideology stands without the necessity for an individual's personality, because it needs to be analyzed through the context of history, not the other way around!)

or in less complicated terms: read Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Iosef Stalin.

[epic-curious]

The thing to understand about Amy Dallon is that she's an incel. You'll make so many mistakes in trying to understand her character unless you start from this lens.

She has:

An abusive home life which encouraged emotional repression and resentment

An inability to change for the better, despite being socially and economically suited to do so (by virtue of being a parahuman)

Most importantly, a strong belief in the just-world hypthesis; in her mind, bad things only happen to unjust being, good things happen to good people, and doing good things regardless of intent/sincerity entitles you to a reward

These are all traits she has common with incels based on how they describe themselves and what they believe. There's this belief in the fandom that her sexually violent behavior came out of nowhere, but I posit that these character flaws, combined with Amy's knowledge that Victoria would never willingly reciprocate her feelings, provide the perfect setup for her to do what she did.

I don't think was an accidental writing decision either, like Taylor's attraction towards women. It really feels like Wildbow purposefully wrote Amy's downfall to parallel stories about "nice guys" who fly into meltdowns or become crazed stalkers after finding out that no, basic decency doesn't entitle the object of your affections to fuck you. Men who, despite real challenges, have the resources to become well-adjusted but refuse because they completely lack an internal locus of control. Just like them, Amy had resources outside of her abusive family in the form of the PRT, who despite their own issues would have moved heaven and Earth to make sure they didn't lose a valuable cape like her. Instead, she continued to hide her deteriorating mental health and continued to harbor feelings she knew wouldn't be reciprocated until she finally messed up like she'd always been meaning to:

"Do you know how many hours I’ve spent awake at night, wishing my powers would just go away, or that some circumstance would come up where I’d make some excusable mistake where they would eventually forgive me, but where I couldn’t visit the hospitals anymore?”

Another commonality with incels and "nice guys"; not wanting to actually get better, but waiting for a reason to let their worst impulses loose.

I also think this was the reason Amy's character drive Wildbow so crazy. Imagine, you write a character whose mental illness and entitlement cause her to rape and mutilate her sister, who has clear parallels to an incel's violent reaction to being rejected. The response by a not insignificant part of the fandom is accusations of bigotry, because they have invented a version of your character in their heads that has all of her identity markers but none of the characterization you wrote. Coincidentally, most of this part of the fandom hasn't read your work to completion, if at all. Some of them even blame the sister for being raped! This isn't helped by the fact that you are a bit homophobic, that you wrote your protagonist to be bisexual but didn't realize it, that you described the sexuality of one of your bisexual characters as "hedonist", that you inexplicably wrote a character who canonically looks butch, is obsessed with your female protagonist, but is somehow straight. Maybe you could have done some of that better, but the fact that your biggest detractors are fans of your incel rapist is confounding to say the least. Combine all this with the inkling suspicion that this discourse wouldn't exist if you had written Amy as a man...yeah, I kinda get why Wildbow went insane about her.

Now, I'm not writing this as some sort of callout for a fictional character. I love evil women and seeing Amy actually lean in to being an incel crashout would have been fun as hell. But I really hate this idea that Amy was a poor little meow meow whose character was assassinated by the author. The pieces are all there, you just understand this character less than Wildbow which is really saying something.

[bambisafe]

re characters with a bookworm s/o

pairings : leon kennedy / gn!reader | carlos oliveira / gn!reader | jill valentine / gn!reader | chris redfield / gn!reader

cw : established relationship among all characters, reader reads an assortment of different genres (fantasy, sci-fi, classics, thrillers, historical fic), kissing, touching, hugging, cuddling, tooth-rotting fluff.

word count : 1.2k

author's note : yes i'm projecting. look away.

part 2

leon

leon is a reader himself. not quite to the degree as you but he still dabbles in reading when he has free time.

he'd enjoy crime thrillers whether non-fiction or fiction. he sees himself in the characters, especially the tragic heroes. even when it hits close to home, he still enjoys it. that's why he likes it.

is the type to crack open a popcorn thriller, maybe one about a group of teens exploring an abandoned house and he predicts every awful thing that happens to them.

tuts, shakes his head, and sighs when they don't do what's considered common sense in his eyes, like checking the perimeter before entering the house.

“gonna get themselves killed.”

the type to find you reading an 800 page fantasy book on the couch and leans over the back.

“whatcha readin’?”

he'll start reading along with you from over your shoulder and suddenly he's been hovering over you for fifteen minutes.

he’ll ask about it later. will finally dip his toes into fantasy.

he’ll take you to the library when you have a book to return or to a bookstore for one you want to buy.

sometimes he'll wait in the car while you go in, in complete silence aside from the constant whir of the air conditioning.

