#because we need community. we need companionship. we need connection.

[neverendingford]

.

[ms-demeanor]

i was listening to a podcast yesterday and one of the hosts was talking about how she used new age beliefs to fill a void left by leaving christianity and how when she left the new age beliefs behind she was talking to some friends who were skeptics and asked them about "the great mystery" and if they thought science could explain why we were here and how even as a skeptic now she thinks people need some kind of spirituality to connect them to the universe and seek an answer to that question.

And I cannot explain enough how no, not everyone needs that and not everyone believes that's a question that has an answer or is even a question worth serious consideration. "Why are we here?" Why would there be a reason that we are here????????????? "What is the meaning of life?" Why are you assuming life has a meaning??????????????

I just really dislike the attitude that people are incomplete or are scared or self-deluding or *bitter* if they don't think the universe has a purpose. The universe doesn't! The universe is doing its thing!

I have a purpose because I made one for myself! Because of the people around me who I loved and cared about and who loved me and raised me and are a part of my community and who deserve compassion and companionship and autonomy and comfort and peace and joy and contentment! I learned what I wanted to do and to be because of us! I do not need a supernatural or spiritual or intuitive connection to the universe in order to know what I'm about!

And I'm absolutely not upset that the universe isn't giving me answers or guidance; I don't feel alone or abandoned or adrift. There are eight billion people on the planet! I'm not alone in the universe there are eight billion people why would I want or expect anything else?

It's literally fine?

[multbasa]

The Sonic community has an issue with calling every relationship a "sibling" relationship when the relationship is literally just friendship or companionship.

Like, I don't even know if a lot of people really understand what it is like to grow up with siblings by the way they slap the label on everything.

Take it from me: I'm an identical twin, so for my entire life from even before birth I was sharing a space with my twin. As adults, we have chilled out considerably and I consider her my closest connection now, but there was a LOT of growing pains with a lot of fighting before that.

There were times that we didn't even want anything to do with each other which was difficult because other people kind of treated us as a match set. The point is that we sorted out our differences and conflicts because we had to since we shared a home and even shared a room for many many years. People see us now as insanely close but they never saw the biting, hitting, yelling and tears that preceded that.

For people around the same age, I would consider a sibling bond as those who sorted out their differences in time.

As for siblings with larger age gaps, there's a bit of a different dynamic. Sometimes older siblings have to act as parents to their little siblings for instance, but there is still a difference between them and a simple friendship or companionship.

Yes, there are siblings out there who never really had much conflict growing up, but it is more likely than not to have conflict due to the situation of sharing a space for many years. There isn't often much opportunity to have time apart when you have to share a home.

So to me, a good sibling bond is one built on past tension that has resolved simply due to time. We laugh about our past spats because we see them as insignificant now and sometimes we can't even remember what the conflict was in the first place.

Even if a friendship or companionship appears similar in shape to a sibling bond, that doesn't mean that it is a sibling bond. There will always be overlap among good platonic and sibling relationships simply because they are not romantic.

It's fine to hold headcanons about characters where you consider them like family to each other, but it is absolutely unacceptable to go around imposing that headcanon on others who see the relationship differently. You have all the control you need to curate your online experience through blocking people or content you don't want to see and simply not engaging with it. To do otherwise and whine at people minding their business is incredibly infantile, and I have to wonder if those who do this have nothing important going on in their lives.

Even for stuff that really rubs me the wrong way like "twincest", I don't engage with people who post content like that because I just do not want to see it and I have more going on in my life to spend time obsessing over it. Yes, I find it gross, but I can avoid it so I don't have to see it. I'm sure people who are getting twisted over ships that aren't even incest can learn to curate their online experience so they simply don't engage with or even see what they don't like.

[eve-was-framed]

okay this is gonna be a bit of a long rant (with some SA and CSA mentions so pls don’t read if that will be too much for you rn) but I’ve been thinking a lot about the “male loneliness epidemic” lately and I have some Thoughts ™

we live in very isolating, depressing and scary times. we live in a hyper-individualistic capitalist hellscape that seems to punish people who need community support. and I truly believe that we as humans should try to help each other out in the ways that we are able to.

but I lose 100% of my empathy for lonely depressed men when they start using their own personal issues as an excuse to peddle ideologies that advocate for rape, pedophilia, child marriage, sexual slavery, and even murder of women and girls. I don’t fucking care how sad you are, if you advocate for other humans beings to be subjected to the cruelest treatment possible then you either need to get serious help or die (and not take anyone with you when you do).

you do not have a fucking paramount on suffering. you are not the only ones who experience loneliness. I know you think women get to just pick and choose whichever romantic partner/friends we want, but that is false, and also being seen as nothing but a sex object by men is so incredibly isolating too. that’s not real love and connection, that’s only being valued for what we can provide for men. so many people feel so alone and it genuinely is a big problem.

I was raised in an extremely misogynistic cult that preaches that grown men are not responsible for anything they do to little girls bc “they’re wired that way.” I had very bad things happen to me before I was even old enough to realize what it meant. and you know what the excuse always is? “well it happened to him when he was younger too so he can’t help that he does it to you.” I learned very early that male suffering is viewed as more important than the suffering they inflict on innocent people. and despite going through this, despite seeing nearly every woman in my life go through something similar, despite all of this, I still would never ever sympathize with any ideology that preaches rape, slavery, sex trafficking, pedophilia, white supremacy, etc. and that doesn’t make me some super hero, it makes me a mildly normal person.

so no, nobody “pushed” you into your evil ideologies, nobody made you do that. if true suffering at the hands of the opposite sex is really the root cause of inceldom then almost every single woman I know would be the most insane incel you’d ever meet in your entire life. but they’re not, even though many of them are lonely and long for true companionship, none of them feel so angry and entitled to it that they want to murder and rape men or little boys. not a single one. the root cause of inceldom is, and always has been, male entitlement. men who were raised to believe the world and every woman in it exists to serve them in some way, but then grew up and realized that actually nobody is owed sex and you don’t get to force women to marry you and have kids, because we are human beings who deserve to be happy too. and this makes them so mad that they start thinking it’s okay to do whatever they want to whoever they want, because after all, nobody on planet earth could ever suffer as much as incels do when a woman tells them no.

I’m fucking sick of it. stop saying “they pushed me to this” and start taking even an ounce of accountability for your deranged, entitled mindset.

[a-s-levynn]

I'm terrified to post this. So watch me sprinting away into the distance after dropping this.

Open love letter to -in extension to the wider ST community on tumblr, but especially- to the fellowship of Sleep because without you, life would be much more lonely

My Friends,

It was today when it finally dawned on me that you gave me the most undescribably precious gift. Many of you probably going to relate to this to some degree because i am not unique in any sense but i had to get this out. And by just the sheer lenght probably not many of you will read it. But i still need to put this out there, even if i'm being obnoxious and probably sound overdramatic and maybe even cringy.

I struggle with a lot of things. Anxiety, self doubt, depression, paranoia, self destructive tendencies, self isolation and the list goes on to even darker places. All in all i have a suboptimal mental state to put it lightly. I feel inadequate in many ways. Especially with connecting to people.

To this day, i struggle every day, seeing my friends, you, talk on a daily basis, have inside jokes and wonderful conversations and whatnot and either i like it or not, thoughts intrude: "am i doing enough? Am i a good enough of a friend? Do i really have a place among these wonderful bright souls? Am i intruding? Am i inserting myself into spaces i do not have any right to be? Am i forcing myself into your circles?"

For the longest time, on most days the conclusion was no. I do not belong. You were just being nice to the pathetic little creature in the corner because by nature you are simply kind. But as the weeks went by i learned that you are also awkward people with your own stuggles and hardships which are far harder and more painful than mine. That you are choosing to be kind every day, in spite of what life threw at you. Because you know.

I started to see you also crave a particular type of companionship and you reach out with the same trembling hands, hoping that someone sees it and grabs it. That someone finally says: you are not alone. I am here. For you. With you.

And you did. You've seen a bunch of hands fumbling in the dark, desperate to hold onto something and went: yeah.. i think i'll grab all of them. Because we are coming from the same darkness. And if i can help pull you into the light than you might have the strenght to do the same for me, so we can all sit in the warmth of the fire. The fire we built together. A fire that is growing ever brighter and allowes us to see even more hands on the edges to be pulled and invited into the circle.

So we have. For a while sitting almost silently, showing the things we found along the way. Tentatively feeling out the boundries. Than we broke the silence. You even started to call me your friend at some point. I already considered you mine because i'm painfully lonely and just the gesture, that you included me among the hands you grabbed was enough for me to see you mine. But all in all, for some unknowable reason, we became friends.

The weeks turned into months and i felt a bit more comfortable to approach you on my own clumsy and awkward ways. Many of you know by now that Tiny Token was born because i was too afraid to send a happy birthday ask to someone. I still apologize regularly just for adding thoughts to posts even if i only do it in tags. I am afraid. Of so many thing.

We still don't talk daily. Yet we still call each other friend. We have actual plans now. I still stuggle with the though of not being enough. There are still days when i feel you just feeling pity towards me.

