#also no one has ANY sense of autonomy.

[ouroboobos]

i truly believe tiktok is haunted by the devil. occasionally ill go on there for a specific video and be like haha i forgot some of these people are funny!!! and then within literally 5 minutes of scrolling im like maybe i need plastic surgery

[ultfan]

me when tumblr recommends me someone defending dr3 in the tags and i read through the entire thing and get mad bc they don't understand what brainwashing really is.

[pregnancykink]

I could fix s9 Dean

[paradisecas]

you know when a dog does something naughty and you gotta do the stern >:[ pointing at the kennel like. get in there and think about what youve done. well i personally enjoy the mental image of michael slinking back from the empty to an adam who, while he is thrilled that michael’s back, is also pissed that he got himself killed in the first place. so he’s doing the stern >:[ pointing at himself like get back in here and think about what you’ve done. i was dead for like, a day and you tried to and the world again.

[galactic-rhea]

The Midi-chlorian essay only a few asked

(or, How Is Anakin Skywalker a walking biological horror)

So I made this post and a few were actually interested, also i needed to write down all of this or I wouldn't be able to sleep.

The way I went just from "hahaha they're just mitochondria before becoming forced symbionts and losing all autonomy" to the Medical Horror that would be Anakin Skywalker .

Let me explain, going from this theory, let me tell you that the average mammal cell can have between 800 to 2000 mitochondria. In Star Wars we're told that the average living being, has 2500 midi-chlorians per cell. The difference isn't that big, so we can assume that mid-chlorians are smaller than our real-life mitochondria, and it would make sense since the mitochondria have the best possible living conditions, whereas midi-chlorians, if they're free-life bacteria (as in, they aren't forced to live in the cells of another being) it would make sense if they're just smaller, let's say, sneaky, to increment their chances at living.

So Midi-chlroains don't just produce ATP, Force sensitives have a minimum of 4000-5000 midi-chlorians per cell. That's...a big number, but not very horrific. See, the amount of mitochondria is related to how much energy the organic tissue requires. The cells of muscular tissue and neurons are the ones with the highest mitochondria count. Also the mitochondria in the neurons are mobile and flexible, because just thinking burns ATP.

We can assume that using The Force burns insane amounts of ATP, so I assume it makes sense for Force Sensitives to have big amounts of Midi-chlorians. But! The problem with this is that we're told that the Midi-chlorians are attracted to the force, not born within it. But any multicelullar organism (with a few exceptions) need the mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own ADN, and they're always inherited from the mother, so we can assume that there's two different types of midi-chlorians: The ones any normal being borns with, and the ones that get attracted because of the baby's force potential. Either that, or both the mithocondria and the midi-chlorians exist simultaneously.

Which means that Jedi (or anyone who wants to know, really) would need to take several blood tests for midi-chlorians count. Because a newborns midi-chlorian count wouldn't be the same through a babie's infancy. UNLESS...The midi-chlorian infection (yes, i'm calling it that) ocurrs already since the pregnancy, if the force is strong enough for a fetus to be a possible force sensitive in the future, then I guess the midi-chlorians would get attracted to the parent during the pregnancy as well.

WHICH BTW, IT FITS WITH PADMÉ BECOMING FORCE SENSITIVE, at least for a while, like the discarded ROTS concepts. But also, would mean, that poor Shmi became a hella strong force-sensitive person as well, at least for a while.

And it would be a biological advantage if we take this route, because it would possibly make the pregnant being stronger and with a higher supply of energy.

It also explains why the jedi would only take a single blood test when the force sensitive is just a baby, because the infection is already settled. It can also be argued, that any baby born with a fairly high amount of midi-chlorians (like the 4000 per cell count minimum) would only increase, if only slightly, as the force sensitive grows because the midi-chlorians will get attracted regardless.

There must be a limit, or more like, a balance, that the midi-chlorian and the force potential of the individual met. As in, there's just enough force within the individual for a certain number of midi-chlorian, and all of this is probably decided already during the fetus formation or very early on the baby's life.

Now, Anakin...would be an abomination. Because his cells are so full of midi-chlorians, that it's scary to think how the cells aren't exploding or downright giving malfunctions to the rest of the cellular organelles.

If we go by the route of "midi-chlorians start infecting the force sensitive host mother during pregnancy" it means there were high chances of a misscarriage or an incompatibility between Shmi and Anakin, because holy cow, Anakin is just too much.

But you know what also, it could potentially mean? That Padmé's pregnancy was a risky one, fron the start -slowly nods-. Luke and Leia's force potential was lower than Anakin's, but there's still a lot to unpack there in terms of compatibility. We are never given the exact count of midichlorian count for the twins, but let's pretend it was low enough for Padmé to not inmediatly have a miscarriage. That, and also, maybe, Padmé isn't strong in the force to manipulate it, but maybe just close enough for the pregnancy to be carried to term, let's say, her midi-chlorian count is 3900, close enough.

Something similar with Shmi, I'm taking for granted that she also had a difficult and risky pregnancy (on top of it being a pregnancy she had no agency). It becomes worse because, unlike the twins, Anakin is just...50% human. The only possible genes Anakin has are from Shmi. So he's probably...genetically, almost a clone of Shmi but with a massive infection of Midi-chlorians (yes, this implies that Anakin has homogametic sex chromosomes, aka XX, there's no other possible explanation because he literally only has Shmi's genes to work with!).

But he's Space Jesus, though,so let's pretend that the "no father genes" helped with this and allowed Anakin to grow into a...normal-ish baby despite it all.

Midi-chlorians must be extremelly small, closer to the size of a virus in this case, viruses vary on size and the way they infect the cells is by hijacking the nucleus, which then can produce more viruses instead of its own proteins. This can vary anywhere between a production of 50.000 to 100.000 viruses produced by infected cells.

Which, btw, still fits somewhat with the mitochondria theory, because mitochondrias are believed to have been from a genus of bacteria called Rickettsia, which used to be believed to be the in-between of Viruses and Bacteria due their small size and extreme endosymbiotism.

