my-monologues-to-my-brain - Tumblr blog

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

I look more and more like my mother with each year i grow, except when i'm angry. I'm reminded of it sometimes, of how our anger paints us so differently to the point that you could forget the similarities in our faces.

Hers doesn't change. Ever since i was a kid i knew not to trust her face, knew better than to assume i was in the clear just because she looked calm. You wouldn't find her anger there. She could be furious and keep the most peaceful expression on, always doing her best to not look at us with cruel eyes or clenched teeth, and so her face gave no warnings. To know when to run you had to listen to her voice: her tone always said more than the words did, and we listened for it like walking on egg shells.

Then there's me, the girl she raised. I am the opposite. Her voice reveals where mine hides. My voice, that same voice i lose control over when i'm happy, that gets so excited and loud and has to be reminded to come back down, that voice of mine turns so proper and calm when i'm angry. I was taught that, i know. Seems to be one of the first things i ever learned: i forfeit every right of mine if my anger makes me shout, if it gives me an attitude, so tone it down. Little ladies don't talk like that. Children ought not to talk back, and if they can tell i'm angry that makes me wrong and them right. At 25 i'm no longer a child but i'm still this, i still get angry in the way i was taught to. I knew since i was little to collar my voice, talk as if not hurt or mad, instead it was my eyes i could never silence.

They're my grandmother's eyes i've inherited, so i've been told a thousand times. Her eyes were blue and mine are brown but nevermind that, that's not what they mean when they say it. They mean my grandmother could slice a man into a thousand bleeding bits with her stare, that she had eyes that betrayed her feelings when faced with someone she would rather slap than engage in polite conversation, that her stare alone was enough to send my mother and all her siblings running. She didn't always speak, but her eyes spoke for her. "You have your grandmother's eyes" they say, and i know what they mean is "please put down the daggers you're throwing".

Mother, are these your eyes i've taken? Were you shamed into refusing them, same as i've been shamed into refusing my voice?

Mother, can i shout? Can i have permission?

Mother, were you to have a granddaughter, would i shame her into refusing her anger? Would she have my eyes? Would she have your voice?

Would she have enough?

Mother, i can't shout. You can't hear me, mother, can you?

I look more and more like my mother with each year that passes. I hear her anger even when i don't see it and wonder if it hurts her, if it eats away at her to hide just because she thinks she has to. I wonder if she'd be as angry if she could just be. I wonder, would i be as angry if i could just be?

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

"I shall always love the maiden who ran away"

"And i the faraway prince"

Into the Woods gives for so much discussion -like damn, though that's hardly a hot take- but right now i'm stuck on the last goodbye between Cinderella and her Prince. It scratched an itch i couldn't quite name the first time i saw it and continues to scratch said itch now.

My first introduction to Into the Woods was the movie in 2014 (say what you will), which later had me looking up and finding the 1991 recorded stage performance. All this had the rather obvious result of me repeatedly listening to the soundtracks ever since, though i will admit i didn't actually re watch either version of the play for a long time afterwards. Watching them now i have a lot of thoughts, but the one that probably stuck out the most to me specifically was the whole deal with Cinderella and the Prince.

Into the Woods is hardly the only version of Cinderella to have her and the titular prince split up by the end, and i'd argue it's low hanging fruit when making a parody/deconstruction of the fairy tale: you mean to tell me that marriage to someone you just met is unlikely to be your ideal love story? yeah, we all know that one, shocking they don't make it in the long run. But here the story doesn't just go for that. In a soft way, the story validates whatever love there was in the beginning while still maintaining the need for the separation, and i honestly love that. It fills a space in storytelling i wasn't fully aware i was missing.

And yeah, this isn't new. And yeah, this isn't the only piece of media where you can find it. But i don't think i'm off the mark saying that this isn't a form love is often allowed to take in media generally. Which is a shame. There's a special type of melancholic beauty in knowing that you no longer are whoever you were back when this love worked, knowing that the love was there even if it isn't anymore and kindly letting it go. By the end of this final encounter between Cinderella and the Prince there's no doubt, no hopes for a second try, but Into the Woods allows them to close their history with the knowledge that what they had was real in it's own way. Into the Woods lets it's characters make peace with the fairytale. No, it wasn't in the cards to get a happy ever after, but the maiden who ran away and the faraway prince were perfect for each other and that doesn't lose validity just because Cinderella and the Prince are no longer those versions of themselves.