But lately there is an other thought there. Which makes me feel bad for thinking that way. A thought that's never been there before. "If i was truly bothersome or annoying or any way too unpleasent, you could simply walk away. This is the internet after all. You could just block me. You have the option to walk away but you are time and time again choosing not to. No matter how many days pass by with us not talking, you are there. I can count on you. I'm still hesitant to reach out and dump my superficial adversities on you. But i also see you keeping the door ajar, leaving the option there to be approached if anyone needs it. So it would be not just a disservice but an outright insult to you if i'd think you are just acting out of pity. But if you like me than.. there has to be something about me to actually to be worth knowing?"

And that is doing something that ten years worth of failed therapy could not. You made me question my self doubt. It is still there and will be for the rest of my life. But now there is a steady counter balance i never had this solidly in my life ever before.

I'm still afraid to ask even if anyone would be up for a talk, let alone a call because i have little to offer in conversations. I don't talk much by default and that is not a good base for conversations. I'm still terrified of overstaying my welcome. But i also know now that you probably wouldn't mind from time to time. Because you understand. Maybe one day i will get there. I don't know when but there is a hope i never truly had before.

This is something i will never be able to repay you. Thank you for understanding that we all have different levels of anxiety and fear and not holding it against one and other. I'm writing this to you with immens love and eternal gratitude i cannot truly express in any way that does it justice: Thank you for showing me hope. Thank you for being the way you are.

You gave me the biggest gift there is to give.

You gave me your friendship.

I love you.

Yours in friendship,

Levynn

[loveyourlovelysoul]

I think this era of social medias and fast internet connection and communication is only triggering our urgency in receiving (and reacting), making us forget that for some things we need time. Even (and especially) when it comes to relationships.

We try to know the other immediately, to know everything of them and then think we don't have anything else to ask/tell them (but life goes on? stuff happens?). We tend to stop to superficial topics and understanding of the other person, we avoid certain topics fearing they may be judge us or use them against us (we lost trust: but we need to remind ourselves our trust in others is not related to our self worth. We're not responsible of what others do with our vulnerability, nor it changes our worth or we should feel guilty about having trusted the wrong person: we cannot control anything and anyone outside of us and we cannot call ourselves naive if another breaks our trust). We don't talk about negative stuff, about our feelings, our wishes, our favorite stuff, our hobbies, our passions... we don't try to share them much or invite the other to something we enjoy (and vice versa). And this too blocks the interaction on a superficial level and pretty soon as well.

I think we stopped working for our relationships, isolating in a more comfortable way of thinking (actually projecting, even after two superficial chats) "I don't have anything to tell them anymore", "They must be thinking this, doing that, liking this..." instead of asking, and feeling lonely. We kinda stopped being interested in the other and wait for the other to be interested in us and show they care and think about us (out of past trauma okay, but different person won't necessarily think as us or people from our past). And we don't even share about our loneliness... because what if they judged us? But friends, or people we should share a deep connection with, don't judge/criticize us to make us feel bad (if they do, they're not friends and it's probably them projecting on us anyway). They eventually give us suggestions and other povs to make us grow and help us (same thing we can do for them). And anyway we can always have a talk on that, confronting each other's pov and grow from it: even arguments can help us grow together with someone, it's okay if things don't go well/perfectly everyday, it's okay to have bad days, it's okay to not talk everyday... in any type of relationship. It doesn't mean someone will leave us or we need to leave before they do it to us. We need to remember we're two different people and the only thing we can do is communicate. Always. With our heart. Love and friendships are choices we make also withour minds, with our will to try and not give up immediately after the first difficult situation. Together with the other person's will.

So why this huge self sabotage tendencies in relationships? Why we prefer to stay home and feel lonely, resentful to everyone not caring for us and relying on internet for companionship, maybe ending up comparing our life with others' (fake images we see online) and feel even less worthy of love and understanding? Why don't we just change our pov and try to be more open and vulnerable? Maybe even going a little more deep after we get comfortable with the other? Why do we run away (give up?) so fast? We cannot always wait for others to take the first step, we can take the risk too, we can show interest as well (actually, we should or the other will only feel used or uninteresting and lose the will to communicate on the long run). We can accept if someone is busy and we can allow them time too ofc. It doesn't necessarily mean they don't like us. Not everything is about us and our worth. We probably need to re-learn how to slowly water our relationships and care for them as we'd do with a plant: we have to wait and be patient and consistant to get flowers when we start from seeds. We may even deal with aphids as it grows, but we can get rid of them if we take good countermeasures (if we communicate openly and stay vulnerable, find compromise and a good balance with the other: both people need to feel respected, free, understood and cared for).

[mychlapci]

seekers are really communal frame types. it's actually part of the reason why they trine together; they're like rats or pigeons. a single seeker left alone to their own devices will often slip into depression without companionship. it's actually a big idea i have for my fan continuity.

i've seen people saying that vosians are prideful assholes and while i think that's true to some extent, i also think that they're just generally very focused on their communities. within my fan continuity, certain areas of cybertron lended themselves better to certain frame types. the areas that eventually became the region of vos were pitted by steep mountains and deep canyons so only those who could fly were able to properly settle there.

due to this, vos is a very flight oriented region. most cities there are built high into the atmosphere and rarely accommodate other frame types which has led to the stereotype that all vosians are vain and only care about themselves which is very much not true!

vos, in my fan continuity, isn't a single city. it's a name given to describe a specific region of cybertron that has similar topography, and language families (similar to how we call the middle east, the middle east even though there's a ton of different countries and cultures there)

vosians are generally some of the most outwardly friendly cybertronians due to the wingspeak that the region developed as their main form of communication. this language is allows for far more nuance but it's not something taught across cybertron so when vosian's speak common, their tones often come across as intensely snooty because they tend to be very blunt with their words.

seekers in particular are distinguished from other flight frames by their specific wing forms and general likeness to each other in terms of kibble placement and other such looks, are very community based, often forming massive neighborhoods and colonies of up to 120 seekers.

these colonies function just by the sheer feeling of community that shows up between those who are part of it. members often share, sleeping, cooking, bathing, and living spaces and it's not uncommon for multiple different trines to form massive poly relationships with each other just because of close proximity

this is also my explanation behind why the only air force we see in the decepticons are seekers. because they're so communal, it only made sense for them all to join the cons. not doing so would mean that one left behind might become extremely isolated and depressed from lack of contact.

seeker colonies are highly complex and often feature a single trine as the main leaders (in this case it would be the elite trine) but it can often vary from colony to colony. smaller ones might only have one trine in charge, but the bigger ones might have up to five which create a council of sorts to make decisions regarding the community

going back to the city structures of vos. it varies highly on the area but generally cities that are built high in the mountains tend to build outward around the mountain and then upward. so you'd see a lot of scaffolding around the lowest layers, just general structural support dug directly into the rock, while the upper most layers are connected by a series of bridges and pathways.

cities that built into the canyons of the region tend to be a lot more spread out, with chunkier buildings that better accommodate cybertronians of other frames. however it is consistent that vosian cities are built at high altitudes, feature heavy use of spiraling skyscrapers, and generally focused on flight frames and their specific needs. so lots of perches to land on, runways to take off from, and open aired buildings to allow for better weather predictions since some cities might be so high up that the upper layers stretch above the cloudline.

i have thoughts about the winglord thing in fandom. i think it's really interesting but i don't think it's a seeker specific thing.

so in terms of the winglord for this version of cybertron, i think it's a ceremonial term used to describe the winner of a ritual that determines who will lead the vosian region for the coming millennium regarding religious leadership. it's kinda like if the pope position got chosen by a fistfight. so like the winglord doesn't have any actual political power, but they do have a lot of religious influence

starscream in my continuity never actually becomes the winglord because of that reason. he's not particularly religious and because he specifically wants to join politics to get vos more focused on unifying with other cybertronian regions, he never participates in the winglord fights. however, sunstorm does

skywarp is a cartographer and his teleporting abilities allow him to get into unmapped spaces without too much trouble. which is very useful since vos' topography does not lend itself well to scanning devices because of the unpredictability of the weather. the area is prone to sudden and very random tornadoes because of it's mountainous landscape and it's actually part of the reason why vosian cities are designed the way they are. they're built most commonly in the areas that avoid the paths of the tornadoes

once again this ask is getting out of hand so i'm going to cap it off on that

aaaaaa i can't believe it took me so long to get to this ask, this is literally the coolest thing ever. Though i might be biased because I have... well, not exactly a continuity, more like... it's flashes and, uh, images, in my head, barely headcanons, and they're not always nearly as pregnancy-based as i led everyone to believe. And in these barely-headcanons, i am a sucker for, first of all, the cybertronian "cities" being more akin to areas or states with more cities within, and second of all your idea of seeker communal society kind of reminds me of the way that the roman kingdom operated, and i looove to get inspired by rome for my cybertronian worldbuilding. mostly because rome was very fucked up and cybertron needs to be as well.

and yeah, the winglord thing, i do feel like it's possible that every city/state on cybertron would have a high ranking official that is technically "in charge" and vosnians simply call it a winglord, but it's not exclusive to them. sorry just the political arrangement of cybertron is so interesting to me, no.1 favourite thing to think about. it probably depends on the "area" but the official can be only religious in nature or fully tyrannical or anywhere in between. again, sorry, i have to stop thinking about this.

in love with your mind, i love communal fliers. i know people can get weird about seekers and trines but i love it when it's simply a cultural difference.