Still, we aren't even told how many midi-chlorians Anakin had, just that it was over 20.000 and thus the chart couldn't even register it. Even if we're just counting 21.000 midi-chlorians per cell, that's...a lot. Even if the relationship is symbiotic and positive in nature, that's excessive, an infected cell will usually die faster. So Anakin's cellular death must be on record time.

The life span of a cell varies highly depending of the type of cells, white cells can live about 2 days, others about 5, and then there's others that live about 6 years in average.

Forget all of that, Anakin's cells die anywhere between a few hours and a week. Which also means a super fast regeneration and healing (Hey! that tracks, that's how he didn't die even though he should have, on several ocassions).

But that's not the only problem here, the production of energy is strong with this one, too strong. Again this should make the cells burst due too much ATP because of an increase on osmotic pressure. Anakin is producing so much damn ATP (which we can assume it becomes glycogen stored in muscles and fat tissue) his need to be active and just doing something skyrockets, he might as well be the equivalent of being high on meth since birth.

The accelerated cellular formation and death, gives me the horrific idea that Anakin was probably one of these babies that are born premature, but also that he probably was bron with, idk, teeth and already lots of hair. Maybe that's also why he got so tall of all sudden, lots of cellular grow, huh.

Anakin seems to age normally by what are we given by canon. So despite it all, his life-span or aging doesn't seem to be compromised, this is probably because of how strong he is with the Force. In the sense that...he needs the midi-chlorians to handle this much power, but he also needs the force to handle with that many midi-chlorians, otherwise he would have been already born dead.

See, ageing has a lot to do with stem cells. Anakin's stem cells need to be highly prolific and potent to keep cellular division happening at such a high rate, we can infer that any force sensitive has potent stem cells, so the force must inherently affect stem cells. So Anakin's stem cells must be monstruosities in efficiency. If Anakin donated stem cells to someone else, that person would either have a strong inhumne reaction against them or they would get some of the worst cancer ever seen. Again I'm no expert, but the fact Anakin doesn't develop cancer at all as soon as he was born is already impressive. The rate in which Anakin's cells die must be ridiculous, even has a baby, he must have required tons of energy and endure lots of stress which...tracks. The fact he gets electroshocked, burned, gravely wounded or whatever every week or so, must help him to no develop some cancer, which is a bit funny.

But it would also mean he can go long periods of time without eating or resting like...a normal human. Not saying that he doesn't need it, though, but his neural activity and use of the force must be high at all times to burn out that much energy. Theoretically, the production of glycose and glycogen helps him through long periods without sleep or food so he doesn't get long-term damage, or at the very least the ability to keep going, like I said, maybe is like being on drugs all the time; there's still the need to sleep and eat, but he can push his body to keep surviving beyond what's considered normal without having long-term damage. (Don't get happy, this isn't taking into account all of the stuff that happens to him, lol)

The balance between burning too much energy and not burning enough must be insane as well. As Vader, a lot of this probably watered down because all of his energy must be saved for...you know, surviving all the torture. But as a young teen/man amist war? Oh boy.

I'm not an expert, but I'm theorizing that putting Anakin in an induced sleeep must be...fricking hard. Painkillers that work on him? fricking hard. Anesthesia? Probably the same used for big animals, he must be insane and awful for a doctor to work with! Just imagine it, he probably gets injured in such a way that would have anyone else fall unconscious, but Anakin remains awake and with tremendous amounts of adrenaline triggered by a stress response sustented by the extreme amounts of energy that the midichlorians produce.

When it happens in the central nervious system, excess of ATP can produce neuronal dysfunction. In fact, many degenerative mental illnesses have a lot to do with a malfunction of the mitochondrias. There's a corelation also with neurodivergency sometimes, like autism or ADHD. I will leave it there.

And with all of this...I also conclude that Anakin, on general basis, doesn't like sugary things and doesn't even rationalize why, but is because he has already enough glycose. Having something sugary probably gives him a headache.

God what has Star Wars done to me.

[alastors-antlers]

a brief take on the whole "Alastor's smile is permanent" discussion

hello all!

I've seen a lot of people theorizing lately that Alastor actually smiles all the time because his smile is magically, physically fixed onto his face. All of this seems to come from the fact that he's practically grimacing rather than smiling during the scene where he breaks down in ep8:

As well as this frame of his deal with Charlie: (lower res sorry)

I will say, I do like some of the implications of this theory. The sheer spite of his creditor forcing him to smile as an addition to their deal, almost like a sort of forced silence, is a neat concept. It's fun and dramatic. Plus, of all things, of course Alastor would claim the "smile at all times" policy and make it his own to pretend that it was his decision all along lol.

To be fair, though, I don't think we even need any magical compulsion to explain why he's smiling while he's having a mental breakdown. Actually, if we assume magical compulsion, I think we lose a bit of dimension from Alastor's character. (No judgement to anyone's take though, of course -- I just think this works in the direction of his established characterization, but obviously all personal takes <3)

Hear me out:

Alastor's persona is not just for others to see.

"A smile is a valuable tool, my dear. It inspires your friends; keeps your enemies guessing; and ensures that whatever comes your way, you're the one in control."

That makes sense given what we know about him. If he's always smiling, he seems like he has it together. You can't read him very well, especially not when he's actively trying to keep up appearances.

Now consider that when you think about ep8's fight with Heaven, we see that he's already been through so much in this one day.

He fights an army of angels, presumably not even at his own whim (if we go by his blurb about freedom in the Finale song); he loses to Adam, who he considers sloppy and mediocre; his staff, which we can assume holds some part of his power, is snapped; he comes close to being Angelic-power-killed; and to top it all off, he knows that others watched him get injured and then apparently die or flee, all of which would ruin the public image that he's trying to maintain. It wouldn't even be unreasonable for us to assume that he knows Vox was watching, given that Vox kind of has eyes everywhere.

In a moment like this, in the finale, you could say that Alastor has lost (at least on some level) everything that we know matters to him. He doesn't have access to all of his magic, and it's limiting him. He's reminded that he doesn't have freedom or control over his own destiny. He certainly has taken massive hits to his powerful, composed persona. But he's desperate, and furious, and terrified, and clinging on.

That's why he's smiling.

