#-with distorted perspective on relationships and morality

[mossbone]

The recent Dracula Daily updates are interesting to me. This book is infamous for being about the vampiric Horrors, as defined by their sexual immorality and hedonism; unlike our Heroes who are proper and British and christian. And yet...here we see the horrors being compounded and enabled by the rigid social structures emphasizing morality. And for all Bram Stoker's biases, I think that was intentional.

Firstly, the horror is compounded by the Need for Propriety. Lucy is sleepwalking, in nothing but her nightgown! How awful! So awful it is unthinkable as an option to Mina until she sees undeniable proof Lucy left the house. When that is proven true, "ever growing fear chilling my heart" Mina feels turns to "a vague, overmastering fear obscured all details." She then runs through the streets and finally turns to the cliffs, not fearing like Lucy's mother, to see her in danger of falling of the cliffs, but simply fearing to see her safe in their favorite seat—exposed to all the town.

She in fact sees in shadowy detail, an unidentified man leaning over Lucy. Yet..the whole update is strewn with Mina's massive and unfortunately justified fear for her friend's reputation, maybe more than her safety. Did someone take advantage of Lucy, enact some violence or violation of her while she was sleepwalking? Irrelevant, compared to the question: will anyone see them and assume they were up to some promiscuity? After all, she can't help but be "thinking how the story would become distorted—nay, infallibly would—in case it should leak out." There is the psychological horror on top of the nights events, which were traumatic enough.

An indictment of the present state of late Victorian values and their strict judgments already. But then. The consequence of our young heroines being unable to share their story is that Dracula continues to work unnoticed. He will get more victims, he will continue to grow in power and terrorize Lucy and whomever else he wants. Just like Jonathan being trapped in an increasingly abusive work contract because he feels he must stay to the strict matters of politeness [an imbalance of power that work relationships had then and continue to fucking have], here Lucy and Mina are trapped in very clear physical danger because they cannot share the predator hunting them without surely being accused of being a liar and a whore.

Of course, the loved ones of our protagonists are not of that malicious nature at all. If only they could talk to each other freely, Jonathan and Arthur and Lucy's other suitors would obviously not blame her. And Mina, or likely anyone, would help Jonathan recognize the red flags as what they were. But such close communication is impossible given the heavy expectations of the day.

Social standards were very bad and restrictive in 1897, and I think Bram Stoker consistently criticizes how they are with his novel, even while it serves as a cautionary tale against immorality. The solution to sexual abuse and immorality, in his words, is not punishing people for suffering from them or talking about them. I think he is saying this masterfully, as well, by allowing the audience to feel the visceral fear and helplessness through the perspective of the narrators so closely. Unlike many novels of the time which had people near the protagonist serve as cautionary tales and indictments of society, he forces the reader into those shoes through intimate first person narration.

Anyway. Good chapters, huh. Sadly still relevant.

[megashadowdragon]

The Psychological Dynamics of Subaru's Mental Health Journey in Re: Zero: An Examination of Growth Through Tribulations

Re: Zero provides a rich exploration of psychological theories through the development of its protagonist Subaru. The current post delves into the psychological evolution of Subaru, focusing on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Bowlby's attachment theory, Kohlberg's stages of moral development, defense mechanisms, Bronfenbrenner's ecological theory, cognitive distortions, and the concept of relapse in personal growth. This is all from Season 1 and Season 2, as I am an anime only. I will state that as the new season airs and more information comes to light, information is subject to change. This is not about diagnosing a character but rather understanding aspects of their mental health journey through a psychological perspective.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Subaru's Development Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory is a staple in the study of human motivation, proposing that humans are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to more complex ones (Maslow, 1943). The hierarchy is usually depicted as a five-level pyramid, with physiological needs at the bottom, followed by safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization at the top. In Re: Zero, Subaru's journey through this hierarchy is not linear, with his position within the pyramid fluctuating based on circumstances and experiences. The physiological level, which includes food, water, warmth, and rest, is initially a priority for Subaru. Upon arriving in the alternate world, he grapples with these basic needs, with characters like Emilia and Rem assisting him. However, even after these needs are met, life-threatening events can throw him back to this level, showcasing a fluctuation within the pyramid. Safety needs become important as Subaru faces numerous perils in the new world. His need for personal security and safety is continuously threatened, particularly against violent deaths. Subaru often meets these needs using his unique ability to return by death, creating a safe outcome for himself and those around him. Love and belongingness needs are manifested in Subaru's interactions with Emilia, Rem, and Beako. The companionship and acceptance Subaru experiences through these relationships fulfill his need for love and belonging. However, situations such as Emilia's initial rejection of his overbearing protection can cause him to perceive a loss of this belonging, pushing him down the pyramid. Subaru's pursuit of esteem needs is evident in his constant drive for acknowledgment and respect, particularly from Emilia and Rem. However, frequent failures, rejections, and misunderstandings lead to fluctuations in this area. His dynamic relationship with Beako mainly tests his self-esteem. Self-actualization, the highest level, refers to the need to fulfill one's potential and is seen in Subaru's journey toward becoming a hero in the alternate world. This need is continuous and remains a constant objective for Subaru. However, as evident throughout the series, Subaru's progression to this stage is consistently challenged by the fluctuating state of his lower-level needs.

Bowlby's Attachment Theory, Defense Mechanisms, and Toxic Attachments Bowlby's attachment theory suggests that an individual's early relationships and attachments significantly influence their emotional development and interactions in later relationships (Bowlby, 1969). Subaru's relationships with Emilia, Rem, and Beako reflect various attachment styles, underpinning his emotional growth and development. With Emilia, Subaru tries to form a secure attachment, evident in his constant desire to be in her presence and the comfort he draws from their interactions. He trusts her and often seeks emotional refuge in her, indicative of the secure base in such attachments. However, Subaru's actual relationship with Emilia for most of the series so far presents a slightly different attachment style. While he exhibits affection for Emilia, his constant need to affirm his feelings suggests an anxious-preoccupied attachment. Here, Subaru's reliance on Emilia and others for emotional validation often leads to insecurity and anxiety. In a manner, Subaru seeks validation and approval from Emilia, like his yearning for his father's recognition. Subaru's relationship with Beako demonstrates a disorganized attachment style. This form of attachment is characterized by patterns of behavior that lack a coherent strategy for managing stress and fear (Bretherton, 1992). Subaru seems to fluctuate between seeking some form of comfort from Beako and being wary of her unpredictable responses, resulting in a complex and often turbulent dynamic.

Defense Mechanisms in Subaru's Psychological Development Let us talk a little about Subaru's coping strategies in the face of the series' numerous challenges, often aligning with classic defense mechanisms outlined in psychoanalytic theory. For example, he frequently uses denial, especially in the initial stages of the series. Unable to cope with the harsh reality of his situation, Subaru often ignores or denies some of the evident problems he encounters. As his journey progresses, he begins to employ more adaptive defense mechanisms. For instance, he uses humor to diffuse tense situations, a mechanism often associated with mature psychological coping. He also demonstrates sublimation, channeling his negative emotions into productive activities, like devising survival strategies or working towards resolving conflicts.

Toxic Attachments in Subaru's Relationships Although attachment forms the foundation of social bonds, it can also lead to toxic relationships when mismanaged. In Subaru's case, his strong attachments occasionally push him into toxic behavior. His attachment to Emilia, for instance, initially leads him to be overprotective and controlling, disregarding her autonomy. This behavior is typical of toxic attachment, where one person excessively depends on another for emotional support or validation. However, it is essential to note that Subaru learns from these negative experiences. He gradually understands the importance of respecting individual autonomy and independence, moving away from toxic behavior patterns as he grows. This transformation further underscores the importance of cognitive growth and self-awareness in establishing and maintaining healthy relationships.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and Subaru's Moral Maturation Subaru's moral growth can be explored using Kohlberg's theory of development (Kohlberg, 1981). This theory encompasses three stages; pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional, all of which can be observed in Subaru's relationships with Emilia, Rem, and Beako. Regarding Emilia, Subaru initially operates at the conventional stage by relying on deceit to navigate the unfamiliar world. However, as he matures, he begins to prioritize norms reflecting the conventional stage. As his connections with others deepen over time, Subaru's moral reasoning advances to the post-conventional stage. His selfless actions in protecting Emilia and Rem despite their objections demonstrate a standpoint and signify Subaru's’ progress from self-centeredness to becoming an empathetic and ethical individual (Gilligan, 1982).

Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory and Subaru's Growth Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory suggests that an individual's development is influenced by systems of relationships that form their environment, ranging from immediate settings to broader social and cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In Re: Zero, Subaru's growth, and development can be understood within the framework of these interacting systems. At the microsystem level, Subaru's immediate relationships with Emilia, Rem, and Beako shape his behaviors, emotions, and attitudes. Each relationship introduces unique challenges and rewards, significantly influencing his perception of himself and his environment. For instance, Subaru's growing emotional intelligence and resilience can be linked to his experiences within these microsystems. The mesosystem, which involves interactions between different elements of an individual's microsystem, also plays a crucial role in Subaru's growth. For example, the dynamics between Subaru, Emilia, and Rem introduce Subaru to the complexity of social interactions and the importance of understanding and managing interrelation conflicts. The exosystem, which includes environments not directly experienced but still influential, is represented by the broader political and social structures of the alternate world. Subaru's struggles and efforts to navigate these complex systems—such as the royal selection process and the conflicts between different factions—further drive his psychological and emotional growth. The outermost layer involving broader cultural values and customs, the macrosystem heavily influences Subaru's adaptation to the new world. The values and social norms of the alternate world, distinct from his own, compel Subaru to reassess his behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, fostering personal growth. Lastly, the chronosystem, encompassing changes over time, is fundamental to understanding Subaru's development. His unique ability to "return by death," which involves temporal changes, provides him with multiple opportunities to learn from his mistakes and adapt his behaviors accordingly.