[gendrie]

i think its a shame that arya is so frequently labeled as "independent" bc it fails to capture the duality in her storyline between dependence and independence. contrary to popular belief arya depends on other people and her arc revolves around that profound need in a violent, desperate, wartorn world where connection is difficult (seemingly impossible at times) to maintain.

in the most basic context arya is a 9 year old child in the beginning of the story. she, obviously, depends on other people. in a sane and safe world she would be cared for by her parents - or at least competent adults. but she is forced onto the streets where she has to fend for herself. she goes hungry and risks assault but she is able to survive. when she gets picked up by yoren she becomes a (temporary) recruit of the night's watch where arya herself recognizes that they provide her with protection, food, and company. this is a similar dynamic to the one we see with her friends later. they provide arya with crucial companionship if nothing else. arya highly values gendry and hot pie. she forces them to escape harrenhal with her - she did not flee alone! and she stays with them despite the fact they slow her down and jeopardize her personal goals.

other people can be liability too. they can make you vulnerable and they can leave you. arya knows how it feels to be left behind. most of her family, to arya's knowledge, have been violently murdered. her allies and friends have left in a variety of ways. arya believes she is the lone wolf - not because she wants to be but because she is desperately alone. we see her try to convince herself that she is independent; that she doesn't need friends and that she must accept a life without a pack. these are the thoughts of a depressed and traumatized young girl trying to cope with abandonment. this is the condition arya is in when she arrives at the house of black and white where she will be required to forfeit her life to the god of death.

on a thematic level arya's very identity has been dependent on her family, her pack. the loss of this chips away at her sense of self until arya doesn't even know who she is without her father and mother and siblings and her wolf. nymeria represents arya's soul in wolf form and she has amassed a gigantic pack that she leads. arya holds them close in her heart:

And dreamed. That was the best part, the dreaming. She dreamed of wolves most every night. A great pack of wolves, with her at the head. She was bigger than any of them, stronger, swifter, faster. She could outrun horses and outfight lions. When she bared her teeth even men would run from her, her belly was never empty long, and her fur kept her warm even when the wind was blowing cold. And her brothers and sisters were with her, many and more of them, fierce and terrible and hers. They would never leave her. (Arya, ASOS)

this is the only comfort for arya in the wake of the red wedding: a pack that will never leave her.

arya is able to think and act independently. she has a will of her own and a strong one at that. but she is a deeply social character who depends on community. this is her most consistent character trait. arya thrives on her interactions with others. she wants a stable community and we see her cling to that whether its as arya of winterfell or cat of the canals.

the framing of arya as this independent entity is doing her character a great disservice in fandom spaces. its one of the main reasons speculation for her endgame is so weak tbh. arya going off on her own to be a lone wolf is completely at odds with her character and the themes of her story. yes, other people can hurt. yes, they can leave you. but that is the price we pay being connected to one another. arya's character explores this theme more deeply than any other character, i'd argue. the pack survives is her mantra and hers alone.

[gctchell]

#red is the og. the VIP#one of the safest people I've ever met#spectacular writing and I've the privilege of being able to see the incredible progression#from the day we met to present day.#it's a while! and writing like hers is unforgettable. her Lilith and Niffty are delights#and she's taken what I liked about those two and intensified my love for them#only red can pile on reasons for me to love characters especially ones she takes on#an excitable writer and one of the best people u can meet. even if we're in hell.#and her improv???? I know I can count on her to roll with the punches. -- @jizzlords

#ive known red for some time even WAAAY before HH and they’re a wonderful person#great to communicate with and very loving and kind and open minded#wonderful writer to boot on top of all of that -- @therealricksanchezpleasestandup

i just signed on to the sweetest tags from some of the oldest mutuals i've had across my accounts. what the hell, yall. my darlings..

@jizzlords is wearing ozzie's skin. I mean that in the most complimentary way ever, because hel just pulls that man off with such ease it's like they're sharing the same body and he's just conducting the keyboard, taking down his autobiography online. the voice is crystal clear, you can hear iglehart in everything hel writes - down to the laughter.

hel loves this man and it is clear to see. the love for that muse is in there and the justice is being delivered right to the key. absolutely astounding portrayal, and hel even dives into ozzie being a fallen angel, and still having trauma from all that mess. hel gives him flaws, gives him green flags, brings him to life and makes him the icon of desire that he needs to be. I'm not surprised, though - hel's always knocked it clean out of the park when it comes to glamorous and iconic characters, bc hel is iconic. and just all-together so much fun to hang out with.

also, pssst: hel's writing is absolutely flipping beautiful. I've been lucky to be traveling alongside him for a long time now and watch it bounce from the characters he loves so dearly to the next. he's just gotten better, and he was already great.

@therealricksanchezpleasestandup is rick sanchez. I am not kidding lmao. you go onto that blog and it reads like rick. I've been a mutual of steffu's for.. god, a good few years, now? not even including the time on this account? and I have just watched her kick absolute ASS with this man. it's just like asmodeus and hel, it's another case of 'I think that man just lives in your skin and you're writing everything he tells you to', because damn. excellent portrayal, excellent handling, excellent managing of this man and his emotions, and just how messed up he is.

yeah, rick is a mess and steffu knows exactly how to write that while also making it so abundantly clear why and how it is that he has so many amicable relationships all over the multiverse. man knows how to juggle his personality traits and get those connections, find companionship in others that his family doesn't quite get to see that often - outside of morty. I always thought that was a pretty damn cool thing for her to cover.

because he's a universe jumper, it makes all the sense in the world that he has connects to others down here in hell. easy character to plug in with if you like rick and morty and want a rick to interact with. steffu has the man on lock, I am telling you.

[likealittleheartbeat]

"A fifth point concerning nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but has also refused to hate him. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. The nonviolent resister would contend that in the struggle for human dignity, the oppressed people of the world must not succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter or indulging in hate campaigns. To retaliate in kind would do nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can only be done by projecting the ethic of love to the center of our lives.

In speaking of love at this point, we are not referring to some sentimental or affectionate emotion. It would be nonsense to urge men to love their oppressors in an affectionate sense. Love in this connection means understanding, redemptive good will. When we speak of loving those who oppose us, we refer to neither eros nor philia; we speak of a love which is expressed in the Greek word agape. Agape means understanding, redeeming good will for all men. It is an overflowing love which is purely spontaneous, unmotivated, groundless, and creative. It is not set in motion by any quality or function of its object. It is the love of God operating in the human heart.

Agape is disinterested love. It is a love in which the individual seeks not his own good, but the good of his neighbor (1 Cor. 10:24). Agape does not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people, or any qualities people possess. It begins by loving others for their sakes. It is an entirely "neighbor-regarding concern for others," which discovers the neighbor in every man it meets. Therefore, agape makes no distinction between friends and enemy; it is directed toward both. If one loves an individual merely on account of his friendliness, he loves him for the sake of the benefits to be gained from the friendship, rather than for the friend's own sake. Consequently, the best way to assure oneself that love is disinterested is to have love for the enemy-neighbor from whom you can expect no good in return, but only hostility and persecution.

Another basic point about agape is that it springs from the need of the other person--his need for belonging to the best in the human family....

Agape is not a weak, passive love. It is love in action. Agape is love seeking to preserve and create community. It is insistence on community even when one seeks to break it. Agape is a willingness to go to any length to restore community. It doesn't stop at the first mile, but it goes the second mile to restore community. It is a willingness to forgive, not seven times, but seventy times seven to restore community...He who works against community is working against the whole of creation. Therefore, if I respond to hate with a reciprocal hate I do nothing but intensify the cleavage in broken community. I can only close the gap in broken community by meeting hate with love. If I meet hate with hate, I become depersonalized, because creation is so designed that my personality can only be fulfilled in the context of community....

In the final analysis, agape means a recognition of the fact that all life is interrelated. All humanity is involved in a single process, and all men are brothers...

A sixth basic fact about nonviolent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. Consequently, the believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future. This faith is another reason why the nonviolent resister can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship. It is true that there are devout believers in nonviolence who find it difficult to believe in a personal God. But even these persons believe in the existence of some creative force that works for universal wholeness. Whether we call it an unconscious process, an impersonal Brahman, or a Personal Being of matchless power and infinite love, there is a creative force in this universe that works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "An Experiment in Love" (1958)

[astrojulia]

Hello! Can you give me a general idea of this solar return is going to be for me? Especially since i have 7H stellium

Thank you so much in advance!

Solar Return 7th house Stellium: Moon,Saturn and Neptune in Pisces

Navigation:   Masterlist✦Ask Rules✦Feedback Tips

       Askbox✦Sources✦Paid Readings

Hello Siren!

