#factual introject

[sysboxes]

[Text: This alter is a Factive.]

[Text: This alter is a factroject.]

[Text: This alter is a factual introject.]

Like/Reblog if you save or use please

[belinhagamer999]

Alt flag for problematic factives

[PT: Alt flag for problematic factives /END PT]

Inspired by the first problematic factives flag made by @problematicfactive

[IMAGE ID: The image features an abstract geometric composition with a central black rectangle containing a bicolor yellow circle. This square is enclosed in a surrounding border, with the gold circle. The background which is composed of the retangles border mentioned above is segmented into four distinct quadrants, each displaying a different color; dark maroon on the top left, dark purple on the top right, dark blue on the bottom right, and dark magenta on the bottom left. /END ID]

It has the same meaning they applied to the flag, just other design and more darker colors.

[fact-anonymous]

Today's a good day to remember that engaging with one's source or counterpart does NOT make you less of a factive!

Factives do not have to distance themselves from their source/counterpart. They don't have to change their name, hide everything about themselves, or forget their entire past/parallel lives if they don't want to or can't.

Moving on from their source and being a post-factive makes some people happy and heal, but if it isn't for you, you do not have to do that. Your way of existing, coping, and doing things does not have to follow the common narrative.

Some factives are day-trippers who are still living their other lives. Trying to be a post-factive in that case can be harmful, or even impossible. Other factives cannot or doesn't want to disengage with their source because they (or their systemmates) enjoy their source (or the source's works). In this case, why would you cut off something/someone that makes you(&) happy? Either, both, or any other reason, does not make you less of a factive.

Engaging with your source or counterpart does not suddenly make your existence unhealthy. It also does not make your identity harmful - even if you do it to make yourself be more like the source.

(Or, more like yourself! I know fiction-folks and nonhumans who engage with source or species images/writings to make themselves feel euphoric and more Them. Factives are also allowed to do so. Factives should not be judged for wanting to feel euphoric in their fact-identity!)

And yes, they are still their own person and an alternate version of the counterpart! They do not have to only choose one.

-Mod Silhouette

[many-but-one]

silly question but how does an introject begin to separate themselves from their source? like what is the process, what are the steps to take it? and also, how does an alter try and redefine themselves because of what they want but can't b/c of a thing they were assigned (i.e a trait, role, etc)?

No such thing as silly questions in this here house!

We've talked about how to source separate for introjects before.

Like those steps taken to redefine and source separate from who you are as an introject, the same can be done for any alter role. For example, our primary gatekeeper's role required him to be very emotionless, analytical, a bit mysterious, and cold/distant. However, it's not that he is only that, or that he wants to be only that, it's mainly because that's just what his job required of him. Taking steps to break out of that version of himself and become a bit softer and more open has been literally years of work, with support from both internal and external folks. He's doing a great job of it these days, and is opening up more, laughing more, and enjoying life more because of it. Redefining who you are and what you want outside of your assigned role is an important step in healing, but it can take time. Especially if needing to be that way for that role is still necessary (i.e. you're still in a traumatic situation, like living with abusive parents/family members or an abusive partner)

Hope this helped. :)

[theswiftheartsystem]

Advice on source separation?

Okay! We aren’t sure if you want for others, or for yourself! So here’s both:

Things that may be helpful is changing your name, Especially if your name is very specifically tied to that piece of media, this name can be totally different, or the same/similar meaning. Whatever you’d want.

Depending on how your system works, you may be able to somewhat alter your appearance internally

Making it clear you do not want to discuss source, or anything relating to it, This can be done with bios, or names, or even just telling people. If people cannot respect that, then they aren’t worth your time.

That being said, if you want to discuss and interact with source, you just don’t want to be seen as source, once again make that clear, anyone worth speaking to will listen.

[professional-retired-asshole]

Fictional introjects are not the only introjects

Factual introjects exist and are not uncommon

If you’re a factual introject you’re not alone, especially if you’re not an introject of a celebrity you never technically met, the online sample size is just shit

[the-prisma-system]

Pro introject tip!

