#her desire to not acknowledge the queerness of certain family members

[onbearfeet]

No, Microsoft Word, upon consideration I don't think my audience will be offended by my use of the word "fuck". My intended audience is queers, teenagers, and queer teenagers, all of whom seem to be absolutely fucking delighted by my use of the word "fuck".

[mysebacielblog]

Ciel is Trans Theory

I Need to point this out because. I have a hunch that Ciel is Trans, and fingers crossed I’m right. Honestly, I could be completely off base and this could be as close as Ancient Aliens is to History.

This might be an overreach but here is my case for it, as best as I can:

* Based on previous events and Chapters, Yana has shown that She Likes Playing on the concept of Gender from the Very First Arc. From the Very beginning we are introduced to a woman who is Jack the Ripper, challenging the male murder stereotype on its head, and her lover, a gender ambiguous (Later Confirmed Canonically!!) Trans Reaper Lady. Both unite from their desire, and hatred for the prostitutes who beg for abortions at her clinic. There are Already wombs being ripped out of women and we’ve just started.

* The Fact that Ciel is Dressed extremely effeminately not only for the period, even for EGL clothing standards might point to something as well. But when forced to wear a dress for the sake of a mission, he loses his mind. Although it could be a tween’s worst nightmare, how Madame Red laments to Ciel when dressing him as a girl that she always wanted a daughter feels like something.

* Ciel is always referred to as beautiful, which is not wrong for the period, but there are less masculine terms that people refer to him as.

* Yana herself says that she Over Masculinizes Ciel. Which is an interesting take for his effeminate nature of dress Vs masculine personality?

* Another hot take is that Yana Specifically has instructed in certain live action and anime for the voice actor to be a woman. I’ve seen a lot of talk on this particular conversation but none highlighting this as a clue on our Ciel’s Identity??? How??

* Mey Rin is also have been hidden as a boy with her previous life as a sniper, so this also shows that this is not out of the question either. The same reveal has happened with Doll.

* Ciel does not let anyone get close to his body. This is obviously because traumatic stress behaviors, however, similar flinching could allude to a different reason entirely.

* Our Lad introduces himself as the “Earl Ciel Phantomhive” Earl almost being apart of his first name. He’s already changed his name to hide his past. But Why?

* Let’s pretend that Ciel was in fact, born a boy at birth. If his brother and parents died, even if he was considered a “Spare Child”, (remember the British Phrase an Heir and a Spare). He would still be a legitimate hier due to his brother being unable to claim inheritance (because of his death) and pass on something to him. Even if another family member became a guardian and inherited a majority to raise our ciel, he would still be entitled to Something, and (might) even become Earl. This would Not be the case if Ciel was born a girl.

* Two Cultural similarities Japanese Manga and the Victorian period have in common are the troupe of “women disguising themselves as men”. I put this in quotes because, as Ciel described it, “the old him died in his cage,” pointing to metaphorical metamorphosis, and not simply a disguise for convient’s sake. Although it was common for (transgender men, queer cis women and/or Cis women) to take on a male position / pseudonym in order to establish a title, or a job position (typically in writing, this continued until the 1960’s). Now add on the popular manga/anime that were important in playing with perceptions of gender during Black Butler’s Debut (think Ouran High school host club), and there’s something there.

* The Fact that no one mourned Ciel’s Death was unfortunate, but a critical plot point of the story. Up until now, no one even acknowledged Our Ciel had ever Existed. Not a name, not “twins” nothing. Even though our Lad was an ill child, no one had even acknowledged he was there to begin with. Women and children were rarely recognized in Victorian culture, let alone a “Woman Child”. This culture was challenged somewhat through literature in the early ‘30’s with works from Jane Austen, ‘47 with Charlotte Brontë (who went by a pseudonym) and Lewis Carol’s Alice and the Looking Glass at the end of the century. (introducing a Girl Protag!! Gracious!). As sad as it may be, no one would really mourn an terminally ill girl compared to her family’s murder, unless having accomplished something amazing. It would be seen unfortunately as a lifted burden, and ultimately one less dowery or added expense. The fact that no one even bothered to notice our Ciel’s death or even the toll it might have on his twin is evident enough.

* The most Damning evidence I have for this theory is Lizzy’s reaction to figuring out “Ciel” was not the real “Ciel”. The immediate turn against Ciel. Why wouldn’t she even hear him out? What could have possibly turned her away like that, without a doubt in her mind, even if she had met with the Real Ciel? The fact that her reaction was not confusion but rather an extreme turn against him, she did not even think one minute to give Our Ciel a chance. And the only possible reason (combined with the fact that he was lying about not being his brother) is that if he was Not Cis. Not only would that mean that she was with the sick weaker sibling not heir to the Phantomhive legacy, but Ciel Could never conceive a family with Elizabeth, nor marry her like she would have wanted. And even if she married him, they would never be able to have children of their own (a really big obsession with British Aristocracy- modern day source: royals). All of her dreams would be shattered. And that shattering would bring her to turn instantly.

* The fact that everyone automatically assumed our ciel was real ciel, just based on saying so. Why?

* The fact that sick girls were often dressed like male counterparts to strengthen them during this era, as well as androgynous clothing for children being in fashion (because of less washing headaches and hand-me-downs)

* A smaller, minor detail is how Sebastian says “When lies become truth”. This is pointing towards both their façades but an interesting quote none the less on transitioning.

* I’m pointing to his teeny shoes with the high heels. It’s not that they’re effeminate women’s shoes that are iffy for the period, (which let’s be clear, they are) but. Look at him. Trying his best to be tall adult man. I’m pointing at his shoes.

* I might be missing a lot. Tell me if I am.

Reasons For Why I Am Extremely Wrong:

*Tanaka and Vincent referring to Our Ciel with he/him pronouns, (although I’m not sure on the original Japanese translation on chapter 131)

[woman-loving]

Lesbian Unintelligibility in Pre-1989 Poland

Selection from ""No one talked about it": The Paradoxes of Lesbian Identity in pre-1989 Poland, by Magdalena Staroszczyk, in Queers in State Socialism: Cruising 1970s Poland, eds. Tomasz Basiuk and Jędrzej Burszta, 2021

The question of lesbian visibility is pertinent today because of the limited number of lesbian-oriented activist events and cultural representations. But it presents a major methodological problem when looking at the past. That problem lies in an almost complete lack of historical sources, something partly mended with oral history interviews, but also in an epistemological dilemma. How can we talk about lesbians when they did not exist as a recognizable category? What did their (supposed) non-existence mean? And should we even call those who (supposedly) did not exist “lesbians”?

To illustrate this problem, let me begin with excerpts from an interview I conducted for the CRUSEV project [a study of queer cultures in the 1970s]. My interlocutor is a lesbian woman born in the 1950s, who lived in Cracow most of her life:

“To this very day I have a problem with my brothers, as I cannot talk to them about this. They just won’t do it, I would like to talk, but. . . . They have this problem, they lace up their mouths when any reference is made to this topic, because they were raised in that reality [when] no one talked about it. It was a taboo. It still is. ... I was so weak, unable to take initiative, lacking a concept of my own life—all this testifies to the oppression of homosexual persons, who do not know how to live, have no support from [others], no information or knowledge learned at school, or from a psychologist. What did I do? I searched in encyclopaedias for the single entry, “homosexuality.” What did I learn? That I was a pervert. What did it do to me? It only hurt me, no? Q: Was the word lesbian in use? Only as a slur. Even my mother used it as an offensive word. When she finally figured out my orientation, she said the word a few times. With hatred. Hissing the word at me.”