First, let's ignore the fact that you sent me your chart and pretend that you only asked me about the stellium in the 7th house. I'll provide a brief explanation about the planets and the sign involved simple because I want to. I mention this because my rules state to send one question at a time. It's not out of spite but rather to ensure that more people can benefit from the same question.

A stellium in the 7th house in a Solar Return, regardless of the specific sign or planets involved, indicates a significant emphasis on relationships, partnerships, and interpersonal dynamics during that particular solar year. I like to point out that a Solar Return without an analysis of the astrological transits and your natal chart together is not as efficient as if we analyze the two or three together. Aligning them, you can know how and why. Here is a broad interpretation of the potential meaning behind a stellium in the 7th house in a Solar Return:

Intense focus on relationships: a stellium in the 7th house suggests that relationships will take center stage during the Solar Return year. You may experience a strong desire for connection, companionship, and collaboration. This period is likely to bring important lessons and growth opportunities through your interactions with others.

Partnership-oriented endeavors: you may find yourself drawn to activities, projects, or careers that involve partnerships or cooperation. This could manifest as collaborations in business, romantic relationships, or even friendships that hold significant importance in your life. You may excel in teamwork and benefit from the insights and support of others.

Balancing self and others: the 7th house stellium highlights the theme of balance between your own needs and those of others. During the Solar Return year, you will likely be challenged to find harmony in your relationships, while also maintaining your own identity and personal desires. Learning to strike a balance between independence and interdependence is a key lesson during this period.

Lessons in partnership dynamics: this year may bring various relationship dynamics to the forefront of your experience. You may encounter significant growth opportunities through partnerships, as well as challenges that require you to address issues related to communication, compromise, and maintaining healthy boundaries.

Relationship transformation: a 7th house stellium in a Solar Return often indicates a period of transformative experiences in your relationships. You may go through significant changes in your partnership dynamics, leading to a deeper understanding of your own needs and desires, as well as those of your partners. This can pave the way for personal growth and the development of more authentic and fulfilling connections.

Now the Pisces energy within the 7th house stellium in your Solar Return highlights themes of empathy, intuition, spirituality, and emotional sensitivity in relationships. It encourages compassion and understanding, but also requires the establishment of healthy boundaries and a grounded approach to navigate the potential pitfalls of Neptune's influence.

Having a 7th house stellium with the Moon, Saturn, and Neptune in Pisces in your Solar Return indicates a significant focus on relationships, emotional connections, and the need for balance and harmony during that particular solar year. It suggests opportunities for personal growth and development through partnerships, as well as the potential for challenges and lessons in commitment, responsibility, and maintaining healthy boundaries.All the movements I described above may be almost imperceptible to you. The Moon represents our subconscious, while Neptune symbolizes the unconscious. Moreover, they are both in the sign of Pisces, a sign that I find challenging for Saturn to control. That's why I encourage you to understand your relationships. Leaving this year more confused than when you entered it is not desirable. Being mindful of emotional needs, practical considerations, and maintaining realistic expectations will be important factors to navigate and make the most of this stellium's energy.

Kisses from the Sea! 🪸

(CC) AstroJulia Some Rights Reserved

[thelostgirl21]

You know, one very pervert effects of queer baiting, I'm discovering, is that the queer community has been so used to look for any hint at maybe romance they can find, to satisfy their own 100% healthy need to connect with romantic partnerships in fiction, that when two same gender characters share profound bonds of love, emotional and physical intimacy (perhaps even have the occasional sex together), seek companionship, enjoy going on adventures together, would probably be willing to freaking die for each other, etc.

Well, when the show or people on the show attempt to say "no, this is a friendship", the reaction is to go "who are you trying to fool? This is obviously romance! No people that are 'just friends' would behave in such a way!"

Meanwhile, demisexual me, that can't sexually desire anyone unless I share deep bonds of trust and emotional intimacy with them (but not necessarily have any romantic desires for them), and thus has had a habit of more often seeking sexual intimacy with people I wasn't romantically attracted to (because it can sometime take a while for me to develop the kind of emotional connection I need with a romantic interest to find them sexually desirable as well)...

AND who has a very easy time "turning herself off" someone (in terms of sexual desires) when that sexual attraction isn't reciprocated...

Knows that romance and friendships aren't as clear cut, or black and white, as people often appear to believe them to be.

Society will teach you stuff like "sexual/physical desires occur as a result of 'falling in love' or 'finding someone sexually appealing'..."

They don't teach you "you can have no romantic desires for someone, yet feel so emotionally close to them you'll have a seemingly irresistible need to fuck them!"

They don't say "you can yearn for romantic love with a person, yet experience no need to sexually connect with them until you can trust them as much as you do your friends".

They don't tell you "you will meet friends, in your life, that may of may not return your sexual desires (should you have them), that you'll have absolutely no remote interest to have them as boyfriend/girlfriend, that you'll nevertheless want to share a part of your soul with, make a lifelong connection, be fiercely loyal and devoted to each other, perhaps even move in together for a time at some point, consider them your found family, share specific interests in common that will feel like something that exclusively belongs to you two, and whose rejection would make you feel like they were tearing your very soul apart and near kill you!"

If you want one absolutely gorgeous example of a strong platonic emotional connection (that used to involve a one-sided potentially non-platonic attraction), Jace and Alec, from Shadowhunters, are a gorgeous example of that.

My friendships are typically fierce, deep, epic, heart-shattering and world-ending!

I've been known to endlessly agonize (my boyfriend was getting worried, because I could barely sleep, had little to no appetite, and often look like I was physically in pain) over a best friend that I'd always been extremely close to (but never felt sexually attracted to), who had started to emotionally distance herself from me, and treat some of the personally traits she'd always claimed to find "charming" and "refreshing" about me as suddenly "annoying", after she met her girlfriend (that would eventually become her wife).

*Spoilers alert* We eventually talked things through, and reconciled, although the exact nature of our relationship did indeed need to evolve and change a bit to adapt...

And Jaskier is talking about the fact that he loves Geralt platonically *NOW*.

According to Joey Batey, Jaskier is sapioromantic. Technically this would mean that he would be a gray-romantic, and seldom experience any desire to form a romantic connection with people.

He can desire them sexually, can immediately "fall in love with them" and start following them around like an adoring, excited puppy dog (I think that's definitely what happened with Geralt).

He might want to share his mind, his thoughts, and strongly emotionally bond with them.

He might year for human connections that bring him a sense of thrill and adventure, that inspire his creativity, and might entice him to enter a form of companionship with them.

But not necessarily share a romance with them.

And sadly, while I believe that Geralt's own affections for Jaskier were genuine, the way he experienced them appeared a bit different (and hindered by his own trauma) - possibly because of his awareness that having Jaskier following him around put him at risk.

But then, the moment Jaskier started singing about Geralt, people took notice and started targeting Jaskier to get to him.

After what happened with Rience, I think Geralt realized that there was no going back for them.

The best way to protect Jaskier is to fully let him in, and treat the bond they share together with value and respect - keep him close to himself and his family.

I'm pretty sure that whenever Jaskier is being asked to watch over Ciri, both Geralt and Yennefer are doing so because they feel better knowing that Ciri is there to keep him safe, too.

At least when Jaskier is with Ciri, then he's not running off to who knows where getting himself into trouble!

And if trouble does come to find them, then they'll have each other.

As Ciri's uncle, Jaskier can troll Ciri's parental figures (Yennefer and Geralt) with her, playfully mock their flaws, side with her against them on certain issues, and openly tease them (how are Geralt's smiling lessons going?).

At times, he can also argue her parents' side with her (ex: when the daughter is frustrated of being kept out of certain situations, or told she's not ready for something yet).

And she's more likely to listen to him. Because those aren't his rules, he often takes her side, and he may openly acknowledge that he finds those rules extremely frustrating, too!

Therefore, she can listen to him without feeling like she's got to assert her own independence from them.

Jaskier has the advantage of being able to support Geralt and Yennefer's decisions, while looking like he's doing so entirely on the belief they they are sound, based on his own external assessment of a situation.

Not because Geralt or Yennefer have any authority over him, and he's forced to agree.

Jaskier may not be able to fight and physically protect Ciri (hence, the forcefield).

But he can offer significant protection by reducing the risks of Ciri doing something brash and impulsive, now and in the future, by simply being there with her and for her.

And Ciri's own needs - as a highly trained warrior - to make sure that Jaskier is safe, will make it easier for her to accept that she's got to stay put with him, at times she'd rather follow Geralt and Yennefer into action, too.

Geralt own encouragement of Jaskier and Ciri developing their own familial bond together would not be happening if Geralt didn't consider Jaskier family, and wasn't deeply attached to him.

Platonic or not, that level of attachment, love, and trust matters, and becomes a part of yourself.

Jaskier didn't let Prince Radovid inside the cottage - where Ciri slept - and he didn't tell him why he couldn't let him in, either.

His romantic interest in Radovid is new. It is a growing attraction and affection that is still in its infancy, and he's still unsure of just how far Radovid is to be trusted.

That relationship is not meant to replace, nor take away anything, from what he and Geralt share and have shared.

