#THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO GENUINELY HARMFUL INTERESTS AND THE LIKE

[fabulouslygaybean]

i always find it so funny that so many of y'all are all for the death of cringe culture until someone does something you personally find to be a little TOO weird and then bully them till they shut up. like you can't have it both ways. you can't scream out "cringe culture is dead!!" and then hurt people for harmless interests :/

[666writingcafe]

Feeling a Bit Tense?

A (Mildly NSFW) Text Conversation Between Barbatos and MC

Barbatos: *waving emoji*

MC: *gif of someone waving tiredly*

Barbatos: Rough day?

MC: *gif of someone shrugging*

Barbatos: Do you need or want to talk about it?

MC: Should I?

Barbatos: If it will make you feel better, yes.

MC: *keeps typing and erasing messages*

Barbatos: Does this have anything to do with Solomon? If he's been messing with you, I'll be more than happy to talk to him for you.

MC: No need.

Barbatos: Do you genuinely feel that way, or are you just trying to get me to back off?

MC: Regarding this particular issue, he hasn't done anything wrong.

Barbatos: Okay.

Barbatos: So, what sort of "issue" are you dealing with?

MC: I'm not sure how to put it delicately.

Barbatos: Don't worry about sounding prim and proper. Just tell me what's on your mind.

MC: Here goes nothing...

MC: I'd like to get laid.

Barbatos: I see.

Barbatos: And you're worried about doing it with someone from this timeline, aren't you?

MC: I mean...wouldn't that cause a paradox?

Barbatos: Isn't it a bit late for you to start worrying about paradoxes, considering that three of us know your true identity?

MC: You, Diavolo, and/or Thirteen would have figured it out one way or another. We just figured it would be easier to be open about it with you guys than risk ending up dead or in prison.

Barbatos: Fair point.

Barbatos: Anyway, as long as you don't produce something that's not there in your timeline, you should be good to proceed.

MC: Except I don't trust many people here.

Barbatos: Understandable. I feel the same way.

MC: This is probably a pointless question, but have any advice?

Barbatos: I would say take care of it yourself, but that's not going to help much, is it?

MC: I mean, it's taken the edge off, but nothing I use is going to be quite the same as having another living, breathing person with me.

Barbatos: So you're looking for a physical connection.

MC: Kind of?

Barbatos: My next piece of advice would be to arrange a meeting with an escort, but as you've already stated, you're rather wary of most people here, and personally I don't like dealing with them. They ask for WAY too much when they realize that they're servicing the Young Master, and that doesn't just apply to money.

MC: *whistling crow sticker*

Barbatos: Maybe ask one of the brothers?

MC: *no sticker*

MC: We're not NEARLY that close for me to successfully get away with that.

Barbatos: Is there anyone else who lives here that you had some sort of a relationship with in your timeline?

MC: Yes, but they're out of the question.

Barbatos: Not necessarily.

MC: Trust me.

Barbatos: They're members of royalty, aren't they?

MC: *eyes emoji*

Barbatos: Interesting.

MC: Good or bad?

Barbatos: Not bad. Actually mildly impressed.

MC: Thanks?

Barbatos: So...

MC: *questioning sticker*

Barbatos: If you will allow me to be blunt for a moment, how would you like me to fuck you?

MC: *gif of someone spitting out water*

Barbatos: Simply being practical.

Barbatos: I'm not sending you back to Solomon.

Barbatos: The prince is too busy to help with this, sadly.

Barbatos: And I don't trust any of the other royals to not harm you. I want you to be able to return to your timeline in one piece.

Barbatos: Unless you don't trust me?

MC: It's not that.

Barbatos: Then what is it?

MC: In my timeline, I was your first.

Barbatos: Then that's perfect. We'll still keep that part of it accurate. It'd just happen sooner, which isn't a super big deal.

MC: If I didn't know better, I'd think this was your intention all along.

Barbatos: What, to get in bed with you?

MC: *nodding sticker*

Barbatos: I'd be lying if I told you that hasn't crossed my mind once or twice during your stay here so far.

MC: *gif of someone saying 'i knew it'*

Barbatos: What can I say? Like it or not, I'm a creature of desire.

Barbatos: Also...

Barbatos: Your scent has given you away a couple of times, so I figured that I'd had a fair shot if I ever DID want to indulge.

MC: *blushing emoji*

Barbatos: We'll talk more when you return to the castle.

Taglist: @lost-in-time-wanderer, @fuzztacular, @dianedancer18, @sweetbrier2908, @flare-love, @completelyshatteredbrokenmschf, @thunderlightning351, @l3v1chan, @anxious-chick, @5mary5, @expressionless-fr, @tenkobitch

[sarafangirlart]

Debunking some misinformation about Hephaestus and Aphrodite’s Marriage

I’m so sick and tired so I’m making a thread, enjoy. I’ll break it down into several points.

1. Hephaestus demanded Aphrodite’s hand in marriage in exchange for Hera’s freedom and Aphrodite was forced into the marriage

You’d be surprised by how this isn’t even attested in ancient sources, rather it’s just a theory made by modern scholars bc of how spotty and limited our knowledge about this marriage is, let’s look at the actual sources:

Notice how Aphrodite isn’t even mentioned mentioned as the “prize”? Hephaestus does ask for a goddess in exchange for freeing Hera, but it’s not Aphrodite, it’s Athena. The usual course of events is this:

Hephaestus is angry at Hera for her mistreatment and sends a golden throne that traps her

The other gods try to persuade him to free her but he refuses

Dionysus convinces him by getting him drunk

Again the theory that Aphrodite was the prize for whoever gets Hephaestus to Olympus is just that, a theory. Not a really good one either bc wouldn’t Aphrodite be married to Dionysus instead? It’s a really shallow portrayal of all figures involved tbh, why would Ares only be interested in freeing his mother if it meant he gets to marry Aphrodite? Why would anyone on Olympus not be worried about their queen being chained up? Believe it or not but Hera isn’t as disliked as one would think lol

Now even if Aphrodite wasn’t a prize how did she end up marrying Hephaestus? And was she forced into doing it? No actually (Lucian’s Dialogue of the gods):

That’s not to say this wasn’t an arranged marriage (it most likely was) but arranged marriage and forced marriage are not the same thing. If you think this is a forced marriage then what about Cadmus and Harmonia? Heracles and Hebe? Both these marriages were arranged by Zeus but no one would claim they’re forced marriages.

2. Aphrodite hated Hephaestus

Now this is more open to interpretation, after all love is subjective, but to say they outright hated each other would be incorrect, there is this myth that Aphrodite cursed Lemnos to have the men abandon their wives and female family members, usually bc they neglected on worshipping her (tho a late Latin source says it’s revenge for exposing her affair).

Apollonius of Rhodes' Argonautica:

However this bit seems to be rather… genuine? Almost as if she might have truly felt bad for what she did and wanted to reconcile, sounds like someone with a deeply messy and complicated relationship with their partner, but not outright hate.

Also there is this moment in Lucian’s Dialogue of the Gods which is pretty funny:

3. Hephaestus only saw Aphrodite as property

Ok I don’t like using the “it was a different time” card but like… it really does apply here lol

Now we’ve already established that Aphrodite was never a prize for Hephaestus to begin with so what about the betrothal gifts he gave to Zeus? Obviously that means he was buying Aphrodite right?