It's not that he can't stop because he physically can't. It's that he can't stop because to him, the smile is the last thing that is still within his power. When there are so many moving parts that he can't predict what happens to him next, he can control how he responds to it. In these last fragments of autonomy, there is solace.

He needs to keep telling himself that he has it together and that he'll eventually scheme his way free, that there's a solution, that he won't be in chains forever; because letting his pretense slip would be admitting that it's all starting to actually get to him. That maybe this time, he doesn't have an escape plan.

In addition, if you read his interactions throughout the series, we also see something else: Alastor's reputation is of paramount importance to him. At multiple points throughout the series, when others disrespect him by discounting his power or presence, he gets visibly annoyed. And in the battle, we see a glimpse of the part of his personality he seems to be trying to leave behind - a normal Alastor, who's just some guy from Louisiana. No transatlantic accent; no unflappable malice; no sharp wit waiting at the ready. Maybe even unremarkable.

Dropping his smile - arguably the most prominent part of his brand - would be admitting that in reality, he's not the Radio Demon of legend that he aspires to project. And if he doesn't have that... where would he be?

[danse--macabre]

unpopular astarion headcanons r.e. mirrors and reflections:

while I love the memes around this, I don't think, unless you had a particularly charismatic tav/durge, the whole party would draw him / contribute to some kind of spell where he could see his reflection. Obviously there's room for difference given how many routes your playthrough can take, but generally: he's not universally loved in the same way Karlach is, he's not the heart of the party, he's mostly clinging to the edge of it (and that's fine!)

I think showing him his reflection would impact him deeply and therefore if it is done at the wrong time/place, he'd actually resent the person who did it. this is because you're making him appear vulnerable.

e.g. if the venue is too public, if the others could see, he'd dislike the fact that others can see a moment of vulnerability

alternatively: if your approval with astarion is too low, he'd automatically distrust it / question your motives. this is someone who simply does not believe that people will be kind unprompted to strangers (because doing so violates his worldview and in some ways makes his abuse feel crueller -- if no one cares, there's a logic to what happened to him, at least)

the more permanent the method, the more effort put in, the more likely he is to have mixed/negative feelings towards it. a sketch is a kindness, but not one that requires a great sacrifice or planning - it's easy to dismiss as a fleeting gesture (while he will keep it, obviously, to look at, because he's not that willing to believe his own bullshit).

in contrast, if a permanent method of showing his reflection was given - e.g. a charmed mirror that casts a spell - I think astarion, with a high approval PC, would feel on some level obligated to pay that 'debt' back. astarion strikes me as someone who distrusts thoughtful, non-flippant gifts because again, he's used to transactional relationships.

I also think it might strike at an insecurity: the knowledge that astarion lacks autonomy/independence to deal with his own issues by himself, and, with some bitterness, is dependent on the PC to help him. if you give astarion an enchanted mirror, he, on some level, feels he is dependent on your magic and your supply of magical items to gain access to an element of his humanity. that doesn't entirely sit comfortably with him.

the "best" way to deal with this? let astarion figure out how to handle this himself. for example: gifting him a 'mirror image' spell scroll or something similar. give him time to study the scroll and he'll find a way to cast that spell himself. mechanically, astarion isn't a wizard, but narratively, his default class is arcane trickster, he has access to magic, I don't think it is really that much of a stretch to believe he could achieve that. in general, I think handing astarion the tools to achieve his own goals by himself will be more appreciated than handing that to him on a plate.

however! counterargument to consider: it may be more valuable in the long run to confront astarion's fear of dependence and the sense of reliance that exists particularly in a tav run, where you the PC have 'saved' him without needing to be saved in return. he needs to realise that the PC isn't expecting anything in return for friendship/romance.

either way, i think showing astarion his reflection is going to be more fraught than one might expect - a generous gift, obviously, he will take (he's been poor and starving enough not to turn it down), but there might be some tension beneath any show of gratitude your receive (or he might feign disinterest, if approval/trust is low enough!)

[rin-and-jade]

Are You? What about You? Them? : A Post about Differentiating Types of Parts.

We all know that spiderman meme where they pointed to each other because they share similar qualities that confuses their selves;

Like this. Right?

They all sounded so similar that we neither knew which is which at first glance..

And so, at the end of this post you will be confident in pointing out who is who, just like a spiderman who can tell apart from its own multiverse friends, that is. So let's get pointing to the smaller details!

How it works..

We know what it's like to be conscious, yeah? What if i were to tell you that yes, there are varying degrees of consciousness, and that we all can fluctuate on those levels too?

The levels of consciousness can vary from only being aware of its physical surroundings and react instinctually (lesser level), to being able to self-introspect and understand what they like and dislike (higher level). This is all dependent on many different factors and i want to clarify that it takes more than just 'awareness' to tell a fragment apart from an alter for example. But, still important to know what level its at.

This explains why shards, and fragments are less flexible when facing an issue, as they're more limited or not as equipped as an alter in terms of reasoning or level of logic/knowledge. So why is that? It can be from the intensity of dissociation, and other things like how much implicit and explicit memories it retains, this includes experiences.

How to tell them apart..

Sure, theres a spectrum to this too, as every type of part can be a bit different though still can categorized loosely, not meaning it has to fit perfectly to the box :

1. No sense of identity and, or tangible form/shape outside of performing a specific task, or hold a single memory/mood. (Shard)

2. Small sense of identity (a trait that is distinctive/distinguishable), possibly have a less blurry appearance than level 1 and still performs specific tasks, have little to no memories/range of emotions. (Shard)  

3. Mish mash of small qualities, but not enough to encapsulate an identity/personality, may have a sense of existing, and can emotionally react to environment/situation. Usually have a defined innerworld form, and may retain some memories but depends on origin, still fixed on role. (Fragment)

4. Has a developed dominant facet, which can be seen more lively and autonomous compared from level 1-3,, but still a bit rigid and have a narrow/limited view in general. Can distinguish and identify feelings, and have goals/hobbies/interests, self curiosity/exploration to function outside role. (Fragment, leaning to alter)  

5. Has a multifaceted personality in which it cannot defined by one word, fully knows its likes and dislikes, long term goals, morals, and a complex view on life. May have developed purpose outside role job, pursuing self-fulfillment. (Alter)

So in conclusion, shards are not wholly self aware and rely on current implicit memories, from my own system experience shards feels so blank, lifeless, somewhat robotic. Fragments have a partial sense of autonomy, it can rationalize and react to its own accord, reason, and learn/explore,, though had not fully know who they are. Alters are like any other usual people, where it has accumulated knowledge and experience that had shaped then throughout existing, reinforcing a faceted sense of self and purpose.