The woman offers shocking testimony of intense and persistent hostility towards a family member—sister, daughter—who happens to be a lesbian. The brothers and the mother are so profoundly unable to accept her sexuality that they cannot speak about it at all, least of all rationally. The taboo has remained firmly in place for decades. How was it maintained? And, perhaps more importantly, how do we access the emotional reality that it caused? The quotes all highlight the theme of language, silence, and something unspeakable. Tabooization implies a gap in representation, and the appropriate word cannot be spoken but merely hissed out with hatred.

Popular discourse and academic literature alike address this problem under the rubric of “lesbian invisibility” (Mizielińska 2001). I put forward a different conceptual frame, proposing to address the question of lesbian identity in pre-1989 Poland not in terms of visibility versus invisibility, but instead in terms of cultural intelligibility versus unintelligibility. The former concepts, which have a rich history in discussions of pre-emancipatory lesbian experience, presume an already existing identity that is self-evident to the person in question. They assume the existence of a person who thinks of herself as a lesbian. One then proceeds to ask whether or not this lesbian was visible as such to others, that is, whether others viewed her as the lesbian she knew she was. Another assumption behind this framing is that the woman in question wished to be visible although this desired visibility had been denied her. These are some of the essentializing assumptions inscribed in the concept of (in)visibility. Their limitation is that they only allow us to ask whether or not the lesbian is seen for who she feels she is and wishes to be seen by others.

By contrast, (un)intelligibility looks first to the social construction of identity, especially to the constitutive role of language. To think in those terms is to ask under what conditions same-sex desire between women is culturally legible as constitutive of an identity. So, instead of asking if people saw lesbians for who they really were, we will try to understand the specific epistemic conditions which made some women socially recognizable to others, and also to themselves, as “lesbians.” This use of the concept “intelligibility” is analogous to its use by Judith Butler in Gender Trouble, as she explains why gender conformity is key to successful personhood[...].

For Butler, cultural intelligibility is thus an aspect of the social norm, as it corresponds to “a normative ideal.” It is one of the conditions of coherence and continuity requisite for successful personhood. In a similar vein, to say that lesbians in the People’s Republic of Poland were not culturally intelligible is of course not to claim that there were no women engaged in same-sex romantic and erotic relationships—such a conclusion would be absurd, as well as untrue. It is, rather, to suggest that “lesbian” was not a category of personhood available or, for that matter, desirable to many nonheteronormative women. The word was not in common use and it did not signify to them the sort of person they felt they were. Nor was another word readily available, as interlocutors’ frequent periphrases strongly suggest, for example, “I cannot talk to them about this. ... They ... lace up their mouths when any reference is made to this topic” (my emphases).

Interviews conducted with women for the CRUSEV project are filled with pain due to rejection. So are the interviews conducted by Anna Laszuk, whose Dziewczyny, wyjdźcie z szafy (Come Out of the Closet, Girls! 2006 ) was a pioneering collection of herstories which gave voice to non-heteronormative Polish women of different ages, including those who remember the pre-1989 era. Lesbian unintelligibility is arguably a major theme in the collection. The pain caused by the sense of not belonging expressed by many illustrates that being unintelligible can be harmful. At the same time, unintelligibility had some practical advantages. The main among them was relative safety in a profoundly heteronormative society. As long as things went unnamed, a women-loving woman was not in danger of stigmatization or social ostracism.

Basia, born in 1939 and thus the oldest among Laszuk’s interviewees, offers a reassuring narrative in which unintelligibility has a positive valence:

“I cannot say a bad word about my parents. They knew but they did not comment. . . . My parents never asked me personal questions, never exerted any kind of pressure on me to get married. They were people of great culture, very understanding, and they quite simply loved me. They would meet my various girlfriends, but these were never referred to as anything but “friends” (przyjaciółki). Girls had it much easier than boys because intimacy between girls was generally accepted. Nobody was surprised that I showed up with a woman, invited her home, held her hand, or that we went on trips together.” (Laszuk 2006, 27)

The gap between visceral knowing and the impossibility of naming is especially striking in this passage. The parents “knew” and Basia knew that they knew, but they did not comment, ask questions, or make demands, and Basia clearly appreciates their silence as a favour. To her, it was a form of politeness, discreetness, perhaps even protectiveness. The silence was, in fact, a form of affectionate communication: “they quite simply loved me.”

Another of Laszuk’s interviewees is Nina, born around 1945 and 60 years old at the time of the interview. With a certain nostalgia, Nina recalls the days when certain things were left unnamed, suggesting that there is erotic potential in the unintelligibility of women’s desire. Laszuk summarizes her views:

“Nina claims that those times certainly carried a certain charm: erotic relationships between women, veiled with understatement and secrecy, had a lot of beauty to them. Clandestine looks were exchanged above the heads of people who remained unaware of their meaning, as women understood each other with half a gesture, between words. Nowadays, everything has a name, everything is direct.” (Laszuk 2006, 33)

A similar equation between secrecy and eroticism is drawn by the much younger Izabela Filipiak, trailblazing author of Polish feminist fiction in the 1990s and the very first woman in Poland to publicly come out as lesbian, in an interview for the Polish edition of Cosmopolitan in 1998. Six years later, Filipiak suggested a link between things remaining unnamed and erotic pleasure, and admitted to a certain nostalgia for this pre-emancipatory formula of lesbian (non)identity. Her avowed motivation was not the fear of stigmatization but a desire for erotic intensity:

“When love becomes passion in which I lose myself, I stop calculating, stop comparing, no longer anchor it in social relations, or some norm. I simply immerse myself in passion. My feelings condition and justify everything that happens from that point on. I do not reflect upon myself nor dwell on stigma because my feeling is so pure that it burns through and clears away everything that might attach to me as a woman who loves women.” (Kulpa and Warkocki 2004)

Filipiak acknowledges the contemporary, “postmodern” (her word) lesbian identity which requires activism and entails enumerating various kinds of discrimination. But paradoxically—considering that she is the first public lesbian in Poland—she speaks with much more enthusiasm about the “modernist lesbians” described by Baudelaire:

“They chose the path of passion. Secrecy and passion. Of course, their passion becomes a form of consent to remain secret, to stay invisible to others, but this is not unambivalent. I once talked to such an “oldtimer” who lived her entire life in just that way and she protested very strongly when I made a remark about hiding. Because, she says, she did not hide anything, she drove all around the city with her beloved and, of course, everyone knew. Yes, everyone knew, but nobody remembers it now, there is no trace of all that.” (Kulpa and Warkocki 2004)

Cultural unintelligibility causes the gap between “everyone knew” and “nobody remembers” but it is also the source of excitement and pleasure. For Filipiak’s “old-timer” and her predecessors, Baudelaire’s modernist lesbians, the evasion, or rejection, of identity and the maintaining of secrecy is the path of passion. Crucially, these disavowals of identity mobilize a discourse of freedom rather than hiding, entrapment, or staying in the closet. The lack of a name is interpreted as an unmooring from language and a liberation from its norms.

