#because. i have no idea what romantic attraction is

[yuurei20]

Is it true that Cater is a playboy? I've seen some people saying that he's a Playboy, but I'm not sure if its canon. Thanks!!

Hello hello! ^^ Thank you for this question!

This was also mentioned a little bit in response to an earlier question about Cater's habit of flirting with people, which includes a compilation of screenshots of what is probably the kind of scenes that people are thinking about when they talk about Cater being a playboy!

But I think this might depend on your definition of "playboy" 👀

As of this post, the only canonical romantic relationship we have heard of in the game (on EN 👀) is Ace and his ex-girlfriend!

If your definition of "playboy" is "someone who dates a lot of different people," then "playboy" does not apply to Cater, as far as we know :>

What we do know is this!

His family moved around a lot when he was a child so, at some point, he started intentionally keeping his interpersonal relationships shallow rather than try to forge meaningful connections:

"That's why I always tried to be on good terms with everyone, rather than forge strong bonds with a chosen few. Like a circus performer who has a grand old time with people from around the world, and then packs up and moves on."

While never stated outright, it is a common theory that this is why Cater keeps Trey at arm's length during Wish Upon a Star:

Trey is already his closest friend, so Cater might be keeping up a buffer zone of secrets like what his true wish for the Star Sending is so that they do not become any closer, and their inevitable parting will be less painful.

Lilia tries to encourage Cater, saying that, in deciding not to get too close to any one person he may be the wisest one there, but Cater is not convinced that Lilia can truly empathize:

"Lilia's developed cherished relationships while living in the same place his whole life. There's no way he could ever understand how helpless I feel."

Another thing we know about Cater is that he might be feeling the loss of one, specific friend in particular! He tells Silver that he remembers making a friend at a new school one time, only to immediately learn that he would be moving away again the next month.

It is interesting that he mentions this one friend in particular--were they the catalyst? Was that the point when he decided that he would never get close to another person? We do not know 👀

If you are seeing "playboy Cater" coming from the JP side of the fandom, it is possibly because his speech patterns are that of a チャラい character on JP!

I think "flirt" is a decent translation for チャラい? 🧐 (It was localized as "poser" during the Stitch event.)

They are characters that talk/look flashy, seem shallow, and tend to flirt with everyone equally rather than picking someone specific to pursue. (Orange hair is common but is not required ww)

This survey of 3,324 people voted the top three チャラい anime characters as Moroboshi Ataru (Urusei Yatsura), Saeba Ryo (City Hunter) and Lupin III, to give you an idea of the チャラい character archetype ^^

And a common theme of Twst is: appearances can be deceiving!

Vil and Lilia seem to suspect Cater of having "a morose side that the rest of us never see" hidden by his sunny disposition, but Cater claims otherwise 👀

Much like Epel appears delicate but is actually the opposite and Lilia appears young but is actually old, it is possible that Cater intentionally acts shallow while actually he has a complex inner world--he is flighty not because he is trying to attract people, but because he is trying to keep them away.

More here! ^^

・Cater's Inner Life ・Cater's Childhood

To the original question: I do not believe that we have heard about Cater having any relationships (romantic or otherwise) at all except for one single friend from pre-NRC, which might not qualify him as a "playboy"! ^^

[tonitheloftwing]

I SAW THAT POST TOO LMAO

its crazy, like if you’re gonna be an exclus at least be consistent

“Men can’t be lesbians unless they’re genderfluid bc they’re not REALLY men” LIKE DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF???

Queer discourse of any sort seriously drives me insane, but lesbian discourse makes my head hurt more than anything else 😭 my journey of coming to ID as an aro lesbian who loves bald and/or pathetic baby men in fiction was a long one wrought with distress, mainly due to people who go around pretending to be the Gay Police. Like, as of right now, I’m a mostly cis, mostly female-aligned, lesbian who is only attracted to women irl, which fits most people’s idea of what a lesbian is. But that doesn’t mean I’m not hurt by lesbian exclusionaries, because every single time someone comes up on my dash being like “I hate lesboys I hate mspec lesbians!!!” I’m like. Well what if later down the line my gender shifts to be more masculine again. And I like my little fictional boxer boys, does that make me a “bad” lesbian?