Cognitive Distortions and Subaru's Psychological Evolution Subaru frequently experiences cognitive distortions, irrational thought patterns that tend to reinforce negative thoughts or emotions (Burns, 1989). The most prominent among them is catastrophic thinking, where Subaru perceives a situation as far worse than it is. This distortion is particularly apparent during his early days in the alternate world, where every challenge or setback is viewed as insurmountable, triggering extreme responses, such as desperate pleas for help or self-sacrificial actions. These cognitive distortions come to light in his relationship with his companions. For instance, when Emilia rejects Subaru's overbearing protection, he catastrophically perceives it as the end of their relationship. His interactions with Beako and Rem further amplify this cognitive distortion, where he sees every disagreement or conflict as a personal failure or an indication of their waning trust in him. However, through consistent exposure to his cognitive distortions and their subsequent consequences, Subaru gradually learns to address them. He learns that disagreements or conflicts are not always catastrophic and can be resolved through communication and mutual understanding. His repeated failures (relapses) and successes in navigating the new world's challenges reinforce this understanding.

Relapses and Personal Growth Subaru's' journey toward growth and understanding involves experiencing relapses as elements. According to the Transtheoretical Model of behavior change, setbacks or relapses are not indicators of failure but integral parts of the change process (Prochaska et al., 1992). This model recognizes that individuals attempting to change their behaviors do not follow a path. Rather a cyclical one encompassing stages like pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and even relapse. In Re: Zero, this cycle is evident through Subaru's’ ability to reset back to a point every time he dies. Each reset represents a relapse triggered by distortions or unsuccessful attempts at overcoming challenges. However, with each reset comes lessons for Subaru as he learns from his mistakes, reevaluates his approach, and develops strategies for survival and problem-solving. These repeated relapses and subsequent cycles of learning and growth significantly contribute to Subaru's development, emotional maturity, and moral evolution.

Conclusion The character growth and development of Subaru in Re: Zero explores many psychological theories within the complexities of his journey. From the perspective of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Bowlby's attachment theory, and Kohlberg's moral development stages, this series gives us an insight into psychology. Subaru's use of defense mechanisms, interactions within Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems, ability to overcome distortions, and understanding that setbacks are part of personal growth all contribute to his development and maturity. Emilia, Rem, Beako, and all other characters play big roles in this journey as catalysts and companions for Subaru. They offer support while presenting challenges that help him grow, highlighting the significance of relationships in development.

[whereonceiwasfire]

I actually have some time to sit down and type all this up, so, on today’s episode of Danny Phantom Thoughts Nobody Asked For, I’ll be positing to you the head canon that the entire series is told through the distorted lens of a 14-yo boy trying to make sense of his trauma. The superhero shtick, the shenanigans, the puns, weren’t how any of it actually happened, that’s just the best way for a kid to process this HORRIFYING situation. So...the main ways in which I feel like this applies? I’m so glad you asked. 

The accident: I feel like we already sort of agree on this but the whole “his molecules got all rearranged” thing? That’s just prettying up the fact that this boy done did died. 

The ghosts: This is related to a head canon I heard somewhere else but I’m not sure where it came from. In short, the ghosts are all a lot more fearsome and horrific than the cartoonish versions of themselves, including DANNY HIMSELF. Of course he wants to think of/remember himself as being basically human when he’s in his ghost form, but he’s just not. This is the actual reason why nobody recognizes him in his ghost form, and why he’s the only ghost in show (even compared to the other halfa) who is still portrayed as so human (e.g.: his skin tone doesn’t change). This thought would extend to the other ghosts too. The ones that are portrayed as more human/less threatening would likely just be ones Danny got along with better and began to FEEL were more human. 

Danny’s parents: Maddie and Jack are supposed to be these skilled paranormal researchers/ghost hunters - I mean, they invented a portal into the afterlife. That’s pretty impressive. They make a lot of high tech gears and gadgets that actually work. AND YET. We don’t see that they’re very successful in a lot of their escapades. Not with Phantom, not with the other ghosts. Because, of course, Danny wouldn’t want to process the fact that his parents are trying to kill him. It’s not all fun and games anymore if you watch as your parents cart actual ghosts into the lab on a regular basis. If you can hear them experimenting. If there are a few too many close calls a few too many times. Ergo, you remember the whole thing as a little bit campy. Some hijinks. Nobody was ever actually going to hurt you - you were never in any real danger.   

Vlad: Now, I’m not saying Vlad’s not a shady dude, but maybe it’s not quite as black and white as it seems, and he’s not as “cartoon bad guy” as he’s portrayed. I think it was just easier for Danny to accept Vlad as a cape-swishing villain rather a morally grey entity that confuses his own sense of right and wrong. I ALSO think it was hard for Danny to accept that his parents screwed someone else over, and it was imperative for him to reframe the narrative - ESPECAILLY when there’s maybe a conflicted part of him that would want to accept Vlad’s offer to be his new guardian but felt that would be betraying his own family. This leads me to believe that Danny’s perspective on Vlad’s relationship with his parents was specifically distorted in a way that made him feel better about the mistakes and bad decisions his own parents have made. Because, in actuality, it seems there was a complicated history and some legitimate tension between Vlad and Jack, and I find it unlikely that this didn’t go both ways. I mean, they didn’t talk for YEARS. That’s hard to do (not impossible, but hard) if one party is invested in maintaining the relationship. But Danny would want to believe his father’s the hero, and wouldn’t be able to see the iciness going in both directions. Hence why Jack seems over-the-top in his friendliness toward Vlad - it’s an overcompensation in Danny’s rewritten memories. (Also, like, if Vlad actually wanted to murder Jack it seems he easily could have done it by now, so I feel like that’s a dramatic addition on Danny’s part). Which brings me to Maddie. Does Vlad still have “a thing” for Danny’s mom? Maybe. But I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that a 14-yo doesn’t know how to interpret lost love. There’s no understanding of the weighted gazes, the what could have been sighs, the wilted smiles as you try to force yourself to be happy for somebody else when you still haven’t found what they have. Danny, a kid, just sees there’s SOMETHING there and thinks, wow, this dude is obsessed with my mom, what a creep.      Okay, well I definitely have more IDEAS about this, but they start to get weird so I’ll leave it there for today. Tune in next time! lol 

[saccharineshadow]

- Things in Ride The Cyclone I think about on the daily (SPOILERS!!!)

1. Jane’s head not being visible during the starting number “Karnak’s Dream of Life”

2. In “Fall Fair Suite” when everyone is looking down at Uranium City (from a place Im guessing is limbo) all of them smile or show some kind of joy or nostalgic feeling of sorts, all of them except for Mischa, since he didn’t grow up in Uranium City nor sees it the same way the rest of the choir see it

3. Jane’s Singing during “Fall Fair Suite”

4. Ocean confessing her discomfort before riding the cyclone, feeling rather unsafe (basically the fact she predicted her own doom)

5. The Choir’s catchphrases sort of predicting per say the member’s character development (Ex. Mischa’s catchphrase revealing his soft nature and vulnerability, Ocean’s catchphrase starting as a joke and ending up as her real perspective on things) or reveal something from their past life (Ex. Jane’s catchphrase being an animal fact either predicting she would become Penny or that she used to be Penny *reference to Legoland*)

6. Noel’s Catchphrase (it lives rent free in my head)

7. Jane trying unsuccessfully to get a hug from Ocean

8. Noel’s shadow being more feminine than himself in “Noel’s Lament” representing the version of himself he wished to be

9. The positioning of each member of the choir in each song representing their relationship to the one singing at the moment (Ex. Ocean being shafted and staying in the same pose in the back for the whole of “Noel’s Lament” as well as the major roles both Mischa and Ricky got in that same song)

10. Noel (Or Monique) playing with Ocean’s hair

11. Jane walking normally in "Noel's Lament" (it cracks me up srry)

12. Constance laughing at Mischa’s sarcastic responses to Ocean

13. The fact that Mischa mixed up the plots of Saw 5 and Saw 6 (the plot he describes is the one from Saw 6, not Saw 5 if im not mistaken)

14. Ocean’s song after “Noel’s Lament” (im just putting this one here cause it reminded me of my parents *especially my mom* asking me about the “morals” or if such was educational for pretty much everything *Videogames, Shows, etc*)

15. The fact that no one really knew Ricky for who he really was so they just went with the “Disabled=Literal Child that doesn’t know anything about the world” Therefore shocking the choir (Especially Ocean) when he says something “””perverted”””

16. On the same note, Ricky’s little speech about Porno and how taboo it became to talk about something completely natural and how demonized it is in our Society as a whole (very deep, magical indeed)

17. In some productions (or maybe just one idk), Mischa’s line about not being homophobic mentions the fact he’s watched all seasons of Rupaul’s Drag Race

18. Constance playing the Role of Mischa’s mother (which made me create the headcanon that Constance in some way reminds Mischa of his Mother)

19. I haven’t mentioned it yet but I like that every member has a little moment to talk before their song (except for Jane if I remember correctly)

20. Mischa having two songs (he deserves it tbh)

21. Jane discovering the existence of sunglasses

22. “I lay my masculinity on the altar of your maidenhood”

23. The beatdrop at the end of “Talia” representing Mischa’s rage at the fact he could never meet Talia and will never be able to talk to her again

24. On the same Note, (if Talia is even real in the first place) it’s possible Talia will never really know Mischa died

25. Ocean distorting what Noel was trying to say originally when Mischa was given the opportunity to see what could’ve happened if he met Talia

26. Karnak speeding up Ocean’s rambling

27. On the same note (i’ve used that phrase three times holy crap) Karnak messing with Ocean the whole show

28. The whole of Space Age Bachelor Man

29. "Oh my goodness what have I gotten myself into?"

