#sorry for more discourse posts

[starryjkoo]

I think that even aside from shipping people are jealous of jikook biased fans because we're getting a whole second season of a 9h long show where our biases are on screen 90% of the time. For a few years now fans have been pretty starved from content that just let's them see their bias on camera for a extended period of time. Cause stuff like songs, mvs and even concerts don't give a ton in terms of just seeing members talk, have fun and be cute and entertaining in a more casual way. I mean, the appeal of idols is more than just music and performances, there's a big part that's about seeing the idols' personality and how they are off stage and, aside from some stuff here and there, armys haven't gotten much of that since the hiatus. Fans really miss stuff like Bon Voyage and instead of getting that (and with it getting to see their bias) like a lot of them thought they would now that's it's finally 2025 (aka BTS year) they're just getting another season of "The Jikook Show (Your Fave Not Included*)".

Tae fans especially are feeling this. Yes, even the one who aren't shippers because there's this ingrained comparison of the maknaeline members in people's mind that makes it so they think that anytime a maknaeline member gets something that something was 'stolen' from another maknaeline member who could have had it instead. And AYS being about not only one but both the remaining maknaeline members makes it even worse. It makes them think Tae is being excluded because the maknaeline is supposed to be a trio. And they were already mad about Tae being "just a guest" last season which highlighted even more how he's not properly a part of something that they think he, as one of the trio, should've been a part of. Now they're even more mad because he's not even a guest anymore. And that's not to mention the resentment they have of jikook being on another level of successful compared to the other members. To them Jikook being the "ace duo" or the "most successful duo" is just another exclusion of Tae from this trio he should be a part of. Also, Tae seems the least likely out of the three to release an album or have a tour so his fans are pissed at the idea that jikook biased fans could have all this stuff and they might get nothing.

(Also, something could be said about how for a lot of people shipping is about their bias being a part of something. Especially in the context of a very well established (by fans) love triangle like it's the case for vminkook. A lot of fans just hate the idea of their bias being the love interest that wasn't picked in the end, the one excluded from this especial (and very popular and talked about) relationship. They love the idea of their bias being 'chosen', especially if it's over a member they don't like, more than they love the actual ship.)

Note how Tae fans aren't nearly as bothered by Jin having a version of Run BTS just to himself, or outnumbering the size of Tae's discography even though Jin was the last to release an album, or him being the first vocal line member to have a tour. But they're pissed at jikook for having their own version of BV, and at Jimin for having two albums, and at Jungkook for possibly having a tour. It's because of that ingrained maknaeline comparison I talked about.

I think that even aside from shipping people are jealous of jikook biased fans because we're getting a whole second season of a 9h long show where our biases are on screen 90% of the time. For a few years now fans have been pretty starved from content that just let's them see their bias on camera for a extended period of time.

I 100% think that’s what was going on lmao. ARMYs were getting increasingly agitated about the lack of substantial OT7 content or member interactions post-enlistment after waiting all this time. But then you had Jikook as these massive outliers. Not only did we get Jikook moments throughout their enlistment, we had AYS, all of their discharge content, the photobooth pics, JMs IG posts, THEN they went ahead and filmed a whole second season of AYS (and that being the first thing they wanted to do when they got back 😭 and maybe their only solo content for a minute? wow).

Also Jikook at Jin’s concert were really something else. And I know some ARMYs were hoping for other member interactions instead of jkk because half the hit twts on my timeline were talking about JK being pouty that Jin asked Jimin to sing instead of him (an entirely made up scenario?) versus anything about the Jikook moments that actually happened. You could just tell some people were over it lol.

So yeah, ARMYs haven’t just been waiting on new music, they’ve also been waiting to see BTS interact and more substantial variety content in general because that’s definitely a huge part of the appeal (and I missed it too, don’t get me wrong!). But when that wasn’t happening and Jikook were kind of going crazy instead, definitely some saltiness from parts of the fandom. tkkrs try to put AYS down as “company content” but literally who wouldn’t want an entire show of your biases interacting and having fun, a show that they clearly enjoyed and wanted to keep doing? 😭 It’s a huge win for Jikook lovers, I can’t wait (seriously, as a fan if you’d rather it be a “private trip” that’s probably a sign that you need to take a step back and out of shipping because you’re too over invested in it.).

