#^i dont think. people have friends like they claim they do. that simply cannot be real. thats like. movie shit.

[inkats]

why am i not vibing.

[somewhereincairparavel]

Dam being a Jason Grace stan in the fandom is a fucking tragedy lol. Not only do we have to deal with him being screwed over by uncle Rick, but we have to deal with the fandom hating him aswell lol, i feel like Jason Grace slander wouldnt affect me half as much if his character had gotten a happy ending. I just saw an Instagram reel about a "character's povs you skipped through'' and the comments were flooded with Jason Grace just like I'd expected lol 😭 like blud has no mercy there.

It took all my will power to not defend him under a comment that called him "homophobic", I cannot believe that comment had 4 people agreeing aswell like- did we read the same books? Did they completey skip over the coming out chapter in HOH where jason was literally the first person to tell Nico not to be ashamed of liking guys and that no one would judge him? the guy is legit one of the least problematic characters and does nothing mean, how is he even CONSIDERED in the homophobic area anyway? (he also gets slandered for being "too nice" aswell lol) so seeing him wind up in such a contradictory accusation just screams tone deaf and anti-jason bias tbh, Nico legit said he considered jason as one of his first friend/supporter (apart from his sisters) in TSATS :') its like ppl keep throwing in these false stuff bc they WANT to find a reason to hate him. (dont take this as me saying you are not allowed to hate him or something cuz that would be quite hypocritical of me, wouldnt it? i just hate that ppl make up problematic hcs of him and push them as canon, it would taint non-reader's perception of him because of false info, what if a non reader stumbled across that comment and immediately figured that jason was indeed homophobic even when he wasn't?)

Also, can we please normalize NOT judging a person for their character preferences? I like jason and i am aware that its an unpopular take, but that doesnt make me any less of a pjo fan. The fandom seems pretty aggressive when we dont follow the popular opinion. i have seen multiple ppl pretend to hate jason simply bc they WANT to fit in and "look cool", since the fandom has a tendency to use Jason as a punching bag to insult like "he's a knockoff percy" or "he thinks he's so cool but he's not". or smth, so when people do claim jason as a favourite, a huge chunk of the fandom start belittling them and go like "really? Out of all characters, why jason?" Or "Percy/Leo is better, I don't understand why you like Jason"

okay thanks for coming to my ted talk. i am aware that i was yapping here. unfair Jason Grace slander does that to me.

[themostradicalconceptussy]

Quick reminder in light of the recenent situation with Neil Gaiman

You can (and should) condemn Mr Gaiman without condoning TERFs. At the end of the day, regardless of if the report is biased by the nature of the political leanings of its reporters, we as leftist feminists (or what I see most of us self describing as anyway) preach about believing victims first and yet some of you refuse to because you disagree politically with victims. We have no evidence that this is a smear campaign, and you are all for believing victims until its a guy you have a parasocial Tumblr relationship with. Neil Gaiman is not your friend. He's not your buddy Neil, he's a random man in his 60s you've (most likely at least) never met in your fucking life. You do not know him, so don't delude yourself to think you do.

If you love or hate trans people, SA is SA, abuse is abuse. Whether he was, at best, an irresponsible BDSM partner who misused his status as a writer, or, at worst, an outright abuser, or something in between, he is not defensible here. It is of course a complex situation, and not clean cut, but we need to practice what we fuckin preach.

If we don't believe or value the experiences of victims of abuse, or other forms of crime, based on their political beliefs, that is discrimination, and contradicts everything that the community he had cultivated on Tumblr claimed to stand for. If a conservative woman was beating abused, she's still a victim and we, even as staunchly leftist progressives should listen to her, no? You don't have to agree with everyone's opinions to acknowledge their plight.

At the end of the day, what has happened is wrong, and his response was half arsed bullshit that reflected the reality presented in the allegations, and did nothing but serve to make him look worse, much like the earlier situation this year with Wilbur Soot that you may have seen me reblogging about. Bad people are bad people, and the proof is in the pudding, in this case the half arsed responses that serve only as unintentional admissions of guilt.

As for the nature of the publication, I imagine as a heavily radfem anti-trans page, it was more than happy to be the first to break the news of the bad character of a prominent trans activist in television/literature, as it fits their "TRANS = ABUSER" narrative. I do not deny that. However, the victims themselves, as far as I can tell, are evidently former fans, who present actual evidence as confirmed by Mr Gaiman's statements, and thus we know this wasn't, at least on their end, done as a TERFism motivated career assassination. If the publication took this under the guise of causing ill repute for TIRFs and progressive politics, we cannot prove that, and it does not negate the nature of what has occurred.

I'm not here to argue with TERFs, or anyone else, about the nature of gender. That's not what I want to incite, I simply want to acknowledge the glaring hypocrisy from certain people in this online space. A victim of abuse that is a radfem is still a victim, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I can acknowledge that, because guess what? Me disagreeing with someone doesn't make them subhuman dirt that doesn't have rights. What I'm really saying in this part is, don't bring gender politics into the reblogs, I do NOT want that and I will simply block anyone trying to incite needless arguments with me or anyone else.

TLDR; BELIEVE VICTIMS AND DONT BE SELFISH DICKHEADS WHO PRIORITISE THEIR OWN ENJOYMENT OF MEDIA OVER REPERCUSSIONS FOR ARSEHOLES AND CRIMINALS BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THE WANKER IS YOUR BESTIE AFTER HE REBLOGGED YOU ONCE. WHERE THOSE INVOLVED STAND ON GENDER POLITICS DOESNT CHANGE THE NATURE OF UNRELATED IMMORAL/CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR THEY INSTIGATED/WERE VICTIM TO.