Needless to say, cultural unintelligibility may also lead to profound torment and self-hatred. In the concept of nationhood generated by nationalists and by the Catholic Church in Poland, lesbians (seen stereotypically) are double outsiders whose exclusion from language is vital.[1] A repentant homosexual woman named Katarzyna offers her testimony in a Catholic self-help manual addressing those who wish to be cured of homosexuality. (It is irrelevant for my purpose whether the testimony is authentic; my interest is in the discursive construction of lesbian identity as literally impossible and nonexistent.) Katarzyna speaks about her search for love, her profound sense of guilt and her disgust with herself. The word “lesbian” is never used; her homosexuality is framed as confusion and as straying from her true desire for God. The origin of the pain is the woman’s unintelligibility to herself:

“Only I knew how much despair there was in my life on account of being different. First, there was the sense of being torn apart when I realized how different my desires were from the appearance of my body. Despite the storm of homosexual desire, I was still a woman. Then, the question: What to do with myself? How to live?” (Huk 1996, 121)

A woman cannot love other women—the subject knows this. We can speculate that her knowledge is due to her Catholic upbringing; she has internalized the teaching that homosexuality is a sin, and thus untrue and not real. The logic of the confession is overdetermined: the only way for her to become intelligible to herself is to abandon same-sex desire and turn to God, and through him to men. Church language thus frames homosexuality as chaos: it is a disordered space where no appropriate language can obtain. Within this frame, unintelligibility is anything but erotic. It is rather an instrument of shaming and, once internalized, a symptom of shame.

For many, the experience of unintelligibility is moored in intense heteronormativity, without regard to Church teachings or the language of national belonging. Struggling with the choice between social intelligibility available to straights and leading an authentic life outside the realm of intelligibility, one CRUSEV interlocutor, aged 67, describes her youth in 1960s and 1970s:

“I always knew I was a lesbian ... and if I am one, then I will be one. Yes, in that sense. And not to live the life of a married woman, mother and so on. This life wasn’t my life at all. However, as I said, it was fine in an external sense. So calm and well-ordered: a husband, nice children, everything, everything. But it was external, and my life was not my life at all, it wasn’t me.”

She thus underscores her internal sense of dissonance, a felt incompatibility with the social role she was playing. The role model of a wife and mother was available to her, but a lesbian role model was not.

The discomfort felt at the unavailability of a role model may have had different consequences. Another CRUSEV interviewee, aged 62, describes her impulse to change her life so as to authentically experience her feelings for another woman, in contrast to that woman’s ex:

“She visited me a few times, and it was enough that I wrote something, anything ... [and] she would get on the train and travel across the country. There were no telephones then, during martial law. Regardless of anything, she would be there. And at one point I realized that I ... damn, I loved her. ... She broke up with her previous girlfriend very violently—this may interest you—because it turned out that the girl was so terribly afraid of being exposed and of some unimaginable consequences that she simply ran away.”

The fear of exposure, critically addressed by the interlocutor, was nonetheless something she, too, experienced. She goes on to speak of “hiding a secret” and “stifling” her emotions.

A concern with leading an inauthentic life resurfaces in the account of the afore-quoted woman, aged 67:

“I couldn’t reveal my secret to anyone. The only person who knew was my friend in Cracow. I led such a double life, I mean. ... It is difficult to say if this was a life, because it was as if I had my inner spirituality and my inner world, entirely secret, but outside I behaved like all the other girls, so I went out with some boys. ... It was always deeply suppressed by me and I was always fighting with myself. I mean, I fell in love [with women] and did everything to fall out of love [laughter]. On and on again.”

Her anxiety translates into self-pathologizing behaviour:

“In 1971 I received my high school diploma and I was already . . . in a relationship of some years with my high school girlfriend. . . . But because we both thought we were abnormal, perverted or something, somehow we wanted to be cured, and so she was going to college to Cracow, and I to Poznań. We engaged in geographic therapy, so to speak.”

The desire to “be cured” from homosexuality recurs in a number of interviews. Sometimes it has a factual dimension, as interlocutors describe having undergone psychotherapy and even reparative therapy—of course, to no avail.

Others decide to have a relationship with a woman after years spent in relationships with men. Referring to her female partner of 25 years, who had previously been married to a man, one of my interlocutors suggests that her partner had been disavowing her homosexual desires for many years before the two women’s relationship began: “the truth is that H. had struggled with it for more than 20 years and she was probably not sure what was going on.” Despite this presumed initial confusion, the women’s relationship had already lasted for more than 25 years at the time I conducted the interview.

Recognizing one’s homosexual desires did not necessarily have to be difficult or shocking. It was not for this woman, aged 66 at the time of the interview:

“It was obvious to me. I didn’t, no, no, I didn’t suppress it, I knew that [I was going], “Oh, such a nice girl, I like this one, with this one I want to be close, with that one I want to talk longer, with that one I want to spend time, with that one I want, for example, to embrace her neck or grab her hand”.”

Rather, what came as a shock was the unavailability of any social role or language corresponding to this felt desire that came as a shock. The woman continues:

“It turned out that I couldn’t talk to anyone about it, that I couldn’t tell anyone. I realized this when I grew up and watched my surroundings, family, friends, society. I saw that this topic was not there! If it’s not there, how can I get it out of myself? I wasn’t so brave.”

The tabooization of homosexuality—its unintelligibility—is a recurring thread in these accounts; what varies is the extent to which it marred the subjects’ self-perception.

[tipsycad147]

Why do people become Pagan? The top ten reasons

by Michelle Gruben

“Why are you Pagan?” If you were to ask this question of a dozen people, you would probably get a dozen different answers. For Christians (and others who believe in one true God) the revival of polytheism may be confounding. For others, it is hard to understand why a sensible modern person would seem to turn their back on science to worship the gods of old.

Before we get too far along, let's cover some background info. Paganism is defined broadly as non-Abrahamic religion that is Nature-based, polytheistic, or both. Wiccans, for instance, generally worship a creator Goddess and a God who is Her consort. The Wiccan cosmology does not acknowledge the existence of the Christian God (or the concepts of Satan and Hell).

Wicca is the best-known of modern Pagan religions, but there are many sub-groups and branches of Pagan belief and practice. Druidism, neo-Shamanism, Greek/Roman reconstructionism, and Norse Heathenry are just a few. There are also eclectic Pagans who combine elements from various traditions to make their own “flavor” of Paganism. While occult practices (e.g., divination and spellcasting) are common in Paganism, not all Pagans participate in these practices. Conversely, not everyone who is involved in the occult is a Pagan.

Most Pagans are polytheist, meaning they recognize the existence of more than one God. But there is more to Paganism than “the more, the merrier!” Here are some general traits of Pagan religions (keep in mind that not every religion will have them all): Rejection of Judeo-Christian cosmology, observance of seasonal rites, reverence toward Nature, rejection of religious authority and focus on individual experiences, paranormal/psychic beliefs and practices, emphasis on personal responsibility over sin or evil.

Not surprisingly, a preference for one or more of these traits is what attracts many people to Pagan religions—but we’ll get to that in a moment.

At the risk of stating the obvious, religion is a choice. If a person follows a Pagan religion, they are expressing a preference for Paganism over another religion, or no religion. Thinking about the reasons why people choose to become Pagan can lead to better understanding of Pagan friends and family. If you are Pagan, you may even learn something about yourself!