NEVER check to see why your source is trending on twitter 👍

[arcadeofghosts]

introjecting real people or a character played by a person ( like DnD or Pokemon Friendlocke ) is crazy like i love you or your concept so much my brain decided to create you / it to keep me alive :3

[jesterpenetrate-irl]

Lemme just say . if you're icked out by or discriminatory towards or otherwise believe factkin(& related terms, not super familiar) are Bad or Wrong or Problematic in any sort of sense, then as a factive introject i do not trust you and never will. I see kinship as a singlet or acquired identity version of what introjects are, and what i hear when you talk poorly about factkin & other fact-IDs is that you're not safe for me or my system to be around, because you dont respect us as people for how we exist. Introjects dont choose how we form, and 'kin often dont choose their relations either. and if they do, so what? people can and should be able to pick their identity, even if it relates to an identity shared by or originated from someone else

[belablog134]

I see plural people with a lot of cool introjects of animes, movies, etc.

But where are my crew of plurals with harmful factives?

[skrillien]

anyway shoutout to factual introjects who read/write rpf. whether its to cope with pseudomemoties, for fun, because you self-ship, or whatever else. you are so valid in that.

and shout out to factual introjects who DONT read/write rpf. whether its triggering, makes you uncomfortable, or you just arent a fan. you are also so so valid for that.

you dont have to conform to anyones preconceived notions based on your source or the fact that you are an introject. you are your own individual, and nothing can change that. that is beautiful. that is worth celebrating.

[the-cabin-complex]

Being friends with other introjects with live action/irl sources we’ve never really seen before is so funny. Whenever we see stuff from it out of the context of their source, it’s always “Oh hey it’s my friend so-and-so, I wondered what they’d look like with glasses” or something. We don’t really even register their source most of the time, it’s just “Yeah my friend’s got a doppelgänger who’s relatively famous” and that’s it

[factivecultureis]

There nothing in inbox or queue, so feel free send asks!

[fact-anonymous]

I'm an introject of a historical figure who was, undeniably, on the wrong side of history. I've mostly accepted that my source was an awful person, & don't feel too bad about it. The only thing that gets to me still is how I can't be open about myself as an introject. I'm too nervous about how others will perceive me. I know many people who say they accept introjects "of all sources", even "problematic" ones. But I'm scared that, even if they won't admit it, there's a limit to how "problematic" my source can be before they start to disrespect me & my system. I fear that people will accuse me and/or my headmates of sympathizing with my source or his beliefs, as if all introjects are formed out of adoration, or because their sources bring comfort to the system. I formed because my system was exposed to information about my source while we were stressed due to new responsibilities. Our brain felt we needed someone new to cope with all of the new stuff we had to due, felt it would be easier to copy something than to make someone from scratch... and now here I am. But of course, people won't assume that. They'll assume someone in the system must like my source, why else would an introject form? And I shouldn't have to prove that that's not the case, I shouldn't have to explain my formation to someone to avoid accusations of sympathy with my source. What caused me to split should be my business & my business only.

It's not just the fear of what others will assume from me that's keeping me from being open, though, it's also the fact that my existence will make people uncomfortable. I've accepted that that's not something I can change, that there will always be people made uncomfortable by me, and they have just as much a right to be uncomfortable as I do to exist. But how I wish it wasn't the case! How I wish I could just say who my source is without having to worry if I'm making those around me uncomfortable! But it's too much of a risk in most spaces. Maybe some all Fact- spaces will be fine with me, but I still worry that others will be uncomfortable, even if they don't mention it to me. Of course, I want to believe that everyone does & should have a right to be open about who they are, but I feel as though I'm an exception.

The most specific I've ever benn about my source with anyone outside of the system is saying that my source is "a historical figure who was a bad person". Once I sent an ask to an ask/submission run introject themed blog (not saying who, I don't want anyone angry at them for this. They didn't mean anything by it, I'm sure.) in which I mentioned that my source was a bad person. They deleted the ask, and then made a post about "how bad they felt for fictives of villians, how hard it must be, poor you, but I accept you!, e.t.c. e.t.c." I had mentioned how my source was a bad person in a lighthearted manner, and I felt my tone demonstrated that I am no longer bothered by this fact. So what's with the pitying? And why did they assume that I'm a fictive? Is it just because fictives tned to be more common (or at least more visible) than factives? Or worse, is it because they didn't want to accept that the person sending them asks had a source whose actions have effected real people, not just fictional characters? Do they, even if it's just subconciously, see introjects (or, if we're being more specific, factives) as their sources, and assume that I must have, at some point, shared morals with my source? I ended up sending in a second ask clarifying: My source is a real person, & denying that he was wrong is irresponsible & just plain wrong, so I had to learn to accept it, which I have. Other than the ask I'm currently typing, that's the only time I've been that open about my source. And I fear that if I had to explain myself after only mentioning that my source was a bad person, how much more will I have to explain if I say how exactly he was bad? If I mention him by name? If I use my real first name, his first name, in the same place I mention anything about my source, & someone figures out who I am?