[miiilowo]

what's endogenic if you don't mind me asking? i have seen that as a dni in a lot of blogs and idk what it is

note: this does get sort of ranty as i explain, sorry about that. im not upset with You or anything im just upset about the subject in general

its a term that describes systems (e.g. DID or other similar things; when theres a bunch of personalities living in the same brain) that formed without trauma being the inciting factor in them being plural. Typically, systems are formed because some traumatic incident occurred (usually in early childhood) that caused their brain to sort of section itself off for protection. great, good, whatever. a lot of people dont like the idea that systems can exist without that trauma being there. and while i can see where these people are coming from, its generally an assholeish move to deny the existence of a large swathe of people & invalidate their experiences on the basis of them not fitting their idea of what they should be.

im not a system myself, but i am friends with a few & am dating a member of a system, (both traumagenic & endogenic) and i can confidently say that people who are anti-endogenic are kind of stuck in the same mindset that transmeds/truscums are. the idea that you have to meet THIS SPECIFIC LIST OF REQUIREMENTS for your experience to be valid is dumb as hell and i simply do not agree with it. ive known endogenic systems who were presented this diagnosis by mental health professionals, which kind of proves in of itself that 1. this can happen. not every system has to be formed through trauma. sometimes people are just like that 2. to assume we know everything about the human brain and how it works is absolutely ridiculous 3. clearly, not every non-traumagenic system is faking it. which leads into my next point

a lot of people who are anti-endo think that all endogenic systems are faking it for attention (which is, of course, not true). im sure there are some people who do fake being a system, but imo, its 10000000000x worse to be an ass to a bunch of people on the basis that some of them might be faking it.

i would rather be kind to 99 people faking a disability or illness, than deny any sort of courtesy or help to the one person in that group of 100 who is genuinely disabled. and being a dick to endogenic systems falls under that most of the time. like, its kind of hard to miss when youve got a whole bunch of people milling around with you in your head, you know? and its a lot harder to keep up that act in a convincing manner

even those who are "faking it" aren't harming anyone, at least, not on the scale that anti-endos seem to claim that they do. theres subreddits dedicated to bullying these people just sharing their experiences and it is deeply fucked up. hope this helps genuinely. sorry for ranting this just genuinely bothers me as someone who is close to so many systems

edit: (pasted from replies)

im turning off reblogs because i cannot handle any kind of discourse To Be Frank and this is gaining more notes than i'd like it to + some of the stuff said here was slightly wrong, though the overall point is not

[magioffire]

saw your reply on that one ask post and while i still can't find the account in question to block, thank you for the extra clues on what to look out for!

alright im gonna be real its the blog char/lotte-l/iddel. i commonly do not name drop blogs and was 100 percent prepared to leave this shit behind but....i guess she just keeps wanting to drag everyone back in because every day, its something else. therefore i think its important people know exactly who tf she is so they dont have to walk on eggshells wondering if theres someone in their community that literally holds wrong and bigoted opinions against them for....simply existing? nah. no one should have to deal with that.

theyve deleted many of their anti-polyam posts to cover their tracks and avoid criticism. but their issues with polyam apparently include: wars have been started as a direct result of polyam relationships apparently (???? girl what. what wars), confusing polyam with forced religious polygamy (and seems to also conveniently forget that people still to this day are forced into monogamous relationships somehow), that only people who are childish, deluded or narcissistic are in polyam relationships, used right-wing talking heads like jor/dan p/eterson, m/att wa/lsh and j/oe ro/gan as 'sources' (as a trans person, even if you do not agree with everything these people say, if you uncritically consume them, i just dont feel safe around you. period.). and yet despite having these opinions she still thought it was okay to be in mutuals with openly polyamorous characters and muns, and follow the blogs of people who had it explicit in their rules that they dont tolerate ANY forms of bigotry or hatred. like, you gotta follow HER rules and respect HER boundaries but apparently everyone else's space and boundaries? free reign for her. she can reap the benefit of consuming our art and writing and being in our spaces while also having such vile opinions, apparently. now shes claiming its just an opinion of her muse, but we all know its just a smoke screen. we arent stupid, we can tell when someone is soapboxing using their character as a shield against criticism. and frankly, its repulsive. in this situation, you can either own up to your mistake, or double down on your bigoted stance and make it abundantly clear that you do not welcome certain groups of people into your space. thats fair. but shes being wishwashy, like many bigots nowadays are. they cannot own up to their biogtry and need a level of plausible deniability to avoid criticism, which...ultimately just means all of us have to walk on egg shells to 'tolerate' their shitty opinions because they 'claim' they arent *actually* hateful, they are just *concerned* or *uncomfortable*. like --

i could go on. but really i think you get it. im really sorry that you, and all of us, who are in this community to find respite from this kind of hate and intolerance, and enjoy eachother's differences, have to deal with this. i am friends with people from all walks of life, many world views, *i always give everyone the benefit of the doubt* but when i witness such blatant misinformation, pettiness and hatred being harbored within the community, i cant keep quiet about it or tolerate it.

ignore the shit out of her. she wants attention. dont give her anymore.

[multiplicity-positivity]

Traumagenic system here!! This is a genuine question, not meant to be a jab or anything!! We are fairly new to the online side of plurality, and often see servers or blogs either not welcome endogenic [?] systems, or they will ask YOU if you support them and if you do you arent welcome. My response has been that we will support them IF there is legitimate sources backing the possibility of their exsistance, simply because 1, that is true we will and 2, because we dont know much about them? NOW THE QUESTION!! um do you have any source that is backed where we could read about other types of systems that ARENT traumagenic? we saw people say there ARE these sources, so we genuinely would love to read them and were wondering if you have any!!

not many as of yet, though there’s a study aiming for 2024 completion that is examining multiplicity without trauma in young people. we’re excited to view the results of this study! there’s also this one interesting and legitimate article on paromancy (called tulpamancy in the study) by samuel vessiere. oh, and this study on writers, exploring how oftentimes writers’ characters will act as independent agents in their own minds (so basically plurality without trauma).

endogenic plurality hasn’t really been studied all that much. a big reason why we think that is, is because for many (if not most) nontraumagenic systems, their plurality is a metaphysical, imagined, or spiritual experience. and these things really cannot be proved by science. lots of people may claim to have loads of research proving endogenic systems exist, but once you get into the articles, it seems like most of those papers either already assume endogenic plurality exists without proving it, or claim to have proof backed with poor research. so those three papers right now are the only academic studies we have that we’re confident in.