Fans really miss stuff like Bon Voyage and instead of getting that (and with it getting to see their bias) like a lot of them thought they would now that's it's finally 2025 (aka BTS year) they're just getting another season of "The Jikook Show (Your Fave Not Included*)".

"The Jikook Show (Your Fave Not Included*)" made me cackle lmao, probably how a lot of people viewed it and definitely the reason for the lack of enthusiasm from some. Also to your point I was in the quotes of the translation about Jin saying he would do an episode of RunJin for Jimin because I thought it was super cute, but it was full of ARMYs actually pushing for Run BTS instead, so yeah. A lot of people want OT7 content, not OT2 content (or only OT2 if it includes their bias).

That OT7 live healed the fandom a lot though. ARMYs now have the reassurance that BTS are back and fully committed to the group, that they might actually be all in on focusing on the group album for the foreseeable future. There were also a lot of cute moments between all the members, typical BTS touchiness, general OT7 good vibes like JH throwing himself across furniture because Jimin said something vaguely funny. So I think people will get a little more normal about Jikook now that the balance is starting to be restored and they know they have OT7 content and other member interactions (plus music!!!) to look forward to. Because idk about anyone else but things were definitely getting weird from my perspective. In a way though it also just makes it easier for people to ignore Jikook and downplay their closeness, which was getting harder to do prior to this live, so I’m sure some are happy about that as well, but you know-

there's this ingrained comparison of the maknaeline members in people's mind that makes it so they think that anytime a maknaeline member gets something that something was 'stolen' from another maknaeline member who could have had it instead.

Interesting perspective and write-up about the ML and I agree with you! They’ve definitely always been compared and pitted against each other the most. Even outside of shipping, they're the three most popular members with the most amount of solo stans who are always trying to prove who is the best, most popular, biggest impact etc. Looking back on some of the discourse from CH2, it’s clear that a lot of ARMYs have internalized that competition and comparison too, thus the frustration about TH’s numbers or the whole guest thing. I still remember all the weird comments after FACE about “just wait until tkk debut!” that always felt shady to JM and felt weird coming from ARMYs.

When TH didn’t meet these invisible standards that the fandom set for him (standards literally based off of jkks success) people acted like he was done dirty even though he did the 3rd best in the group and his numbers were objectively good. It was clear that the injustice to them was that he didn’t do as well as Jikook specifically, and that’s such an odd line of thought, because why exactly was TH expected to do as well as them, and why is it unfair if he doesn’t? So yeah, I get what you mean about lumping ML together and having those expectations.

And to your point about “stealing opportunities” it reminds me of that ARMY who made a post about how we’re more likely to get a jkk subunit than tkk at this rate after JM’s KIG challenge. It was such an odd thing to say for multiple reasons, but it’s super weird that someone would act like jkk doing something together has anything to do with tkk, or act like it’s actually stealing opportunities away from other duos? Like what is the thought process here, why does jkk doing something together make you think of other members & subunits you want instead, and why specifically tkk?

Also the whole “guest” discourse was crazy because it should have been such a non-issue and yet like you said it extended to even non-shippers being upset about it. They were upset about his whole portrayal in Jeju actually, not just the guest thing, but how he wasn’t as involved in the show as Jikook were, and how Jikook were kind of synced on a different level (it’s why tkkrs trying to claim that Jeju was a “win” for tkk baffle me when I’ve seen even non-shipper TH biased claim that it was evil company edited to make it seem like TH was a “third wheel”).