Growth to perfection..

Are you also wondering if shards and fragments can grow to an alter? The answer is, yes! Though some can be stuck in a certain stage, which is nothing to be ashamed about, and doesn't need changing.

Though, this takes a really long time and process, i note my own fragments will reach to a stage where it barely matches the loose category of an alter in 6 months, and to be a fully developed alter, it might need a whole year (okay this is my own calculations, other people will have it slower or faster).

To grow a shard towards a fragment category, my theory is that you have to interact with, and let them immerse/exprience the real world by supervision (outside of its role task) to develop more environmental, and self awareness. They will be very limited in terms of knowledge and names so this is a good time to start introducing these, and they may not even realize they exists themselves before sometimes,, try nudging them activities to experiment, and foods to taste, examine emotion wheel.. theres a lot to start from.

To grow a fragment to an alter, start introducing other views and complex topics, the goal here is to create a more developed understanding of life. From my experience, all my fragments have a dominant facet, e.g. angry dog vibes; and slowly let them learn how to be soft, or act more polite,, it will slowly solidify as a new facet, now capable of being kind and not always behaving threatening/i-will-still-bite-you attitude to every situation, as it now can be more flexible which facet it should use depending on situation.

Last words..

So, you are now an educated spiderman who can not only point out, but understand the basics of why,, and how to grow a part to have a better sense of awareness!

Let me know in the comments, i would like to hear why the part you had specifically picked/chose is possibly a shard/fragment/alter from your own reasoning and interactive mini discussion with me,, lets finally put them into real practice yeah?

Also, Happy Valentines, *offers you a free heart chocolate*

- j, your educational fiancée

[cinnamonest]

With this whole 'rape fantasies are a result of misogyny as they allow women a guilt free sexuality cos they have no autonomy'

Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

Just seems crazy to me like 'we do this because of misogyny. And we'll keep doing it'

Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

This isnt an attack on you it just really seems like common sense that if something exists because of misogyny the last thing we should do is feed into those ideas

(I assume this is coming from this post, so I might reference that a bit here)

No worries, I fully understand how this can come across negative to those who do not have the same experiences and I appreciate you approaching the matter in a non-attacking way with genuine desire to have dialogue on the subject. I'll do my best to address these points individually.

>Surely that means your writing and fantasies are contributing to misogyny? Adding to it and normalising it?

In the past few years fandom culture has become a bit obsessed with the idea of "normalization" to the point that the definition of the term has been a bit skewed, which creates issues with these discussions.

There is no concept of which existence of content containing it alone constitutes normalization, by the actual definition of the word. Normalization is the process by which it is distributed and way in which it is presented, and intent of its creation.

Normalization via fiction is a process in which a creator, generally intentionally, creates content that presents a concept as, well, normal. That is, not reprehensible or problematic to replicate, and presents this to a population with the intent of them accepting the idea as something acceptable in reality. Generally it also necessitates that the creator will try to ensure the media is viewed by mainstream general audiences who would not normally seek the content out, since the purpose of normalization is to make an idea acceptable amongst a population.

That is the opposite of what I am doing, which is creating a private space filled with warnings. I am going out of my way to ensure that people who do not want to see this content, have the foreknowledge to opt to avoid it.

By definition, if you’re creating content and ensuring that it is heavily warned, and marketing it as such that only a niche group who likes such content seeks it out, that’s not normalization by any reasonable metric.

>Like isnt the answer to write and encourage fantasies of empowerment? Not abuse and rape?

For some people, I’m sure that would help them, and in that case, that is a great solution for them.

But people are different, and certain things that help some, don’t help others. The types of fantasies that would probably be called “empowering,” personally do nothing for me but make me uncomfortable, in the same way that the sort of content I write makes some people uncomfortable. It does not have the same positive effects on my mental health that this form of content does.

>Obviously some behaviour come from misogyny and exist to combat it. This... really doesn't

That's fair — but it doesn't have to.

It is not intended to directly combat misogyny in any way, there are other ways to do that, and this does not have to be one. It's primary purpose is catharsis and the ways in which it benefits me and, as is my hope, those who choose to consume it.

>I just don't think it's a feminist win when your writing is indistinguishable from that of a misogynistic man's.

Again, I never had any intention for it to be a "win" — misogyny is the reason for why I have these desires, but in making what I make, my purpose is to provide catharsis for myself and others.

But also, I would heavily contest that it is indistinguishable from male fantasies. As someone who has seen actual men's misogynist fetishization fantasies, they are very different.

Female disposability and the complete worthlessness of women’s very being — that is, women being non-human objects that are interchangeable, and made to be used temporarily and replaced — is the core defining characteristic of male fantasy/sexuality. Male fantasies almost always involve multiple women to one man, largely because he does not have any actual bond with women, they are items to be collected, no interpersonal relationship actually exists.

The lack of interpersonal connection and lack of personableness itself is fetishized by men, what men get off to is the power they feel from completely disregarding the woman as a person in any way. The very act of the woman being thrown away after being used is fetishized.

In male fantasy, there is no interpersonal connection or affection of any kind, whereas that is one of the defining themes of content like mine.

Tl;dr — while misogyny impacts all women, the severity and form of it in different upbringings, environments and cultures can create misunderstandings and strong reactions when different people react so differently to the same content and thus form misconceptions about each other's perceptions and intentions, but I believe both sides of this argument are usually coming from a place of good intent.

While I fully understand how it would be difficult for those who do not have the same experience to grasp mine, I just ask for mutual understanding that some forms of content help some people, in the same way entirely different forms of content help other people.