does that mean these folks are lying about their experience, or that they’re not actually plural or multiple? absolutely not. what it does mean, is that those who say “i won’t believe you until there’s scientific proof you exist” will likely be waiting forever, all the while dismissing and disrespecting their fellow systems who experience plurality in a different way.

for lots of people, merely having imaginary friends makes them feel plural. others liken their headmates to spirits, ghosts, or deities.

will science ever prove that imaginary friends, ghosts, spirits, or gods exist? likely not. does that make it okay to disregard those who are religious, or who have active imaginations? not really.

this is why we believe fully in endogenic plurality without much research proving it exists. if someone tells us they’re plural, we believe them. folks just existing as they are doesn’t really harm anyone, least of which traumatized systems like us.

those who attack traumagenic systems, or who purposefully spread false information, however, are a different story. for the most part, though, endogenic systems do not behave this way. there are a few loud voices in endogenic spaces which are harmful, but these individuals do not speak for the endogenic community as a whole, even if they think they do.

something that i remember hearing from our therapist that i’d like to pass on is:

you shouldn’t have to understand others in order to treat them with decency and respect. as a white system, we will never be able to understand what it’s like to be a person of color. as a traumagenic system, we will never be able to understand what it’s like to be endogenic. that doesn’t give us an excuse to be unkind or disrespectful, or to dismiss those who aren’t the same as us. it’s still on us to treat people with kindness and respect, even and especially if they experience the world in ways we will never understand.

hope this helps. sorry it was so long.

🐢 kip and 👻 ghost

[fictionkin-culture-is]

Hello, I just made a tumblr account to ask about this, so sorry if this comes out of nowhere :( So I have a friend who is a fictionkin I believe it's called? I am not very knowledgeable about kinning besides the general meanings and different types of kinning on surface level so I am sorry if I butcher up anything! My friend is getting irked by me because I have got an Ahri pfp on League of Legends (and she kins Ahri). I need to mention that I do not kin anyone and that the icon is a gift (+ i think its pretty). Either way she is getting irked and she will most likely delete me as she said that she can be the only Ahri irl etc (I guess the concept of 'no doubles'?) Something about throwing away our friendship over a league icon (or even an icon on discord) feels like she isn't being considerate of how I feel about characters and my interests (that I dont kin w characters, that I also want to like and express my liking of characters we might have in common etc) In a vent post she claimed that people who dont respect her highest kins aren't good friends and are invalidating her but I feel like she is only thinking about her inner self and not paying consideration to her friends who are interested in similar characters. It is a coping mechanism of hers which I respect and I do understand but something about it just doesn't fully sit right with me. I am not familiar with this community so I'd like to get someone else's input on the topic. Sorry for the wall of text and if the discussion isn't aligned with the requirements. Thank you in advance if you do read it tho :]

Hi, I hope you're doing well! No worries about "coming out of nowhere", that's what I'm here for :) Also, apologies for the late answer; I was temporarily away with nearly zero internet access. (Thank lord for the queue function.)

As for your question- I do not think you are even the slightest in the wrong here. As you have mentioned, the friend in question is aware that you are not fictionkin, and therefore shouldn't be upset that you have an icon of, well, a character you just like- something that is NORMAL to have.

Obviously, I'd recommend just trying to talk it out (although it might be useless advice, as you've probably already tried that). However, if that doesn't work and she just simply cannot accept the fact that not everyone who likes a character is challenging her identity as them, I believe that's just- I'm not sure how to put it in nicer words- her problem.

I hope this is even a bit helpful, and that the two of you can reconcile! But if not, don't feel guilty about it. You're allowed to express the fact that you like characters other people kin.

[raisinchallah]

Naruto and/or yyh 1,3,8,12

the character everyone gets wrong

for naruto its sasuke 100% like literally the sheer number of bad sasuke takes humiliating insane mean that i a sasuke understander am forced to read them etc

and for yyh well i guess keeping on the edgy character theme i do think its very funny how many people take hieis edgy hot topic slogan t shirt quotes at like face value and dont realize hes kind of a loser who does in fact love his friends

3. screenshot or description of the worst take you've seen on tumblr

literally whatever sasuke haters have to say oh you think hes toxic or actually no funniest take are people who think sasuke and narutos relationship is abusive or sasuke is simply too terrible for naruto etc or whatever i have seen so many bad sasuke takes in the world i cannot begin to list them all

yyh fandom honestly i have very little beef tho i am haunted by one random post i saw in the sensui tags claiming koenma and sensui were exes which i literally do not even know how to begin to process that one

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

itachi being like cool or iconic edgy whatever dsfajkl;adkfdj;ls like ok his design very good no notes but like if u got yourself to the end of naruto and dont think hes just insanely lame in like a funny way idk

the fact its like yyh fandom consensus that toguros the best villain literally ZERO taste does everyone have a chip in their brains that makes them forget chapter black existed

12. the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

hmm i cant really think of a naruto character for this im really just a sasuke girlie now <3

but for yyh well as im sure you knwo from my side blog SENSUI GIRL TIL I DIE i dont actually know if i want the tiny 3 person sensui fandom to increase in size but also like stop hating gay people hes an iconic villain the fact hes not even acknowledged as the best yyh villain cuz people are invested in toguro of all people insane a slight against everyone the bad taste i respect no one but like literally the way hes such a perfect foil to yusuke and like reflection of the ways koenma used them both and how it opens yusukes eyes and he literally has a weird boyfriend who can make pocket dimensions and encourages him in his evil plots

[horce-divorce]

I've been hesitant to speculate about how different the culture is at live music these days for a few reasons, notably bc I've been too ill to go to shows since about 2012. But it seems to me as an observer there's a lot more incidents where ppl are getting hurt at shows than what used to and it's not like the setup is different. Venue management is worse maybe?? But you have to wonder how much of these crowds are younger kids where a vast majority have never been to shows prior to the pandemic era. I wonder how that's changed the behavior of the crowds

Like I just saw one person claim they haven't been to a show since they "were like 9."

