#(ended up talking so mcuh ab logan here. can't believe i wrote fucking logan meta)

[brookheimer]

Do you think the Logan abuse allegations might go into CSA territory? Unlike a lot of people I’m not 100% convinced roman experienced this, but people are speculating on Twitter that accusations of Logan’s physical and emotional abuse will snowball into CSA territory. If that’s the case I’d certainly imagine Logan was complicit rather than an abuser himself (if anyone probably uncle Mo?), but nevertheless shocking if it does come out

oooh i have a lot of thoughts about this actually!

personally, i'm with you -- i'm in the minority of people who don't think roman CSA is as good as canon, primarily because i don't think it needs to be in order for him to make sense. i think it's definitely possible and would certainly fit with his character, but a lot of people frame CSA as, like, The Explainer to roman roy which i just find kind of silly and cheap. people act like that's the only possible way he could turn out the way he has, and not only is that just blatantly untrue, it's also a pretty strange, diminishing narrative -- the way people talk about it really sounds like they're saying Well If You Have Sexual Dysfunction You Only Make Sense If Someone Molested You As A Child, which is just... not quite how things work. obviously, it's a reason someone might have those issues, but it certainly isn't the only one. i can write another post later on why i think rome makes sense outside of CSA if people want, but rn i'll just focus specifically on why i'm not convinced that CSA will become explicitly relevant to roman's character, especially not in relation to logan (and why i personally kinda hope that isn't the direction they take)

more under the cut!

for one thing just personally really doubt succession would make anything that explicit, that clear cut. like, i really don't think there's going to be a scene confirming or denying whether roman experienced CSA. and, as you said, i don't think logan was the abuser himself but i could see him covering it up for mo. maybe. i don't know. i don't know! it feels a little weird to me, honestly, just knowing logan's obsession with having power over his kids, his disgust at roman's grossness, and his blatant homophobia, it feels somewhat hard for me to conceptualize him not giving a shit about a colleague of his assaulting his son. i don't think he'd care for the right reasons, but i think he'd view it as either a) an attack on him and a disturbing power play -- you think you can take my kids out from under me? you think you can fucking control them? you?], b) absolutely fucking disgusting like the most sicko-ness of sickos -- not only are you attracted to m*n you're attracted to my weak little fuck of a son? what the fuck's wrong with you? are you not a man?, or c) both. like, idk. i just find it really hard to imagine that's something he would take lying down -- not out of protectiveness for roman but out of personal offense or pure disgust. i don't think he'd out it to the world or anything, he has his company to protect, but i think mo or whoever would definitely be cut out and shushed with hush money or something. which is still complicit, sure, but it isn't like i think logan would have actively turned a blind eye, which seems to be the prevailing opinion. it just... it doesn't fit from what we know of logan.

also, CSA is like.... it's inarguably bad. like, obviously. but succession thrives in realms of nuance. logan is abusive and horrible but you understand him. if you try to, you really can understand him. it doesn't excuse or justify anything, but he has a very human mindset that stops him from being, like, straight-up Evil. every succession character is a human before anything else, no one's a caricature (except maybe for s4 greg, but i'm withholding judgment there for now). succession fails if any character's deeds outweigh their humanity. no one is hitler. everyone thinks they're doing the best that they possibly can, including logan. that's why brian cox says logan's issue is he loves his kids too much -- he gets shit on for saying that, because i mean it does sound batshit, but i do get what he's saying. logan does not like his kids but he does love them. the reason he's so awful to them is because he loves them -- not in the sense that 'love is abuse' or whatever i'm about to get angry asks yelling ab, but because the only reason logan can't just let them go off and be disappointments is because he loves them. his abuse is not out of pure malevolence. it's because he wants them to become people they fundamentally aren't. that's what it comes down to. it's not just Evil Dad Hates Kids. logan wants so desperately for his children to become real people, people he can like and respect and trust and rely on, but they aren't those people, and that's something he's been entirely incapable of accepting. his abuse is an attempt to mold and to change and to fix, not just to punish. that's why the "i love you, but you are not serious people" was such an important line -- in some senses, it kind of was the end of logan's arc. it made a lot of sense for him to die there. where else could he go? he finally admitted what he'd known deep down all along: his children will never be the people he wants or needs them to be. no amount of pressure or competition or carrot-dangling will change that. he loves them, but they are not serious people.