[22foramen]

_____________ ׂׂૢ་༘࿐

┊ ⋆ ┊ . ┊ ┊

┊ ┊⋆ ┊ . Personal

┊ ┊ ⋆˚  Astro Observations #1

✧. ┊      

⋆ ★

DISCLAIMER! This post is based mainly on my natal chart, personal experience and opinions, so take what resonates and leave what doesn't. I also included acquaintances' charts and their perspectives and confirmed my observations with the help of astrology databanks (celebrities' birth charts). If one (or more) of the observations in this post happen to be similar to other creators, please inform me, so I can tag their page. I am open to questions, opinions and debates. I do not own any of the photos on this post, they are just for ✨aesthetic reasons✨. Thank you for reading my post and I hope it will help you heal & find yourself💞.

#1

+18? TW!

Everyone can have an addiction, it is not limited only to the 12th house Lilith placement. But we can conclude that Lilith in the 12th house person is more inclined to get addicted to escapism than being dependent on the subject of addiction.

Let's say both the 12th and 8th house Lilith can deal with 🌽addiction. 8th house Lilith has a wound surrounding power and control, so they will search for a coping mechanism that will prove to themselves their own power and autonomy. For the 12th house Lilith, this is about a fear of perceiving the reality they are in (dissociation). Their wound encircles the toxic environment they live in, so they indulge in the most satisfactory and 'safest' type of escapism according to their circumstances.

#2

Lilith in the 12th house combined with noticeable 6th house placements can indicate prominent awareness towards their addictions or their ways to escape reality. That type of person who smokes but is fully aware of the consequences it has on their body. It makes sense because the 6th house is work, self-improvement and health-oriented (perhaps with health difficulties), therefore Lilith in the 12th house here can be a bit of a challenge in this lifetime, so they might be more motivated to heal. I think we can consider this dynamic not only for the 12th-6th houses but for all opposing houses.

#3

Having the Moon and Neptune in the same house might indicate an "illusion of comfort" in childhood, especially if the moon is badly aspected. It can be pinpointed to a confusing relationship with a parent; being gaslighted maybe. The house can represent in which area the confusion is/was. If this happens in the 10th house, there also might be a 'single mom' dynamic here, whether both parents were there or not.

#4

Taurus Rising with Scorpio Venus looks best when confident. Their eyes are very fierce when focused on their goal or task. Big cat energy🐅. They are like wild cats waiting for the right time to attack their prey 😩. 10/10 Certified mommy vibes. Period 💅

#5

Both the 22° Saturn and 22° Sun indicate a restricting father/paternal figure.

For the 22° Sun, the impact is 'more personal' and it affects their confidence and identity. These people's personalities might have been repressed in their childhood. In terms of how they have been repressed, we should check the Saturn placement and/or the Saturn Persona Chart.

For the 22° Saturn, the experience is more 'detached' in comparison with the Sun person. The individual might have a more grounded sense of self than the Sun person, but the Saturn Return period is going to be crucial. This can also imply a change in careers or finally healing something in regard to their career because Saturn rules Capricorn rules Medium-Coeli.

[stolitzsings]

This is a sort of response to a post I've seen floating around, drawing parallels between the chains in Blitz’s trip that bind him to Stolas and the chains that bind Husk, Angel, and Fizz to Alastor, Valentino, and Mammon respectively. I'm not commenting on that post directly bc I avoid Discourse (tm) at all costs for the sake of my health, and I don’t want to get drawn into an unproductive argument that will mess with my anxiety for a week. I'm not trying to start a fight, just get my thoughts out on why I feel that comparison is inaccurate, and hopefully provide some helpful context and nuance.

So! Let's start with a few disclaimers! First of all, I'm not going to debate the moral purity of any of these characters. I just don't think it's an interesting or valuable critique. On a related note, I am not trying to excuse any of their behavior. I'm happy to admit that my favorite characters in this show have hurt people and are sometimes total assholes. Stolas treated Blitz very poorly at the beginning of their relationship, frequently pushed or even ignored boundaries, and was just kind of a dick about things. My objection to a direct comparison between Stolas and the other characters mentioned above isn't because I think Stolas hasn't done anything wrong; I just think that saying they're similar without further clarification or commentary ignores the nuance of the situation.

Read on below the cut, it's gonna be another long one folks!

Let's start by examining the "agreements" forged by Val, Mammon, and Alastor. I think it's important to note that, in their cases, the person they got to sign their contract could have been anyone. Husk and Angel could have been any sinners, Fizz could have been any imp. They aren't interested in them as people; they were only using them to gain more power for themselves. The only thing that matters to them is, "What can you do for me?" Angel and Fizz quite clearly become cogs in the machine of Val and Mammon's businesses, and Alastor only thinks of Husk as a tool to be leveraged in specific situations to further his own mysterious goals. Each of them has demonstrated to their subjugates that they own them, body and soul. They have signed legally and spiritually binding contracts that essentially surrender their autonomy to a more powerful demon.

Stolas and Blitz’s agreement is... not that. In the most literal sense, they don’t appear to have made any sort of binding deal. They just made a verbal agreement, which I sincerely doubt has anywhere near the force of a signed soul contract. Additionally, Stolas did not ask for and does not seem to want that sort of total control over Blitz. He very clearly does not view this as any sort of power exchange (which may actually be part of the issue, since it leaves him blind to Blitz’s discomfort with their class difference), he sees it as "favors for favors." While this agreement is inherently unbalanced due to Stolas's status, it's worth noting that they’re both putting something on the line here. The other three risk practically nothing (if the person bound to them fails they can always get a new one), but Stolas IS taking on a real risk by letting Blitz access the living world illegally using his book. Again, that doesn't make his actions right, and probably helped him to justify them, but it does set their relationship apart from the others.

In my opinion, some of Stolas's greatest flaws are his thoughtlessness and his ability to justify his own actions to himself. This manifests in the fact that he clearly doesn't see the ways in which their relationship is hurting Blitz. He convinced himself that this was just an equal exchange, and a continuation of the dynamic Blitz established in their first encounter as adults: "I fuck you, and you give me the book". As he becomes more aware of his feelings for Blitz, though (stay tuned for a deeper analysis of this progression later), he also begins to realize that Blitz isn't happy with this relationship. And this, as @masonshmason pointed out, is the central fact that separates Stolas and Blitz from the other relationships. Stolas did not realize- or chose to ignore- how he was hurting Blitz. Once he came to terms with it, though, he understood that he had to make things right. He specifically says this in "Just Look My Way"; "I will try to make amends/ For making you means to an end". None of the others could say this, because in their case, that was the POINT. Angel, Fizz, and Husk were ALWAYS a means to an end, intentionally trapped for that purpose.