9???? 9. who is out here taking their 9 year olds to shows??? Who are these 9yos?????

my first concert was Cher when I was 12 and that was a big fucking deal to my friends. none of them got to see a concert before me (we lived in bumfuck nowhere so this was a huge ordeal to even go). we busted our asses doing odd jobs ALL SUMMER to buy tickets to MCR when we were 13. And frankly I think if I had been dropped into a concert venue any sooner than that I'd have died lmfao I would NOT have been able to handle it. I almost couldnt handle Warped and I'd been to at least 3 big shows and 2 other types of fests by then.

also lol bc some of the advice I'm seeing from ppl who are a lot younger than me but who are going to shows lately is. "Idk dance around! Bring some water! Have fun! Try not to bump into anyone!" I'm sorry, try not to bump into anyone? at live music?? at live EMO music??? That's a rule now?? lmao since WHEN 😭

Tbf that's better than the shit ppl my age used to say in the myspace age when asked for concert advice. Shit like "DONT wear the same bands Tshirt to their own show. You'l look like a poser." Rofl.

But also at least we'd give reasonable expectations about the pit... I'm sorry if you're going in the pit you're going to be touching people. You're getting people's sweat and beer and hair all over you and there's nothing you can do about it. The pit is not simply an area where you can observe music from. The pit is a living thing (and so is the crowd; the pit is part of the crowd but the crowd is not necessarily part of the pit) and you have to be prepared for it to get a little sweaty and wacky. It is a Beast and cannot be simply tamed

that's PRECISELY WHY I can't go to shows anymore, medically speaking?? like. cus I can't do general admission anymore. 10+ years ago part of the experience of going to shows was specifically to go get lost in the pit and get sweaty and accidentally punched and thrown around. that's what the pit was FOR.

I have to wonder if kids don't know that these days and they go in thinking the pit is just like any other event where your personal space gets respected, and are then unprepared to Get Out when things get wild???? I guess I have seen a shift in language there... I knew a lot of ppl who meant "the pit" to be the front of the general admission space where everyone is crammed in, regardless. But some people use it specifically as in "mosh pit" which is a certain scenario. Moshing doesn't happen at every show but any big show HAS a pit. That's my colloquial understanding, anyway.

Idk this doesn't like Matter so I'm not doing deep discourse about it or anything lol I'm just so curious about how and when this changed. Someone who's been actively going to shows the whole time would be able to make better observations than me anyway, this is total speculation based on the complaints I'm seeing come out of, like, MCR shows for example. It seems like a lot of folks go to these shows not knowing what to expect, and are surprised when people get hurt, but when I was a teen we kinda accepted maybe getting hurt as part of the package deal. I mean no perhaps it shouldn't be? (Again, questions of venue management?) But you should be aware of crowds being inherently dangerous in general before you join one, just like you should be aware of potential dangers in any large group. There's just a bit more to concertoging than "have fun and be yourself" specifically for this reason lol

It's just so funny to me that these days kids are like "omg mind your business at shows" specifically cus like. Last time I saw the Used Bert hooked a loogie into the pit and it landed on some guys face. And bert went 'oh haha. woops' and the guy went "YEHHFDHDHYWHAHAHH!!!!!!!! WOOOOOI!!!!!" so he did it again. that was the culture of shows when I was going and I mean, the whole pit was just Like That. it was like a silent agreement that if you weren't into sharing bodily fluids you simply stayed away from the stage lol

Again: not saying that's how it should be or that Kids These Days Have It Too Easy. everything should be accessible and obviously this was not a culture that fostered inclusion rofl. I'm interested in the changes just bc it's different now, and when, and why and how? And bc I'm curious if it'll lead to be better venue management actually! If anyone can make venues finally shape the fuck up I fully believe it'll be the youths. Maybe someday I can go to shows again bc the kids these days had better standards than we did in the aughties. But in the meantime I just don't think you can be surprised if you go in the pit and get beer on you lol it'd be WAY weirder if you came out clean.

[detransdamnation]

I am not following any discourse here so i dont really know what is happening at the moment, fact is i prefer not to follow blogs who engage in it and you are one of those few (appreciate lots x)

That specific question emerged from a recent talk i had with my friend who promptly claimed that a person she knew ”discovered” they were gay all along, even after dating or hooking up with the opposite sex for X period of time and then realized that its not what they deeply wanted…somehow. Or that their preference simply changed and they are f u l l y gay now. Claimed such gay people exist and they are valid. Long story short I got accused of being insensitive on some occasion as i ”fail to acknowledge people who were trying to fit into hetero society thus engaging in hetero relationships which involved sex just to finally come out to themselves after a period of time that they are same sex attracted and have been repressing it”. Doesn’t make much sense in my book though, if someone felt romantic and sexual attraction to in the first place get into a straight rs and to stay in one for elongated period of time when they willingly participate in sexual activity as the relationships was running its course, how can someone like that turn around and say they were gay through all of that happening. Similarly, a person who had only had homosexual rs finds a partner of the opposite sex that they get together with and still has the guts to say they ”were” gay as they were sure of it and only attracted to same sex people, before that opposite sex attraction happened, that is. It tickles me the wrong way. Although perhaps i am too extreme in my stance?

I am also familiar with stories of individuals who reenact past abuse when they engage in sex with the person of the sex who previously abused them while it doesnt fit the sexuality they claim to be and frankly i do not know what to think when it comes to it. I acknowledge that these are muddy waters but if you happen to have some thoughts to share on on that matter as well X

Your stance does not seem extreme to me, although as far as elaborating on my own goes, I'll be sitting this one out. I don't want to shut you down and I hope it doesn't come off that way—but I just do not feel comfortable having intensive discussions on sexuality on Tumblr because seemingly every single good faith discussion turns into a bad faith blowout and I do not have the emotional capacity to handle that. This is a personal policy that I have committed to holding myself to ever since I made my blog and I feel that to further deliberate, even though I want to, would only breach that boundary I set for myself. For that reason, I cannot continue this conversation, not publicly. I hope you understand and respect that.

Thank you for caring about what I think and wanting to hear what I have to say. I really do appreciate it.