For the record, I’m Pagan in a mixed-religion household. This (totally unscientific) list is based on my own observations within the Pagan community. I’ve tried to present them in a way that’s inclusive and fair. Without further ado, here are some of the most common reasons why people choose to follow a Pagan religion:

1. They were raised Pagan.

Contemporary Pagan groups began forming in the 1930s, and achieved breakthrough status with the emergence of Wicca in the 1950s. Before that time, very few people in the West were raised Pagan. If you wanted to be initiated in a Pagan tradition, you had to seek one out—often at great expense to your personal or professional reputation.

Nowadays, that’s not the case. Neo-Paganism as a social/demographic phenomenon is in its third generation. It’s fairly common to find adults who were raised Pagan, or even whose parents were raised Pagan! It’s also possible to find those who were raised Pagan, but left Paganism. “Mom used to go out in the woods with her friends and do weird stuff—I never really got into it.”)

Some Pagan clergy will participate in the general blessing of infants and children, such as the ritual of “Wiccaning.” However, most Pagan paths do not have formal initiation for children. Pagans also overwhelmingly value religious choice. If someone continues their Pagan practice into adulthood, it is likely because they found something meaningful in it.

2. They want sexual acceptance and/or sexual freedom.

Of all the world religions, Paganism is arguably the most tolerant of the varied expression of human sexuality. Sex is considered a divine gift and a sacred rite. Lusty Gods and fertile Goddesses appear in all the major pantheons. (Along with gender-bending, raunchy stories, and other sexy fun.) For most Pagans, sex is just no big deal as long as it’s between consenting adults (or deities).

Pagan groups almost universally accept gay members, and some traditions even have queer or queer-leaning branches (Radical Faeries, Dianic Wicca). Pagan activists have been on the forefront of the struggle for equal rights. Compare that to the sluggish response of churches—even liberal churches—to embrace LGBTQ members and clergy, and you’ll understand why sexual minorities have been so attracted to Paganism. For people who are used to hearing their sexual desires called dirty, sinful, or shameful, the difference can be life-changing.

It’s not just queer folks who embrace Paganism as a safe­­ haven. Horny folks do, too. In most Pagan belief systems, sex is not considered a sin but a morally neutral act. Sex for fun is fun, sex for magick is magick. It’s not how much sex you’re having, but your intention that characterizes the act. The only moral imperative is in how you’re treating yourself and your partners.

Partners? Oh, yes! Polyamory, group sex, and (legal) exhibitionism are accepted within some Pagan communities. That’s an undeniable treat for people who want to enjoy these activities without religious shame.

3. They don’t care for dogma and/or authority.

There is no holy book, no central governing body, and no real priestly authority within the mass of related beliefs filed under Paganism. This is great news for people of a certain temperament—religious rebels and militant agnostics. (“I don’t know, and you don’t either!”)

As a social movement, neo-Paganism is deeply indebted to the Transcendentalist writers of the 19th century. Their poems and essays held the germ of the idea that fuels Pagan practice: That God speaks directly to everyone—often through Nature—and not only to a specially qualified few, inside special buildings.

Some Pagan groups do have ordained clergy. But there are still significant differences between Pagan clergy and those of more established organized religions:

First, Pagan titles like “High Priestess” are usually self-conferred or passed along from student to teacher. This does not mean that they’re not “real” clergy, but it does mean that their power is limited outside their own group or coven. (A Pagan leader may also be ordained as a minister by another organization, such as the Church of All Worlds or the Unitarian Universalist church. This allows them to receive certain legal privileges that independent Pagan clergy usually do not enjoy.)

Secondly, Pagan clergy tend to function more as community leaders than authority figures. Pagan priesthood does not confer any real power over others, either temporal or spiritual. Most Pagan leaders encourage discussion and self-study by their students and congregants. Certainly a dedicated Priest or Priestess will have more experience working with their deities than a beginner. They may have the skills to do rituals or advanced deity work that a novice does not. In a sense, though, every Pagan is their own Priest or Priestess—and the best Pagan clergy respect that. This makes Paganism very attractive to those who don’t want to experience God(s) secondhand.

4. They long for a connection to Nature.

The earth, the trees, the sky, the sea—most world religions recognize these wonders as the work of a mighty creator God. And yet, most leave it at that.

Not so with Paganism. Pagan religions are sometimes described as “Earth-based”—meaning the Earth and its cycles are central to what Pagans hold sacred. Most Pagans profess a deep reverence for natural places, the seasons, the web of plants and animals, and the processes of birth, aging, and dying. While it’s not technically required, many Pagan services are held outdoors. “Skyclad” (nude) rites are another way that Pagans shed the trappings of modern society and get back to the core of being.

Some people come to Paganism as an extension of their environmentalist or eco-feminist views. Others simply want to reconnect with Nature as an antidote to the alienation that comes with busy, digitized lives.

5. They’ve had negative experiences with other religions.

It’s a sad but undeniable fact. People who turn toward one religion are often, with the same movement, turning away from a religion that has hurt them. If you spend enough time in Pagan communities, you will certainly meet some of these displaced folks.

Perhaps a certain religious doctrine—such as the prohibition against homosexuality—is causing the person emotional pain. Maybe they’re frustrated with persecution, corruption, or hypocrisy within the religious group they came from. Or maybe they’re rebelling against the religious beliefs of a parent or spouse. Whatever the case, Paganism appears to offer a chance for a fresh start, one with less restriction and oversight than they may be used to. Pagans don’t evangelize—which may make them seem more trustworthy to folks who have been burned.

As with all life choices, there are right and wrong reasons to become a Pagan. And you can’t ever really know someone else’s motives. The best thing that Pagans can do is treat religious refugees kindly, answer their questions honestly, and wait for them to figure out if Paganism is right for them.

6. They have trouble with the concepts of sin and evil.

Of all the barriers between Pagan beliefs and Abrahamic religion, the idea of sin is the thorniest. Original sin is a tough doctrine to swallow, even for many Christians. Who wants to suffer for something that happened before they were born? That Paganism has no equivalent concept to sin and sinfulness is one of its biggest selling points, so to speak. (Pagan beliefs about the origin/existence of evil are so diverse I won’t even try to tackle the topic here.)

As mentioned earlier, there’s no single Pagan concept of God. Still, one idea you see over and over in Paganism is the doctrine of non-dual immanence. God/Goddess existing here and now, and not in some distant place or kingdom to come. Lack of meditation or participation or acceptance can distance us from the sacred, but God/Goddess is always there. Furthermore, divinity is present within the material world, and the world is inseparable from its creator.

All of this is pretty difficult to reconcile with Judeo-Christian ideas about original sin and the fall of man. (Some Hermetic Pagans do accept them as metaphorical/alchemical truths—but that’s a whole other beaker of worms.) In Biblical cosmology, the world is created by God, but separate from God. The world we know is basically fallen and can only be redeemed through God’s intervention. In Paganism, the world we know is basically holy and does not require redemption. (Only observation and celebration, if we want to be happy and—perhaps—please the Gods.) The other worlds are holy, too—not more, nor less.

As for behavior? Paganism emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility over moral absolutism. Most Pagans live by an individual moral/ethical code, but shun universal behavioral codes. Pagan ethics have been heavily influenced by the Wiccan Rede: “An it harm none, do what ye will.” This in turn derives from Aleister Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”—possibly the most mis-interpreted eleven words of all time.

It’s not that Pagans believe that you can or should do whatever you want. On the contrary, Paganism teaches that actions (and even thoughts) reverberate through the universe to affect oneself and others. There’s no real concept of sin, but Paganism is not amoral. In encouraging moral behavior, Paganism substitutes concepts like karma, duty, interconnectedness, for a paternal god figure keeping score.