This is the new talking point i try to use as leverage against exclusionary ppl. By being exclusionary towards certain groups of lesbians, you’re hurting all the lesbians - even the ones you’re white-knighting for in your exclusionary statements - because you’re showing us that if we do something you don’t like with our gender or sexuality/romantic identity, you’ll come after us. If i see somebody being exclusionary, I automatically assume they’re gonna see me kissing George costanza’s bald head and make a callout post about it because he’s a stinky, rotten man.

This is very discombobulated bc I have thoughts. But tldr, as someone who isn’t mspec and is hardly male-aligned, I still hate exclusionaries. Especially exclusionaries who use “you’re hurting the real lesbians!” As an excuse to be nasty. Like no, I think lesboys and mspec lesbians are cool and them existing has done no harm to me.

And that’s not even addressing how a lot of lesbian discourse loops back around into like, radfem/terf bioessencialist territory. Men are not inherently evil and scary and bad. Just liking women doesn’t make you a better person than someone who likes men, or men and women, or anybody in between. We’re all just beings at the end of the day, and gender is made up anyways.

To end on at least a funny note, here’s a tumblr post from yaoiboypussy that I will be thinking about every time i hear ppl fighting over lesbians now

Also I’m sorry for not answering this sooner, tumblr never gave me the notif 😔

UPDATE JUNE 14: I THOUGHT I POSTED THIS DAYS AGO AND I GUESS I DIDNT. OOPS

[gla55t33th]

Parromantic: The desire for a close relationship that may mirror a conventionally romantic relationship, and feeling an attraction towards such, but with little care, or little understanding, as to what romance is.

Neurodivergency may affect someones ability to understand romance, and what romance is, which would be a use of this label.

(“Par” stemming from a latin word for “companion”)

Pink: Experiencing a form of desire for being in a close relationship

Peach: Attraction of any kind; romantic, queerplatonic, alterous, platonic, aesthetic, and others that may factor into the desire for such a relationship

Lime: Being arospec

Green: Aromanticism

Black: Confusion and/or rejection towards the concept of romance

[braidedhades]

just found out that non-aromantics actually have feelings towards the people they decide to have a crush on. Apparently it’s not like, “hmmm should I consider this person for dating? what are the pros and cons here?” Or like, “I want to be really close friends with that person” But it’s like an actual emotional response or something? An emotion that is different from the “I wanna be really close friends” emotion??

also I just figured out that I’m aromantic

[whywoulditho]

kagiura akira is SO asexual coded i'm losing my mind

[skyllion-uwu]

I think everyone who told me I wasn't actually ace, I'm too young to know, or kept trying to get me to hide it when I was younger owes me $100000000 and my therapy bills

[rainswept]

having awful awful realizations

[depresseddepot]

trying to determine which parts of my relationship with sex are asexuality, which are trauma, and which are autism is like trying to have a conversation with three people talking loudly and all at once

[xmicrophonyx]

How are you guys feeling after episode 4? Cause I’m feeling great :’D

[chocobox]

listening to kashka from baghdad by kate bush but through the lens of being a trans gay man. do you understand what i am saying. it reminds me of when i was too little to understand that i could be a gay man myself, so i just latched really hard onto gay ships because it was the first time i had ever discovered feelings of romantic fulfillment. i never felt love like it was love until i started to see those feelings through the context of being a gay man. i felt like an outsider looking in on the life that could make me happy, but i didn't realize that's what it was... and kashka from baghdad feels like that experience to me.

[fabulouslygaybean]

okay um. genuine question. how do you differentiate romantic attraction from really really strong platonic attraction

[kaizokuseb]

it’s weird to think that i will honestly never know what it’s like to have my attraction limited by gender. i’m bisexual. when i watch romantic shows or movies (i.e. everything i watch), i never see myself as the heroine nor her love interest because i want both. i love elena gilbert, and i love damon salvatore. i love buffy summers, and i love spike. i love satine, and i love christian.

idk. i just wonder sometimes what it would be like if i only loved the men or only the women. i vaguely remember what it was like when i thought i was only into men, but even then, the love for women was always there, just suppressed.

no one can fully understand what it’s like to be another person. i’m not the first person to wonder about this. it’s just truly wild when i stop to think about it because i genuinely cannot imagine anything different

[shadowtraveled]