From the moment TH was revealed as part of the Jeju trip a lot of ARMYs were treating people calling him a guest like it was the most horrible insult ever. So yeah it’s interesting when you mention that with ML because a lot of ARMYs clearly thought that AYS should be the vminkook show and when that wasn’t the case there was a lot of unhappiness about it and people treating the whole thing like TH was somehow done dirty. All of that discourse despite the fact that there were actually tons of cute moments between vminkook, and Jikook expressed how happy they were he came. But it wasn’t enough for some people because Jikook also made it clear that TH was a guest (in a teasing, playful way) and AYS was their show. Some people really took that personally.

Also, something could be said about how for a lot of people shipping is about their bias being a part of something.

And yeah, definitely this is a big part of it. Honestly it’s pretty common for people to self-insert onto their bias. It’s not just solos and not just serious shippers who are doing that. It’s pretty common for people to be very excited when their bias is getting special attention or appreciation and everyone loves the narrative that their bias in particular is loved and fawned over by the rest of the group, that everyone is a little in love with their bias, multi-shippers who basically ship their bias x every other member (some jkkrs & tkkrs will do that with whichever one they bias). Definitely another form of Y/N-ing. And there's nothing wrong with all that! But I definitely agree that partially because of that, when some people feel like their bias is being left out of something, they take it personally and start acting weird about it.

And the whole ML thing is extra charged even if you’re not a shipper just because of shipping. If it seems like one of them is being left out the narrative is always extra nasty because of ship fights. That’s probably why some people are so defensive and sensitive about any ML trio interactions and them being "equally close" even if they’re not a shipper. It’s like for instance I don’t think I saw even one yoonkook interaction at Jin’s concert. We all know that doesn’t mean literally anything negative about yoonkook at all because we have actual brains, but if that had been vminkook? Ugh, could you imagine the drama and the types of narratives that would have been thrown around? tkkrs still say that JM was third-wheeling on a live where it was revealed that JK was going to JMs room three times a day and where they literally arrived after eating together? 😭

I know all of this is not that serious and just kind of chronically online discourse lol, but I still can’t help yapping about it sometimes because it’s a weird and frustrating experience as a Jikooker or Jikook biased sometimes. I’ve always enjoyed fandom but trying to find a comfortable spot in the BTS fandom has been tough to say the least. I definitely have zero expectations for the fandom to acknowledge Jikook at this point though. The closer they are the more some types of people pull back from hyping them out of weird jealousy. On the other hand, the non-weird chronically online ARMYs have been hyping Jikook more, like you’ll see it occasionally maybe on somewhere like reddit sometimes. It’s just that the types of people who are invested enough to run stan accounts are sometimes also the types of people who are heavily biased and internalize everything and also tend to be shippers.

[glitter-stained]

"why does fanon love making Jason care about his goons when he kills them in canon" I'm sorry to tell you that Jason's Robin run is a significant work for his characterization. And that Willis Todd was in fact a goon. Like, that's a significant thing that happened.

(jaybin fans exist not every Jason fan is a hardcore UTH fan who thinks everything about Winick's writing is pure and just and the right way)

[needlesknick-knacks]

my 'hottest' dc take is that dickbabs and dickkori are both interesting, complex ships which can be written to have one be endgame/one break up without reducing/mischaracterising any of the characters involved. It literally comes down to personal preference on which you like better. Can we stop fighting (and give babs and kori solo runs please)

[knifearo]

"asexual discourse" is so funny cause dude that's not discourse and it's never been discourse. it's not an argument and it's not a conversation bitches are just yelling at us unprompted and then making up people to get mad at 😭

[charlie-ver]

Hey, you, the trans man reading this - I love you. I know there's posts like this, but I got down a bad rabbit hole last night and I think there's not enough nice posts towards trans men (:

I don't care if you've finished you transition, on won't be ever able to reach the changes you would like. I don't care if you've been on T for years, or just started, or won't be for some years, or can't or don't want to be. I do not care how you dress. I don't care if you want to be pregnant and have children one day. I don't care if you want hysterectomy and don't even want to freeze your eggs (Hell knows I am not freezing anything). I do not care if you want bottom surgery or if you love what you were born with. Because it doesn't matter and doesn't take away from your identity.