7. They yearn for representations of the Divine Feminine.

Dion Fortune wrote “A religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism.” Women’s bodies are the carriers of life. And yet, many world religions downplay or denigrate the contribution of women. In Abrahamic religions, women can be vessels and saints, but are rarely prophets and never God. Many people yearn for distant time—real or imagined—when women’s bodies could also be a representation of deity.

As a social phenomenon, the rise of Wicca and Goddess spirituality has coincided pretty neatly with the expansion of women’s rights. As long as women are to be regarded as equal to men in society, there are those who feel that patriarchal religions can never be wholly legitimate.

Everyone has an earthly mother and a father. If you believe in God, it makes a kind of intuitive sense that everyone has a divine Mother and Father, too. Yet religions that include a Goddess are usually labeled polytheist and Pagan automatically.

8. They want explanations for psychic and paranormal events.

Out-of-body experiences, premonitions, telepathy, ghost encounters—weird stuff sometimes happens. If you haven’t had an inexplicable experience, then you likely know someone who has. Pagans aren’t alone in experiencing the paranormal, of course. But they tend to be better equipped to talk about it than the average person.

Imagine a person who has recurring paranormal experiences, or experiences they believe to be paranormal. Mainstream science tells them that these experiences are illusory. Mainstream religion—when it’s not condemning them as evil—seems mostly too embarrassed to talk about occult happenings. It’s no surprise that the person would be drawn to a Pagan community where psychic stuff is openly discussed, accepted, and even encouraged.

Don’t get me wrong—mental illness and paranormal delusions do occur, and can cause great harm. But the not-crazy among us still yearn for a safe haven to discuss our psychic lives without condemnation. I believe—though I can’t prove—that so-called paranormal experiences are actually quite common among the general population. I’ve also observed that persistent psychic curiosity is one of the major reasons that people turn to Paganism.

9. They’re attracted to the power and control offered by magick.

I once read an academic paper that was trying to explain the rise of Wicca and witchcraft among teenage girls. The conclusion was that when a young women lacks a sense of control in her life—i.e., economic, sexual, or social autonomy—a religion that offers a secret source of power is immensely attractive. (Who wouldn’t want to be able to cast a love spell on a crush, or curse a bully?) The author observed that many teen girls become practicing Pagans in junior high and high school. They tend to lose interest after finding another source of personal power (a job, a relationship, a better group of friends).

As a young Pagan woman, I found the tone of this particular paper to be condescending, bordering on insulting. But one thing is obviously true: Occultism purports to offer power to the powerless, esoteric means to an end when exoteric means have come up short. Why else would there be so many people interested in fast answers—love spells, get-rich-quick spells, and the like?

Lots of people approach witchcraft and/or Paganism because they want to learn to use magick. They see it as a way to fix their lives in a hurry or achieve undeserved success. Many of them move along when they realize that real magick is real work.

10. They’ve been called by a God or Goddess.

A burning bush, a deathbed vision of Christ, a miracle from the Virgin Mary—these are the types of religious experiences that are familiar to most people. But Pagans have religious epiphanies, too. Although most of us don’t talk about it outside of trusted circles, our Gods and Goddesses call to us in dramatic and in subtle ways.

Like any other type of religious conversion, some people drift gradually toward an acceptance of Paganism, while others are thrust toward it by a single epiphany. Some people may scoff at the idea of elder Gods asserting their presence in the 21st century. But it's certainly no wackier than what other religious people believe. (And it's hard to be so cavalier when Odin’s keeping you awake at night with a to-do list.)

For most Pagans, one or more of the above reasons has contributed to their finding their religious path. There are certainly other reasons that aren’t on this list. Of course, the best way to find out why a particular person is Pagan is to (respectfully) ask!

https://www.groveandgrotto.com/blogs/articles/why-do-people-become-pagan-top-ten-reasons

[nerdygaymormon]

My son is bisexual. I love him. This is a given. He wants me to approve his choice to be with a man. Being an adult means approving your own choices. I may love several women, but I choose one because that's what is authorized. Anything else is a sin. Any marriage should be legal. Scripturally, sex is subject to boundaries. What should the Church's, or God's, position be? Any combination of consenting adults? Any 2 committed people? Thanks. Alternative resources/opinions are scarce.

You mentioned that you “may love several women, but I choose one because that’s what is authorized.” You made a commitment to a person when you married them. To go around starting additional loving relationships with others is violating the marriage commitment you already made. I think this is not a fair parallel to what your son is doing.  

————————————————————

Is your son’s relationship bringing him happiness? Is it fulfilling? Do they make each other better? Have you asked him how this relationship makes him feel? 

What does your son mean by “approve?” Does he simply want you to acknowledge his choice? Does he want you to say the man he chose is a good person? Can he visit your home with the person he shares his life with? Will they get invited to family events? 

Must your son fit into a straight lifestyle in order to be worthy of love and affirmation, even though he’s not straight? What if he were gay instead of bi, would that change how you feel about this, and if so, why? 

I know you love your son. Do you strive to be the parent that he needs? 

Do you want a good relationship with your son? What will that take?

The Church doesn’t ask us to reject children who don’t live up to Church standards. They can go inactive and we still love them. They can stop believing, marry a non-member, not follow the Word of Wisdom, and we’re to still love them. 

————————————————————

I recently was talking with a Seventy about why I don’t attend the temple, and that’s because of things in the temple that are hard for me, including the part where it says that it’s not good for man to be alone. God teaches us that in Genesis yet the Church denies this for LGBT people. 

The Seventy thanked me for helping him understand my perspective. He acknowledged my feelings and didn’t tell me I needed to start going to the temple. Once he understood, he accepted that my choice is a good choice for me.

————————————————————

I once had a woman write to me upset that her gay son who was about to get married was requiring her to either leave the Church or be cut out of his life. She told me how unfair it is. I pointed out that her son was requiring of her the same choice that was required of him--church or love. Maybe that’s how this feels to you. 

Your son’s relationship is uncomfortable because it’s requiring you to examine how you really feel about some beliefs of our church. Can you accept that people, including your children, will make choices counter to Church beliefs, choices which will bring them happiness & meaning in this life? 

This is a good time for a reminder that in 2015, Elder Todd Christofferson said that members of the Church can support gay marriage “without consequence to their church membership,” and that includes being worthy for a temple recommend.   

————————————————————

If Christ were here, would He reject your son? I mean this as a serious question. Of all the people Christ accepted, wouldn’t your son & his boyfriend be among them? And if you’re not certain, try reading Matthew 8:5-13 about the centurion and his love servant.

In fact, the scriptures several times suggest what God thinks about love between two people of the same gender. 

Ruth & Naomi : 2 women who made vows to each other, lived together for life, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance. Together with Boaz they made an unusual family.

Jonathan & David : The text suggests this is more than two men who became friends. The possibility this is a same-sex relationship blessed by God is why the story of Jonathan and David has been a favorite of queer Christians.

Daniel : In my opinion, the best example in the Old Testament to suggest God supports same-gender loving relationships. Who brought Daniel into favor with Ashpenaz? 

Matthew 19:5-12 – Marriage & Eunuchs : Jesus is discussing marriage and he mentions eunuchs (which, in context, seems clear he’s speaking of men who don’t have a desire or attraction for women) being an exemption from male-female marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 :  If you don’t have the “gift of celibacy,” then channel your sexual desires within marriage. Paul is adamant that celibacy should NOT be forced on people. To do so endangers their spiritual well being! Is there a better argument than Paul’s for why Christians should accept and celebrate same-sex marriage? 