30. "There's only one rule in the Space Age Bachelor Man Bible, Don't be a dick"

31. "We listen to you now Space Jesus"

32. The whole of "The Ballad of Jane Doe"

33. The shadow behind Jane having the form of wings

34. The New birthday song

35. The duo interactions after/During Jane's made up birthday

36. Constance's speech before "Sugar Cloud" (Jawbreaker) *that shit made me cry I relate to Constance so bad omg*

37. Ocean's Final Vote

38. The expressions of each member at the end showing fear and being unsure to cross to the other side, then showing acceptance and somewhat joy at the fact they will finally rest in peace

39. The Musical ends the same way it starts (Jane singing her part from "Karnak's Dream of Life" The rest of the choir going back to their positions when they rode the cyclone inicially)

40. That existencial dread that you get once you finish the show. Damn

Wow this was long and totally did not take like 3 days to put together but I had to get it out of the way

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Deception

The philosophy of deception explores the ethical, epistemological, and psychological dimensions of falsehood, dishonesty, and manipulation in human communication and behavior. It delves into questions surrounding the nature of truth, the morality of deception, and the implications of deceit for individual autonomy, social relations, and the pursuit of knowledge. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of deception:

Nature of Truth: Central to the philosophy of deception is the concept of truth and its relationship to falsehood. Philosophers debate whether truth is objective and absolute, or if it is relative and context-dependent. They also consider the role of perception, interpretation, and perspective in shaping our understanding of truth and the potential for deception to distort or conceal it.

Ethics of Deception: Philosophers examine the moral dimensions of deception, considering whether and under what circumstances it is permissible or justified to deceive others. Ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics offer different perspectives on the morality of lying, deception, and manipulation, weighing factors such as intention, consequences, and principles of honesty and integrity.

Types of Deception: The philosophy of deception categorizes different forms of deceit, including lying, misleading, withholding information, and manipulating perceptions or beliefs. Philosophers analyze the characteristics, motivations, and consequences of various types of deception, as well as their implications for trust, autonomy, and interpersonal relationships.

Epistemological Implications: Deception raises epistemological questions about the reliability of knowledge and the challenges of discerning truth from falsehood. Philosophers explore how deception undermines the epistemic trustworthiness of communication and evidence, complicating the quest for knowledge and understanding in fields such as science, law, and politics.

Self-Deception: A prominent topic in the philosophy of deception is self-deception, the process by which individuals deceive themselves about their own beliefs, desires, or motivations. Philosophers investigate the psychological mechanisms and cognitive biases that contribute to self-deception, as well as its implications for self-awareness, rationality, and personal identity.

Social and Political Deception: Deception is pervasive in social and political contexts, where individuals, groups, and institutions may engage in propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation to influence public opinion, gain power, or advance their interests. Philosophers analyze the ethical and political implications of deceptive practices in areas such as media, advertising, diplomacy, and governance.

Remedies and Responses: Philosophers consider strategies for detecting, preventing, and mitigating deception, including critical thinking skills, transparency, accountability mechanisms, and legal regulations. They also explore the role of education, media literacy, and ethical norms in fostering a culture of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness.

Overall, the philosophy of deception illuminates the complex and multifaceted nature of falsehood and its impact on human thought, action, and society. By grappling with ethical dilemmas, epistemic challenges, and practical concerns related to deception, philosophers contribute to our understanding of truth, trust, and the ethical responsibilities of communicators and decision-makers.

[polysyndetonaddictsupportgroup]

okay but what are the three nhthcth songs tho

So it’s important to note that Songs for me don’t always have a perfect correlation or fit with lyrics matching the story and is more based on the overall Vibe somehow clicking with what I want the story to be.

1. Bad Habits by The Federal Empire

This was the original Song and it was the background for the vast majority of plot creation. I listened to it so many times that skewed my Spotify wrapped to a ridiculous degree. It specifically became the Song because of Daisy and Jon’s relationship in nhthcth.

Like, when I build a plot, there’s a lot of jumping around and figuring out how it all fits together. It’s always a fun, pleasant surprise when my brain knits together the very separate parts and tells me how we get there. Which gives me a very distorted perspective of the story, because the order I get information in tends to be very different than the order y’all get information in.

nhthcth loosely went: initial Tommy bradstaff confrontation-> daisy and Jon buddy cop adventures-> horrible devastatingly sad backstory that got us there-> ohmygodisthatDannystoker-> rest of it

Bad Habits really had sort of off the cuff, mildly ill-advised and self-destructive, chaotic dynamic I wanted between Daisy and Jon. Like, I knew I wanted them to be really messy in this, because they were supposed to live in this sort of in-between in canon characterisations for them. They’d never had the buried, but they had to be past the point of “Daisy is hunt mad and wants to kill Jon in the woods.” They had to exist in this space where neither of them had progressed to the same point as they did in season 4 to stop feeding entirely and were in this sort of half-measure where they were trying to ignore the reality of their situation and make it work as best they can—and, you know, save the world while they went.

Like, I loved them so much. They committed so many crimes. Pov you’re spooky and you get brutalised in the woods by woman who looks like she kills people for the mob and man in cardigan who looks like he died last week. They were morally ambiguous and fucking hilarious. They weren’t allowed in France anymore. Dream team buddy cop between deeply violent woman and utterly exhausted man. I was obsessed. It was so fun and zany in my head.

Then I came up with the devastatingly sad parts and devastatingly sad ended up being the tone y’all got instead of fun and zany but it was too late the Song was set. Yes, Jon’s horrible traumatic past was created while listening to this fairly upbeat song. We get One Song per story it’s the rules of my brain.

But then it became so convoluted that it ended up getting more Songs, which was unprecedented.

2. Two Birds by Regina Spektor

The second song nhthcth, and I can’t say what part of the story it belongs to because we haven’t gotten to that part yet. I will say that it is a Song that belongs to Jon & Gerry.

3. Never Forget You by Noisettes

This is actually young Jon & Gerry’s Song. I really liked the fit for them because it sounds so upbeat and energetic with lyrics that are a little bittersweet.

Like, I can’t emphasize enough that Jon and Gerry were happy together. When they ran, they were genuinely happy kids who were glad to be alive for the first time in their own memories. They loved each other, they loved each and every adventure they went on, and even though they were in a completely shit situation, it was the happiest they had ever been. And even when they lost it, that period of their lives was always a sort of light they never let go of—and never stopped trying to get back.

This Song really had the jaunty, fun vibe that I wanted Gerry and Jon to have when they ran together, and there’s this overarching yearning and bittersweet reflection that I thought echoed how it ultimately would end in them being dragged back in the most painful way possible. It sort of acknowledged that it didn’t work out the way they hoped but it doesn’t diminish the joy and love that they had before it was lost.

[maaarine]

Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons’ (Abeba Birhanei, Aeon, April 07 2017)

“According to Ubuntu philosophy, which has its origins in ancient Africa, a newborn baby is not a person. 

People are born without ‘ena’, or selfhood, and instead must acquire it through interactions and experiences over time. 

So the ‘self’/‘other’ distinction that’s axiomatic in Western philosophy is much blurrier in Ubuntu thought. (…) 

Yet the notion of a fluctuating and ambiguous self can be disconcerting. We can chalk up this discomfort, in large part, to René Descartes. 

The 17th-century French philosopher believed that a human being was essentially self-contained and self-sufficient; an inherently rational, mind-bound subject, who ought to encounter the world outside her head with skepticism. 

While Descartes didn’t single-handedly create the modern mind, he went a long way towards defining its contours. (…)

Is there a way of reconciling these two accounts of the self – the relational, world-embracing version, and the autonomous, inward one? 

The 20th-century Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin believed that the answer lay in dialogue. 

We need others in order to evaluate our own existence and construct a coherent self-image. 

Think of that luminous moment when a poet captures something you’d felt but had never articulated; or when you’d struggled to summarise your thoughts, but they crystallised in conversation with a friend. 

Bakhtin believed that it was only through an encounter with another person that you could come to appreciate your own unique perspective and see yourself as a whole entity. 

By ‘looking through the screen of the other’s soul,’ he wrote, ‘I vivify my exterior.’ 

Selfhood and knowledge are evolving and dynamic; the self is never finished – it is an open book. So reality is not simply out there, waiting to be uncovered. 

‘Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction,’ Bakhtin wrote in Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics (1929). 