“find what you wanted?” he'll ask when you occupy the passenger seat again.

or sometimes he’ll join and browse the thriller/mystery section.

he leaves with books stacked in his elbow too.

you’ll introduce him to the concept of cozy reading: blanket over the lap, warm drink in hand, maybe an audiobook to read along.

doesn't understand why this is necessary but you insist.

feels awkward at first but slowly warms up to it.

now you'll find him in the low-lit living room with a darcy coates book open in his lap, black coffee in hand.

carlos

annoying.

categorizes everyone that reads as a “nerd.”

maybe you are, no shame in being knowledgeable in a subject you're passionate about.

and carlos knows this. finds it to be an endearing trait of yours.

but he's going to tease.

already grinning as he approaches you at the kitchen island where you've got a science fiction book open.

“you like that stuff?”

you have to explain to him that science fiction is more than just about speculating the future of technology.

calls you a nerd with a grin, already walking over to kiss the back of your neck.

doesn’t read in his free time. hasn’t picked up a book since high school.

when you ask him what the last book he read was, it was of mice and men, which he had enjoyed.

“not bad,” you nodded approvingly. “east of eden is better though.”

this sparks a conversation on all of the best books you’ve ever read, all the way down to your top ten.

somehow, this conversation motivates carlos to pick up a book for the first time in many years.

you recommend a modern classic, considering he seemed to enjoy those.

it goes well.

he finishes fight club in two sittings. loves it.

“when did books get this good?” he asks with unbridled confidence.

you blink. “they’ve always been good. you just have to find something that fits your reading style.”

he starts to warm up to reading after that, joins you on the couch, arm around your shoulder as he reads along.

initially pretends he doesn’t care, eyes glossing over the words. claims he’s not interested but continues to sit there and read with you.

“what’s this?” he nudges your arm with a single finger.

“the idiot,” you snicker, like you’re in on a joke he isn’t.

he nods slowly, most definitely having no idea what this book is about, but based on his expression something tells you he likes it.

“not bad.”

jill

absolutely is a reader.

loves crime thrillers, like leon, and detective novels.

big agatha christie fan but is very low-key about it.

also enjoys non-fiction. anything political or true crime.

she’ll share books with you, leave sticky notes with her thoughts and reactions inside the pages.

will trade recommendations with you.

loves to spend an evening off duty with you, under a blanket, warm drinks in your hands, as you read together.

reading is her way to escape her mind.

and so is being in your presence.

those two things meshed together? the epitome of a perfect evening.

there’s definitely been nights where you two stayed glued to a breakneck pace thriller, losing track of time as you two race to the end.

“do you think that girl’s gonna live?” you muse, turning another page.

“if someone answers her damn calls, then maybe.” jill would grumble back, sipping a lukewarm coffee.

bookstore trips together.

you’ll both leave said bookstore with three books each.

sometimes you two go in just to pick out books the other might like.

“have you read death on the nile yet?”

jill cracks a grin when you hold up the book once you get back to the car.

she devours it in one night, glued to the pages, sleep nearly pulling her under.

when she finally comes to bed, her weight making the bed dip waking you, you welcome her, wrapping the comforter around you.

“good?” you croak, a slight grin tugging at your sleep-laden face.

“oh yeah.” jill sighs, nose pressed against your collarbone.

chris

also not a reader.

he doesn’t read for fun, only ever reads when it involves work.

will only read if it’s a mission report, tactical guide, or a survival manual.

so imagine his surprise when he finds you reading in bed when he comes home from an assignment one late evening.

“you’re cute,” he scans you with an analytical eye, tugging off fingerless gloves. “but what are you reading that for?”

can’t seem to grasp the fact that some people read for enjoyment.

“it’s good?”

you can’t help but chuckle. “yes, very.”

he’ll sit at the end of the bed as you dive into a brief synopsis of the historical fiction book in your hands.

“sounds complicated.” he notes, staring a hole through the mattress.

“don’t act like you can’t understand it,” you laugh, wagging a finger at him. “you’re smart. you do… things.”

it’s chris’ turn to laugh, dragging a hand down his chin.

“this is a little different from my usual reading material.”

the topic of books doesn’t come up again until a week later when you hand chris a copy of billy summers over breakfast. “the main character reminds me of you.”

“should i be concerned?”

you roll your eyes fondly, shaking your head. “give it a chance. you’ll see.”

“give it a chance?” did he hear that right?

“yes!” you chuckle. “try reading it.”

he does, but it takes a while for him to get through 500 pages.

he reads a chapter a day, one before bedtime.

months pass and when he finally closes the book, sets the worn copy on thr nightstand, he rolls over, winds an arm around your waist.

“pretty good,” he whispers. he was being incredibly vague. it was really good.

“yeah?” you turn, facing him.

your eyes meet, he presses a kiss between your eyebrows.

“yeah,” he concedes. “you got another for me?”