[sophygurl]

Wiscon 42 panel Lighter Side of the MCU

Okay, the rest of my panel write-ups are not going to be quite so dramatic as the Killable Bodies one thank goodness. And I’ll be typing the rest up in chronological order - excepting the ones I was on since I don’t take heavy notes for those, so will add a bit about them at the end. 

The first panel I went to was Lighter Side of the MCU

Reminder that these panel notes are only my own recollections and the things I managed to write down - my notes are incomplete and likely faulty in places. Corrections and additions are always welcome. Especially please do correct me if I get names or pronouns wrong! 

Also I name panelists as that’s publicly available information but not audience members unless requested by that person to have their named added. 

Panel description:

In 2017, the Marvel Cinematic Universe gave us 3 movies that were lighter, funnier, and a bit different from their normal fare: Guardian of the Galaxy Vol 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, and Thor: Ragnarok. All three of these movies felt like a year-long palate cleanser after the darker path the MCU has been on. However, with movies like Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War coming next, are we back to serious business, or is there still room to play? 

Moderator was Christopher Davis. Panelists were Jess Adamas, V. Greyson, and Carrie Pruett. 

Chris talked about Thor: Ragnarok as having a shift from the other Thor movies, not just due to Taika Watiti’s influence but the writing and acting as well. 

Jess said people figured out that Hemsworth can do comedy and is not just ridiculously good looking, but also willing to make an ass of himself.

Jess and V. agreed that they almost can’t even remember Thor 2. Thor should be funny and silly - the comics are. There are still real feelings and relationships in there, but every scene looked like it should have been painted on the side of a van. 

Carrie said the movie found the right tone for including the Led Zeppelin song. The use of Bruce/Hulk in the movie also used more comedy than earnestness. She compared it to Deadpool as far as pointing out the ridiculous parts. 

She also talked about her desire for Darcy to interact with more MCU characters. 

V. talked about Kenneth Branagh’s Thor 1 and that she liked how serious it was. But she enjoyed the comedy of Ragnarok even more as a contrast. She brought up an article that talked about the Maori flavor of the comedy in the movie, the deprecating aspect and poking fun at the earlier movies (example: “the sun is going down”). 

Carrie liked the calling out of Loki as Odin as a reminder of how Thor 2 ended, but doing it in such a funny way.

Jess talked about Korg and the hilarity of how his revolution failed because he didn’t print enough pamphlets. She brought up the Grandmaster - Carrie asked who? - Jeff Goldblum - oh yea! (lol)

Chris discussed the heavy 80′s nostalgia and Jack Kirby aesthetic in the visuals and musical choices. For example, the Pure Imagination song while going through the tunnel.

Jess and V. joked about their husbands not getting why certain things were funny (IIRC this was because they weren’t as familiar with some of the references to earlier Marvel movies?).

Chris said that Goldblum was the perfect choice for that role. He asked the panelists what their favorite bit of his was.

V. said the meltstick part. Carrie added - accidental killing is hilarious. Jess brought up the part about Bruce looking for a button on the ship for a weapon and getting the song and lights - the discovery that it’s an orgy ship. Carrie added that Bruce’s whole life is a series of wondering how he got here. 

V. talked about the deleted scene of the Grandmaster engaging in tentacle porn. Chris said in Watiti’s director’s cut, he filks the Marvel logo at the start and it just goes from there.

Chris moved on to the Guardians movies - a part of Marvel that’s not well known outside of the deep fandom. This gave them more freedom in their choices. They mostly take place outside of the MCU world, but still did well.

Carrie compared Guardians to Deadpool 2 saying that there is such a thing as too many ironic music cues and Guardians had just enough while D2 went too far. 

Carrie also added that the Guardians/Thor part of Infinity War was the best part. The bit where Thor keeps calling Rocket a rabbit (I added from the audience that this somehow didn’t make Rocket mad) and Carrie agreed saying he really responded to Thor as an authority figure in ways that he usually doesn’t do with anyone.

Jess said that she has James Gunn issues and especially didn’t think Guardians 1 was that well written, but that G2 did a good job of balancing the serious with the funny. She was really resentful about crying at the end. She really bought the Peter/Yondu relationship. Jess tears up talking about the scene with Rocket at the funeral and how he noted that Yondu yelled a lot and was mean but that people still stuck with him. [I teared up a lil too, that part hit me hard]

Jess also added that the rainbow glitter aesthetic of the Guardians movies seems to be responding to the darker superhero greyscale we usually get.

Carrie said that they did good with the Ego stuff, as well. She knew that a twist was coming, but not what the twist was going to be. It called out toxic masculinity in a unique way. Kurt Russell was used well in the role. Peter has his own sexist issues, especially in G1 - which is not interrogated - but in G2 he’s clearly trying to be better than his dad. 

Jess said Russell was great in the role because the audience sees him as his oeuvre.

V. didn’t like G2 as much as G1. G1 had a lot of lampshading of Peter calling himself Starlord and the group the Guardians of the Galaxy. Also - so many Groot-based tears. She didn’t like the start of G2 with the team all fighting and being mean to one another. But G2 and Thor:R both used that rainbow glitter aesthetic well and showed that you can have serious issues going on even if it’s sparkly - things don’t have to be all grey with just some blue.

Chris brought up that lighter movies can still have some very serious issues and still be funny. The characters and relationships can grow and change, for example Thor finally acknowledging that Loki is going to keep tricking him. 

V. talked about how Spiderman: Homecoming’s humor is more of the #relatable type. Peter is “just like us” and we identify with him. 

Carrie said she has a complicated relationship with Spiderman. She saw the Toby Maguire movies before she got into comics and didn’t realize that Spiderman was supposed to be funny. Andrew Garfield did okay but still didn’t really feel like Peter. Tom Holland does Spiderman/Peter better. But the movie changed around some of the characters from the comics. Also - why is it appropriate for Tony to have this relationship with a high school student? On the other hand, Tony’s use as a side character is funny and done well.

Jess added that Tony makes terrible decisions but doesn’t realize it until someone else points it out to him - like, maybe don’t take a minor out of the country for combat-related reasons?

Jess went on to say that all Marvel movies have some humor, and it often is that relatable kind, but it also comes from the fondness for the characters and their relationships to one another. It’s not just references (V. - like The Big Bang Theory).

Jess talked about how Thor:R addresses colonialism and anti-colonialism while being funny. Spiderman:Homecoming culminates in a homecoming dance. Jess always wanted a Marvel high school movie. Also Michael Keaton did well in the role for similar reasons as Russell in G2. Both actors bring their career history with them into the role. 

V. talked about the humor of Spiderman in the pratfalls. Heroes already have such exaggerated physical movements, so this leads well to physical humor. Holland is a good physical actor in both senses.

Carrie lamented the lack of funny women in the MCU. (I spoke from the audience again pointing out MJ) 

Jess said that Gamora did not get a lot of comedy - a lot of her character is wrapped up in drama with Nebula. Mantis is a character we laugh at and she is not comfortable with that. Valkyrie gets to be funny. Cate Blanchett as Hela was very campy but in a straight-faced way. She does tell jokes, but they’re terrifying.