And if Radovid is, indeed, to love him, then he'll need to accept that Jaskier doesn't exist in a vacuum and that his heart is big enough for a group of people.

Like Radovid said, Jaskier doesn't just see people, he sees the best in them...

And he falls in love with what he sees in them...

Jaskier loves a lot!

Some people, upon becoming romantically interested in someone, will suddenly shift their focus towards them, and seek to isolate themselves with their prospective romantic mate for a while (like what happened with my friend when she got her girlfriend, and what was happening with Geralt each time Yennefer showed up)!

Whereas when I become romantically involved with someone, my instinct is not to put the emotionally intimate friendships I have aside in favor of romance.

My instinct is to share that romance with my friends, try to include my romantic partner within that tight knit group of people, and give everyone a chance to get to know each other.

I don't put friendships aside for romance. That's not how my heart works. What I share with each friend is unique, can't be replaced, and each loss is experienced as viscerally as that of a romantic partner.

Am I saying those things to you because I believe that those of you that are adamant that Geraskier was played out on screen as a romance are wrong?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Quite the opposite.

What I'm saying, is that what queer baiting has viciously stolen from us the ability to fully enjoy and explore the full range and complexities of human friendships.

I'm decrying and condemning a practice, that has literally conditioned us to see non-romantic sexual attraction, platonic love and companionship (that yes, can 100% transcend romance), and all their nuances, specificall as "romance"; given that's usually the only "romance" we'll be allowed to get!

Because the type of friendship I'm describing has been over-represented in literature, TV, movies, musicals, and video games between same gender characters.

In a world where same gender romances are viewed negatively, we've been forced to accept "deeply intimate platonic relationships" as the only substitute being offered to us to open the joy of watching an openly acknowledged queer romance on screen (that doesn't end in tragedy)

We've been forced to learn to "read between the lines" to identify the signs that there may be "something more", and make those romances real in our imagination.

Each time I see people go "making that relationship queer would send the horrible, negative, and terrible message that all close friends of the same gender are romantically attracted to each other! That men being close friends is gay!"

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry!

It's the complete opposite!

If, the only way you are allowed to communicate gay intent with a queer audience, is by showing two "close friends" sharing together an emotionally and physically intimate connection of "non specified nature" to replace romance, then EVERY CLOSE, INTIMATE FRIENDSHIP AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES GAY!!!

How are we supposed to tell the difference between "strong platonic love and companionship" and "strong romantic love and companionship" when you refuse to give an answer, or you give us an answers, while continuing to crank up on the romantically intimate elements while HOPING to keep us hooked on the POSSIBILITY of the romance, to avoid losing viewers?!

Canonically, same gender friendships on TV go from being casual friends, to friends that regularly eye fuck each other, share their most intimate thoughts and feelings together, couldn't live without each other, and rub chamomile onto their best friend's lovely bottom while helping them bathe naked.

Whereas canonical friendships between men an women on TV go from casual friends, to deeply emotionally and physically intimate bonds if the friendship is between a woman and a gay man (to remove any chance of them developing romantic and/or sexual feelings towards each other, that would "muddy" the friendship and "ruin its chances of success"), to possibly a brotherly/sisterly bond at times, when one of them has found themselves a romantic partner and, thus, isn't available as a love interest.

Most of the time, though, one of them might be secretly "pinning" and "in love" with their best friend, and "secretly suffering" that the other person is comfortable with them being so emotionally close together without being "in love" with them, too!

Straight relationship drama will teach us that sneezing in your best friend's direction means you are romantically/sexually attracted to them, for frak's sake!!!

Let us try an exercise, just for fun.

Let us replace Jaskier with Yennefer.

Imagine that the first time she met him, she was immediately smitten at the sight of him, and offered to follow Geralt to the end of the world on his adventures!

Imagine that despite his efforts to tell her off - even after he punched her in the guts - she kept insisting, and Geralt started really warming up to her.

Imagine that she decided that she wanted him to accompany him to a ball for protection, because highborn wives were upset that she kept sleeping with their own husbands, brothers, and sons.

Imagine that, when she spoke about her being Geralt's best friend in the whole wide world, Geralt answered "We're not friends", and Yennefer answered "Oh, really? You usually just let strangers rub chamomile onto your lovely bottom?".

Imagine that Geralt's response to that was simply to ask "How many of these ladies want to kill you?", thus acknowledging he'd been busted.

How many straight people out there, do you think, would find themselves reading their deep, canonical, platonic connection and comfort with being so physically intimate with each other as a "friendship without any romantic element", do you think?

How many would openly argue that we just want to make everything about romance, and send the message that best male and female friends can't just rub chamomile onto each other's butts without any intent or attraction!

Oh, they can, I'll tell you that!

I've been blessed with becoming friends with wonderful non-toxic 100% straight male specimen that I would gladly trust to shoot artistic nudes of my body without feeling objectified by them, that I feel absolutely comfortable snuggling up to on a couch while watching a movie, and that are extremely good at respecting my personal boundaries and the friendship I have to offer them.

As someone who is pan, I have never treated any of my friendships with men, women, or any other gender identities differently.

I've never had that sense of "I feel safer being more intimate with my women friends than I do my men friends, because they don't risk misinterpreting my desires to be physically and emotionally close to them as a romantic or sexual interest instead."

However, have men ever tried to convinced me that I "couldn't possibly just want them as friends" when I was so comfortable being emotionally and physically (hugs, holding hands, playing in one's hair, caressing one's arms, leaning your head on one's shoulder while watching TV, etc.) close with them?

Absolutely!

For some, those were clear signs, or ways to express, romantic/sexual attraction, and there were no other ways to read them.

Needless to say, I did not keep those men as friends.

Well, I kept those that found it a bit "weird" and unusual, sure, but were nevertheless able to believe me, respect my boundaries, and adapt to the fact that this is who I am.

I'm unable to conceive why relationships dynamics should change depending on the gender we're with.

I also kept around any man that admitted that they had a bit of a crush on me, and that any physically intimate contact between us would just reinforce their romantic desires.

I have wonderful friends that are touch adverse, too, and our relationship is based on emotional and intellectual intimacy without any hugs or physical contact.

They are extremely dear to me, and just as valuable to my eyes as any other friendships I have, too.

But that's the whole point. There are no actual strict rules regarding the actual boundaries of all the different types of love you might experience for others people

The only thing that matters is the ability for all adults involved to offer consent, and being dedicated to your platonic, romantic, and/or sexual partner(s) emotional and physical well-being and safety as well.

If you can't separate romance from sex, or even physical intimacy, that's okay.

We'll find the right balance between our respective needs and what we can offer each other.

But society tends to present stereotyped models of men and women friendships, where as soon as they reach a certain level of emotional and physical intimacy together, then they automatically realize that "OMG!!! We were romantically in love all along without realizing it!!!" Even worse, when they are "friends with benefits!"

In fiction, "friends with benefits" relationships are usually nothing but a romantic relationship between two people unable to acknowledge their true romantic desires for each other.

They will inevitably become jealous the moment that their friend with benefits finds themselves a romantic partner (that is often totally wrong for them! Allowing the "friend with benefits" to "swoop in to save the day and show that they are perfect for each other!"), and there's this looming threat of them no longer continuing to be able to sleep together on the horizon.

Of course, there's a risk that a friend you're sleeping with might become jealous when you enter a romantic relationship!

If the whole physically intimate dimension of your friendship has been built on your sexual activities, and you haven't taken the time to invest in other platonic forms of physical contact, to make sure that the "loss of sex" won't feel like you are removing anything important from the emotional bond you two share, of course your friend will struggle! DUH!

And if you used to see each other twice a week, and now keep on cancelling your plans you'd normally make with them, to go on dates with your "new and shiny romantic interest" - acting as if the time you were devoting to them was just a "poor substitute" for a romance - of course you'll make them suffer!

If you are having sex with a friend that you love with all your heart and soul, and wish to remain bonded to them in a platonic manner after you've found someone that you're romantically attracted to, make sure that you're able to fully commit to that friendship...

Because being friends with benefits is indeed complex, requires very high levels of communication, compersion, honesty, emotional support, flexibility, and above all trust.

I've been friends with benefits with people I loved in a non-romantic way not because I was afraid of commitment, but because I'm able to fully commit to my friendships and treat them with the same care, respect, and consideration as I would a romantic partners.

And those relationships do work.

Hence why I'm hoping that, should Jaskier become romantically involved with Radovid, and discover that he loses any interest for being sexually active with other people while romantically attached to someone, he and Vespula will still be occasoinally seen spending time being emotionally and physically close with each other (or that they'll at least mention something hinting that they do).

That she'll remain a close friend. That he'll still go knock on her door in the evening while in town just to lounge around, play her songs, and share thoughts.

It's been made rather clear that she does "mean something to him".

He may not be romantically attracted to her, but it's been made rather clear that he cares about her enough to regularly return to her (and perhaps even live with her for certain periods of time).

She spoke about having had some "fun on the side", too, implying that they might be each other's "main sexual pairing", at the very least.

The idea of Jaskier being dishonest with her - of him trying to manipulate her into believing that she means more to him that the other people he's slept with while he was traveling away from her - really doesn't sit well with me, at all.