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

[kraangdroidz]

I really enjoy looking at Donatello's characterisation - especially the 2012 version of Donnie.

I don't know why, but something specifically about the 2012 iteration of our favourite brothers draws me to them. Maybe it's because I think they have the most interesting and unhealthy brother dynamic to explore out of any version of the Turtles. But just to say right off the bat, I don't agree with the statement that Raphael is abusive toward Mikey in this version. I don't think this to be true at all.

But in the 2012 version of Donnie, I think it's the obsessional aspect of his character that I find interesting. People flame him hard for it - which is very valid - the way he treated April was very creepy, and some of the things he did April had no knowledge of, (Like Donnie taking a photo of her and having it as his laptop wallpaper). But I like doing a little more when it comes to characters' less-than-ideal traits. Yeah, what they're doing is bad, creepy, etc. But why exactly might they be acting that way?

For Donnie, I think his problem is how he looks.

In the 2012 iteration, we never really see the turtles have a strong desire to be human. Mikey sometimes doesn't understand that humans will be scared of him, but he never lashes out and has a big moment like, 'I want to be a human so I can make more friends!' We see Mikey wonder what he'd look like as a human in an episode after Donnie creates retromutagen - with Mikey assuming if he used retromutagen on himself he'd turn human and not back into a regular turtle.

It is played as a joke, though, and he doesn't seem genuinely upset by the fact he's stuck as a turtle, as he is seen smiling after saying he wondered what he'd look like.

Interestingly enough, Donnie is the one to be portrayed as having a negative view attached to being a mutant more than any of his brothers.

Outside of being a mutant, it is implied that Donnie already has a fragile self-image anyway.

Remember the episode Turtle Temper? I think it's the third episode of the first season. But at one point, the other turtles are instructed to shoot arrows at Raph, while Raph has to try and avoid the arrows. Splinter makes it clear, however, that Mikey, Leo, and Donnie are allowed to insult Raphael during the exercise.

I've seen another content creator say that the insults they throw at Raphael could be more them self-projecting views they have on themselves rather than them actually thinking these things about their brother. Leo says, 'And you're always whining, poor me, nobody understands me.'

While this is easily applicable to Raph as an insult from Leo - Leo does have his own fair share of moments where he has gone to Splinter complaining that the others aren't listening to him or respecting him, that they don't understand the burden he has to hold as leader.

Mikey tells Raph he moves like a bloated buffalo - which, although never hinted at in the show, could imply that maybe Mikey is insecure about how much he eats. Maybe his brothers have made comments about his greediness.

Donnie says, 'Oh! You can't keep your back straight during Omote kote Gyaku! And you're ugly!'

I think the first part is interesting as Donnie is the tallest out of his brothers - gangly limbs could mean Donnie has more difficulty knowing how to stand, how to sit, so on so forth. A lot of tall people can feel really awkward as a result of their height.

Donnie most likely is sat over a desk all day, and again, being tall, Donnie has more of a slouched posture out of his brothers. I think it was Karai that also insults Donnie in an episode by calling him scrawny, in which he responds, 'And I'm not scrawny! I'm svelte!' Svelte meaning slender and elegant.

Raph has also insulted Donnie's looks before in an episode, and again, it is unclear if this is a common occurrence, but knowing 2012 Raph's character, it's probably happened on more than one occasion.

Donnie : And why do you keep grabbing me by the face? What is wrong with my face?!

Raph: Do you want me to list the reasons alphabetically or in descending order of grossness?

So regardless of being mutated or not, it seems Donnie just has a generalised lack of confidence and some issues surrounding how tall he is.

But to his issues regarding being mutated.

Donnie might've previously not had any issues with being a mutant. Before, it might've been just a general lack of confidence, as I have already said. But in society, looks are always seen as a good trait to possess if you want to have any shot at a love life. You need to fit into the beauty standards and be attractive if you want a partner.

Before April, his brothers would've been the only thing to compare himself to. He lived in a home with only mutants for fifteen years of his life - so had normal teenager issues of going through puberty and insecurities. A lot of people can feel odd/uncomfortable and dislike their growth spurts, which is why Donnie's issues at first might seem like normal things for a teenager to worry about. Donnie's biggest issue would've been how scrawny and lanky he saw himself.

But when they meet April, there is a glaring difference.

Suddenly, there is somebody in his life who isn't a mutant like him. It becomes abundantly clear to Donnie that from somebody else's standpoint, their biggest issue with him wouldn't be his tooth gap or his height, but just the plain fact that he's so different. Inhuman. Out of the ordinary. A mutant.

When he's rambling to Timothy (Mutagen Man at this point) about why April might be on a date with some punk kid (Casey) the conclusion he resorts to is, 'Because he's human, that's why.'