"mithrun is the only real monsterfucker in dungeon meshi" is objectively the funniest bit you can get out of his everything, but in all seriousness i think his attraction to his love interest is deliberately overstated—and that makes sense, because romantic jealousy is a classic and digestible motive, which is explicitly what kabru was aiming for in condensing mithrun's backstory, and also because until chapter 94, mithrun wasn't willing to admit to the true nature of his desires.

but because romantic envy is both classic and digestible, it probably isn’t a unique enough or complicated enough desire to tempt a demon’s appetite. mithrun’s wish, as far as we can figure from kabru’s reduced retelling, was to have a life in which he had never become one of the canaries, and that carries like 3857 implications and desires within it. that’s delicious. his love interest acts as sort of a red herring to his motivation for making it, though. (side note: i'm saying "love interest" here because, keeping in mind that i barely speak japanese on a good day anymore, "想い人" is something i'd usually take as just kind of an old-fashioned and romantic way to refer to a lover, but in context i wonder if both the connotation of yearning and the vagueness are intentional, and i think this phrasing gets those aspects of it more effectively. anyway.)

mithrun considered his love interest to be untrustworthy. there was a minute where i thought that comment might be about a similar-looking elf (yugin, one of his squad members), but comparing the two…

the "sketchy" arrow is definitely referring to the elf we know as his love interest—the bangs go toward her right, she only has the one forehead ornament, and, most notably, her ears aren't notched.

every time she’s given a full-body depiction in his dungeon, she’s drawn as a chimera, with the body of a snake from the waist down. (side note: the “what if a dungeon has chimeras before reaching level 4?”/“then the dungeon lord is unstable” exchange just being mithrun grilling his past self alive is so funny. he’s so. but anyway) there are a couple things about this.

first, the snake part of the chimera appears to be modeled after some species of coral snake mimic

which, in the biology-for-fun manga, i… doubt is a coincidence, especially with the added context of the “untrustworthy” comment. the dungeon’s conjured illusion of mithrun’s love interest was a harmless copycat of a venomous original. for whatever reason, he felt this person was a threat and made up a "safe" version of her to be in a relationship with, and while it’s definitely possible to be attracted to or even love someone you find to be toxic and/or intimidating, when you take that into consideration alongside the configuration of her body, you get some interesting implications.

which brings us to our second point: if we assume that mithrun was not in fact fucking a snake, then sexual attraction, at least, was so far removed from his idea of a relationship with this person that he did not even bother to keep her dungeon copy human enough to maintain the illusion of the option of a sexual relationship. this is somewhat echoed in the depictions of their interactions, which also imply a frankly unexpected romantic distance. she kisses his cheek and he doesn't seem to react; she's at the edge of a narrow bed with only one set of pillows, on top of his blankets while he's underneath them.

the kiss is particularly interesting because it seems to contrast the text. kabru's narration tells us this was everything mithrun could have asked for, but mithrun is there looking unreadable to pensive, likely because this is right before the panel that makes it clear things in the dungeon are beginning to go wrong.

walking through this backwards for a minute, we have the physical barrier of his bedding and the spatial separation inherent in a bed made for one person, the emotional barrier of his mounting anxiety getting in the way of his ability to enjoy the affection he sought, and... the snake, which historically carries the connotation of temptation, yes, but also mistrust, barring physical intimacy. okay. ok. if a dungeon reflects the mentality of its lord, all of this might suggest that mithrun was not able to have any real desire for a relationship with this person. his unwillingness to be vulnerable or let another person in was insurmountable. but in that case, why was she such a focal point that she remained to the end, after his dungeon had stopped creating iterations of his friends to come and visit him? why would he get so upset over her meeting with his brother that he became lord of a dungeon about it?

well. mithrun's brother was also interested in her, probably genuinely. and mithrun had to win.

you have an older brother who your parents completely ignore, probably in part because he is chronically ill/disabled and almost definitely in part because he received a ton of recessive traits that resulted in rumors that he was an illegitimate child. you are aware, most likely because those same parents fucking told you, that you actually are an illegitimate child. but they keep you around because you had the good fortune of looking just like your mother. what can that possibly teach you but that you, like your brother, are disposable?

it's utterly unsurprising that mithrun, under these circumstances, developed a pathological need to be better than everyone around him. people don't keep you otherwise. i'd argue this is also why he says he looked down on everyone he knew while milsiril claims his dungeon reeked of feelings of inferiority—he sought out people's worst traits and prioritized them in his mind to protect his already extremely fragile sense of self-worth, and all the while he tried to be as likable and high-performing as he possibly could be. his parents disposed of him anyway, but even then he tried to keep up the performance. he was kind to everyone. he never once lost to a dungeon.