We also need to talk about the CONTEXT of the scenes in which the chain imagery appears. For both Angel and Husk, the chain is at least semi-literal, a physical (and perhaps supernatural) manifestation of the way their souls are bound to an overlord. In "Two Minutes Notice," Fizz purposely CHOOSES to represent his relationship to Mammon as chains around his wrists. However, Blitz's scene is part of a drug trip after being forcibly dosed with hallucinogens. It does not exist in any literal sense, nor is it a representation of Blitz’s conscious, literal thoughts. What it DOES do is showcase Blitz’s deepest fears and his greatest flaws through symbolism and metaphor. Blitz is not literally afraid of being forced to wear a clown costume; he is afraid he'll never escape his past traumas or Fizz's shadow. THIS is the context in which Blitz sees himself being chained by Stolas: a bad trip all about his fear of intimacy and vulnerability.

Stolas appears in this trip as someone elevated high above him, something he's climbing towards, reaching for, even though it means being chained to him. It's directly preceded by his ex girlfriend and his former best friend berating him for how he pushes people away even though he hates being alone. Then Stolas directly asks him, "Are you afraid to love people, Blitzy?" Furthermore, the WAY in which he is framed is alluring, slightly hazy, golden and tempting. It couldn’t be further from the ugly, slime-covered past he's fleeing. It's a new start, a chance for something better that seems too good to be true. This trip is all about Blitz’s inability to be vulnerable with another person. The chain around his neck is a representation of the fact that, by getting closer to Stolas, he's giving Stolas the power to hurt him emotionally.

And man, there's a part of him that wants to give Stolas that power. At this critical moment, he's not baring his teeth in defiance or anger. He's blushing, just slightly, and he looks... nervous. Blitz's instinct, when things get too real, is to cut and run. Hurt them before they can hurt you. Abandon them before they have the chance to leave you. It’s how he tanked his relationship with Verosika. This is a manifestation of what might happen if he stays. This is the sort of trouble he can't fight his way out of.

This is the emotional climax of the scene. There are so many ways they could have gone with this if they wanted to represent Blitz being chained and trapped by his agreement with Stolas. If that was the fear--if that was the POINT--they could have had the chains wrap around him until he couldn't move, or glow white hot and burn into his skin, or a million other more direct metaphors. But the chains aren't the thing that hurts him. It's the feathers: the thing that's left behind after Stolas abandons him, sing-songing "you're going to die alone" right alongside two other people who he loved and who now want nothing to do with him.

Finally, let's look at Blitz’s reaction to this scene. It's a moment of revelation for him, in which he realizes he's pushing everyone away and starts to make an effort to change. It's why he's a bit more open with Moxxie in the next scene. The trip sequence ALSO inspires him to get closer to Stolas, indicating that the trip didn’t make him realize "I'm trapped and I need to get out of this" in the same way Fizz did. Rather, he realizes that he doesn't want Stolas to leave him like everyone else, and he wants to start feeling out what it would be like to deepen the connection between them. As I've mentioned in other posts, their kiss at the end of "truth seekers" represents a level of intimacy that we haven't seen before; it's teasing, affectionate, shows Blitz’s interest in making Stolas happy, and takes place in front of M&M, who have repeatedly teased him about their relationship before.

In summary, while the image of chains may have been invoked in all four of these relationships, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing across the board. Blitz and Stolas's relationship differs substantially from the others in its dynamic, and the context of their scene also sets it apart. It's important to look into the details and the nuance of their relationship to interpret what's going on under layers of trauma and unreliable narration.

[finisnihil]

Some people need to learn the difference between like/disliking a character on a personal level v. a writing level. I dislike some characters on a personal level but I do love their writing and characterization on a meta level and any of my bullying of them is mostly for jokes. Meanwhile there's also characters who I adore on a personal level but abhor the writing of because it feels like their concepts or potential as a character were squandered.

I've said it before i'll say it again when you let your personal bias on a character infect your analysis of them you get mischaracterization. Part of media literacy is seperating authoral intention from reader response and thinking about if anything about the character or their interactions can cloud your judgement of them on a surface level.

For example, in the 2.1 quest of HSR I saw some Aventurine lovers absolutely jump on a hate train for Sunday because in their eyes, Sunday was villainous for his actions against Aventurine and deserved to be put down for it. But, when you stop bastardizing Sunday in an effort to validate and sanitize Aventurine's motives you see the two are actually equally complicit in hurting the other. Sunday did try to turn Ratio against Aventurine and he did cast the whole Truth or Die spell but when you actually critically analyze Sunday and his role in the interaction he is more sympathetic and he makes more sense.

Aventurine was going into the interaction, an interaction regarding the IPC's increasingly aggressive attempts to recolonize Penacony after losing it as a prison planet, bragging about using the horrific murder of Sunday's sister to exploit him. Aventurine has never once hid his intentions, he's sympathetic but that doesn't change the fact he's trying to rip Penacony's freedom away for the IPC. We've seen what the IPC does to planets, no matter how corrupt the Family is, the IPC will be worse without a doubt. Aventurine is a morally grey character, he took the gamble of lying under the spell and he understood the stakes when he did it. Trying to bastardize Sunday in order to try and act like Aventurine didn’t have the autonomy to fuck around and find out is really disingenuous to both characters.