I feel like we often forget. We often feel like an end means to burn bridges and negate whatever the past holds, but sometimes it's as simple as the fact that people change. People change and sometimes the conection breaks, but a happier present doesn't need to erase a happy past. And i like that idea, i really do.

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

You ever think of how Laurent acted like he was amused by painfully killing his horse cause he was ashamed and angry at the fact that he did it to protect Damen, all while in the midst of the shock of his uncle straight up attempting to murder him for the first time? Of how it was easier to play it nonchalant and make Damen be disgusted with him than to face the fact that he had chosen to protect him? Easier than to face the fact that his uncle was going for the kill starting now? Cause i do. Boy, i do.

Fuck me but i keep thinking of this. When reading Captive Prince and getting to that part i was genuinely as sick to my stomach as Damen was, and i truly couldn't see how any development of Laurent's character or of his dinamic with Damen was ever gonna get rid of that bitter taste in my mouth of He brutally killed his horse. He brutally killed his horse and even if he didn't enjoy it, he didn't even mind it. Cause even if the horse is "his toy", even if being rich enough to get replacements of anything with no trouble has you unworried about it, it's still a big leap from that to mutilating an animal with no empathy for their pain. Knowing that we weren't meant to think this of Laurent forever, knowing that Damen wouldn't, i figured the story would have Laurent gain some humanity, get him to a point where he would no longer do something like that, and i was dreading it. As Damen in this scene, i thought it too cruel to ignore, even as i knew the plot would walk away from it.

Boy oh boy was i wrong. And not even wrong in a way i could've guessed.

Props to C.S.Pacat, writing a character with actions so hateable and with attitudes to said actions that really make him dig his heels in, and then humanizing him not through change but by revealing that we had not in fact seen what was truly going on. Damen doesn't fully react the way he does to the killing of the horse until Laurent's words, what he did to the animal being terrible but not outstanding until Laurent's attitude tells him and us that Laurent couldn't care less. But the point is, we assume wrong. We don't come to root for Laurent cause he has changed, we just realise that what we saw as cruelty was something more, that everything when it comes to Laurent is not what it seems. It's scattered through out the three books, small and big discoveries of a truth we weren't aware of.

We don't learn until later, in Prince's Gambit, that the incident with the horse was the first time that the Regent attempted to murder Laurent. It's not until Damen and Laurent have to come to a point in which they are answering truthfully to the questions asked by the other, even if they're still both lying by omission when they need to- like Damen answering with the truth about Jokaste but skiping his own identity, or Laurent admitting to being caught off guard when his uncle poisoned his horse but skipping over their twisted dinamic leading to it that had him unsuspecting of an actual attempt on his life. And of course Damen has questions, the poison that had the horse fractious and covered in sweat not being what had killed it in the end.

A lot of things reframe the way the reader looks at Laurent through out the trilogy, the biggest one yet to come at this point, not to be revealed until Kings Rising that Laurent was perfectly aware of Damen being Damianos of Akielos since the very beggining, but this thing with the horse did something to me. Call it what you want, selective caring or whatever else, but i'm the type of person to find in movies animal deaths often more terrible than people's (god bless whoever started doesthedogdie.com, my anxiety goes through the roof when i'm worried about the dog to the point where i stop focusing on the actual movie)- maybe it's the fact that you can't really slap human morality onto animals in order to categorize them as Deserves To Die or Doesnt Deserve To Die the way we kinda do with people, but i think it's about how a person can understand the way an animal won't, the way there's no final telling them they are loved, or a way to make them not die afraid or feeling betrayed by loved ones or feeling like it's their fault. Call it what you want, but violence and killing animals hits as something specially devoid of empathy, even when the same action as applied against a person is already severely lacking in empathy (and we sure get a good taste of that with the themes of slavery in the trilogy). And so, Laurent. I didn't skip through the violence towards Damen, only half explained when we think that at the very least it's directed at him this way because he is a reminder of Auguste dying by akielon hands and at worst simple sociopathic cruelty, either way violence that can't be retaliated against since it's the violence of a master against their slave. But it still get's accentuated by having Laurent casually and painfully killing his horse. It is, in a way, the most on the nose representation of the violence of royalty: Laurent kills a being so loyal to him that they wont even break away while in pain, so beyond understanding that there isn't a choice to be made, all conception of the world defined by their relation to Laurent and their inherent obedience to him, and then he doesn't even have the humanity to care about what he has done. It was what i thought was a nail in the coffin of my sympathy for Laurent, a display that i wasn't all too sure i'd be able to walk away from.