Gay trans men? You aren't just confused straight girls. You are valid in your gender AND sexuality. Straight trans men? You aren't a betrayal the moment you are no longer misgendered. You're still welcome in lgbtqia+ spaces. Because you're a part of our community. One does not lose their place the moment they are perceived and cis or cishet.

Cis men have heard it before, but they won't admit it. All this "if you like x you must be a girl" really just feels like repackaged "if you like x you must be gay". Wanna hear a secret?

HOBBIES, JOBS AND FAVORITE THINGS DO NOT HAVE GENDER.

I like botanical gardens. I love plants. I like looking at clothing, room decor, fabric stores sometimes catch my eye. Because I am am artist, and I take inspiration from these and many more things. Plant care and gardening is not a "red flag" for a trans man in my humble and trans opinion, but it's a sign that you have love to give. And that's beautiful. Just like liking these things does not indicate that a man is gay, it does not mean that your internal identity is any different.

Do not let the world put rails on your patch to your own masculinity. And if you have to hide, that's okay. If you can only be yourself online, that's okay. Trans people will always be here. Trans men will always be here. The best thing you can do is to live as safely as you can. I know this can come off as condescending from a European who has nothing to fear personally, except violence for one month in the year, because my way of being trans isn't "obvious", but I try to take it that my safety means I can try to reassure the rest of you, while you can just focus on your own misery and don't have to be strong for anyone but yourself.

If you need a safe place to went, come to my asks. If you don't want me to post them and just read them, that's ok. You can be angry, you can vent, you can cry, do whatever you need, but, obviously, no transphobia or anything (: Special love goes out to trans men who are of the aroace spectrum, because honestly, the aroace discourse never seems to die, it's just dismissed. Reminds me of something. Hm (: I wonder.

Anyhow. Come to me to cry, for a virtual hug, for a distraction, if you'd like. Feel free to ask for art. Want me to draw your trans characters with flags? I can do that, for free, for you. Ask or dm is enough (: Art and listening is the best I can do, but I'll do my best to do it well.

I love you. You deserve to live, you deserve to be happy, and you also are wholly entitled to cry, to complain, to be sad, angry, loud, afraid. You are a human being with emotions, you deserve to feel them. Nobody can tell you what your internal identity, what your gender is. Because nobody else can know that. Only you can.

So let me repeat: It does not matter how you dress, whether you are on T, whether you want surgeries or love your body as is, whether you are skinny, fat, or muscular, what accessories and clothes you wear, how your voice sounds, how you act, how you carry yourself and what you like. The only thing that matters is how you feel. And while we're at it, yes, you may change your mind, but it still doesn't invalidate your identity in the moment. There was a time where I thought I was biromantic, but I dropped that because I wasn't, and nobody gave me shit for it. Because nobody should. Whatever you feel right now? Valid. Do you identify at a trans man but don't use he/him? Valid. Do you identify with more genders? Are you maybe a man only sometimes? Or are you more at the same time? All of that is valid, if you feel like a man in some aspect or on some part, you are one, if that's a label you want. If your gender makes more sense as a man, then yeah, you are one. Nothing else but how you feel matters.

I love you, and again, I'm here for you if you need that. I can only listen and draw a little something for you, but maybe that's enough for some. If it can help a bit, I can do it for you.

Anyone derailing this post will be blocked. I have no patience for derailers.

[silasbirchtree]

"billford is abusive" yeah. fucking obviously

here's the thing: literally no one is making content w the inherent idea that billford is a healthy relationship, or that they Should be together. but it is a genuinely interesting dynamic with tropes that have been enjoyed since literally forever: power imbalances, mortal/god, enemies/lovers etc. and part of the appeal of why their relationship is so interesting is delving into the underlying care/love between them. abusive relationships aren't constantly threatening or scary 24/7 - part of what makes them so easy to fall into is that you really do love and trust this person - which is a realistic portrayal!! the tragedy of it is an idea that has been loved for ages: watching a relationship grow and evolve, even knowing that it still ends badly!! it's interesting and heartbreaking and it is literally just basic antithesis.

this is like basic media literacy can we pleaaase be serious lmfao. it's fine if you don't fw the ship/dynamic but you don't have to come up with a moral high ground for it - and having a dynamic that is explicitly abusive, while also showing the victim to be able to heal with support, in mainstream kids media facilitates further recognition and discussion on abuse which is a good thing.