when he saw his "love interest" meeting up with his brother, what he saw was himself being replaced by a person his parents had always treated as worthless, and if that was what they thought of the child they'd kept, what value could anyone possibly see in the bastard they'd given away to die? mithrun and kabru tell the story like he wanted to win this unnamed elf's heart, but it was never about being with her. it was about cementing his worth, proving that he didn't deserve to be thrown away.

and so it's particularly cruel that his demon discarded him, too. but maybe it's also particularly gentle that, in the end, there was someone who refused to even consider giving up on him.

kui laid it out in three panels better than i could hope to.

yeah. it's love. you wanted to be loved, even when the only way you were able to understand it was through the desire to be wanted, and you wanted that so badly that the idea of being consumed felt like the promise of finally mattering to someone.

[hyperlexichypatia]

As I keep shouting into the void, pathologizers love shifting discussion about material conditions into discussion about emotional states.

I rant approximately once a week about how the brain maturity myth transmuted “Young adults are too poor to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own” into “Young adults are too emotionally and neurologically immature to move out of their parents’ homes or have children of their own.”

I’ve also talked about the misuse of “enabling” and “trauma” and “dopamine” .

And this is a pattern – people coin terms and concepts to describe material problems, and pathologization culture shifts them to be about problems in the brain or psyche of the person experiencing them. Now we’re talking about neurochemicals, frontal lobes, and self-esteem instead of talking about wages, wealth distribution, and civil rights. Now we can say that poor, oppressed, and exploited people are suffering from a neurological/emotional defect that makes them not know what’s best for themselves, so they don’t need or deserve rights or money.

Here are some terms that have been so horribly misused by mental health culture that we’ve almost entirely forgotten that they were originally materialist critiques.

Codependency What it originally referred to: A non-addicted person being overly “helpful” to an addicted partner or relative, often out of financial desperation. For example: Making sure your alcoholic husband gets to work in the morning (even though he’s an adult who should be responsible for himself) because if he loses his job, you’ll lose your home. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/codependency-addiction-recovery.html What it’s been distorted into: Being “clingy,” being “too emotionally needy,” wanting things like affection and quality time from a partner. A way of pathologizing people, especially young women, for wanting things like love and commitment in a romantic relationship.

Compulsory Heterosexuality What it originally referred to: In the 1980 in essay "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493756 Adrienne Rich described compulsory heterosexuality as a set of social conditions that coerce women into heterosexual relationships and prioritize those relationships over relationships between women (both romantic and platonic). She also defines “lesbian” much more broadly than current discourse does, encompassing a wide variety of romantic and platonic relationships between women. While she does suggest that women who identify as heterosexual might be doing so out of unquestioned social norms, this is not the primary point she’s making. What it’s been distorted into: The patronizing, biphobic idea that lesbians somehow falsely believe themselves to be attracted to men. Part of the overall “Women don’t really know what they want or what’s good for them” theme of contemporary discourse.

Emotional Labor What it originally referred to: The implicit or explicit requirement that workers (especially women workers, especially workers in female-dominated “pink collar” jobs, especially tipped workers) perform emotional intimacy with customers, coworkers, and bosses above and beyond the actual job being done. Having to smile, be “friendly,” flirt, give the impression of genuine caring, politely accept harassment, etc. https://weld.la.psu.edu/what-is-emotional-labor/ What it’s been distorted into: Everything under the sun. Everything from housework (which we already had a term for), to tolerating the existence of disabled people, to just caring about friends the way friends do. The original intent of the concept was “It’s unreasonable to expect your waitress to care about your problems, because she’s not really your friend,” not “It’s unreasonable to expect your actual friends to care about your problems unless you pay them, because that’s emotional labor,” and certainly not “Disabled people shouldn’t be allowed to be visibly disabled in public, because witnessing a disabled person is emotional labor.” Anything that causes a person emotional distress, even if that emotional distress is rooted in the distress-haver’s bigotry (Many nominally progressive people who would rightfully reject the bigoted logic of “Seeing gay or interracial couples upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public” fully accept the bigoted logic of “Seeing disabled or poor people upsets me, which is emotional labor, so they shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public”).