Carrie discussed the issues with Mantis a bit more. The jokes were mostly about her fitting the submissive Asian trope. Black Panther has women who got to actively do stuff and be funny! There should be more little sisters in superhero movies. Lupita  Nyong’o was used better as a funny character in BP than she was in more serious roles. Jess added that Okoyo was used in humorous ways too.

Carrie said BP was not just about found family, as many of these movies are, but is actually a family movie. 

Chris said that Hela got some of the best lines in Thor. Examples: “Whoever I am?” and the bit about the executioner to execute plans ... but also people. 

He added that BP did have a lot of humor. It also had a similar plot as Thor, but with a very different tone and narrative. 

Carrie said BP makes you care about Wakanda. Asgard feels more distant. While watching Infinity War, her concern was for Wakanda - why are they bringing the fight there?!

Thor:R builds on the other movies for it’s worldbuilding, whereas BP is introducing us to this world for essentially the first time. There is a sense of wrestling with what is the right thing to do. An audience member added - it’s a less mythical world. 

Jess talked about BP having lots of joy - you get the sense that the cast and crew just loved being there and making it what it was.

V. talked about Thor 1 having more of a fish out of water type humor. The humor in BP comes from investment in the character relationships.

An audience member brought up the M’Baku vegetarian joke. Someone (another audience member maybe?) brought up how the Grandmaster was queer-coded and a villain and funny but it was not offensive. 

Jess said that was just Goldblum being Goldblum. It also works because Watiti is queer, so he’s aware of the tropes and it’s not a mean-spirited laughing - we’re not laughing at the queer-codedness of the character. Contrast this to Mantis, where we are supposed to be laughing at the racial and sexist stereotypes.

Chris brought up that Mantis literally personifies emotional labor. 

An audience member said that the Grandmaster reminded them of Tim Curry’s characters - he’s using himself in the role, so we’re not laughing at someone’s depictions of an other.

V. said in Thor:R the gags are at everyone’s expense - it’s equal opportunity joking. We’re not just laughing at say, the one campy character in the entire movie. 

Carrie talked about not liking Drax as much in G2 because he was so mean to Mantis - we were expected to laugh at this one character. 

An audience member talked about Drax’s actor being hilarious. The MCU and DC are mostly white and male, so they appreciate when this is not the case. The Drax/Mantis issue would have been better if they’d addressed his crush on her. It felt like a third of movie was cut out because they skip right over his meanness to acceptance. Mantis is the first Asian character in the MCU.

Carrie said there is a representation problem. A friend of hers who is Asian said her kid told her she looks like Mantis, and she wasn’t sure how to deal with that. There were no other characters for the child to compare her to.

Jess said this was especially bad because outside of the Mantis thing, Drax is the best of them as far as emotional expression. 

Chris said - as a white dude named Chris, I’m getting lots of representation and I’m getting tired of it. (lol)

Valkyrie came up and someone said their headcanon was that she lived and took the half of the Asgardians who live off to safety. I shouted out from the audience that this was confirmed as canon. V. said her theory is that she took the sex space ship!

An audience member brought up how some people found Asgard as a flying disc in space as being more relatable than a non-colonized African country. This is partially because you have to set up the seriousness first and then introduce humor. Thor could be funnier right away because it was the third movie. 

V. said that both Thor and BP had interesting things to say about colonization and Chris laid it out as: Killmonger wants to start conquering and Hela wants to go back to doing it.

V. talked about BP as having to engage white Marvel fans, black audiences who aren’t as familiar with the comics, and of course the Venn Diagram of black fans of the MCU. Discussed the use of both Wakanda and Oakland scenes to accomplish this.

An audience member asked about the evolution of Hulk as a comedic character.

Chris said Ruffalo was able to pull off the humor well on Thor. The physical comedy of when he tried to pull the Hulk out and then splat! The movie used both Bruce and the Hulk for comedic effect. 

Carrie related back to the comment about starting off with the serious backstory and then adding in the humor - Bruce himself has learned to take himself less seriously over time.

Jess said that he does get to be funny here and there in the other movies, but it’s more of humor as coping mechanism. In Thor:R he gets to do more slapstick stuff. 

And that’s all I got! Overall this was a fun, funny panel which also hit on some serious themes in these lighter movies. 

[crimsonrevolt]

Congratulations Dani you’ve been accepted to Crimson Revolt as Sirius Black!

↳ please refer to our character checklist

Sirius shares the spot for my favorite character in the series and your app captures him brilliantly, Dani.  It’s hard to pick just one thing we loved but we especially appreciated how you talked about the nature vs nurture aspect of Sirius’ life and how he would have been a very different person had certain turning-points never happened.  It’s easy to see how various influences have shaped him yet no one thing defines him.  Sirius remains, as ever, his own person.  It’s wonderful to have you back, Dani! *your faceclaim change to Miles McMillan has been approved.

application beneath the cut

OUT OF CHARACTER

INTRODUCTION

Surprise! It’s me, ya boi! Dani here and I’m 25 now. My preferred pronouns are she/her and I am from Michigan in the US, so EST timezone.

ACTIVITY

I’m going to low-ball and say like 5-6/10 ???  I’ve been working a lot lately, but things are calming down. So definitely at the very least I’ll have a few weeknights free, and then time on the weekends.

HOW DID YOU FIND US?

Old member here! Initially, though, it was through the marauder’s rp tag, I believe.

WHAT HARRY POTTER CHARACTER DO YOU IDENTIFY WITH MOST?

Funnily enough, I’ve always hardcore connected with Sirius. Our personality types are very similar, and I’ve always been the ‘Padfoot’ in groups of friends. And growing older I’ve identified similarities between his upbringing and home life and my own, so yeah. But I also identified with Harry, Hermione, and Luna when I was younger. I don’t exactly remember why, but I did ?  Maybe it was the outcast factor or whatever, but those are all tied for second after Sirius, I think.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I’ve missed you guys, ok.

IN CHARACTER

DESIRED CHARACTER

Sirius Orion Black III ——– He is named for the Dog Star, the most brilliant star in the sky, visible from anywhere on Earth - an actuality he embraces and carries with him from the moment he is able to understand its meaning. Ancient namings signify he is scorching, sparkling, bringing destruction and rebirth. He is important, and his name informs everyone of such.

But he is the point of Canis Major, a hunting dog, ever looking towards his master, Orion. Later, he would think it ironic that he was intended to obediently follow the hunter across the sky. When he was young, though, he did follow his father, his master, with wide eyes and a thirst to learn, to emulate. He did, after all, carry his father’s name as one of his own. He thought it only right that he be his hunter. He learned quickly enough to leave Orion Black be.

His name embraces the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black - a reality he despises when he is older. He is taught to believe that to be a Black, to be a Pureblood is to be royalty. He believes it.

He spends the majority of his childhood being trained to be the perfect Pureblood heir, to be the perfect Black. He attends many Pureblood-only balls and events, and is taught the proper way to mingle with other Purebloods. He learns manners and etiquette, and he is expected to be a proper child. There are never many other children at the balls, but he is reminded that it is improper to run about and make a fool of oneself like ordinary children; he is, after all, anything but ordinary.

How could he be? His name attests to his brilliance.

FACE CLAIM

Would Miles McMillan be okay?? He’s my ultimate #1 top fave Sirius face.