[andnowwedance]

Idk why yall insist that their relationship is fake/PR and that “they” (whoever you consider “they”to be) are trolling the fandom when it is blatantly clear that both chris and alba have asked their friends and family to keep pictures of both of them, together and separate, off social media. They are doing their best to keep shit private and yall out of their business. The only reason yall know any of their friends were with them is because you stalked them and look up the real estate listing to find his Vermont house. ////

Lol you must have went mute the past month, so much has happened. I too was like omg if he’s dating her let them be, but the stuff that has happened within the past month has been mind boggling and I’m just an observer. I no longer think these two are in a relationship at all and that’s solely based on their own actions.

I don’t like fandoms, it’s the same cycle of “omg my fav is dating someone who isn’t me” and that behavior is toxic. I can honestly say in this case, something else is afoot. On the surface it seems like the typical relationship and fans being angry and arguing over if it’s PR or not. The thing that made me go from “let them be” to WTf is going on was the nude leak, that makes no sense and if I didn’t see this stuff play out with my own eyes I would not believe it. I have no idea what’s going on but I cannot sit here and be like oh yeah they are in a serious one year relationship like People magazine claims. This entire situation has been YIKES! 😳

Ive been paying attention the whole time and im still on team normal couple behavior. I dont think the nudes were on purpose. We will never fully know what happened but i have a theory on this this. **i have no proof this is what happened its just a theory but people feel confident enough to say she leaked them intentionally with absolutely no proof so im gonna state my theory publicly** i think that video was in her camera roll and she accidentally selected it instead of what she intended to upload and simply rushed through the upload stage too quickly to notice. I believe this is plausible because i myself have done this. I would like to think i would notice if i was uploading a naked video but, again i have done this on accident before so… idk just a theory. 100% definitely did not do it on purpose tho

[milhazel]

TW ED basically diary entry of v intrusive thoughts these may or may not apply to you and if they do I’m truly sorry you also have felt this way before plz take the time to focus on yourself and your mental well being <3

unfortunately my brain has finally become overly saturated with thinspo pics I need real life painful and traumatic encounters w skinny women to finally have the motivation to get where I want to be… I need a real life ed friend who doesn’t know I’m also struggling so I can go undercover n shiii. The thing is I get these everyday but the hate that festers inside me towards them because their standard is so excruciatingly hard to achieve that my ed flips a switch and goes hinge mode on me then I hate myself the next day fall into imposter fasting mode (only eating when no one is around to feel like I didn’t eat or make sure they don’t see me eating out of pure embarrassment) or genuinely fasting for a good max of 12-14 hours only to feel that same hatred again and binge.

like you know what I mean the pictures just don’t help me not binge anymore I always resort to feeling angry towards ppl who look like that and saying fuck them im eating yknow, like there’s a little voice in there fighting for me but it’s not the kind of voice you pity it’s the kind that’s desperate to keep you alive but you just don’t want it to it’s so frustrating I cant turn it off anymore without having someone say something mean to me or seeing other ppl in my life lose weight, I know we’re all supposed to be pro recovery but the only thing recovery has brought me is more pain and more grieving over my ed where I use it to characterize how I was as a person wishing I was that version of myself again with that same mentality, it’s freeing to know that I was once like that so in reality there’s hope that I go back down that direction, all I need is that silly little trigger that’ll eventually kill that voice and keep me from caring about being fed so often I DONT NEED TO SURVIVE LITERALLY CAPITALISM IS MAKING ME THINK SO HARD AN WHEN I EAT AND WHAT TO EAT NEXT WHY CANT I REALIZE THAT THE FOOD ISNT GOING ANYWHERE AND THAT I WONT DIE IF I DONT EAT EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY

I basically live w my bf at this point and never have my groceries at his place so I never rly ate around him all the time, but now I recently started bringing my food in preparation for being there for days at a time and it’s almost surprising to him when I eat, as if he has this notion that I shouldn’t be eating with all of this fake worrisome looks when I say I’m not hungry then not doing anything about it. Idk if I’m going crazy if I’m delusional or I’m just overthinking and being naive but I stg he looks at me w disgust and wishes he had someone more attractive, I feel like his friends make comments with all their single asses going out and fucking college whores every other day while they claim that they “like” this one girl they met and like spending time with her, sometimes the people he surrounds himself with disgust me and he doesn’t see a problem, either that or he’s just part of the problem :) irdk what to think anymore and Ik I’ve said this on here before while using this as my private diary but I rly mean it this time I don’t know what to think or how to feel I feel like I’m constantly being tricked and made fun of and judged and have expectations over my head that I simply just cannot reach with the mindset that’s growing in me right now and NOBODY sees this literally NOBODY then I get blamed for my lack of communication when it’s so clear as fucking day that there is no way all of what I endure is going unnoticed I just need to fast and turn my brain off for a while, reclaim the life I’m going for without naive respect for everyone around me to the point where I literally leave myself behind. I told you I suffered from bulimic thoughts and actions over the past summer and cried in your arms told you that I was lacking confidence and always feeling like a convenient option what more can I do to communicate this to you

[flagellant]

Okay so. Sorry for the length here.

i used to think that atheist just meant that i dont believe in anything right?? But ive been following you and bones for long enough to know that thats not all it is cos that the ppl that claim that title are mostly annoying and also assholes.

i just dont believe in anything. And i was raised by a witch that was raised by a witch and so on. Like, i dont believe in anything but i also dont believe that theres any more proof that theres nothing than there is that theres something, yk?? And for me personally, i just dont care. Like a god or whatever could introduce themselves to me tomorrow and if they arent gonna or cannot improve my situation immediately i simply do not care about their existence.

i didnt realise that the majority of ppl that call themselves atheist were generally exactly as narrow and close minded as any religious extremist group. Thats genuinely fkn frightening wow.

i enjoy your blog so much cos even tho i dont believe in anything i truly think that having beliefs is overall a good and helpful thing and i learn a lot about what different ppl believe and how to be more like. idk ig accommodating?? To those things. i like learning about what ppl believe in cos i cant prove its not true, right?? All information is good and useful information. And whatever somebody believes in is a part of them so knowing and respecting it is just basic if you care even just a bit about them.