At the end of the episode A Foot Too Big, when Donnie apologises to April, he says, 'I'm just... a mutant.' Again, this shows Donnie jumps to the conclusion that this is why April doesn't want to be with him, not his overbearing nature or the fact that she just genuinely might not be interested. The problem in Donnie's mind is that he's mutated.

The fact that Donnie used the word 'just' implies that being a mutant is all that Donnie has boiled himself down to. He thinks that his other traits aren't worthwhile or good - like him being funny, smart, inventive - because he thinks that nobody would pay attention to those aspects of his personality. At the end of the day, he thinks nobody will be able to see him outside of being a monster.

In Fungus Humungous, the hallucination of April that Donnie experiences calls him an 'ugly mutant freak'. It is unlikely April actually thinks this of Donnie, but it's what Donnie thinks she does because it's his biggest fear. I'd like to split Donnie's hallucination into two parts. April insulting Donnie about being a mutant, and Donnie's hallucination of April kissing Casey.

We see April kissing Casey. I think the fact that this part of the hallucination comes second is meant to represent this fear of rejection and insecurity surrounding being a mutant are two sides of the same coin. His fear of April choosing Casey is a by-product of his main insecurity. We are shown April calling Donnie an 'ugly mutant freak' first. Donnie isn't afraid to lose April as a person to Casey. He's afraid of losing his only hope at feeling confident to Casey.

In the first half of the hallucination, it shows that April uses a sharp tongue like a whip.

This tongue is shown to go through Donnie's heart and subsequently breaks it.

"To have a sharp tongue" means to be quick to criticize, speak harshly, or make cutting remarks; essentially, someone who is often unkind or sarcastic with their words.

I think this represents that, over anything, it is April's words that break his heart more than her actions. It is her disgust at him being a mutant that shatters him. It's what makes him crack in the episode. He starts screaming, runs away, and shouts that he, 'doesn't want to hear anymore.' This is Donnie's breaking point. Her sharp tongue and words, over her actions like kissing Casey, that is Donnie's true biggest fear.

Donnie doesn't want to be with April purely because he loves her. To Donnie, it would be more than April simply making a choice on who to partner up with. It would be confirmation for Donnie that the issue all along was because he's a mutant.

The point I'm trying to make is that Donnie is more obsessed with trying to improve his own self-image than he is obsessed with April as a person.

He wants to use April as a means to prove someone could love him despite appearances because, as I said earlier, looks are important to a lot of people. Gaining a romantic partner would most likely grant Donnie the confidence, the consolidation that he 'isn't ugly after all' because someone managed to fall in love with him. That is why he so desperately chases after April.

He chases after the feeling of confidence.

His character kills me.

[taki118]

Kirishima and Other Women

Among the criticism and complaints of Raise Wa Tanin Ga Ii aka Yakuza Fiance the most common is about how Kirishima "cheats" but what if I were to tell you this aspect of him actually serves an important point within the narrative? Because it does, in fact it serves a few.

First and foremost this is common in the Yakuza subculture. The series is a bit of a send off to Yakuza subculture and media with references that tend to go over your head unless you are into it (most go over mine). This is no different. While this isn't as narratively important it is important to know overall, the series embraces all things Yakuza the good and the bad (unlike some other Yakuza series but that not a rant for here) And like it's implied pretty much all the guys in the series to it to some degree yes even Shoma. I only have some knowledge of this myself so I won't get into it but I would recommend looking into cause it is interesting and makes sense for the series to incorporate on some level due to this and it would feel wrong to not mention it here.

Now lets go onto to something more meaty and kinda spoilery, so don't read if you dont want. (though I don't think it will ruin your enjoyment)

So these other women actually help to better understand Kirishima and his relationship/feelings towards Yoshino. One detail the anime leaves out is who these women are and they are women. All college age or older, and all some kind of working professional who has skills or connections Kirishima does not have. Remember Kirishima is not technically Yakuza so he does not have access to resources that actual members of the group have but because he is involved with that world still he has to find a way to make up for what he resources he lacks. The safest resource he has found over the years is women.

Just like how Yoshino unintentionally raises the ire of women, Kirishima does the same to men both intentionally and unintentionally. He has difficulty connecting with people which is a topic in and of itself, but because of this he has learnt how to gain connections on a superficial level so he only does so with those he can feel some control over or feels safer. AKA Women. Kirishima knows he's attractive, and he knows how easy it is to charm people but those he had an ongoing connection with are those who understand it's a game and want something back.

It's all quid prop quo, he does something for them and so they in turn do something for him. FYI I'm pretty sure what he's getting out of it isn't psychical pleasure, information, connections and a safe house for sure but actual enjoyment from sex? Not likely again the anime doesn't show it very well but many manga readers have noted how disconnected Kirishima looks during these moments. (Which I will fully get to later) It's an exchange when Yoshino calls him a gigolo she's not wrong, and there is a greater discussion to be had here about how early Kirishima started doing this and all the messy stuff that comes with it but because we don't have enough information on how that started I won't get into it. (and its a little off topic)

Overall all though this shows the audience that Kirishima has a kind of warped view of sex and intimacy, he views it as a resource he can use much like his fighting ability, to him it's the same thing. At least at the start.