I'm sure there are people out there who I can be open around. But I believe it's too risky for me to find them. If I try finding people irl, & they don't accept me & decide to tell others, it can effect my life. If I try finding people online, & they don't accept me, they can screenshot it & there will always be a record. Hell, even if they don't take a screenshot there will likely always be a record on some server somewhere.

I don't know how to end this... essay? ...confession? It feels too personal to be an essay, but too long to be a confession, and I don't know what else it would be. Tag it as you see fit, I suppose.

-Blue

hi, Blue, thank you for your patience. accepting yourself is the first step to being comfortable with your existence, and i'm proud of you, happy for you, for doing it 💙

i understand, even if i can't relate, that it's difficult to show yourself in factive/plural spaces when your source has done atrocities. it's valid and really reasonable, imo, to be nervous about it. i'm sorry to hear that people haven't been accepting to you. that even "problematic" spaces haven't respected you. it's not fair that your sheer existence is so risky to show, and I wish it was easier. ;_;

They deleted the ask, and then made a post about "how bad they felt for fictives of villians, how hard it must be, poor you, but I accept you!, e.t.c. e.t.c." And why did they assume that I'm a fictive? Is it just because fictives tned to be more common (or at least more visible) than factives?

as for that blog thing. i don't understand why people use "introject" only for fictives, as if factives don't exist. and yeah, they're more visible, for sure. but people still shouldn't assume that introject always equals fictive.

Or worse, is it because they didn't want to accept that the person sending them asks had a source whose actions have effected real people, not just fictional characters? Do they, even if it's just subconciously, see introjects (or, if we're being more specific, factives) as their sources, and assume that I must have, at some point, shared morals with my source? I ended up sending in a second ask clarifying: My source is a real person, & denying that he was wrong is irresponsible & just plain wrong, so I had to learn to accept it, which I have.

It could be. and a lot of people think it is, i think it might be the effect of capitalism (and stereotypes). where consuming media defines your identity and morality. it manifests in people saying "you're a bad person if you buy from amazon" "you're immoral if you like villains" or "you can't be gay because you don't listen to music that white american gay people like". so they always see introjection as based on media/source consumption, and consumption is based on interest/fandom/comfort, and thus based on support. because that's the stereotypes of plurals - "hyperfixation means introjection". which is NOT true for so many systems!

(we don't split as we're walk-ins, but know you are not alone. a lot of us don't come here based on fandom/interest/comfort... hell, some don't even come from consumption of the associated sources - as in, the brain doesn't know the media/person. we're just here. some of us even make the brain extremely uncomfortable.)

also,, a lot of people have this thing about shame. that we have to be ashamed for existing, have to beat ourselves up for our source's actions to be a Good Factive. but that is a very unfair thing to enforce. you shouldn't have to be ashamed for yourself or be pitied or patronized for your identity. i think it's good that you've accepted yourself and the fact that your source has been harmful to others 💙

They'll assume someone in the system must like my source, why else would an introject form? And I shouldn't have to prove that that's not the case, I shouldn't have to explain my formation to someone to avoid accusations of sympathy with my source. What caused me to split should be my business & my business only.

you are right. introjects do NOT only from from likes/interests/fandom/comfort/support. you are, and do not have to be, like your source morality-wise. your system's morality isn't like them. and you should NOT have to justify your existence and explain why you split. no one else but you is entitled to that info, and i'm glad you know that.

i hope this helps a little. also, I suggest @problematicfactive - they might be able to assist you more on this topic.

all the best, Blue, and please take care of yourself. know that you and your system deserve respect, no matter what.

-mod espresso

[many-but-one]

Why are people so pressed about the presence of introjects in a system? /genq

What are your thoughts on introjects in a system? I’ve seen a LOT of people everywhere—not just tumblr, either. YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, etc. People get hella mad about it. I’m going to tag syscourse and hope to the gods I don’t regret it lol. But please, I’d like to hear people’s genuine thoughts AND if you make claims you believe are factual, cough up the sources. I want to see where you’re getting your info from.

Most people following me know my thoughts on this already but I’m curious what others have to say. Traumagenic systems only, please, thank you.

-Jules

[solarisgod]

Thinking about Micah's Mephistopheles fictive alter :]