It fits, where it's revealed in the story. By then, we have already begun to realise that we lacked vital context when it comes to Laurent, to his real character, and to his actual treatment of people. The horse incident starts to look somewhat out of place and then it's confirmed to us that it is. And, kill me why don't you, Laurents attitude after the hunt makes that much more sense.

Laurent comes back after having killed his horse in a bloody mess, and having done so not only while struggling with this charming new development in his uncle but while knowing he was covering up the murder attempt to protect either Damen or any akielon slave whose framed involvement was likely to drag Damen with them. And he is fucking pissed about it. I don't know how he wouldn't be, knowing what i know now. By the time of the hunt, of the deal with Torveld with the akielon slaves, Laurent is no longer trying to get Damen straight up killed like he was in the beginning, he is starting to see something with honor and rooted in good where he was sure to only find bloodlust and brutality and the reason his brother is dead. But protecting Damen, choosing to protect Damianos of Akielos Princekiller, is quite a leap foward. I'd argue its the first time where maintaining Damen there requieres not just tolerating him without trying to maim him, but action. It's the point where Laurent has to admit to himself what he had avoided admitting until then: Damen is no longer this killer of legend, this myth that he has built in his mind ever since Auguste's death and that he has prepared himself to kill in rightful retaliation. Laurent chooses a course of action and in that has to admit that he is willing to protect Damen, the man who killed his brother, cause that is what's right, cause he has found in Damen someone not just guilty, not just a murderer, but also someone deserving of more than what he is about to get in the crossfire of this conflict between Laurent and the Regent. So he does what he does, he kills his horse and makes sure to maintain a casually arrogant demeanor when facing his uncle, the interaction of two men who know that the other is aware of what has been done but won't say it out loud... to then face the scapegoat he's pointed all his ire towards all these years, knowing he has now upended his ways for him. Yes Laurent is fucking pissed. He won't backtrack any of it, it's not his way, but he can distance himself from what he's done by acting like this role he parades with in court when he needs his defenses up, play it up and watch Damen's disgust while he distances himself too. He won't backtrack, but he will play up the image he knows he has, to Damen and to others, he will revel in the illusion of this rather sadistic glee, and going over it again it strickes me so much as a self destructive response that it tears at my heart.

So much of Laurent strickes me as self destructive upon second read, and has me honestly in awe of Pacat's storytelling. With context it's clearer and clearer how Laurent's way of interacting with people and his way of making decisions and planning ahead is a result of abuse, but also and more specifically the result of this self destructive instinct caused by the abuse. It goes from blaming himself for that first attempt on his life while recounting it to Damen, saying he provoked his uncle into it, to keeping everything and everyone at arms lenght for what is more than just safety reasons. He might want what things could be like, but why ever allow himself a normality he doesnt he doesn't deserve? A normality that doesn't fit someone who will never clear the stain of what's past?

Laurent came back from the hunt knowing the terms of this hidden war with his uncle had changed, seeing it as something brought upon him by himself, his fault, his failing, and having admitted to himself his failing with the Princekiller, his failing to do justice to Auguste by extending more mercy to this murderer than had been afforded to his brother, an unforgivable fault cause what kind of brother chooses the killer over his murdered kin, to hell with what is fair or right. But Laurent doesn't backtrack any of it, it's not his way. His way is foward, unyielding and proud, back to the hunting party. Into a death trap at border duty. Into a death sentence at the Kingsmeet.

And i guess the difference for Laurence ended up being the same as it for the rest of us cause, don't we all survive our self destruction by being followed when proudly marching foward? He wasn't alone in the end. No one is.

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

Re reading aftg and im just. Broken. These god damn twins. Neil rightly points out they can barely stand the sight of each other on a good day, but they still fiercely care about each other and only upon re read did it fully hit me. And, boy, did it fucking hit me. These stubborn, traumatized, mean idiots. They would kill for each other and they do, but they dont understand each other one fucking bit and now i cant unsee how easily they couldve given up on each other but refused to.