Nothing simply is itself, outside the matrix of relationships in which it appears. Instead, being is an act or event that must happen in the space between the self and the world. (…)

A grimmer example might be solitary confinement in prisons. 

The punishment was originally designed to encourage introspection: to turn the prisoner’s thoughts inward, to prompt her to reflect on her crimes, and to eventually help her return to society as a morally cleansed citizen.

A perfect policy for the reform of Cartesian individuals. But, in fact, studies of such prisoners suggest that their sense of self dissolves if they are punished this way for long enough. 

Prisoners tend to suffer profound physical and psychological difficulties, such as confusion, anxiety, insomnia, feelings of inadequacy, and a distorted sense of time. 

Deprived of contact and interaction – the external perspective needed to consummate and sustain a coherent self-image – a person risks disappearing into non-existence.”

[princesssarisa]

Character ask: Christine Daaé (The Phantom of the Opera)

Tagged by anonymous.

Andrew Lloyd Webber musical canon (the original only, not Love Never Dies), because I haven't read the novel.

Favorite thing about them: Her emotional journey and growth, as she starts out as a timid, naïve young girl left vulnerable by her father's death and afraid of yet captivated by her mysterious "Angel of Music," but by the end gains strength, sees the Phantom for who he is, and refuses to let him manipulate her anymore, yet still gives him her compassion, which moves him to set her free. The Phantom might be the title character, but Christine is the real protagonist, and though he might be the most complex character, she's the one with a character arc while he only changes at the very end.

Least favorite thing about them: While she's less helpless and passive than she's often thought to be, I agree with the common complaint that she does little of her own initiative, but spends most of the plot obeying or reacting to others.

Three things I have in common with them:

*I have brown hair. (Yes, I know she's blonde in the original book, but Sarah Brightman's brown curls have become the character's signature look in the musical.)

*I love music.

*I'm close to my father. (Thankfully, mine is still alive.)

Three things I don't have in common with them:

*I"m not a professional opera singer.

*I'm not an orphan.

*I've never been in a love triangle.

Favorite line: The lyrics to "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again"

And from the Final Lair scene:

"This haunted face holds no horror for me now.

It's in your soul that the true distortion lies."

and

"Pitiful creature of darkness,

What kind of life have you known?

God grant me courage to show you

You are not alone."

brOTP: Meg Giry, who is not going to kill her.

OTP: Raoul.

nOTP: The Phantom – sorry, phans.

Random headcanon: She's going to be happily married to Raoul (who won't become an alcoholic or a gambler), any child she has will be his, she'll always remember the Phantom but will never see him again, and she'll eventually die in her 60s of natural causes. In other words, Love Never Dies will never happen.

Unpopular opinion:

(1) She only betrays the Phantom once, after inner conflict about it and arguably with moral justification: when she publicly unmasks him during the Don Juan Triumphant performance. She doesn't betray him earlier by wanting to leave the Paris Opera to escape from him, and she certainly doesn't betray him by choosing Raoul as her romantic partner! It's only the Phantom's unhealthy perspective that views those things as betrayal.

(2) Her complex relationship with the Phantom, with its blend of enthrallment, fear, gratitude, anger, pity, etc., is interesting enough without interpreting her as being in love with him.

Song I associate with them:

"Think of Me"

"Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again"

Favorite pictures of them:

Sarah Brightman:

Rebecca Caine:

Glenda Balkan:

Sara Jean Ford:

Sandra Joseph:

Ana Marina:

Anna O'Byrne:

Sierra Boggess:

Samantha Hill:

Emmy Rossum in the film version:

[theoreticallysensible]

Oscar Wilde’s De Profundis truly is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever read. The total, unconditional love he has for his lover Bosie, even though Bosie treated him so awfully and is the reason he’s writing this letter from prison for having a sexual relationship with this man who doesn’t even care about him. The way he connects this unconditional love he feels to Christ, the first romantic, who found true beauty and depth of soul in sorrow and sin and the real understanding of love and human complexity that can only come from such deep low points. His commitment to seeing everything through a lens of love, meaning a belief - a hope - in the potential and value of all people. The way he sees that as his only way to stay sane, because hate and meanness eat you from the inside and make life miserable. The way that this love sadly blinded him in how overwhelming it was, and made him unable to direct it rationally towards Bosie’s moral improvement, instead enabling Bosie in his cruel indifference to his wellbeing. A sadly inauthentic love of delusional devotion rather than clear-sighted platonic compassion. The tragedy of this is exquisite- and the beauty of his perseverance through this tragedy. The way he learns that the truly loving thing is to try and teach Bosie how to learn from his mistakes, to embrace love with him. Realising that combining his love with concern for morality makes it more honest, and loving him even when he acknowledges and critiques his faults is a more truly unconditional love. His commitment to an idea of what people could be by looking at them with love, living with a focus on what isn’t, but might be, is, especially with all the Christ references, almost a negative theology.

It reminded me of Simone Weil’s belief in an absent, mysteriously impotent God, who communicates to us and materialises itself in the world through our consciences. But Wilde’s is a more hopeful image than Weil’s. Weil believed that suffering, even total dehumanising suffering must be accepted as part of the fundamental evil of the universe. We cannot help but fight against it, driven by God’s urge to love, but it is part of God’s plan and so it must be revered, even embraced, as worship. For Wilde love of suffering is useful simply because it allows for better understanding and a more peaceful soul. Both recognise love as a necessary part of understanding, for Weil part of her famous philosophy of learning through attention rather than effort, but for her it is again for the purpose of worship. Both died as a result of their tremendous love. Weil from starving herself out of solidarity with prisoners of war, Wilde from ill health as a result of his time in prison, sent there only because he foolishly trusted his beloved’s advice.

The more I write the more I realise the difference between them in incredibly slim, but I still see more hope in Wilde’s vision. For Wilde love makes life worth living, a way to improve the world through enthusiastically sharing it. It is a means to an end of collective happiness. For Weil it is pure service to an absent, dead concept, a horribly nihilistic distortion of religion. I love Weil so much. Her purity of purpose is inspiring, from her work in factories, to her fighting in the Spanish Civil War, to her work with the French resistance. But her vision of the world was miserable and austere, and explains to me some of the more conservative elements of her otherwise radical political philosophy. Wilde’s love is a love of hope and joy, and I genuinely think that having read his ideas have made me a better person. Wilde was an agnostic, but his writing on Christ almost made me consider religion again, from a purely negative theology perspective. I think Weil demonstrates the folly of that though. I thank her for providing that.

I do think the similarities between these two are cool though. They were both extremely unusual people, outspoken, abrasive individuals. I wonder if there’s anything in the fact that Wilde was bisexual and Weil seems to have had some sort of gender fuckery going on (she would sometimes sign letters as a man, as a sort of maybe, maybe not joke - in Lars Iyer’s book My Weil the character who takes on her name is fittingly a trans woman). Their shared queerness in a time when that was very much not accepted (Wilde went to prison for it, that’s where he wrote the letter) may explain their similar individuality and introspection and critical eye towards conventional morality. Certainly with Wilde that makes sense, Weil idk though - she’s just built different I think.

[mbti-notes]

Hi mbti, i am an ENFP. I seem to have no problems with close friends and my wife but i have problems with more "surface" relationships and i cannot seem to "fake it" as well as the rest. What is wrong with me? I think this issue stems from teenage trauma where i was backstabbed by a very fake narcissist. He was very two faced and spreaded lies about me to the masses and tried to steal my girlfriend. I placed a lot of trust in the wrong person and got betrayed. The problem is that it became a

[con't: mental block. This is so stupid, i want to be able to be myself and be a better conversationalist to people, not just close friends or wife! Ps - another thing that makes me annoyed that i cannot fake it is this: i was talking to many friends and they mentioned wealthy high income earners who are working jobs they hate but still succeeded. I dunno if this is mbti related but this is sooo annoying! I am a high income earner myself but it is due to passion in my field and dedication. It is an inseparable part of my identity. IF i was ever in a profession i hated, it would show immediately and i would get kicked out. Which didnt happen.]

There are two issues to address:

1) Ego Development Problems: When people are at low levels of ego development, they do not see the world objectively. They are only able to see the world through the distorted lens of their unresolved ego dramas/traumas of the past. This woeful lack of objectivity should be of particular concern for NFPs because of the primacy they give to their past experiences when formulating their worldview. Having a distorted worldview enables faulty beliefs and poor decision-making.

For instance, your negative relationship experience of the past has led you to see new people as a potential threat to be defended against. You aren't able to show who you really are or see people for who they really are, so on what basis can you develop a healthy and satisfying relationship with them? Your past pain has hijacked your mind because, when you believe your "feelings" are an accurate representation of reality, you have no reason to question them, let alone act against them. You dutifully obey their every command to hide, evade, or run.

Worse yet, instead of doing the work of resolving and letting go of your past, the strategy you believe you should resort to is "faking it", which leads you even further away from your purported goal of having good relationships with people (a symptom of Te loop). When you wear a mask, nobody can see who you really are, which shields you from the pain of being hurt, but it also blocks you from forming meaningful connections - it is an unhealthy defense mechanism. You have made the choice, again and again, to forsake connection because you give first priority to your past pain during the decision-making process (a symptom of Si grip).

You have put the mental block in place and it is up to you to remove it by facing up to your pain and putting it in the right perspective. You call the block "stupid", as though you're smart/aware enough to know what's up, but it is just an empty performance as long as you keep choosing to let past pain run your present life. I have already written a lot about getting closure on the past, see the tags page.