I don't think Jaskier is someone that likes to play with people's feelings.

And he wouldn't have been discussing Radovid with her if he didn't value her input, either...

He might have been in denial regarding him having a "crush" on Radovid, in part because romantic desire doesn't come to him easy and his own fears of what him being attracted to him might mean...

But he was trusting her to listen and give him some feedback on his thoughts...

Jealously comes from fearing loss...

If Jaskier abandons Vespula because he's found Radovid, then her fears of being replaced will have turned out to be entirely justified...

So, whatever happens, I hope he does right by her.

Another aspect that I find interesting about the aspect of Jaskier's sapioromantism (i.e. of him only being capable of experiencing a need for sharing a romantic connection with people whose intellect he's attracted to), is that there are different types of intelligence.

I've a feeling that Jaskier's own "brain type" is people that are displaying high levels of emotional and relational intelligence, most of all!

Because Radovid oozes emotional and relational insightfulness...

Whereas Geralt is brilliant... But he is a bit of emotionally stunted goat.

So, he may not be romantically appealing to Jaskier; but I bet his bloated biceps that, in term of "love and devotion", he's likely one of the, if not the, most important person in Jaskier's life.

So I'm sincerely not explaining all of this to you to tell you that you are delusional about Jaskier loving Geralt romantically, and that everything you've read and interpreted as being romantic between them since the beginning is incorrect, far from it!

But I'm heartbroken, and somewhat angry, that queer baiting - combined with a lack of appropriate representation of deep, platonic, physically intimate friendships between two sexually compatible men and women - has created such a reality where Geraskier not being canon will make some of the fans of that ship feel like we are sending them the message that they've been reading those signals wrong yet again.

That there's something wrong with them for being unable to read those signals as being platonic between two men anymore.

No. We carefully taught you and continuously trained you to read those signals as being romantic, to maintain you as a captivated audience on various TV shows, while making sure to avoid angering people that see the world of romance and friendship as a rigid heterosexual black and white structure.

Can Geraskier be read as platonic?

My own personal interpretation made with my own set of biases and filters?

In the context of someone that Joey Batey mentioned experiences sapioromantic panromantic attraction, and pansexual attraction?

I would be inclined to think that Jaskier fell in love (without romantic desires), and was possibly sexually attracted to him the very second his eyes fell on Geralt.

He felt a strong emotional pull that made him want to get to know him more in depth emotionally and intellectually, share his adventures, and become involved in his life.

He saw the person Geralt truly was behind all of his own pain, abandonment/attachment issues, and trauma, and genuinely felt a deep empathetic connection towards him.

He loved that wounded Witcher so much, and his own unhappiness touched him so deeply, that he tried to change the way that the world saw him.

He sang songs that painted him as a hero rather than a butcher. He provided him with opportunities to be loved and admired by people, and well compensated for his services.

He felt Geralt's need to be loved and wanted ("Maybe someone out there will want you"), and tried to help him heal his own broken heart.

But Jaskier partially* put aside his own needs in doing so, pushed and tried too hard, kept waiting for Geralt to finally recognize that denying himself from what he truly wanted and needed in his life - companionship, a family, people that wanted him - was only slowly eating away at his humanity...

...and he got badly burned for his efforts. *Im saying "partially", because when we met Jaskier, he was being booed and thrown food at... So, I think he was also rather familiar with the feeling of being unwanted and rejected by people, and they were two misplaced souls that didn't really fit anywhere that found each other...

It's the "Butcher" - the uncaring, unfeeling, emotionally disconnected false persona that Geralt has been so set on holding onto - that Jaskier wished Geralt would have finally been able to let go of, and burn to the ground!

I tend to hear "Burn Butcher Burn" not as a "scorned lover song", per say but as a last desperate loving cry for Geralt to let "the Butcher" in him burn!

I think that any sexual attraction that Jaskier might have felt towards Geralt upon meeting him would have eventually fizzled away when he realized that Geralt himself wasn't in a good enough emotional and physical place to be interested in being sexually intimate with him (and/or was possibly straight).

But I doubt it would have changed a lot to his feelings or level of attachment towards him, because Jaskier's always loved Geralt, and sought to emotionally connect with him, way more than he ever sexually wanted him.

And I believe that, while he was able to forgive him for his harsh worlds ("I forgive you for your foolish words and deeds. Your lack of faith and hope. Your obstinacy. Doggedness. For your sulking and posing, which are unworthy of a man."), in order for Jaskier to be romantically attracted to him, Geralt would need to demonstrate a heavier dose of emotional intelligence and insightfulness than he's been able to openly demonstrate him thus far.

And, in order to be sexually attracted to him, Jaskier would need Geralt to be the one showing him some interest first.

The love, loyalty, and attachment is still there, though, bright as ever, and filled with more hope for Geralt than Jaskier used to have for him, I think.

And I think that Jaskier has very strong levels of compersion for Geralt and Yennefer, and is finding genuine happiness in seeing them share a healthy romantic and sexual relationship together, too.

But, I'm basing that analysis on what's been revealed about Jaskier now, not what we knew about the character back then.

You can make it work, and interpret what we've been shown thus far of Geraskier with little efforts, when your own way of of experiencing friendships and romance doesn't really fit the usual social models, but you really shouldn't have to do that.

It's easy for me to move forward, embracing Radskier as my main romantic ship for Jaskier, and Geraskier as my favorite platonic now more "brotherly" (but still occasionally romantic) one for him, but I fully expect some Geraskier fans to mourn, feel like they've been tricked and invalidated by the narrative, and have a hard time accepting that "two men showing so much love and physical intimacy together were meant to be platonic".

In real life? Yes. Two men showing so much love and physical intimacy together can be 100% platonic.

In fiction? We may not quite have reached the point where it isn't problematic yet.

Because when we look on the side of tradition men/women pairings?

Dana Scully and Fox Mulder (X-Files) became canon once fans became so invested in them they weren't willing to accept "anything less".

Buffy Summers and Spike, of all people, eventually got together, when he's a character that should have been killed off after two appearance,s because people like the character so much, and fans shipped the pairing so hard (just to be clear, I have nothing against the pairing)!

And then, there's Stiles and Lydia...

Where's the outcry saying that it "lessens" platonic men/women relationships, by suggesting that two emotionally close people can't just remain friends?

People just had to shout "Stydia is endgame! Stydia is endgame! Stydia is endgame! OMG! They are SO in love!!!", and TADAH! They got together before the end of the last Season!

Hetero ships that people get highly invested in do tend to become canon.

Gay ships?! *GASP! You know, two men or women together can be FRIENDS! They don't have to be GAY!"

No shit, Sherlock!

So why can't a boy and a girl, that have an insane amount of chemistry, and share tons of emotional intimacy together, avoid any romantic attraction?!

And I don't ever recall Stiles having ever bathed Lydia, nor rubbed chamomile onto her lovely bottom, alright?!

Why do they need to become a couple, and send the message that the deep love they share couldn't be strong enough if they'd remained platonic?

(I'm not telling Stydia fans that their ship is wrong or that they shouldn't bask in the happiness that the ship becoming canon brought them. Just pointing out how hetero and gay ships tend to be argued differently.)

But gay ships?!

Nah! No homo, bro/sis! Must have close same gender friendships representation!

So yeah, it's not that it's unrealistic for Geraskier to be platonic that frustrates me, but that sense of how we teach heterosexuals and queer fans to read scenes and relation dynamics differently.

Yes, I will enjoy that absolute gift of a queer romance that Joey Batey worked so hard for us to get with Radskier!

But, I still felt the need to speak out, and tell Geraskier fans that might still be feeling betrayed, or in disbelief that they called Geralt and Jaskier "platonic" that "I get it". That their feelings, disappointment, sense of betrayal, and hurt are valid, and that they have the right to mourn and struggle with accepting what was offered them (Radskier) instead.

You weren't reading romantic elements where there was none.

Had Geraskier been a romantically/sexually compatible man/woman "platonic friendship", they'd been "endgame". I'm pretty sure of it.

They'd even have been allowed to use "videogame logic" that says that Geralt can also end up with Triss, or any other partner besides Yennefer. They'd made it work!

[islamicrays]

Dear Muslim Couples,

I read earlier that our community has a 33% divorce rate.

33%!!!!!!!

That means 1/3 of our marriages do not last! That is beyond shocking, disheartening, and demoralizing!

As someone who has lived experience and has worked with several couples over the years, I'd like to share some of my observations as to how or why we've gotten to this dark place and how we can maybe find our way out of it--in sha Allah.

First, let me say as a disclaimer that OBVIOUSLY, some marriages are not meant to last and should end as soon as possible because they are proven harmful to one or both parties involved. So, this is not a critique or debate about divorce, it's just a general commentary about the problems plaguing our marriages and families, and ways we can perhaps do better moving forward in sha Allah.