Andrew cared for Aaron as much as he ever did even when Aaron hated him for keeping his promise: even when Aaron hated Andrew and assumed that he killed Tilda for his own reasons, despite the fact that Andrew had done so to keep the promise he made to Aaron, to protect him. We know how angry Andrew is about that. The first time Neil sees a glimpse of the intesity and fury that Andrew hides behind his indiference is when the twins briefly argue in the stadium and Andrew almost casually confesses to killing Tilda in front of all the foxes. Aaron denies Andrew having done that for him, and when Andrew says that just because Aaron decided to forget about that promise that didnt mean he wasnt going to keep it, and that fuck him for expecting anything else, theres real anger in his eyes. To him its obvious. Hes been clear about it. He keeps his promises, hes brutal not because of some sociopathic inability to care but because he cares fiercely. But Aaron doesnt understand that. Or him. And they dont talk about it. But as much as Andrew despises him for that, he never stops caring.

And Aaron. Boy. Reading the story knowing where we were heading allowed me to see a lot of things i hadnt fully taken in on first read, and Aarons arc is one of the many things that hit different. Hes so sure that his brother not only doesnt care, but is in fact incapable of caring. And it doesnt change a fucking thing. He hates Andrew, but he never gives up on caring for him as fiercely as Andrew cares for him, and it fucking breaks me. Hell of a thing, really. To never fully withdraw, to care that much, with that intesity, all while being so completely certain that it was a one way street. To Aaron, Andrew would never care. Not really. To Aaron, there was no changing Andrew or his sociopathic tendencies. And it didnt change a fucking thing. He made peace with that fact, in a way: knowing that Andrew would never feel their dinamic the way he did, it didnt change the fact that Aaron cared. Through hate and while never shortening the distance between them, he cared. He kills Drake in a way that rightfully mirrors Andrew killing Tilda. And he is one of only people in the entire series to actually look out for Andrew, concerned about Andrew being in danger and not just being a danger to others, which is why he sets to confront Neil to check what is going on between the two. The only other people who we see being aware that Andrew is in fact human enough to be hurt are Wymack, Bee and, of course, Neil. Everyone knows Andrew can physically hold his own in a fight, and most of them do not even consider how someone could hurt Andrew, even after Drakes abuse, and their obliviousness is not there out of malice but its there none the less. Aaron not only cares enough about Andrew to get himself up in his and Neils bussiness (though in a much smarter way than Nicky, who tried to be nossy and almost got stabbed for his troubles cause of course he did), but he also is concerned and suspicious when he learns about their relationship cause he actually thinks of protecting Andrew. Aaron confronts Neil in a purposely cruel way, and he has to know the likelihood of that ending with him being punched by Neil (as he in fact did) and possibly Andrew, hes not dumb, but he goes for it and very especifically evaluates Neils reaction. Aaron does like being a dick to Neil, but thats not something he would just do for the fun of it. He doesnt even need to figure out Neils stand on the relationship in terms of getting Andrew off of his and Katelyns backs: that hinges on Andrews view of the relationship, not Neils. They havent yet fixed their issues, the twins dinamic is still shaky at best, but Aaron not only cares about Andrew, he cares about Andrew in a way barely anyone thinks of caring for him.

They both had enough reasons to give up on each other. They wouldnt drop out of each others lives entirely, they couldnt, being in the same university, in the same team, with promises of sticking with each other until graduation, yet they still couldve given up on every other level. But they didnt.

Why stick with someone who cant be reached?

Why stick with someone who doesnt think theres enough of you to be reached?

I think of Neils words to Kevin. You just need to be more afraid of letting go than you are of holding on.

After all they went through, the twins still knew they didnt want to let go of each other.

Its easy to see strained relationships and just cut ties. Sometimes theres not enough to save. Sometimes distance is the only way to heal. I think of Nicky and his parents. I think of Kevin and Jean. But sometimes theres healing after rock bottom. Sometimes theres enough will on both parties to mend whats broken and build something better. Sometimes theres enough people around you willing to stand with you and remind you of that will. And so we heal.

Somehow, we heal.

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

If there's something i remember about the first time i ever watched West Side Story, it's just how much the scene of Anita in Doc's store hit me. It was the 1961 movie, with Rita Moreno as Anita, and part of the heaviness i remember feeling is tied to her performance though i know it's about more than that. In a story with 3 main character deaths, 3 violent deaths, it's not the violence in those deaths what hit me the most. I didn't cry watching the rumble. I didn't cry watching Tony die, nor Maria's breakdown afterwards. I cried watching Anita's pain while she spit out the words.

"You tell that murderer that Maria's never going to meet him. You tell him that Chino found out about them and shot her. She's dead".