[trixxedheart]

It is amazing how the "people that love and uplift transwomen" website will instantly fucking maul a transwoman if she even remotely insinuate that using radfem rhetoric harms trans people

[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.

[gray-ace-space]

recently encountered a post where someone said "gender is fluid but sexuality isn't". (they were talking about bi lesbians.)

my first thought was: does that person, like. hear what they're saying? how can you explicitly hold two beliefs that are so logically inconsistent and not see it? how can you simultaneously think gender is this fluid and complex thing, but sexuality, much of which is defined around gender, is simple and stationary and its boundaries need policing?

but like, fuck, why even argue against it, right? there is no internal logic because there is no logical thought behind it. these are not genuine beliefs. this person is repeating what is currently acceptable in their (small) specific social circle. this is the same person who, a few years back, would be excluding nonbinary lesbians, but nonbinary lesbians are cool and normal on queer tumblr now, so they'll exclude bi lesbians instead, and not even pause to reflect on the difference.

oh, and if you read this and thought "these people don't even actually accept nb lesbians either", ding ding ding! because it's not a real, deep belief, that acceptance is extremely shallow and conditional. so as soon as someone is an nb lesbian in a way these people find odd (like being both a man and a lesbian) they will exclude them too and find a way to justify it.

why do we have to endlessly go through this cycle with queer identities. can we not? can we just not. i'm tired.

[penofwildfire]

Wee bit sick of the idea that Wu looks older/aged "worse" than Garmadon. Like god forbid a blond man grow really good facial hair I guess

[bull-shit-suji]

what really grinds my gears these days is how Some People seem to purposefully misconstrued dadbastian to fit their yaoi rhetoric

"erm acshually viewing sebastian as parental is more harmful because no father would act like that so you're basically teaching adolescents to view abusive parents as safe. look at me i'm so smart"

brother. we KNOW it's toxic. not a single person here is trying to claim their relationship is singularly parent/child. that's literally. the whole point. it's profoundly complicated and only resembles a found family trope the vaguest, most heinous way possible.

and the pedantry is absolutely insane coming from the "enjoying it for the complex dark nuances" and "fiction doesn't affect reality" group. yet they are somehow incapable of applying the same logic to an interpretation they disagree with.

[lacystar]

it wouldn't even matter if he did "shit on you behind your back" when you "never say anything back." the thing it absolutely boils down to is that you knew him when he was a minor and he has come forward saying that because of your influence and power, he felt uncomfortable around you. any POSSIBLE comeback other than an apology ends there. slur or no slur, any other response to that is bad. or, is it just that someone underage you've hurt in the past telling the truth about you only scares you when you know they have the public influence to protect themself?

[basket-of-radiants]

Why were you so disappointed by Rhythm of War?

This has been sitting in my askbox for years. I've taken several cracks at answering, only to get frustrated with the subject matter and burn myself out every time. I didn't like Rhythm of War. More than that, I didn't like it in a way that tainted my enjoyment of the entire series. And despite what it may seem, I don't actually enjoy discussing things which I don't like. I always want to talk from a place of good faith. Which is why now that my feelings towards the series are a little more positive, I think I can finally answer this.

I'm going to try to stay away from specific plotpoints and story beats for this post, because my goal isn't to nitpick (if for no other reason than it would take a week to write this post), I'm just looking to talk about my overall impressions. I think that might mean the only spoilers here will be structural? idk, if you haven't read Rhythm of War yourself then you should probably do that before looking for other people's opinions anyway. 