Well, no actually this is a normal part of Ancient Greek marriage (obviously it varied between cities and time periods but it usually goes something like this), the father of the bride and the groom exchange gifts with each other to establish a bond between the two, the bride herself wasn’t the “gift” Zeus’s gift to Hephaestus was most likely his place on Olympus.

To say that Hephaestus bought Aphrodite would mean that Odysseus bought Penelope, or Hector bought Andromache, both are ludicrous claims.

4. Hephaestus is an incel and Ares is this big feminist icon

No, just… no.

Ares was never considered “the protector of women” in Ancient Greece that’s tumblr fanfiction and plenty of other ppl have made posts debunking this (including me) so I won’t repeat that here. Now about Hephaestus being an “incel” all the male Olympians have at least one story where they harm an innocent/defenseless woman, all of them, yes including Ares who persecuted Leto while she was heavily pregnant by Hera’s orders.

5. Aphrodite cheated to “regain her sexuality”

No Patrick, cheating on your disabled spouse with his brother in the bed and palace he made for you is not a girlboss move it’s being an asshole (all the gods are flawed, how thought provoking). Hell, even Zeus wouldn’t pull shit like this with Hera.

Aphrodite and Ares most likely did this hoping it would be the last place anyone would suspect an affair, since Aphrodite could’ve had sex with Ares in his own place or some meadow somewhere but that might cause ppl to be too suspicious.

6. Ares is a big dumb brute who can’t take a hint and only saw Aphrodite for her beauty

Believe it or not, just bc I criticize Aphrodite and Ares doesn’t mean I hate them lol. Now look, all the gods care deeply about looks but that’s not the only thing that Ares and Aphrodite love about each other. Here is Ares being a total simp and actually listening to her:

Iliad book 5

Thebaid book 3

7. Aphrodite felt neglected by Hephaestus bc he’s too busy at the forge

No lol, she straight up works with him at the forge, why wouldn’t she? If anything this claim makes Aphrodite even more shallow than she actually is.

8. Aphrodite and Ares didn’t care about being humiliated in the golden net and Ares straight up brags about cucking his brother

Yes I’ve heard such claims and no Ares and Aphrodite are actually capable of feeling shame lol, almost as if they were in the wrong. Also why would Ares actively antagonize the guy who makes all his stuff? Maybe that’s why Athena keeps beating his ass, bc Hephaestus purposely gives Ares shitty weapons and armor lol

Anyways umm… I think that’s it? Maybe I missed a few things bc I’m frustrated af rn

Just so y’all know, I’m not a scholar I’m just autistic and read a lot lol. I hope I didn’t miss something or get anything wrong.

Have a good day (or night).

[thedaythatwas]

not a hot take, but I'll say it again: there is literally no way that akechi liking philosophy was part of the detective prince front. this is a man who genuinely enjoys thinking through ethical dilemmas. like, he confirms it in royal, when you're at the jazz club together third semester:

(and yes, in third semester akechi-speak, this is him saying he enjoys it!)

I'm going to ramble on, so I'll insert a page break here real quick.

even if it wasn’t confirmed for us in canon, liking philosophy just fits with akechi's characterization. akechi's referenced hobbies are all activities he can do alone: darts, billiards, bouldering, cycling. sure, everything I listed is much more fun with a partner– enter akiren– but that's literally the narrative role akiren plays in akechi's story! akiren drives home for akechi that more can be accomplished when you learn to rely on others. this applies to talking philosophy. especially so, actually.

I think enjoying it serves a dual purpose for akechi.

one: being able to throw out philosophers' names is undeniably something you can use as social clout, and I know that akechi is well aware of that. he likes being pretentious. yes, it's to uphold the prince image for the sake of his revenge plot, but he also does it for himself, because of his past experiences as a so-called undesirable child. image, including appearing to be well-educated, is important to him for a number of reasons.

two: thinking is something that can fill his time spent alone. as someone who's been so profoundly wronged by the system– and gone on to do objectively harmful things within it himself– he's got plenty of life experience to fuel his pondering. you can bet it's all pretty angry and jaded. nobody said thinking about ethics makes you feel good.

and sure, you can weigh the merits of utilitarianism alone. you can think all you want about what "justice" and "free will" are by yourself. but it's much more fun to talk about with someone else, if that's what you're into (and akechi is).

I don't think it's a stretch to say that akiren's willingness to talk philosophy with akechi is one of the reasons he finds himself sucked into the revenge-scheme-threatening shitshow that is their rivalry. it's easy to say that their "discussions" are a front akechi uses to get closer to akiren, and really, they probably started out that way. but akechi soon finds that akiren really is an enigma– his constant praise of akiren isn't empty. akiren is self-assured, he pushes akechi, and akechi finds himself pulled into their banter like a moth to flame. if akiren couldn't pique akechi's interest, I think akechi could have maintained much more emotional distance from his would-be target.

all this to say, akechi genuinely being a pretentious nerd makes his relationship with akiren make ten times more sense. if akiren couldn't keep up with him, I think their story (or at least, how akechi experienced it emotionally) would have gone much differently.

[piratecaptainscaptainpirates]

Given all the really excellent and interesting talk about this recently, I wanted to write up a quick list of ways we see Izzy being consistently abusive to Ed in season 1, just so I have a handy post to link to the next time someone asks me "wait, how is Izzy abusive?"

(Again, I genuinely like Izzy. I think he's a great character, but dismissing how he behaves in s1 defangs him as a character, cheapens his s2 arc, and decontextualizes a lot of Ed's behavior.)

Izzy is shown as being emotionally abusive to Ed throughout season 1, because he:

Controls the information Ed has access to. In s1e3, we see Izzy tell Ed his own version of events, twisting them to suit his purposes. He does this so easily and cleanly it's clear he's probably been lying to Ed to manipulate his perception of events for a long time.

Isolates Ed from others. We do not see Ed talk to any crew members before s1e4, and even then, Izzy cuts the conversation short. He also prevents anyone from seeing Ed in s1e10 until Ed makes him ask for Lucius. In s2 Ed tells us that he knew very little about Fang despite having worked with him for 20 years - Izzy seems to make a habit of making Ed unapproachable.

On that note, Izzy insults and demeans Ed to other crew members, creating his own narrative around Ed's actions. He says he "massages" the crew when they're worried about Ed's judgment, but what he actually does is tell them Ed's "half-insane." He is creating a situation where Ed is reliant on Izzy for information and the crew feel like they need Izzy to interpret what he presents as the irrational demands of an insane man, even though we as the audience know Ed's behavior is never as erratic or irrational as Izzy makes it out to be.

Insults and demeans Ed to his face. Izzy is not shy about calling Ed insane and unpleasant to his face, and Ed doesn't seem surprised to hear it. I don't think it's a coincidence that Ed admits while he's in the gravy basket in s2 that he's scared he's insane - that's one of Izzy's favorite insults to apply to him and he's clearly internalized it.

Ignores Ed's feelings and wants when he's not acting the way Izzy believes is appropriate. We see Ed constantly reaching out to Izzy in s1e4 to share his thoughts and excitement, and Izzy shuts him down every time. Izzy's created a situation where Ed can only really talk to Izzy, and Ed is clearly desperate for human connection.

Pushes Ed to harm someone Ed loves, even when Izzy knows that Ed "adores" Stede and Stede makes him genuinely happy. Izzy is very insistant about getting Ed to kill Stede, even once it's obvious Ed has already deeply bonded with Stede.