It's been years in between then, watching the story unfold for the first time, and now, watching Spielberg's adaptation. I still find myself caught in Anita's pain. She loves Maria to the point of agreeing to help the man that killed Bernardo, she loves Maria so much that she decides to help the man who she would rather see dead, all while deep in mourning. No time to ease the pain. She decides to help anyway, for love. And her love is met with violence. So much violent cruelty that we watch her break, right there, in front of us.

"She's dead".

The 2021 film is different in many places, including Anita's scene at Doc's, but i loved it. This scene in particular is a good example of how i feel many of those differences complement the original point and add to my love for the story. Like by having the girls from the Jets there. It hit me like hell, watching it. Not because this scene is better than it's former version, not because it one ups it. It hit me like hell because that pain, that visceral fear that struck me watching Anita walk in the store in the 1961 version -the first time that i watched it and every single time i've watched it since-, that feeling struck me all over again, and i got to see it reflected in the faces of the other girls too. In their faces, in their panic. And in their cries. I felt the air choking me, that fear, that god damned fear cause you know. Fucking hell you know. And i knew they felt it too.

It ocurred to me that perhaps that's the thing that separates hate from violence. It's empathy that stops hate from turning violent.

The girls are no exception from the hatred that stains the story. They yell at Anita for speaking spanish, they throw insults just like the Jets. How dare you be here. You don't belong here. I do. And i will tell you just how much you don't have a right to even look me in the eye right now. The divide is there, the hate is there, just the same. They don't second guess any of it until they see it in the boys faces, until they hear the change in their voices and their words. They know what comes next the same way that i know it. And the fear is no longer in just my lungs, no longer in just my throat. It's then that it's not just my fear. It's ours. When the camera frame catches them, i see my fear in their eyes and i know. I just know.

And it would be naive to think that this moment will change everything. That's not how people work. The girls won't change their minds right then and there, and the hatred that has stained them and everything around them their whole lifes won't disappear just like that. That hatred we inherit, and feed into, and make our own either actively or passively, it must be unlearned. But this is how change starts. It starts with empathy.

Empathy is what stops hate from turning violent. So many have asked if it was really necessary to have another West Side Story, but watching it i do think it makes sense to retell the stories, to bring front and center the tales we have already told. And with them, the empathy we find in them. And we hope if we can't heal this hate right now, we can at least stop it's violence until we do.

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

I know that we as a collective seem to be done arguing about disney princesses, but i can't stop thinking about something one of my friends said to me. We were talking about childhood favorites and stuff and he was actually very surprised that Cinderella was my favorite princess while growing up.

"Why do you think that's weird?"

"Idk, you've never been very cinderella. More of a punch-my-every-problem kind of person?"

"Ok, fair. You can't punch every problem, though"

"She still could have done something, you know. I guess i don't really imagine you just taking all that"

I can't stop thinking about it, all of it. For one, i started thinking about Cinderella as a story. I liked it when i was younger and i still like it now. And i know that saying that Cinderella just waited around to be rescued is, more than anything else, the way that this story has been oversimplified over time to justify hating it. The story has a point, even if people decide to ignore it cause they would prefer a different story.

But it also got me thinking about myself. My friend is right about his general description of me: i do tend to choose to punch my problems away whenever that's an option, and i have been that way for as long as i can remember. A good part of me growing up has been about learning to recognize when i'm right to be up in arms and when that's actually neither a good nor an effective way of solving my problems. Thinking about it, he was right when he said i'm quite different to Cinderella. Maybe it actually didn't make much sense.

Yet it does. It had to, i conected to Cinderella because of something. I could safely rule out our personalities, ok, but what about the rest?

I realized i don't remember ever getting frustrated with her, i that had a habit of getting frustrated with characters. I was always so irritated with Aladdin for lying about things he was so obviously gonna get caught for, and Tarzan for being naive while taking decisions, to name a few examples; i loved those movies, and Tarzan was my overall favorite disney movie, but i still felt a distance with the characters cause that's what happens when i feel enough of a disconect with them as to end up frustrated with them. And Cinderella? Well, Cinderella didn't fight her way out of that house and that seemed to be the main reason why she got called passive, but that didnt frustrate me. Why?

1. Because, i realized, i didnt see her as passive. Her not walking out didnt irritate me cause i could see that wasnt the solution. Now as an adult i also know that in abusive situations it often isnt an option to just leave, be it because of money, lack of a support system, or a place to go. Now as an adult i also know that in abusive situations the biggest obstacle might be less about the means to get away and more about the psicological damage being endured. But even then, not even 10 years old, i still knew that wasnt a true way out. It didnt give her a chance at a happier life, not really. Even i, a child, knew why she didnt leave her home, the house she had lived her entire life in, and the only family she had left. Makes me wonder about the people arguing that Cinderella should have "done something", really.