1. WEAK INTENTIONS: Our marriages are not primarily for the sake of ﷲ. We marry for companionship, as a protection from temptation, for kids, to please our parents, for tax breaks, etc., but we aren't PRIMARILY marrying to please Allah ﷻ and fulfill the sunnah of our Beloved ﷺ. And as we know, any enterprise, endeavor, or major life decision that begins without invoking God's blessing will be fruitless! So, we need to define what marriage for the sake of Allah ﷻ really means and help our youth make better choices. Marriage classes should start much earlier than in the college or post college years. Our teens are learning about all types of twisted relationship models and watching the breakdown of family and society unfold every day, so we can't delay these conversations anymore. They need to know what a healthy relationship means in Islam, and more importantly, they need to see it modeled as well! More on that another time...

2. WEAK BELIEFS: We have adopted dangerous ideologies about manhood, womanhood, and marriage itself, and have completely abandoned what marriage in Islam really means and looks like. When we approach marriage with distrust, suspicion, and cynicism, and see our spouse as either a conquest or a possession instead of a loving partner, then why do we expect the relationship to grow in a healthy direction? We can't invite Iblis to join the union and give him ample opportunity to cause division and tear us apart, and then complain about it. Marriage in Islam is about mutual benefit, respect, and observing appropriate boundaries where BOTH partners are beholden to God's standards and expectations not anyone else's, including each other or one another's parents, inlaws, families, cultures, etc.

3. WEAK APPETITES: Pornography and sexual perversity is the rot that will eat away at the spiritual connection between a couple. If you allow this filth into your life at any point and then bring it with you into your marriage, you might as well sign the divorce papers because your marriage will inevitably fail. Whatever your personal struggles are, do everything in your power to AVOID the degeneracy of this pornographic culture. That means obviously DON'T watch any form of pornography but also STOP watching filth that may not have a XXX rating but is still pornographic. Watching television, shows, music videos, TikToks, Reels, Youtube videos, reading “erotica” etc., where people are revealing their bodies, and engaging in outright explicit and HARAM behavior is a direct violation of God's command to LOWER ONE'S GAZE. We have long been conditioned to adopt these western standards based on their approved rating system for what is considered appropriate or inappropriate, but the fact is, we have our own rating system in Islam, and if we betray it and normalize watching certain things--especially as an activity with our spouse--then there are serious consequences! No one should be surprised to learn that their partner has suddenly developed a strange habit, or wants to "experiment" sexually with things that just don't feel right when they handed them the keys to access the demonic portals that call to such evil! Deviancy is contagious and corrosive! So please stop bringing the garbage into your living rooms or bedrooms and just turn it off. Look for wholesome entertainment and have a ZERO policy for HARAM. And advocate for intimacy that is modest, pure, and rooted in true love and romance--not perversity, deviance, and pornography that just reduces a sensual and spiritual experience to an animalistic one!

4. WEAK & ENTITLED EGOS: Appreciate what you have and stop the nafsy nonsense that entitles you to a perfect utopian life in this world. If you have a partner who is dutiful first and foremost to their Lord and upholds their responsibilities to you (and your children, parents, family, etc) and is doing their best to SHOW UP and pull their weight in the marriage, then STOP nitpicking over superficial things or comparing them to others. No one has the perfect marriage. No matter what you think about any individual or couple out there, know for certain, that everyone has struggles they have to push past. Just be grateful that you have a partner. Be grateful that God has given you someone to grow with, experience life with, share responsibilities with, etc. And if you have children with them, then for the love of God, stop being an ingrate. If you have ANY love for your children, then put aside your petty squabbles or nagging wishlists, and stop throwing around the word divorce. Unless you are in a situation where there are serious violations happening, you need to learn the language of compromise and focus on the positives in your marriage--which for sure there are many, even if you refuse to state them. The bottom line is, we WILL be tested in our relationships, and what we dismiss as incompatibility is often much more than that. Our partners are sometimes mirrors for us to see some harsh truths about ourselves, and if we are uncomfortable facing those truths then obviously it will seem easier to discard the mirror. But the better route is to look intently, to listen, and to redefine our partners as the means through which we arrive at the door of God--beseeching Him for salvation. Our partners are sometimes the reason we even make it to the door, because whether they carry us when we need to be carried, or they force us to flee to God for refuge from them, they help us and for that reason alone should be appreciated.

In the end, that's all that matters, isn't it? This life will end. We're all on the way out, but it's where end up when we leave here that determines our success. Divorce may be necessary for some, but for a lot of couples, it's a false trap door that looks like an easy escape route. It actually leads to much darker days when opened prematurely and rushed into. We need to start shaking some common sense back into one another and avoid the illusory lies of the modern world that have made us all so self-absorbed we run at the first sign of problems. Let us learn to appreciate what we have. Let us take our marriages more seriously and start making the necessary changes to protect them from the traps of shaitan. Whatever challenges we have aside from abuse and any other serious violations, we should push through and overcome our nafs (ego) in the process. We should admit fatigue and seek professional help when we're too tired and spent fighting on our own. And we should continuously ask God for help and strength.

Iblis will stop at nothing to destroy us. Divide and conquer is one of his preferred tactics. He will destroy everything we build until we're left to rubble. Marriage is about building, and divorce is demolition. Please continue to build, even if you have to renovate, and do everything you can to avoid the wrecking ball.

May Allah ﷻ continue to give us strength...

P.S. Please note that this list is nowhere near exhaustive or complete. There are MANY other issues that can lead to the dissolution of a marriage, but for the sake of time and convenience, I mentioned the general issues above as I believe they are the overarching reasons why many marriages struggle. When the foundation of a building is built faulty or weak, we don’t blame its cracking walls, chipped paint, or creaking floorboards—we look to fixing the source of the issue, not the symptoms.

-Hosai Mojaddidi

[nefertiti-fooling-fellow]

A Study of Good Omens and Taylor Swift Lyrics

AKA: These are the songs/lyrics from Taylor Swift songs that I connect to Good Omens (in honors of 1989 (Taylor’s Version))!!

1. YOU ARE IN LOVE (1989)

Hands down my favorite Taylor Swift song EVER.

Here are some lyrics that I think fits the Ineffable Spouses:

One look, dark room

Meant just for you

I mean…Aziphale and Crowley having to communicate through glances and touch because they can never really say they truly mean through the ages?

Time moved too fast

You play it back

Crowley literally STOPPING TIME because Aziraphale threatens to stop speaking to him!!! Simp behavior!!

You're my best friend

THEY. ARE. BEST. FRIENDS.

And you understand now why they lost their minds and fought the wars

And why I've spent my whole life tryin' to put it into words

To me, it makes sense that they wouldn’t really have a good grasp of individual love quite yet at the beginning. Angels like Aziraphale are obligated to love ALL of God’s creation, but that’s a very distant kind of love. Crowley, a demon, whose very job description details that pure love is something he cannot feel.

But as they spend more time around humans, they finally realize the quiet companionship they feel around each other is LOVE. They find love in each other, in the simple pleasures of the human world around them.

(Am I reading into this too much?? Who knows! I’m having fun, I hope you’re having fun, let’s continue)

2. Dancing With Our Hands Tied (Reputation)

I loved you in secret

Self-explanatory.

Deep blue, but you painted me golden

I think this line relates to both of them, especially recalling the Job minisode in S2E2. They were both lonely, both struggling with their faith in their respective sides but found common ground and a sense of belonging with each other!!!

I loved you in spite of

Deep fears that the world would divide us

I think this is self-explanatory again but it just needed to be said, such a good lyric.

Yeah, we were dancing

And I had a bad feeling

But we were dancing

This lyric reminds me of their Arrangement. I see a lot of people on here describing the rituals that Aziraphale and Crowley form over the years as an intricate “dance” around one another and I wholeheartedly agree.

Even though they don’t really think of each other as “hereditary enemies” (case in point: “foul fiend! After you,” from Season 1, Aziraphale stopping mid-smiting in S2E2 when he recognizes Crowley, “I trust you,” in S2E4, the Arrangement, etc…) they still dance the same lines of arguing that they are on different sides and therefore inherently different because their hands were tied (metaphorically) by their respective loyalty to Heaven or Hell.

3. Wildest Dreams (1989)

This song feels to me like it’s from Aziraphale’s point of view, if we were to relate it to the Husbands.

Exhibit A:

I thought Heaven can't help me now

Nothing lasts forever

Yeah…sounds familiar?

He's so tall and handsome as hell

I just think that this is how Aziraphale would pine over Crowley in his mind, it’s very…Austen, he would write this in his diary with a glitter pen.

I said, "No one has to know what we do"

Did someone say the Arrangement? Unlikely alliance??? Perchance.

4. Peace (folklore)

If Wildest Dreams is Aziraphale’s pining moment, then Peace is Crowley’s.

All these people think love's for show

But I would die for you in secret

Angels in heaven has no concept of love, they believe Crowley wholeheartedly when he says “you have to wait a few days and see,” and even Crowley himself thinks that love is equivalent to sheltering under the rain and sharing one sweet, perfect kiss.

But that’s not why we, the watchers, recognize that Crowley loves Aziraphale, we see that when he walks through consecrated ground and saves Aziraphale’s book!! Crowley cares!! He would do anything to make sure Aziraphale’s safe!! And that’s love!!