Literally "buys" Ed in return for selling Stede out. This is just gross and unacceptable, not to mention wildly racist. Frankly I think Ed showed remarkable restraint for only punching him once.

Tries to get Stede killed in front of Ed, multiple times.

Obviously, threatens and mocks Ed when Ed isn't behaving "appropriately." When Ed is starting to feel better in s1e10, and is reaching out to the crew and connecting with them, and is painting his nails and singing and generally behaving in a much more feminine and emotionally available way than Izzy would prefer, Izzy threatens him to force him back into the hyper-masculine Blackbeard persona he knows Ed hates and Ed has said he wants to move past.

Goads Ed into violent behavior and is delighted when Ed is visibly upset. When Ed chokes Izzy, Izzy is laughing and grinning and generally having a very nice time while Ed's standing there with tears in his eyes and visibly terrified. He's very happy to have gotten the reaction he was trying to provoke and doesn't care about Ed's feelings.

So, take it all together, and we can see that Izzy has created an atmosphere where he has put himself in control of Ed and has further manipulated the crew so they look to Izzy as a filter for Ed's behavior so Izzy can completely control the narrative. When he thinks he's losing control of Ed, that's when Izzy tries to get Stede killed, without regard for Ed's emotions. Izzy consistently insults Ed, ignores his desires and feelings, and prioritizes his control over Ed's feelings.

Have I missed anything?

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

Thoughts on Jason Todd’s choice of weaponry?

:D an ask! Yay!

Oooh, lets see, I'll start with the crowbars because I appear to be like one of three people on the entire planet who actually likes them.

They're a tacky as fuck riff on the fact that Jason's death is central to his character. They overemphasize the manner in which he died, muddy the waters about what part of his death is important to him, and strangely cheapens the manner in which he died through the parody feel of it.

No one seems to really disagree with my analysis here, but I happen to enjoy that about them and think it's very on brand for Jason. What can I say? They're fun!

Best Quality - His Wiggles

This ultra-sharp curved blade used to be his signature character design feature, the way the white streak in his hair is now, and I'm really not sure why it didn't stick!

Best weapon he's ever had, bring it back please!!!!!

The All-Blades

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

I have mixed feelings about the All-Blades. Like much of Lobdell's work: phenomenal idea, poor execution. Giving the guy who is most known for being morally grey a set of powers that is exclusively based on moral absolutes sucks shit, I gotta be honest, and the trick he pulled on the blood blade was cool but ultimately does nothing to solve those problems.

HOWEVER

I want to love them so fucking badly. A set of glowy soul blades is a dope sicknasty off the chain concept and I wish the well wasn't poisoned with the moral implications and the restrictions to use them only on the "Untitled", a set of enemies that only exist for Jason so far as I can tell. If someone seriously took Jason down a magic based path that removed the DnD alignment chart bullshit, I would be so game to see them come back! Hell I wouldn't even insist on a better cooler design for them!

...though uh, yeah those are the least interesting magic sword designs I've ever seen tbh

Normal Ass Swords

They're alright I guess. Like, there's nothing in it really, but it's not bad?

Guns - Real Bullets

Excellent, evocative yet simple, straightforwards and to the point. It makes hella sense thematically to boot, love this for him, please give him back his pistols and miniguns and shit

Guns - Rubber Bullets

Hate. HATE. hate ick disgusting bad NO.

I just fucking hate rubber bullets, like, as a concept. I refuse to accept "non-lethal" bullets as a valid use of gun, either in real life or in fiction. Guns are for putting many holes in things very fast!!!! If you're gonna use a gun, fucking well own up to that!!! Do not play this silly ass game of pretending that you can change out the material and do the same things as with lead bullets but with the video game status effect of "non-lethal" applied. YOU ARE GIVING PEOPLE SMALL CIRCULAR BRUISES. This is still harmful, yes, ooph ouchie, but it is not even slightly a good use of a gun, you are wasting holster space, and carry weight, and the physical materials used to make it all!!

JUST USE A FUCKING STICK! YOU DON'T RUN OUT OF STICK AMMO!

My belief in his capacity to take out enemies is shattered the instant those fuckers are on panel. Maybe this ain't entirely rational, or realistic to how fights go with rubber bullets IRL, but I hate them so much on principle that I will ignore any counterargument you might have that they'd work. I will die on this hill. Rubber bullets BAD. Please stop making him use this!!

Bombs

Love it, give him more bombs forever

ka-BOOM!!!!

His Brain

This is actually his best weapon - sorry wiggly knife, you're being shunted down to number 2 on a last minute technicality! I think Jason is at his best when he's outsmarting people and making long term fucked up schemes to ruin people's lives.

He's so good at it! It's so fun to watch him do it!

Genuinely a shame that this facet of him was mostly lost after Flashpoint, though to give credit where it is due, in Rebirth Jason did ruin the Penguin's life in an impressively elaborate way, which I did really enjoy. I want to see him be a tactical deliberate menace to one person in specific again idk, that's part of why I do kinda agree that he works better as an antagonist than a protagonist - which it should be noted does not mean I think he works better as a villain necessarily, his ethics aren't what matter here - he's just had his best moments as the schemer, and it's hard to have a protagonist schemer even when you make them ethically the good guy.

I hope you enjoyed my nattering on about Jason's weapons :D thank ye again for ask!

[prettyboykatsuki]

how do you reconcile with writing smut about characters who are canonically minors? i’m not trying to attack you or try to change your mind or anything, so sorry if my question reads that way. i’m just genuinely curious 😭

no worries!! this is asked respectfully so i dont mind answering even tho i usually just delete stuff abt this now

idk really know how to answer your question i have not reiterated many times. but like. i want you to really consider your own way of asking this to me critically. like what would i have to "reconcile" with exactly? them being minors in canon?

for me personally there's nothing to reconcile with. i feel no guilt or shame or remorse about aging up characters. or just like wanting to fuck them. or really anything i write in fiction at all, point blank - should i choose to explore it. like there's not crime i've committed other than being horny about some shit i made up, upon the basis some shit another guy made up.

partially this is bc characters in fictions are concepts. they're objects, thoughts, ideas. no matter how brainrotted i am about them, they don't live in material reality. im not harming them because they don't exist. outside of my phone and computer they are not real. harrowing myself with guilt over something that does not even exist is kind of insane. this applies to everything.

you can feel personal discomfort over aging up for yourself, but the reality is no actual minors are harmed in the process of me writing porn about anime characters. bakugou is lines on paper. i am allowed to cut him out like a barbie doll and play with him however i like. he doesn't get a say in that because he is fake lol.

there's like idk. all sorts of nuance to this and if you are respectfully curious im happy to talk to you about it. but they're just not real. no one is hurt in me writing this. so it doesn't matter to me at all. i would never hurt another person because of what im interested in fictionally, either. i have spent too many years becoming a decent human being to wonder about that

nothing i do in the fictional space is of any relevance to who i am, except for what things might cause genuine harm to another living breathing person. i write a lot of dark content in my smut also but

a lot of my content also while being dark, does not specifically deal with sensitive social issues so no one is hurt in that way either. i have enough confidence in my critical understanding of the world to write what i do understand to my ability. i mostly write about noncon and dubcon and yandere, all of which are personal violations and not social ones (OVERSIMPLIFYING THERE A LOT). i sometimes do write about social taboos of course but not whats outside of my ability

all in all its like. i dont know what i'd feel guilty over. no one is hurt and i have no intent to harm. nothing matters outside of that

[showmey0urfangs]

This person on twitter said that any sex between loumand after 1949 is considered rape by deception. If i don’t agree on this, does that make me a bad person? is this even true at all?? i promise im not starting shit, sometimes im genuinely confused on how to navigate this show (and the fandom) because im not educated enough about its heavy themes. and now i dont even know if i can continue shipping loumand if thats how ppl think of them. you dont have to answer this if you dont want to im sorry if i bringing you discomfort i just dont know what to think and i have nobody to discuss this show with. https://x.com/dhampirdulac/status/1812391085974454647?s=46

Hi Anon! I've seen this same kind of talk floating around both on here and on Twitter. I don't agree with it personally. I think it stems from wanting to apply human morality and human logic to creatures that are not. These are monsters, as beautiful and alluring as they may look.