But im not just here to tell you about what youve taught me and shit i also wanna ask a question....if not atheist, what should i call myself?? Like in situations where i need to or care about explaining my position on these things?? Like i dont believe in anything but i also dont believe that theres any more or less proof that im 'right' than any religious person. Also, i was raised the way i was so ive seen magic and when i was small at least 30% of my friends were probably ghosts of some kind and ik that probably means something to a lot of ppl but it doesnt to me and even if its actually important i just dont care. Like ik that theres a lot going on its just not got anything to do with me. So what do i call that?? Is that agnostic?? Cos the way i understand that (which ig is probably wrong) is that the person believes in something they just dont have enough info to decide on what. Thats not me. So if i must give it a name what would you say i should call it?? Please and thank you.

First of all thank you for your thoughtful response!! It's always good to hear that sometimes I get listened to lmao. That said, I think a lot of the issue here might be miscommunication--atheist isn't like, a dirty word or poisoned concept. From what I can tell that you described, it fits you well. Apathetic atheism is pretty prevalent and to be clear these weirdos getting mad at me are best defined as antitheistic atheists--people who don't believe in the existence of higher powers and are against the idea of such in others.

It's admittedly a little tricky in your case specifically. Depending on exactly how the apathy is, agnostic might be a better fit for you, but at that point I'd just suggest you use the word you feel most comfortable with identifying yourself. Don't forget that you don't need to justify yourself to others when it comes to something as personal as this. So long as you aren't hurting people just do what you want.

[sserpente]

do you think people who have a cnc kink are sick and disgusting? me and my friends were talking about nsfw stuff and basically one thing led to another and we were talking about kinks all of a sudden and we fell upon this article which mentioned cnc.. we got curious and looked up about that particular kink more and in conclusion, one of my friends think that ppl who have/do that are sick--i dont think so though. how about you? (u dont have to answer this if u dont feel comfortable and thanks so much in advance)

NSFW post ahead!

Heavens, no! If your friends called it sick and disgusting, they were kink-shaming, it's as simple as that. That's quite ignorant and rude. Unfortunately, when some individuals in our society encounter something they can't identify with, they will call it weird or worse things and try to find a reason as to why it should be wrong. We see the same thing happen with religions, racism, fashion and many other themes. Some may go as far as claiming that people with "darker" kinks all have a trauma of sorts but let me assure you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you and not everything is trauma either. There doesn't always have to be a reason for why you enjoy certain things. Sometimes you just do.

You will have noticed that I too write and/or read stories here on Tumblr that have dub-con or non-con warnings. Enjoying these types of stories online doesn't reflect what you believe in, what your principles are or what your real sex life is like. They are fantasies, nothing more or less. Harmless fantasies where ultimately, you are in control of the situation (you can always stop reading or simply press Pause). As for real life, that's why safewords are so important. In fiction, when you read or write dub-con/non-con, there is no need for "resolving" the "scene" with aftercare because it's already a fictional setting.

It's just that in our society, rape is a delicate topic. And for good reason. Rape is NEVER okay. CNC (consensual non-consent or rape play for those of you who are unfamiliar with the term), however, is a common kink in BDSM. It can be exciting and arousing for many and if it's carried out in real life, as long as both partners consent to playing/pretending and safewords are in place so they can stop the "scene" anytime, there is nothing wrong with it. Have you ever seen a couple playfighting because it's fun to tease each other? To run from each other? Well, some couples like to take it further. It's all pretense and there is, in fact, a lot of porn out there thematising CNC. If you are up for that, just give it a quick Google search. It's a lot more common than you might think. You're not alone. There is also a really good documentary called "Kink" on BDSM produced by James Franco which I really recommend on this topic. You should be able to find it online, however, bear in mind that it's very explicit... it's a documentary about porn after all.

If you are female (or identify as female), another thing that makes me furious about this topic as a feminist is that especially women are being shamed for their kinks. There are still so many old-fashioned and sexist views and assumptions deeply interwoven into our society resulting in some going as far as making women believe they're not allowed to have sexual fantasies, especially not if they're dark. But who are you to tell me what I can and cannot fantasise about? Who are you to make decisions over what I can and cannot do with my body? It's not real. It does not reflect my real wishes.

I strongly believe that it's the people who are kink-shaming because they are unable to keep reality and fantasy apart, who should seek help--because that is when it gets dangerous.

There is a really good book out there called "My Secret Garden" by Nancy Friday. It was published in 1973, so a few things are quite outdated but its premise is still very relevant and it covers both an introduction dealing with this very topic I just touched upon and a collection of women's sexual fantasies. You read those, you'll think yours are harmless, trust me.

Ultimately, BDSM and CNC roleplay in real life are based on trust and respect for one another in a romantic/sexual relationship (or a professional and safe work environment if it's porn). That is how it is acceptable ONLY. If it's not for you, that's fine. Just keep in mind that others can still enjoy those things. You don't owe kink-shamers an explanation if it's their ignorance trying to make you feel bad about yourself. 🤗

[limeade-l3sbian]

*rant*

I see a lot of people nowadays, especially amongst the liberal work side of twitter labeling themselves “asexual”. And what I’m about to say is of course not any proven fact, but I’ll use my own situation and feelings on the matter:

I don’t think I believe asexuality is real. Not a true lack of sexuality naturally. I think “asexuality” linked to trauma of some kind is possible. If I had to speak of my own experience, I guess i’m in a way what a lot of people nowadays would label asexual. I have no sexual thoughts. I have no interest in sex. I dont dream of ever having it. If I masturbate it’s without a single thought in my mind. I’m totally clinical about it. I’m very good at it, it goes very quickly. It’s stress freeing.

The reason I’m like this is many. I know them. I could probably recover from this given EXTENSIVE expensive therapy. I do experience attraction, but I don’t want to have sex with those people either. I cannot place myself within sexual *imagery* even in my mind.

My self esteem is totally non-existent. I have no self worth. I have so many anxieties it’s suffocating. I cannot fathom anyone wanting to have sex with me. And I cannot fathom wanting to have sex with others. It’s a want that has never crossed my mind.

Because of all of this, when I see people online say they are “asexual”, I simply think to myself “Ah. This person has very deep issues mentally to address.” Or perhaps “they are just too young to know(i’ve seen young teens label themselves asexual, it’s very odd that it has become a trend)”

I think anyone can live without sex. I do however think the majority want sex. And that’s part of our biology.