2) Function Development Problems: Immature/unhealthy FPs generally suffer from self-esteem issues due to Fi development problems. Instead of facing up to those issues, it's easier for them to deflect and shift the focus onto others. It's quite common for FPs to blame/envy/resent others for the things they can't get a good grip on in themselves - their judgmentalness is a clear window into their soul. This is how FPs contribute to their stereotype of being moralizing and self-righteous.

Because you struggle with this issue of "faking it" and project it out into the world, all you see around you is how others fake it, without acknowledging how presumptuous and insulting it is to judge people like that. Are you claiming to understand people's inner thought processes when they make big decisions, or are your judgments entirely tainted by your own struggles with "authenticity"?

For instance, have you considered the fact that many people do not have the socioeconomic means to make their job "an inseparable part of their identity"? Have you considered the fact that different people approach life differently and some do not need/want to make their job a part of their identity because it would be unhealthy for them to do so? Failure to consider multiple possibilities reflects poorly on your Ne development.

You seem to equivocate about whether "faking it" is good or bad, but it's apparent you consider it bad. You chose the word "fake" which has obviously negative connotations, and you try to place yourself on moral high ground by claiming you are incapable of "fakeness". By concocting this moral hierarchy between yourself and others, you actively destroy the empathy you need for encouraging deeper mutual understanding, thus sabotaging your purported goal of having good relationships with people.

///

In short, ego development and function development issues have come together to form the bigger problem of you not having the courage to be yourself, which leads you to have an unhealthy fixation on anyone who can't be themselves as you define it. This is a great example of having a distorted worldview.

One of the main purposes of learning about different personality types is to understand, accept, and honor individual differences. Instead of treating new people as individuals, with the trust, openness, and understanding they deserve at the start of a relationship, you allow your negative feelings and distorted judgments to take over and corrupt the socializing process.

Healthy Fi:

You fully accept yourself.

You admit your limitations and weaknesses.

You are sincere and authentic.

You trust your feelings to guide you well.

You have good moral judgment.

You always make an effort to better understand and appreciate what makes people unique and different.

You actively make space for everyone to express themselves authentically.

You take people's behavior in stride because you set and enforce appropriate emotional boundaries.

You need not depend on others for validation because you understand that self-worth comes from within.

Unhealthy Fi:

You frequently struggle with shame or self-reproach.

You fear having your limitations and weaknesses exposed.

You try to avoid/deny/circumvent the truth about yourself.

You are driven by unresolved negative feelings and emotions.

You have questionable/problematic moral judgment.

You can't understand those who are different from you and cast them in a negative light as necessary to soothe your ego.

You are afraid to be yourself (and feel jealous when others are braver than you).

You take people's behavior too personally whenever it triggers your low self-esteem.

You are deeply afraid of being invalidated and feeling like a nothing or nobody.

For ENFPs, socializing successfully requires developing mature Ne and healthy Fi, as per the Type Dev Guide. It seems like you have lots of work to do.

[mariacallous]

On November 24, Russia’s State Duma passed the third and final reading of legislation that bans all “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” Six days later, the Parliament’s upper chamber also approved the bills, which President Putin signed into law on December 5. The new rules enter into force immediately. LGBT “propaganda” has been banned in Russia since June 2013, but only among minors. The authorities have now significantly expanded the list of restrictions: “propaganda” and “impositions” are now prohibited in the presence of children and adults alike. The law applies to everything, including films, books, advertising, television, and social media. Below, breaks down what’s new in the cornerstone legislation that guides Russia’s state homophobia and transphobia. For a more detailed analysis of these requirements (in Russian), click here.

The law does not thoroughly lay out what it considers to be “propaganda.” That assessment has been left to the courts, which in the vast majority of cases have an accusatory bias.

During the discussion of the law, Vadim Subbotin, deputy head of Roskomnadzor, did offer one definition:

The use of certain means of influence, popularization, or imposition of information in order to form certain positive distorted views of a destructive phenomenon. A kind of rigidly imposed position on certain values, as well as spiritual and moral issues.

However, the law doesn’t include that definition. Roskomnadzor will likely make its own determinations — for example, blocking certain websites, and these may serve as a guide.

In turn, United Russia deputy and Duma Committee on Information Policy chairman Alexander Khinstein chose to explain what “propaganda” is, using Oscar Wilde as an example:

If it is said about him that he became such a prominent writer only because of his orientation, it would be propaganda. But if it merely mentions this fact of his biography, it would not be considered propaganda.

Penalties can also be levied for “the imposition of information” that might arouse interest in “sex reassignment” and homosexual relationships. The deputies also did not explain what “the imposition of information” means (although it is mentioned in the definition used by the Roskomnadzor to explain what “propaganda” means; see above).

Also concerning is the ambiguity of the wording “non-traditional sexual preferences” — it’s not clear what the court would consider “non-traditional.”

“Lawmakers are opening a ‘Pandora’s box.’ An undefined rule leads to unpredictability of its application. Unpredictability of application leads to arbitrariness. And arbitrariness means the inevitable violation of rights,” said Ivan Brikulsky, lawyer at the Institute for Law and Public Policy.

Deputies also banned ‘propaganda of pedophilia’

“Propaganda of pedophilia” has been included in the same law as “non-traditional sexual relations.” It’s very much an exercise in creating an association between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The explanatory note in the bill lists homosexual and transgender “propaganda” separated by commas with “justification of pedophilia.”According to the deputies, all are phenomena that “pose a particular danger to children and adolescents.” During the Duma hearings, the statements like, “children in Britain are not allowed to insult pedophiles” were on a par with complaints about LGBT heroes in films and books.

That said, from the perspective of modern science, “propaganda of pedophilia” is essentially meaningless. A pedophilic disorder most likely develops due to a combination of different factors, and “propaganda” is not among them. In addition, one must distinguish between pedophilia and sexualized child abuse, which is not carried out exclusively by people with a pedophilic disorder.

The claim that pedophilia is particularly common among LGBT people is a stereotype that has been around for a long time, including abroad. For example, one of the Internet fakes that has gone viral says that the LGBT community wants to add the letter P to the acronym to denote the inclusion of “pedosexuals.”

A spokesperson for GLAAD, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, told Reuters that "this is a longstanding homophobic and transphobic tactic of incorrectly comparing LGBTQ people to pedophiles."

[if-i-can-dream-of-elvis]

I don’t know how to feel about the movie. I won’t act like Elvis was a great husband or that his relationship with Priscilla wasn’t inappropriate, but older men getting with teenage girls was normalized back then. If this movie portrays her as a victim and Elvis as an abuser, I don’t think Priscilla will be pleased with it. She doesn’t view herself as a victim of grooming even though most people do. And despite his faults, Priscilla clearly still loves him.

On a side note, I wish people more consistent in who they called out. I’ve seen people suggest Frank Sinatra as morally superior to Elvis even though he slept with Natalie Wood when she was a teenager. Roy Hamilton, one of Elvis’ idols, married his wife Myrna Hamilton when she was 15 and he was 25. Muhammad Ali, one of Elvis’ good friends, married his wife Khalilah Camacho-Alin when she was 17 and he was 25. Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation multiple times and owned books that contained photographs of nude boys, but he’s mostly celebrated. It seems like people will only call out predatory behavior if it’s someone they don’t like.

Well, I'm still waiting for an official statement from Priscilla, but yesterday I came across an article from Daily Mail saying that she supposedly sold the rights to her biography so "Priscilla" could be produced, and this news left me quite perplexed… I really don't know what to think because, as you said, I imagined she wouldn't accept that the media perpetuated the habit of associating Elvis' name only with controversy. Again, we still don't know what the new movie's approach will be, whether there'll be any changes to the storytelling or whether it'll precisely follow the book's formula. But the truth is, the movie could potentially make Elvis the antagonist of the story, especially if their relationship is seen solely from Priscilla's perspective.

I'm also not a hypocrite to claim that Elvis is the epitome of perfection and that his marriage to Priscilla was an immaculate fairy tale. The fact is that only the two of them truly know what happened during those years of relationship; what we know will always be mere speculation and points of view distorted by time or interest. Although I haven't read this anywhere, I've heard people saying that Priscilla regretted having written some excerpts of her biography, and that she said some facts were fabricated or exaggerated. So, we only have her version of their relationship, but how far can we believe what is being said? We'll never know for sure how their relationship blossomed and how it ultimately fell apart, but both Elvis and Priscilla seem to have had a share of the blame for the end, and it'd be unfair to see that blame fall back on Elvis' shoulders.

I have little to zero knowledge about the cases you mentioned so I can't ramble on about them, but really, I've been noticing, especially on twitter, this selectivity when it comes to pointing out other people's misconduct. The fact is that people believe what they want to be true, not the truth itself. If they hate the person, they absorb and spread the criticism/rumors. But if they like the person, they simply ignore the facts or are hypocritical to the point of defending behaviors that they previously thought were wrong. It's not what the person does, it's who does it, that's the question. My opinion on the matter is: I don't believe Elvis was sexually involved with minors, but I think it's completely possible that he was romantically involved with some. Despite people not accepting this argument, it was absolutely common at the time. Back then, the society considered acceptable (and sometimes even encouraged) the relationship between minors and older men. Those were different times than now, where we finally got to see how morally reprehensible this behavior is. I'm glad we are now having the opportunity to debate this civically, and I wish all people were open minded to listen to different opinions and actually consider them before insisting on what they believe is true.