The devil's in the details, but you got a friend in me

THEY. ARE. FRIENDS.

5. Right Where You Left Me (evermore)

Season 2, Episode 6. Yeah.

[vertigo-express]

Megaman Battle Network: Staying Connected

In 2001, Capcom released Battle Network Rockman.exe, localised as Megaman Battle Network, for the Gameboy Advance as a launch title. Unlike Classic and X, it was not a platformer but rather a action rpg with card game elements. And also unlike its predecssors, it did not revolve around robots co existing physically in the real world but instead "NetNavis" a form of artificial intelligence that could interact with the internet. In this world, everything is connected by the internet, and this has caused a rise in the quality of living across the world. However, there are of course those who misuse the internet for criminal acts and also errors that cause harm thus people as children are educated how to combat people acting in bad faith and errors.

Already this presents a interesting evolution of Megaman, prior series covered varying motifs from "everlasting peace" to "connection" as demonstrated in the image below and discussed in the previous post.

Battle Network already leans in more to emphasising connection. The world is connected together and because we are connected we are able to achieve greater things working as a group. This is also inherent in the conflict. Netnavis are not oppressed to the extent the reploids or even robot masters were, the fault simply lies in the humans who misuse them to commit bad deeds. By contrast, the heroes are exemplars of society, they are children but have healthy relationships with the internet and their navis. Megaman.exe and Lan Hikari are quite literally in a sense, brothers.

This iteration of Megaman firmly embodies the sense of connection the internet provides. The previous three iterations of Megaman were lighter coloured and bulky in proportion to emphasise their robotic nature. Megaman.exe, however, is slim and smooth, the darker parts of his body are emphasised more than the lighter parts. Additionally, this design also incorporates yellow to give visibility to the key features of the design. This Megaman surfs the net finding answers for homework and destroying viruses - not fellow robots.

Megaman also relies on Lan to provide him with the chips he needs to fight - and Lan relies on Megaman to solve problems in the real and as companionship. They not only both need each other to self-actualise but also the people they come into contact with. Later games in the Battle Network series adapt the copy ability the original Megaman and X had, exe can commune with the souls of fellow netnavis and gain their abilities with their appearance merged into his own. The player is encouraged to be competent and connected enough with the features to build a deck to fully realize Megaman's new Cross/Soul abilities. Other series features such as dark chips, navicust and forms serve to help the player connect with Megaman too. Being too reckless and overpowering Megaman might permanently destroy his stats or cause bugs. Through these balances, the player is encouraged to actively engage with gameplay and plan to maintain Megaman at optimal performance.

Another unique aspect of Battle Network is that it ironically reimagines most of the Classic series (and some X/Legends characters the developers were fond of) and reinterprets them. Protoman/Blues.exe is more proactive than the original Protoman/Blues, by his interactions with Lan and Megaman, Protoman and his operator become more open and friendly to others, strengthening their bond as well. Roll.exe still serves as moral support. Bass/Forte.exe is now a more dangerous rival who serves as a moral story for what happens when humans mistreat their navis. Being blamed for a crisis he did not commit, Bass.exe was hunted by all of net society and cast into self-exile. He despises humanity and his creator because they were unable to connect or care for him and in turn he lost his connection to humanity. Colonel.exe, based off an X series character that died for showing an will for a ideal, ends up self-actualising away from internalising his operator projecting feelings of apathy onto him, and ends up opening the series antagonists heart because he decides to help by his own will, not because he was made to.

This series version of Dr. Wily is perhaps the second strongest example of the theme of connection. Unlike the Classic Wily who was a goofy but still credibly threatening antagonist, this iteration of Wily gives the appearance of a warped individual. Claiming he has cast aside all his humanity and feelings over society's treatment of him, Wily has resorted to controlling humanity by use of the internet. As the series goes on, we see that Wily's claim isn't entirely true, he intervenes when his son tries to cause humans to become bitter and ultimately finds himself feeling despair and emptiness over Colonel and Iris dying. It is then he realizes that humans need connection with one another to thrive and atones for his past crimes by improving the internet.

Even characters original to Battle Network have plenty to say. The antagonist of Battle Network 2 is an abused orphan who faked an identity online to gain friends and connect openly to others. It is only through connecting with Lan and co, he is able to reconnect with the world at large and no longer become lonely. Other games include a sick boy who Lan connects with to gain back his will to live, a netnavi manifesting in the real world who grows to learn affection and many other characters. Further showing how Battle Network is a evolution of Megaman both in gameplay and worldview.

Like all things created by a company, however, these ideas are watered down by changing priorities whether to ensure brand synergy, profit or new people coming in and not getting it.

Battle Network 4 is the turning point for the series that the remaining two games are tainted by, the combat is better and adds new features that enrich itself but falls flat in many aspects. The worldview is relatively far more childish than the prior three games, the antagonists have no unique sense or connection to the internet bordering on laughably generic and there is no unique statement about the internet's place in the world or Lan and Megaman. This follows through to the next game with Battle Network 6 picking up the pieces for the finale. The damage was already done though, and subsequent games after 4's release ruined the already sinking reputation of not just Battle Network but of Megaman as a whole.

Regardless of these flaws from the latter half, Megaman Battle Network is still demonstrably an natural evolution of what Megaman started off as and stayed true to the roots of the franchise. It tells of technology as a force not of good or bad but inheriting the will of its operator and how human bonds and connection can persevere through almost anything if strong enough. Most of all, Battle Network's success was due to understanding what the market of the time wanted. It was not cashing in as much as it showed an awareness of the current climate. I feel like this is particularly important in what Megaman has become since the late 2000s. Fans clamour for a continuation of pre-existing branches when the people behind them are no longer around or willing to continue on. And the continutations are bland sequels with nothing new to express or fucking gacha. Ironically, the wishes of both the fanbase and of Capcom are antithetical to what Megaman is: A series that has been able to steadily evolve. Megaman remains stagnant and dead because of this.

Yes, it is true Capcom needs another another Battle Network, but I'm not talking about Battle Network 7... I'm talking about a completely new Megaman, one that has something to say about itself, one that shows an awareness of the current audience. Something that can evolve.

[aihoshiino]

Ok here's a big question: which theme is the real Core of the series? like if you had to ignore everything else what do you think onk is About

OHH ANON THIS ONE IS THE JUICY STUFF!!!!!

I think the combo of OnK being ongoing and having so many intersecting Things keeps me from confidently nailing down One Singular Thing it wants to say, but I also think that if you really boil down all the set dressing to its Deepest Flavor Profile (i am fined by the geneva convention for torturing metaphors), Oshi no Ko is ultimately about trauma and abandonment.

That's a pretty broad topic but any other way I tried to specify it left too many things I think are essential to the series by the wayside. The entertainment industry commentary is extremely important in terms of unifying everyone's stories and providing context to them, but the most intense, long lasting and prominent trauma we see characters deal with are not directly a result of the entertainment industry but are because of parental abuse and abandonment – Ai, Ruby and Kana are all daughters of toxic mothers who inflicted varying degrees of emotional abuse (and in Ai's case, severe physical abuse) on their children before abandoning them and the lasting damage runs through all of them like fault lines.

Also under the umbrella of abandonment, I think, is the trauma of being failed and neglected by systems that should have protected you. Ai's entire tragedy as a character is the degree to which she was failed at every step of the way by every system that should have protected her. She was spat out of the care system half formed at age fifteen, catastrophically underprepared to such a degree that her exploitation at the ends of the idol industry is not even in the top ten of the worst things that could have happened to her as a result.

Aqua, too, is failed by the system - he was so deeply traumatized as a child that this singular trauma is threatening to be the thing that kills him fifteen years later and nobody has stepped in to intervene and give him the care he needs and the entertainment industry is a perfect boiling pot for him to comfortably sit and allow himself to be cooked to death in.

Finally and perhaps most importantly: Hikaru Kamiki is also a victim. In fact, I would say Hikaru Kamiki's victimization is the singular foundational point on which the story's entire ongoing tragedy sits. This is not the post for me to talk in detail about what was done to him, but the undeniable fact is that he was horrendously victimized in a way I don't have words strong enough to condemn and not only did nobody ever help him, but the person who abused him faced no punishment and happily went about her life.

Nobody gets out of life undamaged.

That said, while the series is at its core about things that break you, I think it also has an extremely hopeful and ultimately uplifting perspective on what it means to carry trauma. I said as much in the previous ask but it bears repeating because I think it serves as the foundation for much of what OnK is saying about trauma: everyone has damage. nobody gets out of life clean and pure. but because everyone has damage, you are not alone or uniquely broken. you can be healed. but you can't do it alone.

Again and again in Oshi no Ko, we see characters who are at absolute rock bottom because of trauma able to pull themselves out of the hole thanks to the love and support given to them by the people around them. Oshi no Ko posits connection, community and companionship as the ultimate path to salvation for anyone who feels broken beyond repair and it promises them that even if it's a lie now, if they reach out and try, if they let themselves open their hearts and let other people surprise them, then that lie of love might be able to make itself true. But if you never try, then you'll never know.