However they are claiming a lot lately that some people are just born asexual. Like it’s an actual sexuality, like homosexuality or bisexuality or heterosexuality.

It’s so stupid. Why are we labeling this stuff as if it’s a sexuality and not just trauma or unaddressed issues within yourself.

I've got a bit of a long reply so bear with me, anon and friends.

I'll discuss the topic at hand first, since that was your rant to me, anon. To be honest, I have limited knowledge about asexuality beyond two (brief) girlfriends who claimed it in the past. The state of briefness wasn't because we couldn't have sex, but that I wasn't told they felt themselves to be asexual until I had developed feelings. But in both those instances, they did have some level of trauma that could, realistically, influence their future endeavors with partners. Of course, personal experiences do not equate to solid evidence of everyone's experiences, but I did find it interesting.

Do I think asexuality is an actual sexuality like being a gay, straight, or bi? I don't know, but I have my doubts. The former three associate with your intended partners while asexuality speaks on an ability to engage with said partners, not pertaining to the partners sexes themselves. So if you were to tell me you were asexual, I still wouldn't know what your orientation technically was. And having to tag it on after lesbian, gay, or straight does make me wonder about it. The fact that many people who consider themselves asexual are not only uninterested but feel discomfort at the idea of it seems to be as you say (however overused the term may be) a trauma response of some sort or an overwhelming anxiety of not being able to perform well or embarrassing themselves. I certainly had some apprehension at a time, especially since I lost it my virginity at 18 which is considered fairly "pathetic" to some people. I think the older people get, the worse that fear can become as people begin to expect you to be out having sex, and if you haven't had time to overcome that anxiety of performance, you may just label yourself as someone uninterested.

But I also think trauma is another reason, like you say. Sex is, however you have it, an intimate act. Bearing your whole body to another person and allowing them to see you. You can't hide behind angles or the shift of your clothing. That can be scary. So to have that kind of trust betrayed or violated could easily leave someone feeling traumatized. Without a doubt. I've been extremely lucky to not have that trust broken or violated, so it's hard to me to even consider what that might feel like. But I always keep my ears open to things and I don't write my opinions in stone. But so far as what you say, I pretty much agree with you anon.

vvvvv (cw, mentions of suicide) vvvv

Now ...you know what I'm about to say, right? You know I gotta mention that stuff you said earlier about yourself, right? I can't just let that slide, anon. Not in my neck of the woods.

Your worth doesn't lie in your sexual appeal to others. I'm not writing this with pity in my heart and naively thinking I will change your life. You've got scars and trauma that I'll never know about and have no business asking about. I'm gonna get a little personal here and maybe this might explain why I push so hard to make all you all the other gyns feel worth something. I have, in my life, tried to kill myself four to five times. I honestly don't remember. The last second to last time, I took an entire box of certain pills and spent the entire night slipping in and out of consciousness. When I woke up the next morning, I sobbed so hard my chest hurt because I thought I was finally going to be dead.

I hated myself. I hated who I was. How I looked. I'll never be able to explain to you now much I hated myself, anon. I thought I was dirt. I called myself the n-word. I just wanted to get out of everyone's way and be gone. I hurt myself, I did it all.

I don't know your story, and I don't know why you think you have no worth but honestly? Fuck that. Just fuck that, completely. You do matter. And I'm not fucking asking if you think you do, I'm telling you that you do. Regardless of what has happened to you or whatever rancid fucks made you think you were less than, your worth has remained intact. You still matter. You still deserve love, like everyone else, whether your realize it or not. I'm not even talking about sex. I'm talking about feeling loved by others and ESPECIALLY by yourself.

So here's the thing. I care about you now. I've been made aware of your existence and now it's too late. I've put stock into you and your come-up and that's just too fucking bad for you if you don't like that.

You deserve happiness, anon. I'm not gonna debate it with you because it's not up for discussion. You deserve to love yourself and to smile when you see who you are and how you've endured your trials. And if you need to vent or talk, you hit up my ask or messages and we'll have a chat, alright? 💜 You fucking take care of yourself, anon. 💜💜

[oumakokichi]

How do you feel about the line where Saihara says that Kokichi is the embodiment of lies? Personally I dont like it very much.

Hello anon! That’s actually a pretty fun question, in my opinion! It’s interesting that you don’t particularly like the line; I actually like it quite a bit, but I think this is because I didn’t personally interpret it as negatively as some people might have.

There are a few reasons as to why I think it’s actually a pretty fitting note to end on chapter 5, and most of them involve touching on Ouma’s actions throughout the game, as well as what Kodaka had in store for him, so as per usual I’ll put the rest of this under a read-more. Watch out for spoilers when reading!

I think perhaps the biggest reason I didn’t feel like Saihara’s line about Ouma embodying the concept of lies was meant to be negative or harsh is because this is the exact same thing Kodaka himself has been saying about Ouma the whole time. I recently re-reblogged Comun’s (@kaibutsushidousha) translation of Ouma’s official art book pages, and it’s stated pretty word for word there: Ouma is the single character who personifies ndrv3’s themes of lying, and for this reason, Kodaka put a lot of thought and effort into writing him.

It’s not like lying itself was an entirely new mechanic to Danganronpa; it is, after all, a murder mystery game about finding culprits and exposing lies and inconsistencies in trials. However, ndrv3 is the first game in the series to actually flesh out the mechanic of lying, even going so far as to allow you, the player, to commit perjury during the trial—not even allowing, really, but adding at least one mandatory perjury per trial, because even Saihara cannot get by in this game without lying.

Where dr1 and sdr2 were much more focused on a very different narrative involving the ideas of natural talent, usefulness to society, and cycles of hope and despair, ndrv3’s themes instead shift to focus on truth, lies, and the all-too-blurry line between them. Where the previous two games usually presented lies in a fairly straightforward manner (usually limited to lies told by culprits during trials, or by the mastermind directly), ndrv3’s entire focus is on lies from the very start.