[is-ben-camp]

The College Lives of Sex Girls

I: Intro/Whitney

Jared, Stella, and I, just got caught up with the six released episodes of second season of The Sex Lives of College Girls, and I thought I would write down my thoughts about the show, specifically what the show says about sex on campus.

At first I made a big deal about needing to know what the show was even about. What was the message? Jared pointed out to me that maybe there is none. The show feels more like a slice-of-life presentation of what contemporary college life is from women’s perspectives. I agree that moral lessons are not the focus of the show or the girls' sex lives. The themes in the ways the girls date and have sex are well-written and consistent, reflecting their desires, drives, and past experiences. Once established, however, the same themes are not interrogated or critically examined in any way, and this stunts the girls' growth in emotional and sexual maturity. 

Whitney arrives at Essex with a good bit of family baggage. Her mother is powerful and impressive but distant. As a result, Whitney tries to impress her but gets little to no feedback, which drives her desire to achieve even more. On the other hand, Whitney’s father has practically abandoned her to selfishly pursue his own ambitions. For very different reasons, this also pushes Whitney to be more and more impressive, especially to the men around her.

Her affair with Dalton, the assistant soccer coach, is telling in this regard. She is the hardest-working player on his team, and the initiator in their relationship. Instead of being passed up by a male authority figure for some selfish desire, she becomes the object of that desire for Dalton, and even tries to push him to leave his wife for her in a distorted inversion of what has been visited upon her. It hurts all the more when she realizes she is not the first student to have an affair with him partly because it contradicts this narrative. She once again feels the cold shoulder of an uncaring paternal figure from whom she wanted nothing but love.

Later, Whitney’s competitiveness turns to jealousy when she finds out that her boyfriend, Canaan, was approached by another girl, even though he didn't initiate and was clear with her about his relationship with Whitney. She feels betrayed when Canaan asks if they can be official – she thought they already were. These are plausible reactions for anyone to have, but in context, they read as expressions of Whitney’s fear of abandonment. She desires to be the center of someone’s affection, the first on their list of priorities. This is how these innocent misunderstandings take the shape of betrayal.

Despite this pattern of behavior being so well-developed, Whitney is never challenged on it, and therefore cannot grow out of it. Regarding her affair with Dalton, her teammates proclaim, only he is to blame because he was in a position of power over her. While technically true, this interpretation lets Whitney off the hook from having to reflect on the part she played in this unhealthy romance. 

This brings me back to my point about the moral lessons missing from the show, because we do get some of it at this juncture. The writers do not force Whitney to reckon with her own shortcomings. Instead, they use this moment to drive home a point about powerful men at the university exploiting the women below them. But this is not an accurate portrayal of what happened in the relationship. A stronger yet more controversial moral is sacrificed for one that doesn’t fit as well and is weaker but perhaps easier to digest.

My point is that the show clearly does have a moral dimension, and that it is very much involved in the ethics surrounding sex and relationships, but it picks and chooses when to say something about it. When some moments are used as parables but others portraying equally substantial ethical issues get played for laughs or simply go unexamined, how to interpret them remains unclear. When ethics enters the picture, we see it clearly. When it is absent from a crucial moment, we are left to wonder if the writers think there is nothing at all wrong about what just happened, whether they think it’s funny, or whether they just don’t care enough to analyze it. 

To do any or all of the above is well within the rights of the show’s creators. They certainly are not beholden to my system of ethics, which finds questionable many scenes shown in a positive light, or in any case, not given the closer examination and reflection that I believe they merit. However, when the writers do not weigh in, some instances of inappropriate sexual behavior perpetrated by the girls get rubber-stamped, or at least it really seems that way. In what follows I'll try to point out some examples of this behavior complete with missing moral post-mortem and explain why I think the writers ought to pay closer attention to them.

II: If you can’t beat ‘em, at least try to get into their parties…

Despite the fact that the main characters are women, nearly all of the plot development happens at fraternities, most of it at frat parties. Frats stand in for the student community in many instances in this show. In fact, the frats, with their incredibly ripped and incredibly stupid pledges, are substituted for (elite) university communities with entrenched male-centered, patriarchal attitudes. 

Ninety percent of the girls’ male peers are shirtless ninety percent of the time they are on screen. When they do commit the grave mistake of opening their mouths, they either say something stupid, sexist, or plain offensive. This tongue-in-cheek objectification is meant to be subversive, and is in line with the trope that exists in popular culture where we take a despicable practice that, up to now, has been perpetrated by men, and ‘reclaim’ it by mediating its depiction through a female, queer, etc. perspective as an act of gleeful retaliation. Having said that, I think it's obvious enough that this is meant to be a joke so I don't think it's fair to take issue with the caricature in and of itself.

Through the frats, male-centered college culture is irreverently made fun of. At the same time, the show never even hints at the fact that fraternities should clearly be obliterated. It is as if they are absolved by being made the butt of a long joke. Frats are bottomless pits of the kinds of indefensible behavior that all the administrators of the colleges that house them will say they stand firmly against. Like these administrators, the writers seem here to be saying: "yep, it’s fucked up, we know, but them’s the breaks. If you can’t beat them, at least try to get into their parties."

The girls, instead of separating from the fraternities, use them for their own benefit. Instead of breaking with the patriarchal community that treats them poorly, they try to use its own means against itself in what I believe to be a core theme of the show -- that it is empowering, or at least not unethical, for women to cynically use the tools of a patriarchal system against itself for their own advantage. The issue, of course, is that this implicitly validates these systems and removes the urgency of the need to replace them with better ones, until the women themselves are assimilated into the system.

At the start of the second season, the girls are faced with the consequences of Kimberly tattling on a frat’s extensive record of academic dishonesty in order to save herself from being expelled for a milder infraction. The frat is demoted and loses their rights to host parties, and the girls are subsequently blacklisted from all frat parties. To me, this seemed an eminently teachable moment in the show about not buckling under pressure when confronting oppressive abuse of authority. The girls have exposed something unseemly about the powers that be, and said powers are attempting to retaliate. This is something that happens in real life, all of the time, especially when the powers that be are, like the frats, wielding social and sexual power.

Do the girls find different ways to build community on campus? Do they tell the increasingly annoying frat bros to fuck off, let them stew in their own vitriol, and grow by opening up their social life to other avenues? All it takes is one failed party for them to go running back in search of penance. In the end, what gets them back into the frats’ good graces is by emceeing a strip show to raise funds for "something Essex cares about, like climate change." The dean of students, apparently a feminist "who marched," attempts to shut it down until she learns how much money they’ve raised from students (including a surprising amount of lesbians coming to watch frat bros gyrate). This again is clearly a joke about the cynical activism and charity that frats and universities in general try their hands at when they want to score brownie points. Personally, I think an apparently avowed feminist surrendering her principles for a moderate sum of money is not as funny as it is sad, and precisely the type of thing that should be pointed out and not framed as a gag, but, being a joke, this is not a morally ambiguous moment.

At the same time, the cynicism displayed by the girls for making the entire thing happen goes under the radar. In organizing the strip show, the girls resort to making the patriarchal system work at least for themselves if they can’t (or don't want to) right its wrongs. This validates the frats' continued existence in the show, and the girls continue to go to their parties (unironically). I have to assume that the writers do not think there is anything really wrong with this since they don't address it it any way. They are quick to point out and are right to be unambiguous about how wrong it was for Ryan to sexually abuse Bela, and for Eric to dig his head in the sand upon hearing about it. But they do not assert themselves so confidently when the girls are the ones objectifying men, using sex as a means to gain social status and stay in the good graces of a male-centered community that couldn't care less about them. Does the fact that now they are the ones treating sex with the same cynicism as the men around them suddenly make everything okay? 

III: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century/Leighton

When the thought about sexual cynicism on the preceding line occurred to me, I thought it would be interesting to try these ideas out in conversation of Louise Perry's thought-provoking and controversial book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in The 21st Century. The thesis of this work is that identifying sexual liberation with libidinous, hypersexualized ideas around dating and sex benefits men and harms women. When more dating apps than you or I could name encourage us to have more frequent and more excessive sex, women often end up having to "accommodate the excesses of male lust" just as they did in the past despite the vast efforts of feminists to equalize sex.

The excesses of male lust are exactly what some of the male characters assume the girls will tolerate throughout the first season of the show.  Nico cheats on his girlfriend with Kimberly and sort of just thinks it will all be papered over. Dalton goes from college to college having sex with players on the teams he coaches. Ryan uses his position as one of the editors on the Catullan to sexually harass untold numbers of female first-years, including Bela and Carla, and clearly expect to get away with it.

While we may have been treated to more sympathetic accounts of philandering men in the media of old, this show condemns forthright the male characters’ sexual exploitation of younger and less powerful girls. What we see happen to these men is something that is sorely missing from some real-life instances of assault which continue to persist: those who are found to transgress are expelled, fired, punished. That this, and no less, is what we have come to expect, that we have no tolerance for such abuses of power and sexuality, is one of the great achievements of feminist movements like the sexual revolution in updating the social consciousness to be more alert towards mistreatment.