I liked Way of Kings when I first read it. I didn't love it at the time, but I liked it. Certainly enough to keep reading once I'd finished. One thing that made me a bit uncomfy, however, was the war against the Parshendi. They were this unknowable enemy which the book was not interested in knowing. An inhuman army. Their main purpose was to kill Kaladin's friends, or else be killed by Dalinar's armies. And yet the Parshendi, and the parshmen in the form of Shen, did show hints of personhood. And so it bothered me how Dalinar spoke so casually about how the Alethi had decimated their numbers, how the others used the war as a means to amass wealth and power. (It didn't bother me in a "this is a bad book" way but in a "these characters are bad people" way.)

One of my foibles as a reader is that when a book is very clearly treating one side of a conflict with more humanity, I tend to be a bit predisposed towards the other to account for that. And with the Alethi clearly being the invading party and superior military force, there was also some underdog favoritism. I didn't really like how the book treated the Parshendi. This is to say that going forward, the singers would be more important to me than any other through line.

So imagine my delight at reading Words of Radiance and meeting Eshonai, one of the Parshendi, who even gets her own point of view sections! They were no longer being treated as a faceless mass, we were getting to see things from their perspective as well. And it became plain to see the damage the Alethi had done to them. I couldn't really bring myself to root for Dalinar or really any of the humans against the listeners. I couldn't even bring myself to like most of these characters. I still enjoyed the book but once it became clear there wouldn't be a peaceful conclusion, let's just say that I wouldn't have wept for Dalinar and Adolin if Szeth had managed to off them. Like everyone in the book, I assumed that going forward all the parshmen would be turned into evil voidbringers in the everstorm and that the listeners were mostly dead. Except for Rlain, and Eshonai because I'd read or been told that book 4 would be Eshonai's book and thus had assumed she was fine. (Oathbringer spoilers, she was not fine.) So ultimately it was still a bit of a downer way to end the book. 

So imagine my delight at reading Oathbringer, where for the first time singers were being treated as people, full and real people, and where the human characters could no longer ignore or dismiss them. We met Khen and the others, common singers who were sympathetic and just wanted freedom from bondage. We see Venli grapple with the loss of her home. We see Leshwi and Moash connecting with and understanding one another. We learn of a history where singers were the original inhabitants of the planet. Parallel to this, Dalinar is having a truly excellent character arc about confronting one's past actions and acknowledging them to move forward and do better. I loved Oathbringer, for some years it was my favorite book, and I was excited as hell to see what came next. At the time, it seemed to me that there is a clear direction the story is going. Two books about needless war, and then a third where the main cast is forced to acknowledge the personhood of their enemies. This was so cool, all of my feelings from the previous installments were being validated, the characters were going to have to face what they've done in the past and outgrow their militaristic mindsets, I was so sure of that.

Imagine my disappointment when that does not even remotely resemble the direction the story went in Rhythm of War. RoW presented a clear, straightforward “us vs. them" narrative, where every character was totally fine with killing singers. Characters aligned with the singers were either flattened into wholly evil versions of themselves (Moash) or were expected to turn on their side in favor of the humans (Venli.) Because clearly there was no reason good people would be on the side that's all former slaves trying to stay free. Maybe there's some sort of accord or understanding between Navani and Raboniel that I might have found meaningful if the seeds of mutual understanding weren't already there in Oathbringer and then apparently ignored for a year by all the characters.

I have a lot of issues with how the listeners are handled in these books. (Here's some elaboration.) Following OB, I had thought that all my concerns were going to be addressed. Following RoW, I knew they never would be. 

Which is my main complaint, because that's the thread that matters most to me in this series.

I have a lot of other Things as well. Gonna just talk about a few big ones. 

One outsized source of disappointment that may seem a little petty, and which probably is, is that I felt mislead by the premise of the book. It had been announced that this book would center Venli and Eshonai, and I was unbelievably hyped for that. That did not really turn out to be the case. The purpose for their backstory chapters felt less about exploring them as people and contextualizing their arcs, and more about filling in gaps of world history. In the main plot, Venli was a POV character and she certainly played a role, but honestly not a very important one overall. To me she felt like a side character in her own book. I don't think it's controversial to say that the main character of RoW was Navani. A lot of people really like Navani and are happy about that. Unfortunately I'm not one of those people, and I found it all the more difficult to enjoy her when it felt like it was coming at the expense of some of my favorite characters. 