If we follow this logic, then every single sexual encounter Louis had with Lestat in season 1 was also rape. Lestat gives Louis the dark gift under duress and false pretenses, and he lies to him and manipulates him throughout their entire relationship. How dare people ship them and find their sex scenes enjoyable?! Jail!!!

I've also seen people argue that the only reason Louis continues to have sex with Lestat is because he uses it as his only bargaining chip to avoid further violent outbursts. Or that he traded it in exchange for making Claudia. Therefore all the sex between them is also rape by coercion. And if you enjoy it then you are an immoral pervert! Jail!!!

I've also seen folks argue that due to Armand's past trauma, he's unable to fully consent to the type of dynamic that he and Louis engage in. He's using BDSM as a form of self harm and evil devious former pimp Louis uses it to manipulate him. So he's also being raped each time he has sex with Louis or that Louis orders him to bend over face down ass up in the coffin. Jail!!!

I've also seen the argument that in s1 ep6, Lestat allows Louis to rape him in a similar way to what Magnus did to him. But Lestat allows it to happen because he feels it's the only way to get Louis back. So if you enjoyed the hate fuck scene in that episode, jail!!!

And of course, you also have the issue of the vast and problematic age gap with Armand and Daniel. A brown man who is former sex slave dating a white man who once referred to him as a rent boy and mocked his religious beliefs. Outrageous! But on the flip side, you have a vulnerable and frail old man who is attacked and coerced into vampirism by an infinitely more powerful being, and who is now forced to be connected to him for eternity. How can Daniel possibly consent to sex in that situation? Unacceptable! Jail!!!

Oh, and Claudia is also being raped by Madeleine because she's older in human years and clearly has a penchant for younger partners. But on the flip side, Madeleine is being raped by Claudia because Claudia is older in vampiric years and far more powerful than her. Immediate Jail for both of them!!!

So basically by this logic, all the characters on the show are constantly raping each other left and right, and we as an moral and righteous audience should not be enjoying any of it lest we be branded apologists and perverts.

I find this to be such a laughably surface level and reductive way of looking at the complex dynamics between these characters. And again, it seeks to define them in human terms and to confine them to a human understanding of what a "healthy" loving relationship looks like.

At this point I have no interest in engaging with any of this because we've been having this same discourse for the past two years. Once you scratch beneath the surface, it very quickly became evident that all these arguments are just strawman. It's a way for people to minimize and dismiss ships or characters they don't like and prop up the ones they do. It's a way for them to virtue signal and pretend they are better and smarter than all the other unrefined peasants who are consuming this show 'wrong'. They are morally superior because they prefer one blood thirsty serial killer over all the others. It's a boring, sterile and useless discussion.

I'd say keep shipping Loumand if you want to, or don't if it makes you uncomfortable. But I think the people making these arguments need to consider that perhaps a dark gothic romance about toxic monsters that kill for a living is not the right show for them. Like I said a year ago, if you want bland, sanitized, PG rated, unproblematic vampires, there is always Twilight. ✨😊

[warmshotamilk]

"I don't support it in real life!"CW: talk of sexualizing minors, slight rant

Then why write about it? If for coping purposes, why post it online for others (especially actual predators) to see and consume? Then why portray those things in a positive light instead of condemning them?And you're seriously going to tell me that just because as an adult (1) you want to see a fictional minor (that mind you, is usually designed to resemble an actual child) depicted in sexual situations doesn't mean you don't share that same view concerning children in real life? You find fictional minors attractive but not real ones? Why does the line between finding someone who is (and usually also looks like) a child sexually attractive get drawn at whether the child is real or not? I'm not calling anyone pedophiles, but if the shoe fits...(1) No I am not talking about 18 y/os finding 17 y/os attractive. Use your brain. Creating content of underaged characters is still questionable regardless of age, however.

"Just mute/block instead of harassing others!"I have nearly 70k people blocked on twitter, and hundreds of words and tags muted, I softblock and mute people who post things I don't want to see. I still see certain things on my timeline, usually because1) It's posted in the main tags of something I'm interested in2) The post isn't even tagged at all3) If someone quote retweets from someone I've blocked, I still see the take on my timeline.

"Antis use the same rhetoric as exclusionists and TERFS!"What exactly does being against pedophilia have to do with trans (women) exclusionary radical feminism?And what does lgbtq discourse in general have to do with not wanting minors to be sexualized?

So much yapping only to send an absolute nothingburger of an ask. Like this was a genuine waste of your and my time to send me this

I'll still answer this but I'm going to put in about as much effort into typing my reply than it took you to type this out (not much)

Then why write about it?

Because why not? Who does it hurt to write about fictional characters doing fictional things? I'll tell you: It's nobody

If for coping purposes, why post it online for others (especially actual predators) to see and consume?

I am loving (hating) the implication of this that consuming/making dark fiction is somehow just as bad as a predator preying on someone. Spoilers: It's not. At all. It's frankly gross to even add that part

Not to mention that I would much prefer a pedophile* look at FICTIONAL shit than look at REAL shit because, and contrary to popular belief, it WON'T eventually become "not enough." It is a valid way of coping with paraphilia disorders

*I am assuming you mean pedophile when you say predator, completely ignoring the fact that not all pedophiles are offending. But, to cover this in case you actually DO mean actual predators... you are focusing on the WRONG THING if you bitch about a predator looking at fiction when they are harming actual fucking people

Then why portray those things in a positive light instead of condemning them?

Because it's fiction, Karen. It's fun to play with fiction. You can make a serial murderer a "good person" in fiction, too. You can make ANYONE a "good person" in fiction. It's fucking FUN to not have real world rules apply in fiction. You're just boring

Also, and I only want to mention this briefly because I don't want to trauma dump on a loser who can't even come off anon, the way I cope with fiction genuinely Would Not Work if it was portrayed in a dark light. If anything, it can sometimes make me feel worse and it's something I have to actively avoid. Which I do. Because I can curate my own online experience without bitching at other people to cater to me. Wild

And you're seriously going to tell me that just because as an adult you want to see a fictional minor (that mind you, is usually designed to resemble an actual child) depicted in sexual situations doesn't mean you don't share that same view concerning children in real life?

