Raditz definitely has a harem of women he spares from worlds he's conquered. They usually tend to him whenever he's back on the ship, brushing his hair out and cleaning his armor for him. They're also the reason why he usually skips out on training-he'd rather be doted on by his ladies than exhaust himself on a pointless endeavor.
They have to make themselves useful to him otherwise Vegeta will kill them. Raditz can only make excuses for so long before his patience snaps so they usually stay very close to him.
Also imagine going from having your world devastated by a monster only to have the same guy purring in your lap a week later after he spared you. The whiplash.
10 notes
·
View notes
You misunderstand, a baby girl is a grown man that had committed atrocities. Pk is the perfect baby girl.
And you cannot convince me wl and or herrah did not call him baby girl.
Oh thats true. I was under the assumption that a babygirl was like, some sort of pathetic man that you wanted to impregnate or something. Which def. works for WL, even if she likely picked it up when overhearing nobles flirt and thought it was just a generalized term of affection. Herrah I feel would do it in a condescending fashion and be surprised when PK doesn't fight it, but then again Herrah had a very different view of PK before Hornet's conception and likely didn't realize just how detatched from normal gender concepts the god-king of Hallownest actually was
26 notes
·
View notes
i don’t care that rhaenyra’s oldest are illegitimate not bc i’m a targ stan who thinks she can do no wrong but because legitimacy is a social construct that does nothing more than enforce the patriarchy and class system, and rhaenyra having kids out of wedlock with a man she is consenting to sex with is fine, actually, and if you’re hung up on that it is my opinion that you are clinging to the rules of propriety and patriarchy when analyzing her because you think she should be punished for having sex outside marriage and not like, all the things she actually does that are morally wrong, which is like, textbook misogyny.
“but the lords” so the thing is i don’t give a shit if the lords think she’s a slut. i understand the time period bc not only am i not stupid, i also understand that it is still a big issue in many communities for mothers to have children out of wedlock. i am saying i do not care because it’s a fake issue the way “brienne can’t really be a knight because she’s a woman” and “sansa can’t rule winterfell when she has true born younger brothers” or whatever else. legitimacy is a tool of the patriarchy, of colonialism irl, of classism, and the argument “rhaenyra is a bad person for having children out of wedlock when she knew that would put them in danger” is stupid bc legitimacy doesn’t fucking matter and neither does marriage.
12 notes
·
View notes
Sorry for ranting but that post really resonated with me,thank you! it aways seemed so weird how everyone was ignoring these themes and focusing only on what they considered badass about the lore. When playing i could clearly see facets of the suffering that afflicts mainly women on each female character,like the old lady who mistakes you for her kid and gives you sedatives to make you forget,implies that "your fathers blood" is to blame when you atack her and remarks that "you were aways the brave one" when the player has no woes to share... it instantly reminded me of stories from older women about what life was like with abusive husbands and sedatives being prescribed freely due to their stress at home with no way out. Adellas negative levels of self esteem due to church brainwashing (that mirrors Adelines) and the presence of the female rivalry that is instilled in many of us,Ariannas entire questline and the questions it makes the player ask themselves in the end, and finally the doll and Marias whole THING,especially if seen through the lens of a lesbian or GNC woman! like how can people be so blind and not realize how womanhood is a core theme here?? I get disagreeing with individual analysis but to outright deny that there is something there is bonkers to me
okay but seriously, all of these insights are SO important!!! the women of bloodborne are so much more complex than people seem to give them credit for. the old woman and adella especially so clearly have biases. but what really gets me is how realistically those are portrayed: tools of the power structure they were born into which serve to separate and isolate each of them in their subjugation.
this got Insanely long… under the cut it goes!
i mean, seriously though. the women of oedon chapel are very different, each from a different marginalized background of their own. in addition to what you described, the old woman lives in central yharnam — which the church has essentially thrown to the dogs. arianna is a so-called “vileblood” who is forced to the margins of society because of that and her (presumed) identity as a sex worker. adella has been groomed within the church (a word which specifically implies a process beginning in childhood) to see herself as nothing but a worthless vessel for “lowly blood”. these women are all subjugated by the church in different ways, and in an ideal world, they would realize they have much more uniting them than they do separating them.
which is exactly why the church has invented scapegoats to prevent that from happening. the church tells the old woman that it isn’t them who has reduced her home to ruin and likely sent her son to die in the hunt; they tell her it’s foreigners and their tainted blood. the church tells adella it isn’t their fault of that she is treated worse than dirt and has no one to turn to when she is abducted and nearly murdered by a branch of the church itself no less; they tell her she deserves it, because she’s only worth how much she can be bled out for others. they tell her it’s the fault of “vileblood” taint turning the world mad, not their own poisoned healing and insane experiments. i mean seriously — the parallel between arianna’s (implied) “vile” blood and adella’s self-described “lowly” blood is not lost on me.