This movement rose against a backdrop of social attitudes around sex and relationships that authorized men to have reckless sex with women who then had to bear the consequences. On a societal level, sex simply didn’t mean as much for men as it did for women. Men had the power to make of a sexual relationship what they wanted, to invest it with significance or abandon it at a moment’s notice. At the center of it was, to use a precarious word, wanton pleasure. Not only did women suffer the emotional damage from being treated as less-than-equal sexual and romantic partners, they also were often blamed for contracting sexually transmitted illnesses, or for having unwanted pregnancies. Not only did they suffer physical and emotional harm, they, more than most men, had to face the social stigma accompanying it.  

The invention of the birth control pill opened the door for all of this to change. The pill was a reliable and convenient method of contraception and made it possible for women to have lower-risk sex. Condoms are more effective but they can be taken off during sex without the other party's knowledge, and some men obstinately refuse to wear them. The pill, on the other hand, allows women to take some degree of contraceptive control. Women could enter into sexual relationships without the existential threat of unwanted pregnancies, and attitudes around what kind of sexual behavior was ‘proper’ for women began to change as well.

In the course of all this, Perry says, there emerged a train of thought that it was sexually liberating for women to have sex the same way that men did. Men had the sexual power because societal factors made it possible for them to have meaningless sex, whereas women simply couldn’t. They had no choice but to invest themselves into each relationship. If this fact was at least in part related to the sexual repression of women, it may have seemed that simply refraining from doing so and assuming the same attitudes that men did would be freeing. 

In the end, it is up to the individual to decide what makes them feel liberated. And of course neither I nor Perry are about to say that women, or anyone, should refrain from having casual sex on principle and not out of a personal desire to. On the other hand, just because women are also encouraged not to care about sex will obviously not make men, or anyone, care any more. It’s not clear to me how further divesting sex of its meaning as personal connection and emotional bond will help us reimagine it in a way where everyone who partakes is on equal footing. I find Perry's claim that this approach has lead to us being at once hypersexualized and desensitized to sex as our media, dating apps, and other customs, still prioritize male sexual desire much more plausible.

Let’s take a look at Leighton’s arc now. She struggles with coming out during the first season as she fears her sexuality will come to define her if she does. When her girlfriend, Alicia, forces an ultimatum, she lets the relationship end instead of going public. This trajectory is really compelling to me because Leighton’s reasons for not wanting to come out are, in my reading, different from the ones she states. Our sexuality only defines us if we let it, if we want it to. Leighton could come out and continue her non-sexual life more or less the same way she has up to that point. Her conviction in fact points to how she views other gay people as substituting their sexuality for a personality. I think she is echoing a perspective on gay people that is probably common in her family environment, and more generally, her social and political class. She has internalized this homophobia (it is one step away from saying that 'the gays only do it for the attention') and this creates a tension between wanting to be her authentic self and at the same time feeling it to be inauthentic, or worse, feeling ashamed of its authenticity.

Leighton even sleeps with a guy from her brother’s frat that he ‘set her up with’ in a weird, incestuous arranged-marriage sequence, which is representative of the strength and pervasiveness of the heteronormative pressures she feels she must succumb to. Despite the fact that she’s gay, even Leighton has to "accommodate the excesses of male desire." It is such a revelation, then, when she comes out to her roommates and then to the Essex community at large. What follows, though, is an episode that equates libido and excessive sex with sexual freedom in the way that Perry warns us about. It is a whirlwind tour of sex during which she apparently sleeps with most of the gay women at the university, eventually contracting and passing on chlamydia to some of her unenumerable lovers.

Leighton’s girlfriends are clearly upset with her because she goes through them at a rate of about one per minute, which is played for a joke about how small and ‘tight-knit’ the lesbian community at Essex is and is otherwise not commented on. All in all, this part of her arc is seen as "[a young woman] unapologetically taking control of her sexuality," as was articulated in an interview with Salon. I see where this interpretation comes from and I do not think it is necessarily misguided. I nevertheless feel uneasy about the fact that sexual liberation for Leighton, the chance for her to love authentically, means that she essentially starts hooking up like a frat bro, without caring for the emotional fallout or the physical consequences. 

Again, I’m not going to judge anyone for hooking up a lot, and it’s true that STI-s like chlamydia are nowhere near as big a deal as they were a few decades ago, where social attitudes towards these illnesses can still sometimes be seen to linger. But in the interview linked above, the actresses speak a lot about the representational content of the show. This is why I feel it less-than-optimal to include this version of a sexual liberation arc. Rapp stresses that her and Leighton’s experiences are one of many and that it is important to see that diversity represented on screen as well. Fair enough, but that is not an out for the writers to depict problematic sexual behavior without any indication that they are aware of what they are doing.

IV: Bela/Conclusion

Bela’s story at Essex is perhaps the most harrowing one because of the multiple instances of sexual assault. She comes to college looking for fulfilling and fun sexual experiences, and this is what she is met with instead. As I’ve said before, I like the way the aftermath of these incidents is handled and I appreciate that Bela is shown to be capable of overcoming the trauma they caused. All things considered, though, she, among all the girls, is dealt the worst hand. The way Bela was introduced to sex is as a form of abuse. Her ambitions as a comedy writer got tied up in a corrosive knot with the violations she could expect to have to weather in order to achieve her goals. I was really happy to see her dating Eric because their relationship has a sense of playful competitiveness to it that could unwind the knot and give Bela space to see that sex and comedy do not have to conspire to destroy her.

In a plot development that is as realistic as the nature and depiction of the abuses directed at her, Bela tries sleeping with a famous Essex comedian alum in order to secure an internship with him. As she did when she organized the strip show to get back into frat parties, Bela is consciously playing into the hands of the same toxic sexual system that has treated her poorly in order to get ahead. However, I don’t take issue with this in the way I expressed before, because I think this will come back later in the season and force Bela to have to reckon with her behavior. In other words, I don’t see the writers giving their blessing over Bela’s behavior like they did when she purposefully bought a child-sized shirt to exaggerate her breasts to get into a frat party, for example. I’m definitely not going to argue that Bela sleeping with Dan to get an internship is anything like what Ryan did to her. Yet I can see how her disillusionment with sex at the hands of Ryan led her to treat sex in a callous way that led her to see it as a tool to gain power. I just hope that the writers give her another chance to untie the corrosive knot.

I mentioned at the top of this essay that I thought it would give the wrong idea about sex to people in or about to enter college. College students have to achieve more and more just to make the cut as they feel more isolated, stressed, and depressed. Pushing people to have sex is an ages-old form of peer-pressure, but it's being presented as feminist, as sexual freedom. There is not one character on the show that simply doesn't feel ready for sex or hasn't had at least four sexual encounters before Thanksgiving break of their freshman year! I wouldn't want the same endlessly overworked college students to think that, on top of all of they have to do, frequent sex of the mechanical kind also needs to be on their to-do list, that this is how they really own their sexuality.

This show is not unrealistic. It has quite a few teachable moments about sex and other aspects of college life where the writers hit the nail on the head. It's not Euphoria. The stories it tells about sex feel real and relatable, which is part of the reason I feel they are playing fast and loose with their ethics. At the same time, I'm very aware that the show is still being written and developed as of this writing, and things may change.

I just hope that viewers don’t think that their two options are either being lonely outcasts condemned to a sexless existence or entering into treacherous engagement with fraternities, sororities, and other forms of the patriarchal and sexist side of college. In fact, I hope viewers don’t think that having a sex life at all is an integral part to being in college. Re-investing sex with meaning almost surely necessitates having less of it, and that is not altogether a bad thing.

[farahabaza02]

Khalik Allah: How ethical is his approach?

Photographer Khalik Allah has earned praise for his distinctive and provocative approach to photography. He is well-known for his portraiture and street photography, frequently focused on New York City's marginalized communities. His images have been praised for being unfiltered, honest, and intimate, portraying the true character of his subjects. However, others have questioned whether his work is morally justifiable. It's possible to argue that the use of high contrast and black and white photographs reinforces prejudices about African American communities and the "ghetto" stereotype. In addition, some have questioned if he has his subjects' consent because of the manner he photographs and portrays them, particularly given that many of them look to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As people in an altered state might not be able to completely understand or accept the reproduction of their image, this raises further concerns about the validity of their consent. There have also been concerns about how correctly their experiences and viewpoints are reflected in the final result. 

Examining the ethical considerations of photographers like Khalik Allah is crucial in a time when representation and authenticity are major topics in the media and in photography. It is vital to take into account the potential harm that might result from maintaining unfavorable preconceptions while shooting underrepresented communities, as well as to make sure that the individuals are appropriately portrayed and that their consent has been secured. It can be argued that Allah's use of high contrast and black and white photography maintains the "ghetto" stereotype and promotes inaccurate representations of African American neighborhoods, especially with Allah including sound-bites such as this quote from a drug addict: “This is pure hell for me, millions would just bring me more problems” (Hoffman). Given the extensive history of inaccurate and stereotypical portrayals of these communities in the media, this is especially problematic. The use of strong contrast in Allah's artwork can also be regarded as accentuating the subjects' otherness and further separating them from reality.