When Tsubaki tells Kirishima that he is actually very easy to understand when she has Yoshino there to compare, I believe this was a hint the author was giving us. To understand Kirishima and how he really feels about Yoshino one just need to look at how he is with other women.

It is INCREDIBLY telling that the closest thing Kirishima has to an ex-girlfriend is Nao, because notice how that term is never used within the story by the pair as to what their relationship was. Nao calls Ozu an ex but not Kirishima, he's just a guy she had a fling with (with a weird age gap) even though she seems to care more about him than Ozu (another deep dive I'll probably do). Kirishima also never uses the term, he does note that he did like her to some degree more than likely a little more than the other women he has similar situationships with but it was still at its core transactional. They both wanted what the other could offer more than them as a person. (also just fucking for weeks isn't a relationship) Kirishima always keeps everyone at a distance, keeps everything close to the vest, makes sure the situation is advantageous to him so he can't get screwed over, every single one. Except Yoshino.

You see it constantly in the series as Kirishima WANTS to connect with Yoshino. He wants to better understand and connect with her in ways he has never bothered to before. In fact you can argue that Kirishima is actually more emotionally unintelligent than Yoshino as he has such difficulty in understanding what Yoshino wants from him. He's so use to being fake, to acting the way women around him want him to that it throws him through a loop that Yoshino doesn't want that. She forces him to be a person not a persona.

Because of that, like Tsubaki says, he is desperate to understand and connect with her unlike with the women who he is connected to in a superficial way. I know it weirdly upsets some viewers that these women "Know" Kirishima in a way Yoshino hasn't but they don't actually know him Yoshino does. People often conflate love and sex as being the same thing but its not, sometimes it overlaps (and like that should be the standard but its not). This series sort of forces you to confront that assumption, because the real moments of love are in the smaller things.

It's Kirishima helping Yoshino with her garden, its him trying to get her focus on him, its him talking to her about mundane things, its him seeking out the things she wants, its him telling her his birthday, and yes it's him sleeping with other women to keep her safe. A LOT of people don't realize this but it is right there in the text he only reconnected with Nao because it would make the situation in Osaka more advantageous for him to keep Yoshino safe. There is a very good likelihood that if the situation would 100% not get Yoshino involved that Kirishima would have just stayed out of it. (which like damn sucks for you Nao) In actuality Kirishima likely would have preferred just a normal trip to Osaka with Yoshino (even though the chaos does help him confirm his own feelings again) Kirishima wants so desperately to be connected to Yoshino in anyway he can but you don't see that in how he is with other women, and it's in seeing that you can see his authenticity.

For further reference to something I noted earlier look at how Kirishima looks in these scenes with women both during and after sex.

There's little to no actual emotion or care, he operates almost robotically like you see when he fights someone he doesn't really give a shit about. It is something he's doing cause he has to not cause he wants to. Now compare these reactions to how he reacts when he finds out he accidentally/unconsciously felt Yoshino up

It's this flurry of emotions you can't even fully quantify like he can't even fathom he really did that. Kind of a strange reaction to give to someone who has done way more for way longer, but it makes perfect sense if you remember love and sex are different. With these other women he didn't care, sex didn't mean anything they could have been anyone and in all honesty if he could get away with not doing it he'd probably prefer it. But he loves Yoshino so he actually cares, he is actually turned on, he actually feels something.

THAT is the point of the side women. Kirishima is very hard to understand his character is a mystery for a majority of the series (and to a degree still is) these women help to solve that mystery if you take the time to really look at what's happening and not get parasocially angry that he is "betraying" his love for Yoshino. In his mind he's not because love and sex are different, sex to him until Yoshino is just a tool, its one of the many things that Yoshino changes in him over the course of the series. Lets not forget that one of his side women actually makes him realize the situation with Yoshino isn't all that great (the scene is better in the manga) cause he doesn't have the emotional intelligence to realize that himself and is a catalyst for the two actually growing closer. Like I keep having to cut myself short cause I'll just go off on how wonderfully complicated and uncomplicated Kirishima is as a character, but this is an important aspect to understand and shouldn't just be written off as "He's a red flag".