As for Sunday, Sunday is incredibly sympathetic too. We know he’s under crushing pressure by everyone around him to hide things for the sake of public image and we know he’s sacrificed a ton for his sister. Sunday is reverential of Xipe but we see him being actively wary of the Family. He knows there’s a traitor, he knows the Family is rotting with ill intent, he knows Death is on the loose. Robin and him are doing their damndest to handle these problems within their circumstances and we’ve seen their notes! They aren’t ignoring the problem, they’re even trying to get outside help from both the Astral Express and Aventurine. We see the Lightcone of their childhood in an otherwise clinical and impersonal office, one where he built her a toy stage and became her first audience. He cares about Robin more than anything and you see his rage and grief being suppressed yet slipping here and there and causing him to make sloppy mistakes, such as using the Truth or Die spell to lash out at Aventurine when he feels cornered with no control over the situation. When he confronts Gallagher he finally cracks and just… breaks. You see him lose it to the point he doesn’t even notice Death behind him until it’s too late. Despite being likened to songbirds, Robin and Sunday both died quietly in their gilded cages. They are the canaries in the coal mine.

Sunday and Aventurine are meant to parallel each other, they both lost their sister in a gruesome event outside of their control because they couldn’t protect her. Sunday couldn’t protect her from the cage he let himself be trapped in so she could fly free and Aventurine couldn’t protect her because he was too small and too young and too lucky. One is a younger brother and one is an elder brother.

The only major difference between them is who we experience the story through. Aventurine is our eyes for most of 2.1 so therefore Sunday is the one put in the antagonistic role. Antagonists are characters who’s motives and goals oppose the protagonists. Because of this, we have to flesh out Sunday’s character via subtext because we don’t have the luxury of his POV to be blatant like with Aventurine. If the roles reversed, if Sunday was our eyes, I bet Aventurine would be the one getting the flack instead.

[pokemoncenter]

On Master Balls

One thing I often see is that Master Balls are inherently unethical, and they are terrible things to create. That Master Balls take away the autonomy of a Pokemon and is no better than simply forcing them into a cage.

There is truth to this, but it is not the whole truth.

First, let us begin with what a Master Ball is. As its name implies, it was originally intended for use only by Pokemon Masters. Those who have bonded with many Pokemon, attained the pinnacle of their specialization and dreams, and truly understand Pokemon. They were intended only to be given to those worthy of the title. Now, these standards have regrettably been relaxed, but you still generally cannot get one unless you are a Champion or have achieved equal deeds.

Silph Co., which makes Pokeballs, manufactured the first Master Ball. They are known to use several simultaneous locking mechanisms to ensure that a Pokemon cannot break out, guaranteeing capture. The exact mechanisms are a closely-guarded company secret, but it is known they are prohibitively expensive to make. Given that they are not for sale, and the sheer cost of making even a single one, it may seem odd that any are made at all.

The primary use of Master Balls is not by normal Trainers, however. They are made and given to the various Pokemon Ranger headquarters, where they are stored. In certain, extremely rare, emergency situations, they will be given out to Rangers active in the field in great quantities.

However, this is only for emergency situations. The highest Ranger authority in the region must approve of such action, alongside their assistants, in unanimous vote. Only when capturing and displacing vast quantities of Pokemon is the least bad option is this enacted. Events such as Team terrorism, or such as Hoenn's Legendary Pokemon, are not suitable situations for this- Simply capturing the Legendary Pokemon would not end the crisis, and so the Master Ball usage is not approved.

I believe, since the invention of the Master Ball, this protocol has been used twice.

Once was for a rabies outbreak of unprecedented proportions. An antivaccination fad swept an area, and it became a hotbed for spread of the disease. Rangers were mobilized to sweep the area, capture all wild Pokemon they could, and... I would prefer not to get into details. Needless to say, this action saved many, many lives, humans and Pokemon alike.

The other was for an imminent volcanic eruption. Many Pokemon can sense when an eruption will happen, and become agitated, but this was a volcanic island in the ocean. There was no place for the Pokemon to go. The Rangers thus swept in, and lacking time to befriend or get the Pokemon to understand, Master Balls were used to essentially evacuate the island of Pokemon so they would not be killed.

It is true that Master Balls, in the wrong hands, would be devastating and cruel beyond measure. However, the Master Ball is a tool like any other. Whether it harms or helps is based on the wielder, not the tool. It can cause misery, but it can also save lives.

Please remember this.

[odesofmeddea]

forever obsessed with the samdean conjoined twins submotif reiterated throughout and through the means of visualization, symbolism, and text; there's this sheer panic of bodily separation (‘you two are never seeing each other again’ - while shackled in one chain in one cell on one bed; ‘we're in separate rooms?’; banging at the physical and unbodied barriers between them like wild dogs) that bleeds into violence and zeal of the two homogeneous moieties gluing back into one entity, however incongruous and transgressive. transgressive in the sense that this codependency defies expectancy of societal normativity and operates solely in a scope of self- and mutual necessity that turns grotesque, asocial: no, i will not bury my brother's body, says dean, no, i will not burn my brother's body and will preserve it in a casket til he comes back to me, says sam - the idea of flesh rot appears as a wraithlike afterthought irrelevant to their mental corporeal knot. it is also riot against reality. grave will not eat him. death will not take him. demons won't hold us apart. the only association of completeness is related to each other, whether marital, spiritual, or consanguineal, because ultimately the denial, or absence, of any distinction between those is their fusion into synonymity - they are the namesakes of their married grandparents, they were subjected to the embarrassingly blatant realization of being soulmates, ‘i shall be your little brother’ says siren, comingling familial with erotic; ecclesially nuptial, too - spewing oath-confessions in a church. any revolt from either of the halvings against this ingrownness or an attempt for autonomy is stifled by the other until one brother-extremity swallows, subjugates the opposing one, and the pair turns into oneness again: sammy cannot have his own life and his own body and his own sexuality unless it is curated by dean but so is dean cannot have his own thoughts and his own experiences and motifs unless sam is the prime participator, prime confidant, or the object of. there is a dialogue in season iii where sam tells dean that if he cannot save him from death then he has to become dean. if i can't have you through you then i'll have you in me. he resorts to absorption of dean's persona into seity in his denial of separation just because (‘there ain't no me if there ain't no you’). it is a deeply abusive, cannibalistic, intrusive concept that also implies the smothering, terrifying totality of love and all its manifestations both subtle and extreme. it is painful and yet it is not improper because it is sought and anticipated and relished like a final homecoming (‘sam is the age he was when dean died’, ‘like he's been waiting for dean for years...and in a lot of ways he has’). it also happens to be fucking deranged.