and arianna, who is wholly innocent yet painfully aware of how isolated she is in that chapel, is left to stumble into a sewer and left with nothing but madness and isolation and the wretched thing she birthed when she is raped by a god and forced to bear its child… and based on how we see the upper ward of the church positively crawling with the exact monsters that she was forced to birth, i’m willing to bet that this is exactly what the church wanted.
bloodborne illustrates how prejudice is ultimately used to subjugate and silence all but the upper echelons of the powerful; and how it is the most vulnerable in society who are left to suffer the worst of it, utterly alone and alienated from their would-be allies. it shows how a class of the oppressed can be so purposefully be driven apart, so their oppressors remain unchallenged. it shows how even those like adella who play a crucial role in their grasp on power are still treated like scum. their oppressors enable, orchestrate, and weaponize the pain these women suffer and force them to bear it all alone.
and as for maria & the doll — again, i COMPLETELY agree. lesbianism aside, maria is undeniably, fundamentally gender nonconforming, especially when compared to the other NPC women. the relationship between her and gerhman is something i plan to go more in depth on in a later post — but i will say that i actually see gerhman as more of a paternal/protective figure. that is to say: i think gerhman in the text represents the gender role of men as a protector of women taken to its natural conclusion; not as a role made for service or assistance, but rather for ownership of the woman under protection. he’s an incredibly tragic and twisted man. i want to poke him like bug under microscope etc.
i am so glad my post resonated with you!!! these are honestly the kinds of conversations i want to have with other fans — because they’re so damn INTERESTING to me to pick apart!!!
tl;dr: The Girls Should Unionize.
30 notes
·
View notes
hc: loyalty. i think about how nobody in camp thinks trelawny is trustworthy or, at least, that there's some serious doubts as to his loyalties. how, really, this is understandable—trelawny does appear like a mysterious rash and does disappear just as mysteriously. i think about how, ultimately, they're wrong.
charles: you think he'll talk?
arthur: 'course he'll talk. he'd sell his own sister to save a train fare. he don't know how not to talk.
when trelawny is taken by bounty hunters and beaten, battered, and threatened to divulge information about the van der linde gang, he doesn't squeal. he could have if he had no loyalties—it's like he said, they didn't come for him, so it's logical to assume that by being a traitor, he'd spare himself potential death and further pain. why not spill? but he doesn't. he lies about being an intellectual looking for work at a university near rhodes. he takes the beatings not knowing if he'd die for not cooperating. when they storm his caravan and pummel him until he leaves a trail of his own blood, he doesn't break. when they drag him to the cornfields teeming with armed men, he doesn't throw them under the bus. trelawny gave nothing away about the van der linde gang at no benefit to himself when the very opposite would have. that's loyalty.
arthur: thanks for disappearing on us during that sean business, by the way.
trelawny: i'd done my part. each to their strengths, dear boy.
the thing is that trelawny, at the end of the day, is sensible. he didn't stick with the gang during the "sean business" not because of a lack of loyalty, but because of pragmatism. he knew he had nothing more to offer. he isn't a gunslinger or a fighter. there really would have been no reason for him to be at the shootout. this may look like disloyalty because it seems like he's true to them only when it's convenient, but it's less that and more that he played his part, and for him to stay would have been to the benefit of no one. loyalty, perhaps to arthur and the rest of the gang at this moment, is being there and by your side 24/7, but that's not how trelawny views it. as he proves with the bounty hunters, he's loyal when it counts.
similarly, this is partly the reason why he leaves the company of the van der linde gang for good. by this time in chapter 6, trelawny is fully aware that the group has broken down. dutch is not the leader they remember. the law like the force of an army is bearing down on them. they're not just fighting that, either, but each other, dividing and hostile. why not leave unannounced? he has no reason to stay and nothing more to offer them. dutch and micah, and to a lesser extent, javier and bill, are belligerent and antagonistic towards anyone who displays even a shred of doubt. trelawny could have done the thing he's good at and simply slipped away and spared himself the headache, but he doesn't. he packs up, uncharacteristically antsy, and tells arthur face-to-face that he's leaving despite his own trepidation. he gives arthur that respect and courtesy not knowing what the reaction would have been, if the others would have been tipped off, or if he'd gotten heat for it. he tells arthur despite these uncertainties, and not just because there's no point in him staying on a sinking ship, but because he considers arthur his honest-to-God friend.
i'm sure everyone already probably thinks all of this about trelawny, but the thought has been taking up prime real estate in my head and i had to put it down into words.
3 notes
·
View notes