Supporters counter that Allah's purposeful aesthetic decision to employ high contrast and black and white photography helps to highlight the humanity and beauty of his subjects. His work is characterized by a raw and personal manner that is said to lower barriers between photographer and subject and enable a more accurate and honest portrayal. His work has been commended for its sincerity and authenticity, and he has received acclaim for his ability to give voice to the neglected and underprivileged people he pictures (Nogues). According to Allah himself, “the people who I photograph, most people wouldn’t stop and speak to them because they just want to get away from them as soon as they can”

In addition to questions about the ethics of his visual style, some have also raised concerns about the way Allah represents his subjects. It is important to consider whether the subjects of his photographs have given their consent to be photographed and whether the final product accurately represents their experiences and perspectives. This is particularly important in the context of marginalized communities, where the representation of their experiences has often been shaped by outside perspectives and distorted by stereotypes.

There is no doubting the influence and significance of Khalik Allah's work in the field of photography and filmmaking, despite these criticisms. He captures the essence of his subjects in a way that is uncommon in the mainstream media with photos that are strong, personal, and genuine. So much so that he always asks his subjects abstract questions while shooting them, steering clear of their pasts to eliminate all judgment from their relationship (Rapold). Artists like Khalik Allah play a key role in providing voice to oppressed populations and opposing the unfavorable and stereotypical depictions that have long been promoted in the mainstream media in a world where representation and authenticity are of the utmost importance.

In conclusion, the question of whether Khalik Allah's work is ethically sound and authentic provokes strong feelings from both fans and critics. Regardless of one's personal position, it is crucial to think about the ethical issues related to portraying marginalized cultures, as well as to make sure that the persons being photographed are appropriately portrayed and that their consent has been secured. We can endeavor to create a more equitable and just representation of underrepresented communities in media and beyond by carrying on these crucial conversations and evaluating the work of artists like Khalik Allah.

Sources:

Hoffman, Jordan. “Field Niggas Review – Hallucinatory Portrait of New York Street Life.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Oct. 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/15/field-niggas-review-hallucinatory-portrait-of-new-york-drug-addicts.

Nogues, Clotilde. “Khalik Allah's Tender Street Photography Spotlights the Humans of Harlem.” i, https://i-d.vice.com/en/article/m7g3bn/khalik-allah-harlem-photography-profile.

Rapold, Nicolas. “Khalik Allah's Movie Captures Harlem Faces and Voices by Moonlight.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/movies/khalik-allahs-movie-captures-harlem-faces-and-voices-by-moonlight.html. 

[kazumahashimoto]

ouhhh BROTHER xander's longposting about zack lives again

prompted by my friend showing me a post about no character death being equally as interesting and i am of course thinking about rebirth again. i still really think the remakes are fucking up the narrative. i will never fully understand or like the direction they're going in. and i seriously think we're losing the plot which sucks cos i think it's only adding to people being upset zack dies? so i've just been thinking like. i think more people should really sit down and think about WHAT zack is. his narrative function. try to remove the bias of liking him, and just think about WHAT he is. his narrative function is TO BE a dead guy. like, the dude's fucking dead already in the game you like! and in the prequel, the whole thing is building up to him dying! i genuinely don't think you can fully make the claim that zack could have so much to do in the canon narrative if he was still alive if literally the entire story is built on him being dead before we even begin. like no i think the narrative progresses quite fine as it is.

and i don't mean to say lives aus are like Bad. a moral failing. like i'm better than anybody. i'm not! i enjoy a lives au as well. i just think that if you truly find yourself wishing for the CANON narrative to keep zack alive, it's probably time to reanalyze the story you're working with here.

this is one place where, in my opinion, rebirth REALLY fumbles what zack is supposed to be doing. zack is somewhat elusive in the original game, honestly. you hear about Some guy that aerith says was her first boyfriend, and that you (cloud) were the same rank. you don't even learn his name here. in the golden saucer date with her she tells you that you reminded her of him in a lot of ways. if i remember correctly, the first time you actually get zack's name is when you go to gongaga and talk to his parents. you learn a bit more about him, but not much. and i'm pretty sure the first time you even get to SEE him is in the reveal of cloud's memories being distorted. you get a little more characterization of him if you backtrack to nibelheim in the basement, you see that zack and cloud were Potentially friends, that zack is maybe a bit hyper, he's self sacrificing, and that's about it. zack's true strength is not here, in the moments we actively see him in, but in how his existence recontextualizes the entire game. maybe you could see that cloud was an unreliable narrator as time goes on, but you don't exactly know HOW until zack is fully revealed and you see just how many aspects of the game he had touched. it's INCREDIBLE and replaying the game had me absolutely tearing my hair out in certain parts, and there's a really good analysis i read on zack haunting the narrative that put even more things into perspective for me like. zack's role in the original game is to be dead and it's AMAZING.

even in crisis core where he IS alive, you're still most likely aware that he's going to die the entire time. you know how this game ends, but you still want to know more anyway. you get to learn so much about zack's motivations, his relationships with aerith and cloud, with sephiroth and with tseng and with hojo. it's able to recontextualize the original game even further if you take it as canon! and it adds so much more complexity to zack's death scene, with the idea of legacy. it's a really good prequel that doesn't detract anything from the original game, in my opinion.

where remake and rebirth are failing, i think, is in this loss of mystique. if you're a new fan going in completely blind and you get to the end of remake and see some random guy holding up cloud's sword, what are you supposed to think? when the dlc comes out and you see the cutscene of some guy standing awkwardly outside the church, what are you supposed to think? when you play rebirth and see this guy straight up carrying cloud to midgar, what are you supposed to think? and when cloud literally tells us straight to our faces that they used to be friends, what are you supposed to think? that this is mysterious? that this is intriguing? it's just showing you things you don't need to be shown yet and telling you things you'd be able to interpret LATER. zack is NOT meant to be shown to us yet at this point in the story. we hear about him, we pick up some passing information about him, we might start piecing some clues together but we do NOT see him yet. it takes out all the intrigue for who he could be i feel. because cloud literally just tells us they used to be close. AND THAT HE DROWNED IN A RIVER?

i'm still not over the drowning thing. in a vacuum i can see where cloud would come to this conclusion and i can understand why tifa just chooses to go along with it. but the thing is, they created this weird problem for themselves out of NOWHERE because they wanted cloud to know who zack is for the final team up battle against sephiroth. that's literally it. the ONLY reason cloud needs to know who zack is at this point is so they can fight together later. because they split this game into three parts and you NEED to fight sephiroth in every single one of them, otherwise it's not an ff7 game!

zack has lost his sense of mystery within the narrative. you already know about him, so you can watch him be all cute with marlene and cry over aerith and give biggs a peptalk and you can get EXCITED when he says he'll be returning for the next game. but he loses his purpose like this, being shown up front and center, we KNOW his relationship to aerith we KNOW his relationship to cloud we KNOW his ties to sephiroth, so there's nothing to really uncover. no pieces to put together, you already know that it's him. like what was the point of all this? show off zack some more cos the fans like him? i guess so. but what made him so intriguing in the FIRST place? because i don't think it was him showing up in the middle of the game with aerith's ribbon wrapped around his hand barreling off to get killed trying to TALK to hojo.

[mda20009blogassignment]

Week 8: Digital Citizenship and Software literacy: Instragram Filters

Instagram filters have become an integral part of digital self-expression, enabling users to drastically alter their look with the swipe of a finger. But, these filters' widespread use begs the issues of software literacy and digital citizenship, especially in light of the damage they do to people's perceptions of themselves and the standards of beauty in our culture.

In her 2020 study of Snapchat's attractive filters, Jessica Barker reveals the "ugly implications" of these technological improvements. Her writing offers a critical perspective on the ways in which these filters change people's looks and how they influence societal views of beauty, which can lead to the perpetuation of unattainable ideals of beauty (Barker, 2020).

Delving further into the subject, Jill Walker Rettberg's 2014 examination of "Filtered Reality" discusses how digital filters and selfies impact our self-perception and online persona. The delicate line between augmentation and distortion is brought to light by Rettberg's observations, which prompt us to think about the repercussions of living via filtered realities (Rettberg, 2014).

The way technology both mirrors and dictates our perceptions of identity and physical attractiveness is highlighted by Rettberg in her 2017 talk on "Biometric Citizens," where she delves more into the topic of selfies optimised for machine vision. This discussion elucidates the intricate web of relationships between algorithmic control and human activity in the production and reception of digital images (Jill Walker Rettberg, 2017).

Digital enhancements can lead to distorted body images among women, as Isabel Coy-Dibley's critical analysis of "Digitised Dysmorphia" demonstrates. Her studies shed light on the mental health effects of being bombarded with unrealistic standards of beauty on a daily basis, which contributes to a digital culture that normalises body dissatisfaction (Coy-Dibley, 2016).

Being a good digital citizen means having a sophisticated grasp of software literacy, which is essential for navigating Instagram filters. Because these tools can shape our ideas of what it means to be beautiful and valuable, we must use them cautiously. A digital culture that prioritises variety and authenticity over adherence to limited beauty standards can be achieved by encouraging conversations on the moral use of digital enhancements. Not only does this method support more positive self-perceptions, but it also pushes for a more inclusive and accurate portrayal of beauty online.

References

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat. Swinburne University of Technology; Swinburne University of Technology. file:///Users/hanhtrang/Downloads/Jessica%20Baker%20Snapchat%20Filters.pdf

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). “Digitized Dysmorphia” of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image. Palgrave Communications, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Jill Walker Rettberg. (2017). Biometric Citizens: Adapting Our Selfies to Machine Vision. Springer EBooks, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45270-8_10

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered Reality. Seeing Ourselves through Technology, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2