These women give us insight into how Kirishima is Pre-Yoshino and shows us how far he's come Post-Yoshino, in a way that could not be done otherwise. So maybe it makes you uncomfy for a bit but it's not bad writing it serves a purpose that could not be done otherwise.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Hi, I’m gonna be very upront: I’ve been raped a few years back and since then I’ve had a very strong non-con kink that caused me problems online (mostly being misunderstood by friends in fandom spaces)

My questions are: 1 how common is it to develop such kink in regard of such event, and 2 how would you advise to bring it out into the appropriate discussions? I really had bad experiences with people I trusted, and I wonder if this is something to discuss at all.

hi anon,

I should start out by saying that fantasies about rape, sexual assault, and other sexual acts committed without consent are extremely common among many people, whether they've actually experienced sexual assault or not. there's no singular reason why this happens (what turns us on is hardly an exact science!) and no one's reasons are wrong; nobody needs to justify the existence of a kink.

it's impossible to know what percent of people with those kinks and fantasies are sexual assault survivors, but there are definitely survivors with those fantasies. maybe some had them before, and maybe some began to find non-consent arousing only after their trauma. much is made of sexual assault survivors who use sexual fantasy as a means of reclaiming agency, and I can certainly understand the appeal. as an exercise it seems like a very hands-on form of EMDR (note: I am not any kind of mental healthcare professional, but I am a patient who benefits from EMDR myself) in which a person is able to relive a negative experience on their own terms - in this case, having a violent sexual experience with the knowledge that you have the option to make it stop at any point and have your choice respected, whether by putting down a book or closing out of a fanfic or by pulling out a safeword with their partner(s).

sexual assault survivors who enjoy it for those reasons are fine, of course, but so are survivors who don't feel that their enjoyment stems from anything particularly healing or therapeutic, or just haven't analyzed it that much and don't particularly want to. I don't think forcing that kind of introspection where it's not wanted is particularly helpful or productive for anyone involved. you don't need to be able to prove that you have a pure, morally upright reasoning for your kink.

as for disclosing to others: that's a tricky one, anon, and there's never going to be one answer that applies to everyone. I'm very sorry for the bad experiences you'd had, and I'm equally sorry that I can't provide a guaranteed trick for avoiding them in the future. ultimately it's up to you to decide which spaces feel safe and worthwhile to bring it up in, and that's a judgment call that will vary from one instance to the next.

[minyard-05]

ok so i had a conversation with @thegoliathbeetle about this and it was interesting so i'm going to post about it more

in the extra content, in regards to the foxes' reactions to kevin after riko's death, nora says: "It'll take time for them [The Foxes] to try and understand where he's coming from. Even Aaron has an awful opinion on the matter since he knows Riko was behind Drake."

now a common take i've seen more often recently is people claiming aaron would understand why kevin reacted the way he did to riko's death, because aaron missed his mother after she died in the same way. this obviously is not what the extra content says, and i think it comes in part with the fact that comparatively we don't see a lot of aaron in canon, and this means that common interpretations of his character can deviate slightly from the source material (not anyone's fault of course and not necessarily a bad thing, but i think it can skew some people's perspectives when it comes to details like this)

while i agree with the above idea that aaron would understand eventually, i also think that, in short, at this point in canon aaron minyard is not emotionally intelligent enough to understand and recognise this in himself.

simply put, he doesn't get or accept kevin mourning riko, because in his eyes, riko was a LOT worse than tilda was. aaron is of the opinion that his mother's collateral damage was conserved to only hurting herself and aaron, whereas riko relished in causing pain, spent his time torturing all of the ravens, had seth killed, and he targeted aaron's family multiple times. nora said it herself, aaron knew that riko was responsible for drake, so in his eyes, that's no contest– riko was far worse than tilda ever was. and maybe this is true.

aaron is also somewhat of a hypocrite: he knows kevin was abused, it's obvious that kevin was abused by riko but what aaron doesn't have firstly is the why– it's not common knowledge that riko was being abused by tetsuji as well, so to an outsider he just seems like a power-hungry monster who lived to hurt people and got what he deserved in the end. and to aaron, this looks open-and-shut, simple. kevin shouldn't mourn riko because riko wasn't worth mourning. aaron, at this point in canon, will not draw those parallels between what happened to him with tilda and what happened to kevin with riko– because aaron is still not ready to admit that what happened to him was abuse.

he will tie himself in knots trying to make it work, trying to argue that of course kevin and jean never deserved what happened to them, but aaron did fuck up a lot as a kid, so every time he got hit it was because he earned it. he'll argue that after she was done hitting him, tilda would leave him alone and he could recover on his own time, but kevin and jean used to have to play with their injuries, so it was worse, so it was abuse. aaron will grasp at any straw he can catch to plead that what happened to him when he was a kid wasn't abuse and it was normal– because if the truth is otherwise, then it makes him a victim, and at age 20 he is not ready to process that. (this is a longer post so i'll leave this point here)

it's easy for us as an audience to draw the parallels between aaron's grief over losing tilda and kevin's grief over losing riko, because we have all of the information and we have the ability to textually analyse the characters. but aaron is a very logical person and in his eyes, kevin's grief makes no sense, because riko was a monster, and then a brother. but he thinks that mourning tilda did make sense, because she was his mother, and then a monster. he's not viewing those scenarios on the same level, and so he's not making the connections we're making.