Ok, so i didn't see the main "difference" between us as her being passive or dumb. Her problems werent so much problems she could punch, even if i would've been way more up for punching the step sisters (bad idea and all, i never said my temper never got the better of me through the years). I now know why i didn't clash with who Cinderella was made to be. But what made me feel a conection?

2. I won't act like the happy ending wasn't a part of it. Is a great thing to believe, isn't it? That you could hit rock bottom and still have a good thing coming your way. And with that:

3. Kindness is rewarding. You can be kind for kindness sake, help whenever you can help, love just because it feels good to have friends. And in the end your reward might be the good feeling that comes with being kind but also the way in which those friends will want to help you when you need them. I liked the way that Cinderella was isolated from everything that existed beyond their house, but she wasn't alone. No one is ever alone, and we survive because of it.

4. And then, well i guess you can aim to one same thing for different reasons. Cinderella remains herself and remains kind despite the abuse, and there's bavery and beauty in that. If i had to guess based on her character, i'd say that it mattered to her because the hate of others will never be stronger than her will to love, and they wanted to take that away but simply couldn't. For me that's a satisfying ending cause i'm petty, and seeing shitty people shoot themselves in the foot trying to break the hero and failing to do so, having to watch them unbroken and happy, it's goddamn beautiful.

I stand by what i told my friend. Cinderella is a good story, and i really really like it. I suspect that those who have really strong opinions against it should try and watch it again, and that maybe they should coment it with someone with even a slightly different perspective. We could all benefit from doing that from time to time.

[my-monologues-to-my-brain]

The more i think about it the more sense it makes to me:

The asshats so obsessed with trans people having to broadcast that they're trans when flirting/being flirted with and accusing them of deceiving people otherwise are the same people who don't understand consent, and both problems are linked.

I was thinking (like i sometimes do) and questioning why i feel about things the way i do (as we all should do every so often). The first thing i was ever somewhat sure about myself when i realized i wasn't straight was that i couldn't straight up rule out any genders when thinking of who i liked, and that's still very much my experience, but i keep figuring myself out and have conversations like this one with my head. Some guys words were replaying in my mind, nothing very original, the same bullshit of acting threatened by trans women (all in the spirit of justifying violence against them, cause why else do these people ever bring it up if not) cause he was clearly being preyed on by this hypothetical hot chick who was pretending to be a real woman just for him to find she has penis. Like i said, the same old bullshit. As if some army with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written on their foreheads were gonna force him to have sex with this hypothetical girl who hasn't yet flirted with him.

Damn, dude, way of being an asshole for no good reason. What's the big deal, even? It's not like she's gonna force herself on him just cause he flirted back.

Oh. Oh, ok. Now that's why.

How did i just now think about this? This is just another episode on Men: afraid of being treated the same way they treat women. Kind of obvious, honestly.

These are the same people who would feel entitled to r*pe their date if by the end of the night she said no, and then refused to call it r*pe, at most saying she needed some convincing, cause of course she wanted it. Why would she have gone out with me if she didn't. She knew i wanted to go out to have sex. She should have known better. You can't just say no when you're already there. You wanted it. You can't back away now.

The same asshats who keep harrassing everyone who dares to tell them to respect others, that take full offense of the signs that read IF THEY DIDN'T SAY NO, THEY DIDN'T SAY YES EITHER and fuck you, consent is not revocable, what makes you think that you feeling uncomfortable gives you the right to deny me the sex i want from you, those same asshats are so terrified of being on the recieving end of that violence, of someone else doing that to them, that they justify more and more violence in the name of that fear. They refuse to admit that their actions are violent and in the same breath turn around and call for beating and murdering those that they feel could act the exact same way towards them. Cause, of course, they always knew those actions were violent. It's just different when the power shifts, or when they think it will.

The way consent works for them (the way they validate the consent of others, cause the other ways don't allow for them to walk over others), if they unknowingly make a move on someone with a penis, they will get treated with just the same violence they have had no problem with treating others with.

I'd argue that their toxic view of consent is what mostly feeds the transphobia that makes too many of them feel like they are within their rights to murder trans people. Cause it's their own violence that threatens them, cause it was never about us. Just about them.