LMAO okay let me just really quickly bring more attention to the "is usually designed to resemble an actual child" and just ask you: Do you like lying? Because you're lying here. No, a fictional child is almost "designed to resemble an actual child," you just have a very, very, very, very, VERY skewed view of what a child is

Anyways, in regards to the rest of your question: Yeah. Because fiction isn't reality and what someone likes in fiction doesn't reflect what they like outside of fiction. Lesbians can have crushes on fictional men while still not having any romantic and/or sexual interest in real men at all. People can have crushes on fictional villains while condemning abuse, murder, and anything else of the sort. Those things are obvious, why is THIS the thing you draw a line at? Oh yeah, because it's icky bad in THIS case because you refuse to accept fiction and reality don't conflate in this way

Why does the line between finding someone who is (and usually also looks like) a child sexually attractive get drawn at whether the child is real or not?

Yeesh. Don't like the way you're talkin', bud. Having an uncontrollable paraphilia not inherently bad, it only becomes bad once that person is abusing, plans to abuse, or condones the abusing of real life beings. Attractions are not actions

Not to mention, comparing lolisho to actual CSEM is fucking disgusting. In one scenario, a real child is being ACTUALLY exploited and abused, while in the other... buddy, those are just lines. Pixels. Colors on a screen. Fuck off. No one is being harmed, THAT'S why the line is drawn there. The fact I have to TELL that to you tell me something about you and lemmie tell ya, the thing it's telling me Isn't Great For You

I'm not calling anyone pedophiles, but if the shoe fits…

It doesn't fit. You're like Cinderella's sisters with how y'all will try to be like "the shoe fits, it fits!" when trying to force the word "pedophile" onto people when the definition does not apply to them

"Just mute/block instead of harassing others!"I have nearly 70k people blocked on twitter, and hundreds of words and tags muted, I softblock and mute people who post things I don't want to see. I still see certain things on my timeline, usually because1) It's posted in the main tags of something I'm interested in2) The post isn't even tagged at all3) If someone quote retweets from someone I've blocked, I still see the take on my timeline.

Womp to the fucking womp. You are on the internet, you are going to see things you don't like. Hell, seeing shit you don't like comes free with LIVING AT ALL. Suck it the fuck up or off forever if you truly can't handle the few seconds of discomfort upon seeing shit you don't like. No one is going to cater to you. The sooner your come to terms with that the sooner you can start living a happier life. Until then, stop acting like an entitled prick. Poor you, woe is you, fuck off

"Antis use the same rhetoric as exclusionists and TERFS!"What exactly does being against pedophilia have to do with trans (women) exclusionary radical feminism?And what does lgbtq discourse in general have to do with not wanting minors to be sexualized?

Ignoring the fact I have literally never in my life compared antis to TERFs, nor do I really see ANYONE saying that, we LOVE (hate) when people lie! Omg it's my favorite thing!!! (sarcasm. if you couldn't tell)

You aren't "against pedophilia," you aren't talking about "not wanting minors to be sexualized," you are talking about how you don't like that fiction you don't like exists and how you want it to not only to be banned but criminalized. You are against freedom of fiction. You are pro-censorship. You are authoritarian. You are a puritan. Stop lying to make yourself look better

[genderkoolaid]

hey! if you have the spoons, would you happen to have any posts/anecdotes refuting this thread? https://www.tumblr.com/neondyke/719263498717233152/nonhoration?source=share

so. one of my big problems with how we talk about TERFs is the sort of conspiratorial energy some people have towards them- not in that TERFs don't lie about their beliefs, but the idea that all radical feminists are part of this huge conspiracy where none of them actually believe any of what they say. The idea that no TERF actually, genuinely cares about women, or gender non-conforming people- or that none of them hate men.

Just because TERFism is misogynistic, harmful to GNC people, and often allies with conservative men, does not mean every TERF hates other women, GNC people, and likes men. Its vital to be critical of what TERFs say vs what their actions say- but we do ourselves and them a disservice by shoving our fingers in our ears and essentially saying that no TERF can be genuine, and I actually know what they really believe in their hearts. This is especially important when you aren't interacting with high-level TERFs (especially those making bank off public appearances & books & shit), but like. regular smegular everyday women who got radicalized, or people who are on the verge of being radicalized and are put-off by people who seem to be incapable of seeing TERFs as having genuine beliefs.

I say that all because the idea that TERFs aren't misandrists, that they don't really hate men, is just straight-up ridiculous. It assumes that radical feminism was born exclusively as a reaction to trans women, that none of its theorists or activists were genuinely trying to apply Marxist analysis to gender/sex dynamics and create a better world for women. Which ignores other parts of radical feminism, like their anti-sex work rhetoric/whorephobia. (If you have access to JSTOR, I recommend reading "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism" by Ellen Willis, a former radfem; it dives into the problems with 60s radical feminism from an inside perspective).

I absolutely think TERF hatred for trans women is not exclusively a result of their misandry. This is because all transphobia is systematic, and everyone born and raised in transphobic society has transphobia woven into their thinking. So if you are a cis woman, probably one who has had traumatic experiences with misogyny coming from cis men- probably one with some interest in leftism, who is annoyed by liberal #girlboss feminism which feels lackluster, who is envious of the subversive, direct-action, "tear the system down" feminism of the past- and you have an unexamined, ingrained bias against trans people, well. TERFism will provide explanation and affirmation for your trauma and the promise of the radical feminist action of your dreams to allow you to lash out at your oppressors with the logic of the guillotine. Your unexamined bias against trans women will mean you don't see their transmisogyny as unreasonable, and even if you never really thought about trans women before, its gonna be real easy for you to accept them as a threat to Real Women.

But to assume that every time a TERF says "men" or "male," she means "trans woman," is just ignorant. TERFs are surrounded by cis men, because they live in the same society as us. They see cis men acting misogynistic, many of them have been personally hurt by cis men, they very much mean "cis men" when they say things like "all men should be castrated" or "all male babies should be aborted"- how exactly can you talk about males as a sex and never refer to cis men? When they talk about how using dildos or any sort of penetrative sex is patriarchal and Bad, that's not because they hate trans women, its because they see anything that could be associated with maleness as bad.

Here's a quote from Sylvia Riveria's very important work "Queens in Exile, The Forgotten Ones":

"Oh, yeah, we mixed with lesbians. We always got along back then. All the division between lesbian women and queens came after 1974 when Jean O'Leary and the radical lesbians came up. The radicals did not accept us or masculine-looking women who dressed like men. And those lesbian women might not even have been trans."

TERF hatred for transmasculinity goes back far before ROGD and the idea of transmasculinity as a social disease affecting "innocent young girls." Here's a quote from Leslie Feinberg's Transgender Warriors:

"A view that the primary division of society is between women and men leads some women to fear that transsexual women are men in sheep's clothing coming across their border, or that female-to-male transsexuals are going over to the enemy, or that I look the same as the enemy."

If TERFs have no real hatred for men or masculinity, why did/do they attack butches & transmascs? Why, before ROGD was the trendy way to attack transmasculinity, did they specifically attack us for being too masculine and therefore imitating the oppressor? The idea that trans women are the only ones blamed by TERFs for ROGD is also false- adult trans men, especially those with any public influence, are frequently blamed for "preying" on young "girls." (Also, fun fact: that last quoted paragraph ends with: "Trans people of all sexes and genders are not oppressors: they, like women, rank among the oppressed.")