all this to say, i believe that there will come a time, eventually, when aaron will start to think a little more about kevin and what losing riko was like, and he will begin to understand that while they didn't have the same experiences, the mark left on each of them by riko and tilda is similar, and that aaron's grief over losing tilda despite what she did to him is not different to how kevin felt about riko. but this is going to take time. by the time TKM happens, aaron still hasn't let go of tilda, let alone begun to work his own way through what he went through when she was alive. that's a much longer journey, but one he will complete eventually, and one day maybe he'll even talk about it. but healing takes time, and aaron has only just really gotten started.

[neowqing]

Sirius noticed the way James, Remus and Peter's eyes were fixed on Severus, now that Evans wasn't defending him, and after they'd stripped him in the courtyard, something was off. The way Peter's gaze lingered, the way Remus tried to get closer uncomfortably, and the way James' hand was clutching Severus' clothes in a tight grip, everyone was looking for an excuse to get closer, and Sirius was very unhappy about it.

Sirius Black could have been in love with some pureblood lady, good family, nice looks, maybe he could have been with some muggle-born, anything to defy his parents, she would have shown him a real world full of something more interesting than fancy dinners with snobs, but he was obsessed with Severus Snape. From the first year, from the first look, the first fight, Severus had been his, and to neglect it any longer could lead to something Sirius would never allow.

Luckily for Sirius, he was handsome, wealthy, still inherited, and all too aware that Severus was watching. The way the little snake squirms when Sirius disregards his knowledge and uses it for a joke, the way he rolls his eyes when Sirius is with a girl. Lily had once said that they weren't as bad as Severus had complained, and that Sirius wasn't the horrible, tactless, ill-mannered stray dog that Severus had said he was, the others he had generally referred to as marauders. Sirius then shook his head, Severus thinks about him, especially him, complains, singles him out, and oh, he absolutely completely understands the kind of person Sirius is.

So when Sirius closes the door to the room he's shoved Severus into, he sees a scared rabbit, with poison in his mouth, so unique. Snape looks like a miserable kitten living on the street, being bullied by other animals, but he is full of energy to lash out in revenge, he is not beautiful in the conventional sense, he is interesting, perfect, the way Sirius wants him to be.

Black doesn't talk, he doesn't explain when he kisses and squeezes, Severus is bony, too much so, but still Ideal for Sirius' hands. Snape tries to get out of it for the first ten seconds before giving in, opening his mouth, Sirius knew Severus was his, and Severus was of the same mind.

Sirius isn't getting enough kisses, he fucks Snape up against the wall while Severus digs his blunt nails into Sirius' forearms, leaving marks under his clothes too, Sirius is left hickeys and bites, high up on his neck for all to see, he even tried to bite Severus' cheek but got a smack on the head for it, giving up the idea.

This is no joke, so he helps Severus clean up, sitting Severus down on the table because his legs are still not functioning well, Sirius pulls the pendant out of his pocket.

"Ta da" he shows a simple chain with a family ring on it, not the famous Black ring because it is recognisable, but it is also from the house of purebloods, something that screams wealth and protection.

" And?" Severus looks at it as if it were some unnecessary trinket Sirius puts on, placing it on top of his clothes so it's visible.

"And nothing, your highness"

It's a good move, the next time James wants to touch Severus, Sirius stops him by the arm, nodding towards the ring.

"We don't want any trouble," Sirius whispers in his ear, pulling his friend away, the other two following. Sirius turns back to Severus, who is all too happy about it.

"Sirius can I have a word?" Remus calls them to a corner of the common room. "It's not that I'm doing it on purpose, it's just an accident, you know, but you and Severus, you smell like each other."

Sirius smiles, yes, an accident, as if he hadn't seen how much deeper Remus was sniffing next to Snape.

"Moony," Sirius pulls out, "do what you always do, pretend not to notice and keep quiet."

Sirius finishes with a toothy grin, returning to the sofa, to the loud circle of conversation and jokes. Maybe he'll invite his friends to his wedding to Snape, he thinks about it.

[bitter-me]

Hiiiii I've been scrolling to much in Tumblr thankful that I found ur acc, got hooked with ur writing when I read the jing yuan fic <333

so may i request dr. Ratio or sunday with a gojo m reader 👀, maybe enemies to lovers (anything is fine ^^) , the plot is yours to freely choose <33

Charm You Later~

Sunday | M. Reader as Satoru Gojo [Jujutsu Kaisen]

----------

"I hate that man I hate that man! …but oh cara mia..how I love him~"

----------

Oh how he hated that man. He would always waltz towards him and act all buddy-buddy, and he'll do it with that cheeky grin. How annoying.