[opheliasam]

The thing is that the ways in which dean and sam need each other are both compatible and parallel in their nature.

Dean needs sam to stay with him (let him take care of him look after him and be with him) and sam despite all his need for autonomy and freedom which he does desire of course (he needs dean to respect his choices and see him) also needs dean to need him—choose him. It’s always been that way—something we see from the very pilot itself. He goes with dean in the pilot after dean admits that he doesn’t want to do it without sam even if he is capable for it.

It affects sam profoundly when dean gets close to other people—especially men because it threatens the idea that dean could need people other than him (even the mere desire to want for others apart from him is distasteful even if he doesn’t want it to be—he just can’t help it, it’s the way they are.) Of course dean has never needed for anything more than sam, that sam and just sam has always been more than enough but sam needs that from him, constantly and actively.

In Sacrifice (8x23), when he reveals that the fact that dean chose to turn to people (an angel, a vampire) apart from him was unbearable to him was just so.. much. And it’s interesting because we know that sam too is friends with cas, has never been shown to consider him a rival in any sense (but just the mere possibility of sam and just sam not being enough for dean is devastating for him.) He doesn’t harbour any resentment or competition towards cas, it’s just that he needs to be the choice over everything else from dean. He needs it because he chose that too, even when he had a chance to get out—multiple times over. And yes, the circumstances shaping his choices are often not ideal, are sometimes not even entirely choices but he always stays because of the knowledge that dean will always choose him.

The conflict then is often caused by doubt—dean, deeply insecure about sam’s loyalty. For him, it’s a given—that sam will always be first, has always and forever been above everything else but he expects sam to know it too. Despite everything he puts on him and says to him, despite the fights and the anger and the mistrust. None of that will ever change this one fundamental thing.

But Sam doesn’t (!!) Maybe at one time he did, before the demon blood and the soullessness and the countless countless ways he thinks he fucked up but somewhere along the line it became clear to Sam that he could not trust it to always be Dean’s first choice, can’t know it for sure.

Doubt again, Sam—unable to know if Dean will always choose him over all else and Dean unable to verbalise that enough because of said insecurity (the fear that he needs sam more than sam needs him) and unable to understand why Sam would feel this way because he expects him to already know that Sam will always be above all else, at the end of the day despite whatever happens because that is who Dean is.

[familyabolisher]

Would you elaborate on why you don't really believe in addictive personalities? I find that a useful descriptor for myself that reminds me how easy it is for me to get into unhealthy behavior patterns. I have to fully stay away from tiktok and gacha games(I will never go gambling) because I know I can't trust myself with them. I also have to be REALLY careful with alcohol, etc. I have adhd and bi-polar, and I like having a phrase that describes my experience without being too over-medicalized and relating everything to diagnoses. I'm curious why you don't like it as a construct/whatever your opinion is!

personal explanatory power is one thing and i wouldn’t begrudge you that but i don’t really see how it has any materialist usage; and ultimately, like, i’m a marxist, any way in which i evaluate a framework that’s supposed to explain something in the world has to come from the assumption that the world is best explained through historical materialism. ‘addictive personality’ with no further elaboration is an idealist claim which obfuscates crucial points of discourse around addiction and the conditions that give rise to it—and indeed the conditions which cause us to name one substance or action as ‘addictive’ over another in the first place. addiction is materially punished; through social stigma, but also through housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, policing & incarceration, psychiatry, the sorts of forces that add up to eventually facilitate the conditions of social murder. we only have to look as far as the war on drugs to understand how ‘addiction,’ the consumption and circulation of substances regarded as ‘addictive,’ is not a prediscursive state but one that can be leveraged to violently enforce conditions of hegemony and quell insurgence through carceralism and social murder. i also just heavily distrust psychology as a field and certainly don’t buy these appeals to an essential self as a self who ‘has’ xyz tendencies as though xyz tendencies (such as the traits given in the five-factor model which is applied to ‘explain’ a predisposition to addiction) are anything other than postdiscursive descriptors we’ve imbued with meaning relative to a postdiscursive normalcy. i think psychological theorising around personality tends to obfuscate materialist frameworks in favour of methodologies which presume and reify normativity (eg. the claim that those more vulnerable to ‘addictive personalities’ have a stronger tendency towards ‘social alienation’ and ‘nonconformity’ without defining what constitutes ‘alienation’ and ‘conformity’ in the first place—as though personality traits simply appear out of thin air).

as we’ve seen dozens of times, “addiction” is a slippery term easily wielded towards reactionary ends. “porn addiction” is a line taken by anti-sex work radfems; “food addiction” is infamously unscientific and preying on cultural predispositions towards fatphobia; “internet addiction” is similarly flimsy and frequently deployed in theories of cultural degeneration. this doesn’t mean that the clusters of behaviours we term “addiction” aren’t “real” in the sense that some people do develop dependencies on particular substances, but that the term can be used to draw connections between the reactionary attitude held towards addiction & its attendant connotations (of infantilisation, justified removal of autonomy, incarceration, psychiatric intervention, and so on) and whatever the wielder wants to malign (porn, food, using the internet). if we reify the idea of there being an ontological state within ourselves by which we are more or less prone to “addiction,” we by implication act against the necessity of interrogating what is meant by “addiction” and why it is being invoked in the first place; we also place all our explanatory eggs, so to speak, in the basket of the individual cast as “addicted,” rather than turning our attention towards the source of the “addictive” substance or object and its material origins + usage.

so it bears asking what we’re obscuring and what we’re facilitating when we give legitimacy to the idea of an ‘addictive personality’ in the public discourse, which is what i meant when i said that the term has no materialist explanatory power for me—casting someone in the role of an addict, even if only in the hypothetical, allows others to enforce the stigmas that such a role entails, through, for example, infantilisation, denial of autonomy, and reluctance to treat the individual’s behaviour as worthy of respect, compassion, and mature response. it creates a telos out of addiction under conditions wherein addiction means incarceration (literal or psychiatric), discrimination, ostracisation, everything i just laid out in the first paragraph. it makes addiction into a fundamentally individualist discourse which must therefore have individualist solutions, rather than a complex nexus of social conditions and discourses that we can describe and then fight against.