Lastly, I feel like we- all trans people- have an issue of trying to match our genders & the way our genders do impact how we are treated, with the way our sexual/gendered misgendering also impacts how we are treated. For example, I am often frustrated by trans men who are resistant to talking about how trans men face misogyny because "it feels like misgendering." I don't think we can really deal with transphobia unless we cope with the fact that we are trans people- we are socially placed between genders and punished for that, and that means that we will be attacked because of our relationship to our gender assigned at birth (although not exclusively). See this post for more of my thoughts on that.

Obligatory "please don't harass any of the people in the screenshot above, just block them & move on" notice

[thegreatzombieartisan]

RoP!Sauron and the Missing Repentance or “Don’t Eat the Children!”

For what he has to work with, Charlie Vickers is killing it as Sauron. Yet what’s interesting is an interview (Time or Empire?), where showrunners said the audience will feel sympathy for Sauron in S2.

It’s arguably inappropriate for an adaption to portray Sauron as sympathetic given how legendarium is Catholic work. Neither Sauron nor the Devil was an antihero turned villain like Walter White, Tony Soprano, or Milton’s Lucifer in Paradise Lost. And while it’s on point for Amazon to promote sympathy for the Devil, rumor has it that this angle is actually Simon Tolkien’s idea. Interesting.

In any event, if one did feel pity, or even sympathy, for Sauron, it would be during his brief repentance

Sauron’s relapse back into darkness is a pivotal plot point

Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation…

Shame is a heavy emotion — it is perceiving oneself to be somehow fundamentally flawed, unlovable, or unworthy in the eyes of others. Many of us know of someone who, like Sauron, failed to overcome shame despite its harmful impact on others or themselves.

While shame can be constructive if not accompanied by blaming others, this is not true for humiliation. It is a common feature of humiliation to feel wronged, unfairness, or injustice. Refusing to take full responsibility is what dooms Sauron’s redemption.

Want my sympathy? Show Sauron genuinely do good and struggle but ultimately fail to free himself from the “heavy bonds Morgoth laid upon him”. That is at least understandable and pitiful, and would give his character arc satisfying complexity.

However, as RoP tells it, Sauron never fell back into darkness — he never left

In Forodwaith, Sauron is a satanic presence fresh from committing war crimes who also experimented on orcs, aka sentient that possess consciousness and feel pain, before assassination. Instead of performing acts of benevolence for at least some of the following millennium, he spent it as an evil chowmein puddle (absurd to the point of hilarity).

He ate one of the Children; and despite being a beast master, he allowed a sea monster to snack on the Children. Some might argue that Sauron took a noninterventionist role like the Valar but it’s clear he acted to save his own life — or rather, from becoming evil chowmein in the ocean (can chowmein swim?)

What is there to be sympathetic about? Sauron was depicted continuously as evil. Totally evil. Smug evil.

“Do you think Sauron really repented?”

An often asked question twice answered. Per Tolkien:

[Sauron] lingers in Middle-earth. Very slowly, beginning with fair motives: the reorganising and rehabilitation of the ruin of Middle-earth

“… his temporary turn to good and 'benevolence' ended in a greater relapse, until he became the main representative of Evil of later ages."

“Fair motives” = “good intentions”. To be clear, “good” isn’t subjective but objectively defined within legendarium’s divine (Catholic) moral order. In other words, you can’t possess “fair motives” if your concept of good and evil is misaligned with the divine good.

Sauron isn’t fallen like Gollum or Wormtongue. He is not of the Children but of the Ainur who are governed by a secret code called axani — although it clearly includes not harming the Children. If Sauron had “fair motives” and acted “benevolently”, then his understanding and actions were (briefly) good.

“B-b-but Sauron only repented out of fear!”

Immaterial. In Catholic reconciliation, two types of acceptable contrition (sincere sorrow) exist: perfect and imperfect. Simply, even if Sauron was motivated by fear, it still falls under imperfect contrition.

How does someone become “perfectly contrite”? Take Diarmid’s advice: do good. Goodness is cultivated like any other skill. It is interesting how RoP seems to understands this through a wise Southlander but does not apply it to Sauron.

[otaku553]

I recall you mentioning once that you worked in a lab, do u have any advice for getting to that point? I want (read: NEED) to work or intern at a lab but I don’t rlly know what to ask the ppl running them lol

If I can help I'd be glad to!! Full disclaimer though, I am an undergrad junior and I go to school at a pretty reputable research institution so I may not be that much help because I've been pretty lucky and privileged to have direct access to many opportunities. If you're not a high schooler or undergrad student, my advice might not even apply to you at all. This got quite long, so I'll put this under a read more. If you have any more questions, feel free to dm me!

I don't know what your research interests are or what level of schooling you're at so I'll try my best to be broad. You're right that it's best to directly ask the person running the lab, the principal investigator (PI). Even if there's an official application process for fellowships or summer research grants or programs, usually already having reached out to a mentor is either a requirement or strongly encouraged. This applies for both university labs and I think rseearch agency labs like NIH, though I will say, a lot more of my advice will apply to labs at universities.

Understandably, though, it's really difficult to write that email, and quite disheartening that usually you'll need to write multiple emails to different PIs before even getting a reply back. One way to deal with this is to find a template online to copy, because word for word these emails usually go

"Hello [so and so], My name is [so and so] and I'm [brief introduction]. I'm interested in [what research this lab does] and was wondering if you have any positions available in your lab for [period you want to do internship during]. If you need them, my resume and transcript are attached. Thank you for your time."

You can delve into more specifcs in the body but it doesn't need to be long-- I think PIs tend to be quite busy, so being concise and direct is good, as long as you're genuine about what you're interested in. It doesn't need to be an essay or multiple paragraphs or anything! I find that usually 3-4 sentences suffices. If they want to know more, they'll usually ask to meet to talk about what you're interested in.

(On a side note, my roommate has an excellent strategy for dealing with anxiety when sending an email where you recite "fuck it we ball fuck it we ball fuck it we ball" while clicking send lmao)

Now, more specifically, if you're already attending a college that has labs, and professors who are PIs of those labs, it can be useful to take a class that the PI teaches and email either while taking the class or after the class and say "this class was very interesting and i was hoping to explore [so and so] further. Do you have any openings in your lab etc." If you don't have the time to do this, just cold-emailing the lab is usually fine too, but it's good to cite a connection I think? Also keep an eye out for any presentations or seminars that might be given by grad students or professors, since going to those can be a good way to express interest.

If you're a high schooler, you won't have the immediate connection, but I think most researchers would be impressed with the initiative to reach out and have no reason to refuse help. You might have a harder time finding a paid internship as a high schooler, but even with volunteering you can definitely get a foot into the door with research experience. I think a good way to start for high schoolers is looking into local university labs and expressing an interest in their work? Or reaching out to alumni of your school to ask for general advice and or opportunities.

If you don't receive an email back, you can send a follow up in two or three days. Sometimes emails can get pushed to the bottom of the inbox before they're seen, and it's no harm to just bump it again, with a little "hello! I wasn't sure if you'd seen this email. I'd like to follow up on this." (historically, I have been very bad at this, ahha). If you receive a negative response (which is pretty unlikely I think?) you can still thank them for their time and ask for advice regarding getting into research for their field of specialty.

I hope this helps! If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask or dm me. I will try my best to be helpful :)

[diamondperfumes]

@saltywinteradult I don't know why you blocked me before screenshotting my post and reposting it to, I suppose, "refute" my post amongst your followers, but I welcome open discussion at any time! I don't like this back and forth of screenshotting. You definitely don't need to censor my username either, as I stand by what I said and don't see any problem with it. If your followers have issues with what I said too, they can easily reply to the post I wrote, or send me an ask (I'm pretty sure my inbox is open; please let me know if not).