Battered Wife Syndrome What it originally referred to: The all-encompassing trauma and fear of escalating violence experienced by people suffering ongoing domestic abuse, sometimes resulting in the abuse victim using necessary violence in self-defense. Because domestic abuse often escalates, often to murder, this fear is entirely rational and justified. This is the reasonable, justified belief that someone who beats you, stalks you, and threatens to kill you may actually kill you.

What it’s been distorted into: Like so many of these other items, the idea that women (in this case, women who are victims of domestic violence) don’t know what’s best for themselves. I debated including this one, because “syndrome” was a wrongful framing from the beginning – a justified and rational fear of escalating violence in a situation in which escalating violence is occurring is not a “syndrome.” But the original meaning at least partially acknowledged the material conditions of escalating violence.

I’m not saying the original meanings of these terms are ones I necessarily agree with – as a cognitive liberty absolutist, I’m unsurprisingly not that enamored of either second-wave feminism or 1970s addiction discourse. And as much as I dislike what “emotional labor” has become, I accept that “Women are unfairly expected to care about other people’s feelings more than men are” is a true statement.

What I am saying is that all of these terms originally, at least partly, took material conditions into account in their usage. Subsequent usage has entirely stripped the materialist critique and fully replaced it with emotional pathologization, specifically of women. Acknowledgement that women have their choices constrained by poverty, violence, and oppression has been replaced with the idea that women don’t know what’s best for themselves and need to be coercively “helped” for their own good. Acknowledgement that working-class women experience a gender-and-class-specific form of economic exploitation has been rebranded as yet another variation of “Disabled people are burdensome for wanting to exist.”

Over and over, materialist critiques are reframed as emotional or cognitive defects of marginalized people. The next time you hear a superficially sympathetic (but actually pathologizing) argument for “Marginalized people make bad choices because…” consider stopping and asking: “Wait, who are we to assume that this person’s choices are ‘bad’? And if they are, is there something about their material conditions that constrains their options or makes the ‘bad’ choice the best available option?”

[scretladyspider]

demisexuality can be so hard to explain because it’s misconstrued as you just wanting to trust the other person before you have sex with them. and I get why the misconception happens. But demisexuality differs in that there isn’t sexual attraction at all before that bond forms.

I think what people have difficulty with is the idea that there are people out there who aren’t experiencing sexual attraction at all until a certain point, if ever, because we’re taught that sex, libido, and sexual attraction are all the same, both in and out of queer spaces.

And when you’re learning about asexuality and demisexuality, you may learn that people have romantic and aesthetic attraction separately from sexual attraction, and that sexual and romantic attraction aren’t necessarily intertwined, and that may challenge your worldview on sex.

But “I trust you enough to have sex with you” isn’t the same as “I’m not sexually attracted to anyone but you, and the reason I’m sexually attracted to you now after we’ve established this close bond is literally because of the bond of trust we’ve been able to form”.

It’s easy to see how those can get conflated. On the surface, if you’re unfamiliar with asexuality, they may sound the same. But it’s important to acknowledge the difference between “no sex until I trust you” and “no sexual attraction unless I trust you and maybe not even then”.

Demisexuality is housed under the asexuality spectrum. It’s part of the gray area between being allosexual and asexual. It’s part of why the definition for asexuality includes “little to no sexual attraction”. It’s a mostly asexual experience with an asterisk.

While being demisexual may have impacts on a persons sexual activity, even demisexuals have a varied relationship to the act of participating in sex. Libido and sexual attraction are not always intertwined either, which can make telling the difference tricky.

I think of sexual attraction as libido that has a compass. Since I rarely ever experience sexual attraction, but do have libido, it’s noticeable for me when that libido actually has a direction to go, rather than being a floating, nebulous, independent thing.

Remember, not everyone is demisexual. There’s a difference between waiting to have sex and not having sexual attraction at all until a certain point. This also inherently ties demisexuality to romantic attraction and relationships, and not all demisexuals are alloromantic.

But if you read what demisexuality is and think “everyone is like that” or “that’s just being a woman”, you either 1) are demisexual 2) don’t understand what it is or 3) both. And it’s okay to not know. Just as long as you’re willing to try to learn.

[voiceshearingyouloud]

Actually fuck my therapist for saying ‘but is your delusion actually true though?’ because of all the unhelpful things to ask someone who’s grip on reality is already tenuous…