The game lies to you about who your main protagonist is going to be, it lies to you about how trustworthy the flashback lights are—it even plays on the your expectations directly in later chapters, by suddenly seeing to tie directly in with the Hope’s Peak arc despite Kodaka saying that it wouldn’t, only to subvert those expectations again and reveal that it was all another lie. Everything, from the truth of the outside world, to whether the characters’ talents and memories are real at all, is called into question, and I absolutely love it, personally.

This level of open-ended speculation is something I believe Kodaka wanted to preserve with Ouma’s character. Because in the end, the point of ndrv3 isn’t to say “lies bad, truth good.” Like Ouma himself, it’s all a bit more complicated than that. Because lies themselves aren’t inherently negative, or harmful, I don’t think Kodaka wanted to give too much away about Ouma’s own lies. Doing so would erase some of the mystery surrounding his character, and would present the facts in a way that was much too straightforward compared to the rest of the game.

This is why most of the clues we do get about his real intentions and motivations are limited to a few definitive facts: that Ouma and DICE were pacifists with a very strong moral taboo against murder, that he wasn’t a Remnant of Despair, and that he loved games and pranks. Almost everything else about him is something we have to guess, evaluating his earlier quotes and weighing it against the information we have by the end of chapter 6, and trying to decide if we believe him or not. Essentially, Ouma is a puzzle and we’re trying to guess what the full picture looks like with only half the pieces.

From a writing standpoint, I think this decision makes sense, especially considering how badly Ouma himself wanted to remain a mystery. So many of his lines throughout the game put emphasis on how much he values lies as a form of free will; it’s clear that he found the ability to choose whether to tell the truth or not extremely important. Presenting us with too many clear-cut facts about him, or having every single character arrive at the same, definitive conclusion about how they felt towards him, would have been dragging the cat out of Schrodinger’s catbox, so to speak.

When Saihara describes Ouma as someone who truly embodied the concept of lies at the end of the trial in chapter 5, I personally felt that this was a great way to summarize Saihara’s own conflicting feelings towards Ouma at that point in time. We know, for a fact, that Saihara didn’t hate him, even despite the things he did. As I mentioned, the localization changed this line, but in the original dialogue of the game, Saihara explicitly refers to Ouma as a “friend” (“nakama”).

Clearly, he never wanted to see Ouma die—but at the same time, he still doesn’t exactly know how to feel about Ouma. Ouma presented a very contradictory picture to the rest of his classmates, particularly if we only look at the end of chapter 5, without any of the subsequent reveals in chapter 6.

He was extremely childish and playful, yet cold and calculating at times. He was willing to sacrifice two people in order to keep himself alive in chapter 4, yet willingly let Momota take the antidote and chose to die under the press in chapter 5, even though he easily could have let Momota and Maki die instead. He often pretended to enjoy the killing game and take pleasure in his classmates’ suffering, yet at the end claimed that he hated it all along.

In my opinion, pretty much anyone would be confused and conflicted in Saihara’s situation. In the time that they knew each other, Ouma followed up nearly every word out of his mouth with, “but that’s a lie though!”, regardless of whether he was telling the truth or not. Considering how little they actually knew about Ouma at this point in time, it’s understandable that Saihara and most of the others would feel as though he remained an incomprehensible liar even in death.

Keep in mind too, that by the end of chapter 5, Saihara and everyone else was still very much under the impression that Ouma was still a Remnant of Despair and Junko’s personal successor. They already realized that he wasn’t the real ringleader of the game, but it wasn’t until discovering his motive video in chapter 6 that Saihara started to reevaluate more of his assumptions about Ouma. Meanwhile Himiko, Maki, and Kiibo don’t discover that Ouma wasn’t actually a Remnant until nearly halfway through the chapter 6 trial, when Saihara puts forth his discoveries.

Considering the fact that they still believed him to be a Remnant of Despair and essentially “Junko 2.0,” Saihara’s conclusion that Ouma was someone he couldn’t fully understand while he was alive, who truly seemed to represent the idea of “lying” itself, feels rather lenient. He could have written him off as a horrible person for his actions and refused to refer to him as a friend… but instead his words sound more curious than anything else, and just a little bit sad.

A huge reason that Saihara, and for that matter all of the other characters, could never fully understand Ouma or his motives is simply because Ouma wouldn’t let them. Due to paranoia and mistrust, Ouma refused to let anyone else in or open up to others, and this is the biggest reason for his downfall in chapters 4 and 5. I can’t help but remember the end of Saihara’s FTEs with Ouma, where he muses that even if he reaches out his hand, Ouma still won’t actually take it—and that’s exactly what happens in the main story, too. It’s downright impossible to help or understand someone who won’t accept your help or let you in.

All in all, I think Kodaka wanted players to feel extremely conflicted at this point in the story. We do, of course, get a few bits and pieces of information about Ouma later on in chapter 6 that help shed a much clearer light on some of his actions, but that’s only if we take that information and go back through the story with it in mind. At the time of Ouma’s death, I think Kodaka really wanted to capture the feeling of someone who remained so mysterious and told so many lies that it was just downright  frustrating, trying to figure out how much of what he said was true or not.

Considering Saihara himself goes on to adopt a very similar opinion towards lies to Ouma’s, I can’t help but think that his comparison of Ouma to the concept of “lies” was never inherently a bad thing. Lies are, after all, meaningful. They’re a morally grey area, absolutely capable of being twisted and used to hurt others, but also just as capable of comforting others, and influencing the world in very powerful ways. By the end of the game, Saihara’s opinion on lies isn’t a black-or-white outlook of “they’re always bad,” or “they’re always good.” Instead, he recognizes that lies are much more complicated than that—much like his opinion towards Ouma himself.

In any case, this was a very fun question to discuss anon! I find it interesting how people’s opinions towards Saihara’s narration at the end of chapter 5 really differs, and I still wonder if part of it has to do with how much harsher the localization made him seem by cutting out the part about him considering Ouma a friend. It’s really interesting how much people’s opinions on this part also tend to tie in with their feelings towards ndrv3’s ending in general, considering the theme of “truth and lies” really kicks up a notch from this point on in the story. Thank you for leaving such a fun question!