that's why Logan CSA Committer/Allower feels really hard to imagine, both from a character standpoint and from a succession one in general — making logan an official CSA Allower would make it really, really hard for him to maintain the same kind of humanity and nuance he has as a character, which is rooted in the fact that logan doesn't hate his kids or want them to suffer. he wants them to become the peak of masculinist capitalism and none of them are capable of it. so if anything, he'd be furious at anyone who assaulted his kids because it would push them further from that ideal -- it would make them Wrong. if a boy were to be forced into sexual submission at a young age by an older man, they'd never be able to become that capitalistic ideal of masculinity; they're already fundamentally wrong. logan's anger would be directed both at the boy (roman) and at the man who forced it on him. but, to me, it seems like much of logan's anger with roman stems from his genuine lack of understanding as to how the fuck roman ended up like this -- how could a son of his end up like this? it's a personal failing for logan, one that he can't puzzle out. what did he do so wrong for roman to become the antithesis of literally everything logan stands for? i feel like if roman were a CSA victim and logan knew, he would probably... i don't know, try less to fix him. it's fucking awful, but i kind of feel like logan would find roman to be Tainted already and want to just shove him somewhere he doesn't have to look at him. but we see time and time again logan genuinely trying to squeeze the wrongness out of roman -- that's where his abuse of rome stems from, not so much molding him into the Right person as it is unmolding him out of being Wrong (bc only then can he do his ken/shiv tactics to mold him into being an heir) -- and try to understand in his misguided, cruel, offensive way what exactly is wrong with roman. i think if he knew, he wouldn't bother. he wouldn't ask, like "are you scared of pussy, son?" and "are you a sicko?" and call him gay slurs and all of that, because i think that would be too close to the truth he can't bear to acknowledge. just like how he pretends he had never and would never hit roman, even though he has, multiple times, both as a child and an adult. he wouldn't directly address something that brings shame to him, and having his son be the victim of CSA would indeed bring him a great deal of shame (not guilt, but shame). so, like, while it's true that logan's relationship with roman could be founded primarily in CSA-driven misdirected anger and victim blaming, i just again don't think that's necessary for their relationship to make sense, and that the nuances of their relationship almost make me feel like that's not the case either.

i also just personally think roman would maybe be more interesting were he not a CSA victim -- if it's confirmed that he is, everyone will be like Whelp Roman Solved! like, that would be all that's needed to explain him (or at least that's how people would act). and that would be such a fucking shame, man. i just think that there are a decent number of people in the world who have dysfunction not dissimilar to roman's who also aren't CSA victims and really, really struggle to figure out what exactly made them this way, especially when the entire world is acting like the only possible cause is CSA. and there are portrayals of CSA on television and in media. but... i can't think of anyone else like roman. i think him not having CSA and his dysfunction stemming instead from less obvious, more subtle-ly debilitating power dynamics and narratives of masculinity/sex would just be much more interesting, as even if succession handled his CSA with care, the majority of people would just see it as well, case closed, finally we understand roman. as if he isn't already perfectly understandable without it. maybe i'm just really biased as someone who thankfully did not experience CSA but seemingly inexplicably ended up quite similar to roman in a lot of ways, as someone who actually gets to feel a little more normal for once because of roman's abnormality. i just think there's a lot more to sex and sexual dysfunction than media often presents, because many storylines and characters are just very easy cause and effect relationships (CSA --> sexual dysfunction, rape --> hypersexuality, etc etc etc) when in reality there are so many ways that even tiny things could build up over time and end up manifesting in really detrimental ways. you can have a bad relationship with sex before ever having it, because sex is about soooo much more than the actual act of sex. and succession is about life and mirroring it, not creating easily understandable characters and narratively satisfying conclusions. so, yeah, i guess i don't know if succession will go down the CSA route, because that just feels... a little easy to me, maybe, when it doesn't need to be. not saying CSA is a bad plot point or anything, but that it is something depicted (and unfortunately often sensationalized) on television a lot, whereas characters with inexplicable sexual hangups are not.

i definitely hope this season delves further into roman's sexual dysfunction, but i'm kind of hoping it doesn't just explain it all away as Well He Was A Victim Of CSA, bc i think a) roman makes sense without it, b) the logistics of it happening relating to logan feel murky and confusing, c) succession isn't the type of show to outright Explain Things (and thank god), and d) there are a lot of people, i think, who have issues with sex they don't understand or that they don't 'deserve' to have, and i've never seen another character in any media that's depicted like that, although i have seen explorations into CSA.

sorry this was so long, but as i said, many fucking thoughts!!