This particular gripe somewhat comes down to preference, obviously everyone prefers to read about characters they like more than those they don't, and it can go both ways. (For instance, on a craft/technical level RoW is probably the superior book to W&T, but I liked the latter a lot more because of my stupidly outsized attachment to Szeth and Nale.) But I do think there's something of a real criticism in how the book would rather focus on the feelings of a queen rather than those of a genocide survivor, and how the former's are given significantly more weight and import. It ties in with my main criticism, I think. 

And then there's how human/human racism had also been wholly cast aside as a plot point. Jasnah fixed slavery so that's resolved, and the only person who still cares about structural racism is the evil bad bad evil villain Moash/Vyre, who is now wholly irredeemable and who you're allowed to totally write off because he's sold his soul to Odium. I've already talked a lot about this. Other people have already talked about this, probably better than me. The writing was actually on the wall for me in OB, but again, RoW was when I fully accepted that this was never going to be addressed. 

There's something else that probably deserves its own discussion rather than being quickly tacked on at the end here, but here we are. This book changed how the series approaches war. 

In WoK, war was very clearly portrayed as a bad and inglorious thing. It was brutal, it was painful, those at the bottom died cruelly and unceremoniously and pointlessly while those at the top turned a profit. Every day was a new horror. The enemy were never evil, they were always just more people forced to go through the same thing. Through the next couple books, it felt to me that even if the characters had accepted war as necessary, there was still a tragedy to it. Conversely, in RoW (and W&T) war is basically a series of boss battles, in between which our protagonists can kill dozens of footsoldiers with barely a thought in the same way WoK had criticized.

Final note on all this, it sucks how we have no perspectives from the former-slaves-singers demographic. Those guys are really thrown under the bus, and seemingly get no self-determination now or ever. It was a glaring problem to me in RoW. Conscripted and enslaved humans and singers probably have just as much ground to form mutual understanding as a fused and a queen. (In fact they already had. In Oathbringer.)

In essence, RoW disappointed me because it left me with the distinct impression that none of the series's most important through lines (well, most important to me) were going to be resolved well. I liked W&T, but I haven't revised my opinion very much about the overall handling of these topics across the series. Maybe one of the reasons I was able to enjoy W&T so much more was because I no longer had such high expectations.

[melissa-titanium]

REFERENCING THIS POST

[jirai-dirt-2009]

Why do FULL GROWN ASS ADULTS feel the need to BULLY LITERALLY FUCKING MINORS WHO ARE COPING WITH TRAUMA????

I don’t give a shit what they did YOU SHOULDNT BULLY ANYONE TO THE POINT OF SUICIDE ESPECIALLY IF IT IS A MINOR

I’ve seen so many cases of them and it usually goes like this:

Kid has mental issues, kid makes art or something to cope with issues art may be a little bit problematic or suggestive but it clearly is an outlet, people twice kids age start harassing said kid, kid leaves internet or kills themself, same ppl who bullied kid act upset

If you do this you don’t actually care about children’s health, you only want someone to bully with consequences. And I say this with my full chest, if you have bullied someone to the point of self mutilation I HOPE YOU SLIT YOUR FUCKING THROAT WIDE OPEN

[sainteclectic]

and btw since I'm posting a lot of wholesoul content (intended as platonic but still), i do want to make it clear: my analysis of whole as a character is purely within the narrative of the story! while i am aware that behind the metaphors is whole is cj himself, that's never what i'm writing whole as in my work. basically I'm using the internal logic of the fiction (whole as viewed by the characters in the album) rather than the reason for the fiction existing (as a fictionalized version of chonny's mental state), just like i do with all the other characters. it's important to make that distinction when you're dealing with a piece of fiction so heavily based on the creator i think. I'll never use cj as a basis for how I write whole because I find that a little off putting tbh ^^;

basically I'm playing with touys. ok? play touys with me