And that voice. Oh how he dreaded it. Hearing it hurts his ears.

Just who does he think he is? Getting all chummy with him. A member of The Family! Just who does he think he is?! Another thing he doesn't understand.. is how Robin seems to be fond of him. How could his sister like someone like him? He's a complete man child!

When he asked about it, her response was. "He just seems to be a fun person to be around."

Fun? Him? He's more like a headache! An annoying headache!

Especially that one time...

.

.

.

.

.

The door of the theater bursts open, revealing a tall man wearing sunglasses. He casually walks towards a specific seat, his hands in his pockets and a cheeky grin on his handsome face. Acting like he owns the place.

Some were swooned by the handsome man, some were whispering amongst each other, some looked at him with annoyance.

Just who does he think he is?

"Hey! Sunday!" He called out casually, raising a hand as if his tall figure and "grand entrance" didn't already attract anyone in the theater.

----------

How humiliating! To have someone as brash as him to call out to him like that in front of everyone! Sunday swears he wanted to kill him right then and there.

"What's with that look~"

"Shut up."

"Hey I was just asking an innocent question.."

The man pouts as Sunday turned his back against him. How grumpy.. why can't he just lighten up a little? A dream is supposed to be sweet, not bitter. "Come on~" Letting out a sigh, Sunday mumbled something under his breath before speaking up. "That's enough, [Name], please leave."

"Come on Sunday~ Why must you act this way to me.." [Name] teased as he continues to pout at Sunday for being a "meanie" surely he hasn't done anything bad, right? [Name] is positive he hasn't done anything that might result in such a behavior from Sunday. So.. he decided to continue with his teasing.

The other's teasing will always annoy Sunday to no end. He always acts so cheery, plus that cheeky, weirdly adorable grin on his face that doesn't seem to be leaving him anytime soon. He's looking down on him. Of course he is! His tone, no matter how friendly it is, still has that faint hint of arrogance in it. The way he acted is just so.. condescending.

Then again.. what did you expect from someone who always claims he's the strongest.

"Is it something I did? Hey, Sunday." [Name] wrapped his arms around his shoulders, leaning down a little to do so. "Sunday, tell me!" Poking the man's cheek as he kept pestering him like a child wanting their parents attention. With a groan Sunday slapped the man's finger with his wing. "Stop that."

[Name] pouts before finally leaving Sunday alone.

Finally.. some peace and quiet..

----------

Death comes for us all. A common knowledge. And yet, the moment that.. thing attacked..

He can't help but feel.. off..

The sight of that thing attacking him.

How the self proclaimed "Strongest" struggles in the face of Death. Then again.. no one could escape Death itself. But still.. he can't help but feel a wave of dread at the sight of it. When he saw him after the incident, there was one thing that crossed his mind..

'That blank, dead-like expression doesn't suit him.'

Where's the smile that always decorated his face? Where's the captivating glow of his eyes?

"What's this?" The other asked rather blankly, a tone that doesn't suit him one bit. "..a get well soon gift." "I'm not sick."

Letting out a sigh, Sunday continues to shoved the small box toward him. "Just take it." [Name] look at Sunday from over the top of his sunglasses, eyeing him for a moment before taking the gift, mumbling a small "Thanks."

'That look doesn't suit him.' Sunday continues to think of the same thing over and over again. The glint of mischief isn't there anymore... he can't deny it anymore.. Sunday had missed the bastard's mischievousness and his playful attitude.

"What's this for anyway?" "Stop that."

Taken aback by the sudden harsh words [Name] look up from the gift and stare at Sunday. "I beg your pardon?"

Sunday? Raising his voice like that? That's unheard of.. why is he acting this way? What happened? Is this truly Sunday? Thousands of theories run through his head as [Name] tries to think of a reason for the calm and collected Sunday to lose his temper like that.

"I said 'stop that.'" He huffed crossing his arms. Yeah no, [Name] isn't taking that attitude. "What's with you all of a sudden?"

"That's supposed to be my question you idiot!" Sunday suddenly raised his voice as his temper took the best of him. "Wha—Hey!" "Just shut up and listen to me!!"

[Name] glared at the winged man. Him? Telling him to shut up? Who does he think he is? Ordering the "Strongest" like that? And where is all of this coming from? It doesn't make sense! Not with how calm and collected Sunday usual is!

The winged man grabbed the other by his collar as he's getting fed up with their little argument. But before [Name] could protest again, he was silenced by something soft placed on top of his lips. A sweet kiss.

Huh?

Did he just..?

Stunned by the kiss that came out of nowhere, [Name] looked at Sunday with wide eyes. He was not expecting that... how is he supposed to expect that coming from the person who he annoys and argues 24/7?

The two blushed as Sunday looked away for a moment before speaking up. "That look doesn't suit you."

"Could you please... give me a smile instead..?"