That said, I think this post is a good encapsulation of the reasoning fans have for hating Daenerys, but also an encapsulation of why I love her:

Murder is horrific. That applies as much to Dany burning Mirri alive in a magical ritual as it does to Mirri murdering Dany's baby in her womb. And you are absolutely entitled to finding Dany a horrifying character for murdering an enslaved woman. What I love about Dany, though, is that she is not a hypocrite or an aestheticized martyr. She refuses to let bad things happen to her loved ones without reprisal. She will not accept the death of her child blithely. Just as any other parent or family member who seeks vengeance for their loved ones, be it Robb Stark, Lady Stoneheart, the Sand Snakes, Doran Martell, and more, Dany will not forgive the woman who murdered her son. Her son is her bottom line, just as he was when Viserys threatened his life, making Dany finally accept that he was no longer her brother. And I would much rather that Dany do the "horrible thing," an act of vengeance and blood magic, than forgive Mirri. Forgiving Mirri would not have been a realistic or human response. Above all, GRRM writes well fleshed out, human characters. I relate to the Dany who loves her children so much that she'll forgive pain to herself (for example, she bears no ill will toward Mirri for causing her the exruciating physical pain of a miscarriage) but not to her children, people, or loved ones. I relate to the Dany who is angry at those who harm her loved ones, and is ruthless and furious rather than passive and docile in the face of that pain and suffering. I relate to the Dany who, as a teenage bridal slave pit against another slave, made an arguably selfish decision. I want my female characters to make at times selfish, at times horrific choices, in the name of love, family, motherhood. GRRM created a beautifully multidimensional female character in breaking from the "passive recipient of violence" mold for so many fantasy women––violence is done unto Dany, but she will not be the submissive, obedient, demure martyr who dies or suffers to make others comfortable. Her baby had meaning to her. Her baby was her home. And she avenged that loss, as I'd expect any realistic, human mother to.

In a feudalist setting, any character who did what Mirri did would've been executed. Mirri expected to be executed to, and in fact goaded Dany with that intent. I would love if you, or anyone else, would name someone who'd forgive Mirri and let her go in this situation! I genuinely am curious to see if you can come up with anyone. If Mirri was going to be executed anyway, I much prefer Dany's mentality––"She told herself that there were powers stronger than hatred, and spells older and truer than any the maegi had learned in Asshai. The night was black and moonless, but overhead a million stars burned bright. She took that for an omen."––than just pure hatred. Dany creates life out of death. As Mirri teaches her, "if life was meaningless, what was death?" "only death may pay for life." She could have beheaded Mirri in one go, and such violence may have satiated her anger, but what would be left? The cycle of life and death is ever present in Dany's arc, and I find it fascinating. Most of the characters who behead or murder people, even innocents, like Ned Stark with Gared (the starting action of AGOT), have no interest in creating life from death. They emphasize the finality of death; Dany transcends it.

If it was just enough for Dany to burn Mirri, then I myself wouldn't praise the act as much. All the loss Dany experienced, the upheaval and pain and suffering, went into the birth of the dragons. She had to follow the clues left behind in her blood and dreams to understand that the ultimate key to the ritual was her own sacrifice. Dany did not just stand by and watch as Mirri burned. She walked into that funeral pyre herself, with, yes, bravery in her heart (I noticed that some people were mocking that phrase of mine in the tags of my post, but does it not take bravery to walk into fire?). If she didn't sacrifice her own life and self, the dragons would not have hatched. Thus you may argue that Dany is a hypocrite for burning Mirri, but Dany involved her own being in the ritual too. She paid the price for the ritual and suffered its consequences in the loss of Rhaego and the splintering of the Khalasar.

Mirri is not innocent in the act of murdering Rhaego. One of the clever aspects of GRRM's writing is that characters like Mirri and Penny serve to problematize the overall heroism of characters like Dany and Tyrion. Dany and Tyrion are still heroes (though of course, for most of the fandom, they are villains, and I'm sure for you they are both villains as well). Very rarely do authors give characters like Mirri agency. And it's not as if George has given all of those positioned characters that agency. Jeyne Poole, Gilly, Lollys and Falyse Stokeworth, Pia, they don't get these kinds of emotionally charged, high tension moments with their respective POV characters. They get emotional moments, yes, but the space to call out the POV characters? Mirri and Penny get that. Mirri has the textual agency to express her motivations, act on her motivations, and explain them to Dany. She is an intelligent woman. Trying to take away her culpability in Rhaego's murder is not a progressive or feminist reading, in my view; it strips her of her agency and her motivations. Now, if you want to argue that she had every right to murder Rhaego, that is a separate conclusion! But as to whether or not she did murder Rhaego, it's undeniable. And even if you don't believe me, or Dany, both the official ASOIAF app and the ASOIAF appendices list her as the murderer.

I would love if someone sent this to @saltywinteradult! I enjoy healthy debate (I put that post in the ASOIAF tag for a reason). What I don't like is back-and-forth screenshotting. If you don't want to have a conversation with me that's no problem, but I find it odd to screenshot someone you have blocked and discuss her post. Why don't we have a free discussion? That's why I made a tumblr account, to discuss ASOIAF. Please let me know your thoughts!

[cogaytes]

i know it's not directed at me, but my conversation starter is that i personally find fandom as a place for anyone and everyone. i think my genuine confusion for the discourse is that the age limit to use ao3 is 13, and that most of these works in question are properly tagged as well. (if they aren't then that's an entirely different conversation.)

oh and also that teenagers have sex?

if you don't wanna see it that's never a huge problem! of course you should stay within your comfort zone and avoid things that make you feel uncomfortable (especially if you're on the younger age of the spectrum of minors on these websites!)

but arguing that smut shouldn't exist is something i've never truly understood. Sexuality is something that people (yes that includes young people) can and should explore if they want to. Writing and consuming it in fandom is a way for many older teenagers and young adults to do that in a safe and healthy way.

Especially when it is those things like rape and non-con stuff--shouldn't we be relieved that instead of causing harm to others, people are just using their creativity to write about it?

Tumblr has always been the Gay People Site™, and to me and my expression of both my gender and sexuality, sex is a huge part of that. People have sex! Teenagers have sex! Some people even like to read and write about it!

Unfortunately for a lot of people, their self expression is not socially accepted as the norm, and they can--and may already have--faced disgust and discrimination for their private interests. Sites like Archive of our Own and Tumblr were made for the freedom of self expression and exploring personal interests in an anonymous way, especially those that may be considered taboo.

Will you find me reading incest fics? Probably not, that's not my cup of tea. But I won't complain either, because I know that it may be that for the author and some other people. As long as a fic is properly tagged, I personally do not have issue with content as long as it does not cause mental or physical harm to other (real world) people.

These are fictional characters, and I truly believe that censoring authors and artists just because what they're creating is considered problematic or even just openly disobeys what is widely accepted as the norm is silly and reductive of what we've been fighting for for decades. Humans are sexual beings with sexual minds, and in our modern age we use our thoughts to write whatever we feel like. Sometimes that happens to be sex!

It may be uncomfortable, and may not be for you, but the existence of fanfiction as a whole can open up more understanding for people who are looking for connection, not just connection that you yourself deem "acceptable."

