sevrence

[sevrence]

"iMark doesn't owe oMark anything!!!"

Even if they weren't the same person, oMark is the only reason iMark knew how to bang. You think a two-year-old man could find the clit on HIS OWN instinct? Gimme a break

[sevrence]

Regarding the comparisons of being severed to having DID, with innies as alters:

If someone who has DID identifies with the show in any way and wants to share/discuss that, all power to them ofc. They deserve to take and hold onto all the positivity they can wring from a given work of fiction, like anyone else. However, because DID is so easy to get misinformed about, I am of the mind that Severance shouldn't be assigned the political/cultural weight of "representation" from a wider audience, and that it shouldn't be taken to imply any irl hostility towards a whole community when a viewer challenges the individuality of innies.

The origins of DID alters and innies are extremely different, and it's because of this that DID alters (excepting "fragments") are way more like "their own people" than innies. From the research I've done in the past (lmk if something's outdated, but a lot of my knowledge comes from forums/threads where people talk about their experience), DID disrupts the early metacognitive development that consolidates a child's thoughts, emotions, and memories into a single consciousness and identity. It is not that uncommon for a system of alters to be unable to identify a "core" personality that gets analogized to an outie. A system has multiple consciousnesses (wow what a word), hence the ability of alters to interact with each other in the "headspace", and even "co-front".

Meanwhile, a person who passed the early metacognitive milestones as a "singlet" should theoretically remain as such even if they undergo something like severance. Severence is a (self-)harmful choice made by an adult, whereas dissociation is a survival mechanism that merely persists into adulthood.

With DID, there is an important distinction between integration (note the lack of a "re") and a very elusive, often unwanted "final fusion". For a "singlet", that distinction does not exist, because our brains develop in a way that predisposes us to feel like whatever thought crosses our heads is of our own making, which can be extremely disturbing. It is the opposite of healing for us to give real estate to an egodystonic presence, and an egodystonic presence (like thoughts of infidelity and not loving your wife) would theoretically be the extent of either Mark's "individuality" once they've completed reintegration.

[sevrence]

If someone who suffers regular nightmares wakes up without remembering them, are they cruelly subjecting an "innie" to a life of torture? If they learn to lucid dream, is that murder? Is that condemning someone to oblivion? No. Some of y'all are really getting on my nerves with your "media literacy" takes about viewers not seeing iMark as his "own" person, which is different from not seeing him as a person at all.

To me, the unethical thing about what Lumon does has nothing to do with innies' "creation". Severance is unethical because consent is ongoing, and the idea that workers can't revoke consent if they are in "innie" mode is horrific.

Even in-show debates about the severance procedure are polluted by the acceptance of a core Lumon lie as a given: one person can be separated into two via the severance procedure. The board members are so dedicated to this lie that they themselves believe it in season 1 to the point of refusing to entertain the idea of reintegration in the face of Cobel's evidence.

Burt and others like him are willing to be complicit in killing because they were told that if their body dies as an innie, an innocent version of their soul can go to heaven. It's the natural extreme of Burt's hollow mentality that he wasn't complicit because he has no memories to confirm what Lumon did with his passengers. Helly is desperate to fight for her "life" because she wants to believe that as an innie, she's innocent of Helena's crimes against the people she's befriended.

Slandering oMark as unempathetic and/or entitled compared to iMark is so ridiculous. iMark's fear about a reintegrated mind being "less him" is unfounded, and contradicts his own sense of self. If memories are what make a person, that means iMark is indeed less of a person than oMark, worthy of only one letter in a surname with five. But memories are not what make a person.

Consciousness is what makes a person, and there has only ever been one Mark Scout. If/when he reintegrates, nothing will be lost whether he's on the severed floor at the time or not. He will have the full context he has always deserved. He will have answers about Petey's fate and the nature of their friendship. He will remember seeing Gemma without loving her on the severed floor the same way he will remember seeing Gemma without loving her on that campus where they first met. He will remember loving Helly, hating Helena, and not being able to tell them apart. He will finally be able to empathize with himself.

[sevrence]

Assertive female character or celebrity in a relationship with a man: *exists*

(mostly queer) fans: She pegs LOLOLOL feminism

Perpetuating the conflation of penetration with dominance is sexist AF actually.

Which is also why, imo, top/bottom should be used to mean active/passive (in any sexual context another than when "bottom" punnily refers to *your* bottom, which is how it originated if I remember correctly.) This would make riding topping unless a strap is involved. If you're doing all the work, they're not penetrating you, YOU ARE ENGULFING THEM. WE SHEATH SWORDS; WE DON'T SWORD SHEATHS. TOP THAT JOYSTICK.

People clowning straight and "straight" people for "incorrectly" "appropriating" top/bottom need to recognize that this usage isn't just the result of the internet. Bi and pan men don't, and shouldn't have to, gatekeep terminology that expresses what they want (to be passive or active) in a way that that their female partners understand.

[sevrence]

Broke: Innies are whole people just like outies, and Innie Mark deserves a happy life with Helly because he already saved Gemma and she means nothing to him

Woke: Neither innies nor outies are whole people. During Mark S's wellness check with Ms. Casey, he sculpted a tree, like the one Gemma supposedly crashed into and died. Gemma is Mark S's sadness, and him turning his back on her to go be with Helly is not an assertion of his own "wholeness". It parallels Mark Scout "autonomously" severing in the first place, and wanting to get rid of his innie once he gets Gemma back (he harped on autonomy to that protester kid in the first season with the same energy y'all bring in regards to Mark S's existence.)

It's all an attempt to escape pain.

Mark S is Mark Scout's sadness, and Mark Scout can't just let his innie go. In turn, Mark S can't just let Gemma go. They will need to reintegrate and remember each other's pain to be a whole person again. Reintegrated Mark will have to reckon with his own torture (which Mark Scout is avoiding), and he will have to reckon with the fact that he was tricked into participating in the torture of his beloved wife as opposed to an acquaintance (which Mark S is avoiding). People give Mark Scout crap about benefiting from his innie's labor while being dismissive of him, but it's Mark S that benefits from the empathetic and positive traits Mark Scout fostered in himself via relationships that Mark S doesn't care about.

Also, as awesome and tragic Helena/Helly is as a character, they are ultimately one person and amnesia doesn't erase culpability for crimes. Gemma more than deserves to curbstomp that body, take her man back, and burn Lumon to the ground. No more Mrs. Fridge Wife, no more WOC fakeout soulmate (the showrunners already did that with Alexa; no need to do it again.)