Sex is not something that's impure nor dirty, it is inherently human. It's personal and intimate, but it is not wrong.

this ask is mostly applied to what i've found in kotlc as a fandom, but my inbox is open anytime if you (or anyone who may read this) wants me to expand more on fandom spaces as a whole. i have more thoughts on real world people and a lot of other topics, but i tried to keep it to just what applied to keeper. (trying not to write an entire essay in yours haha.)

i'm aware that i may have a more lenient view on this than most as well, so i'd love to hear your thoughts <3

yeah no i agree basically with all of this! it's something i've been really grappling with over the last few years (especially recently as a ship i really find uncomfortable has become big in some of my circles of mutuals, which has been interesting to see how i thought about it when it was first a thing 3ish years ago and how my reactions have changed now). i think as i grew up i just stopped almost. caring about what other people make? like i just. filter shit out on ao3 and on tumblr and scroll past shit i don't want to see. i unfollow or block if it really becomes an issue.

but personally i just really don't like the idea of any art being given a moral value, even when it portrays topics we really don't want to think about or might feel uncomfortable with. like, my parents wouldn't let me read the hunger games until i was a certain age because the mass child death etc were just so fucking horrifying that they didn't want me exposed to it. and even reading it as an adult i'm like. okay. holy fuck. but that doesn't mean it's immoral or gross or disgusting just because it portrays fucked up things as fiction. and it definitely doesn't say anything about the author that she wrote it.

you don't have to read smut if you're not comfortable with it! you're allowed to be made uncomfortable by sex! but as long as it's properly warned for so you can avoid it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[atlasoftheunknown]

I used to hate anybody and everybody was radqueer. I don't anymore, for one reason in particular;

I'm concerned. Honestly everything you guys do is more concerning than anything. You all clearly have something going on, and I have a feeling it's either from the echo chamber you've dragged yourselves into or you are genuinely delusional. You all need therapy. Before one of you tries to argue why you shouldn't go to therapy, you need to understand that I am well aware therapy won't necessarily fix what's wrong, however it will give you healthier coping mechanisms than cosplaying as a minority. Three things in particular I want to criticize about radqueers however are; 1. TransAbled. I've heard the argument that "transids" are the same as transgender, a misalignment of the body and mind. I'm white and therefore do not feel comfortable speaking about transrace, however I'd like to know how you can physically not have autism, depression or anxiety, but mentally have it. That's not exactly how that works. Unlike sex and gender, mental disorders are entirely mental. It's in the name. And wanting to have a physical disability is weird at best, horrifically diminishing at worst. I guarantee if you were actually disabled you would not want to be. This is not trying to say that disabled people cannot be content with being disabled, but it's really strange to want to struggle in life. All the disabled people I've met, talked to, heard from, they don't hate their disability. They don't want to have it either. It's just their circumstances. 2. Transbody, transopinion and transoccupation These are three things I've seen a lot of and they honestly just feel like an attention grab. Transbody terms are mostly just insecurities, "feeling as if you should have [x feature]". Either that or they're unrealistic, which I'm becoming concerned is causing more insecurities for confused kids that they didn't even know could happen. Transopinion is one of two things. It's either people who are so desperate for labels they're clinging to stuff they know is bad, or is literally just changing your mind, except apparently you're not allowed to do that. This also ties into the concept of "stances" which seem to be immovable ideologies that once you express you're not allowed to change. That's a topic for another day though. Transoccupation is genuinely just having dreams and aspirations, or finding something interesting. You guys know you're allowed to have interests right? 3. Paraphilias (specifically the "big three" and other harmful ones) Paraphilias should not be accepted in the way you all think they should. There should absolutely be a little less shame involving it so that individuals can get access to the proper help, however we should not be normalizing paraphilias. They are not normal, and they are absolutely not queer identities. I'm genuinely terrified for "radqueer" kids who are saying that pedophilia is okay. What happens if it does get normalized and you get SA'd? Or when it's your kids? Or does it only apply when it's other kids, ones you don't know? This is honestly just a breeding ground for grooming and sexual abuse. It is absolutely not okay.

For the record, I still support bodily autonomy, obviously I cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with your bodies, however please stop claiming to be part of communities you were never part of, and stop trying to push your voice into our conversations.

[gatheringbones]

[“…. right from its psychoanalytic beginnings, mental illness was connected to amorality, a legacy that is challenging to distance ourselves from, and amorality was connected to femininity. Although we have come a long way, assumptions about the superiority of rationality persist in our field, at least within Anglo and Western dominant paradigms. For example, the field of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) rests on the assumption that we can literally exercise mind over matter. CBT does view a connection between thoughts, emotions and behaviors but mostly intervenes at the level of thoughts and behaviors, trying to change “distorted thinking” and “maladaptive behaviors.” There is an almost unspoken assumption that “rational” thoughts and behaviors are always morally superior and to be preferred in the field of mental health.

It is no accident, in my opinion, that rational thoughts and behaviors are stereotypically associated with masculinity and, more specifically white and Anglo masculinity. Even though gender seems to be but a minor branch of topical interest in psychology and mental health, gendered assumptions run deep in our field. It’s rare that anyone questions bold assertions, made by mental health providers on a daily basis, on how “men and women work.” Those assumptions are, after all, foundational to many theories and approaches.

Even when gender is not mentioned at all in certain theories, in practice people tend to apply them differently with “male and female” clients. It’s even rarer that the whole premise of two gender is put into question and, when it is, it only seems to pertain to transgender and/or nonbinary people, leaving the main tenets of gendered thinking in dominant culture untouched and unquestioned. Mental health with and for transgender and/or nonbinary people then becomes its own specialist branch, which means the rest of the field can continue undisturbed in their assumptions about men and women, as long as we keep to our turf and don’t shake the cisgenderist foundation of the whole discipline. This too is a colonizing and capitalist approach. If we’re kept separate from one another, we can be better controlled and, most importantly, there can be more specialties, and therefore more certifications and trainings to be sold and bought.

Even in the field of family therapy, where systemic thinking could open a different conversation about gender, all too often we fall back on established stereotypes and pseudoscience about gender as a rigid binary. Yet, I have found that when I can support people in connecting genuinely to gender as a historical, social and cultural construct, a better understanding of one another can emerge across differences that are made to look chasmic by people who are invested in selling solutions specific to “men,” “women,” and “transgender and/or nonbinary people.” Unfortunately the discourse that men are from Mars, women are from Venus and trans people from Transylvania (at least according to The Rocky Horror Picture Show) is familiar to people and, like many other popular discourses, is reproduced effortlessly by providers and researchers who are also brought up within these dominant paradigms.

Sometimes people acknowledge that what they’re working with are issues like toxic masculinity, but they’re reluctant to then broaden the lens to indicate how larger systems support the reproduction of such harmful, colonial binaries. This means that, ironically, while working to dismantle toxic masculinity, they also keep reifying it by framing their work as being with “men” or “boys.” I can understand how the latter is more marketable than the “smash the colonial patriarchy” approach I am proposing in this book but I truly believe that if we don’t start questioning the rigidity of the gender binary altogether, for everyone, we will keep running around in circles to find ourselves in the same places, or maybe just a few inches over to the left.”]

alex iantaffi, from gender trauma: healing cultural, social, and historical gendered trauma, 2020