REASON FOR CHOSEN CHARACTER (tw: mania, depression, alcohol)

This is long, I’m so sorry but not really. But Sirius Black has been one of my favorite literary characters since I was in 3rd grade and first read Prisoner of Azkaban. There was just always something about him, and I don’t even know how to put into words how much I love Sirius Black. I remember the moment I fell in love with him, though, was when I was reading PoA and this man who had just spent the last twelve years wrongly imprisoned for an horrific crime he didn’t commit, and who had just spent the last year on the run with his godson thinking him responsible for betraying James and Lily, offers for Harry to leave the Dursley’s and move in with him. Even after everything he had been through, he was still willing to immediately take in Harry and take his place as his rightful guardian. It breaks my heart that they were never able to be a proper family, but that’s discourse for another time!

Sirius was really the first character I ever really roleplayed, and he’s been living and growing in my head for six or seven years now, as silly as that sounds. My Sirius muse is always active and talkative and ready for action, and I love being able to put him out there and develop him further and still learn new things about him even after all this time (reference, yus!). I’ve always just felt a real connection with him. Maybe it’s because I see parts of myself in him, or maybe it’s because it’s just always been really natural and easy for me to get into his head and way of thinking. He’s always been more than just a character to me.

His personality, for me, has developed a lot since the early days. I think it’s easy to get sucked into fanon interpretation early on, especially with characters that have a really strong fandom presence. But I’m really proud of the character he’s become, and I think he strays from a lot of typical fanon stereotypes. One of the biggest stereotypes - and one that really bothers me - is that Sirius is some kind of Don Juan-Lothario-playboy-heartbreaker-type.

“With another shock of excitement, Harry saw Sirius give James the thumbs-up….a girl sitting behind him was eyeing him hopefully, though he didn’t seem to have noticed.”

Sirius’ main concern has always been, and will always be, his friends. He cares far more for his Marauders and their pranks than he does for birds and sleeping around. He’s a flirt, yes, but only because he’s charming and needs to grace everyone with that charm. It’s harmless flirting, and it’s not his fault if anyone takes it as anything other than that.

I also love dabbling in the Black side of Sirius. While Sirius is a very good person, I think a lot of that is due to him being sorted in Gryffindor and befriending James Potter. Without his influence, I think Sirius would be a very different person. Not all of that is inherent, but Sirius definitely has a cruel, cunning streak in him (i.e. that time he almost killed Snape). A lot of it is in his nature, and some remains from his upbringing; our early years and development have a huge impact on the people we become. So, I think it’s interesting, especially in the state of the world as it currently is, to play with just what parts of Sirius’ personality become more dominant. Add to that Sirius being part of the Aversio, and I think it’s a really great combination of ruthless, cunning cruelty and the person the Marauders helped him become to create something new all together. I’d be really interested to see how that changes him and, maybe, influences a shift to the Sirius he could have been had he not met James and the Marauders.

In my headcanon, as well, Sirius is living with undiagnosed Bipolar Disorder. It won’t ever be diagnosed or named in-game since they’re living in 1979 (it’s still fairly misunderstood now), but it definitely affects him. I feel like his upswings are pretty intense, and it usually results in him wanting to be out all the time and doing things, and he feels infallible and invincible, and he’s a lot more likely to be reckless and make snap decisions. He definitely has a tendency towards dangerous ideas that he thinks are absolutely brilliant (see: the Prank with Snape). On the other end of it, though, Sirius’ lows are very low, and he self-medicates with alcohol when he ’s suffering from the worst of his depression (see: pretty much all of Order of the Phoenix). But I don’t think that Sirius recognizes the depression as such. It’s a lot easier for him to acknowledge when he’s feeling great and on top of the world as opposed to when he’s feeling like shit and struggles with getting out of bed in the morning. He’s a lot more likely to hide that side of himself, too, and play it off with a smirk and light-hearted joke at someone else’s expense.

PREFERRED SHIPS // CHARACTER SEXUALITY // GENDER & PRONOUNS   (tw: slurs, mentions of body dysphoria)

If someone were to ask Sirius his gender and sexuality, though, he would quirk a brow and scoff and let out a bark of laughter because, obviously, he’s got a cock and he’s not a queer, what sort of daft question is that? But his closest friends know that he enjoys the company of both men and women, although lately he’s sought out men more often than not.

Sirius doesn’t remember the exact moment when he realized that he was attracted to men. Maybe it was sometime in his third year, when he had accompanied James to watch the Quidditch team practice. Maybe he had caught himself staring at one of the seventh years - a boy with shaggy brown hair and a strong jaw - as he flew around the Pitch. Maybe he had felt the distinct swoop in his stomach as he had watched, and maybe he had imagined what it would be like to kiss the older boy.

But Sirius only really remembers being too afraid to say anything to James, Remus, and Peter, being afraid that it would change everything and they would think him a freak, a faggot they didn’t want to be friends with, anymore. James found out, though, and nothing changed between them, and soon after so did Remus and Peter. It became much easier after that to accept that part of himself. He doesn’t hide that amongst his friends or the Order; although the muggle world is less accepting of his sexuality, he doesn’t pay much attention to anyone who gives him shit. He flips them the bird and continues on his way.

What he would never admit to, however, is the many times he has passed frilly shop windows and imagined being able to wear whatever clothes he wants that he sees, or wished he could be as comfortable in his own skin as David Bowie, or Freddie Mercury. Sirius doesn’t always feel exactly right in the body he has, and he doesn’t understand it even a little bit. After all, it’s hard enough to deal with the war; he doesn’t want to even begin to focus on the whole gender bit.

The other thing he would never, ever admit to is the feelings he has harbored for Remus since they were realized in roughly fifth year. He remembers it was an ordinary moment; Remus had been working on an essay and nibbling on the end of his quill, and Sirius had been watching him, entirely too distracted, and it had just…hit him. But, of course, he wasn’t deserving of Remus. He would never be deserving of Remus. Sirius wrestled with the feelings for a good year or so, but he has long since accepted them without hope for it ever changing.

In modern terminology, he would identify as a gender-fluid demiromantic pansexual, but that’s too fancy and way ahead of his time, so all he knows is that he’s queer - just another way in which he would have disappointed his family.

As far as ships go, I’m def wolfstar trash. They were my first real ship and I love them to pieces. That being said, Sirius/Chemistry is my #1 jam. The only thing is that he isn’t always into serious relationships unless he’s good friends with the person first. In my headcanon, he’s never had a real, serious relationship (although every relationship is most certainly a Sirius one, lmao), but he doesn’t feel wanting, necessarily. Relationships aren’t exactly a priority right now when there are bigger things to worry about.

EXTRAS

&;;—— PERSONALITY TRAITS (tw: alcohol, mentioned violence/blood)

✓ Funny ——- “Did you like question ten, Moony?”

He is barking laughter and poorly timed jokes, puns upon puns - seriously. A grin as wide as the day is long, carefree and easy. Light in the black of war; white sheep in the Black family. His good humor has covered him and carried him through all that he’s seen. It’s as much a shield for himself as it is those with whom he surrounds himself.

✓ Loyal | Loving ——- “Died rather than betray your friends, as we would have done for you!”

He is fierce, heart full for those he holds dear. Not many are kept that close, but there is no hesitation when asked to give his life. Warmth and comfort, in the crook of his smile and the corners of his eyes. Brilliance and steadfast companionship: a dog is man’s best friend.

✓/✕ Strong-minded | Judgemental ——- “Besides, the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside us.”

He is a tree rooted to the earth, tall and proud. Unmoving and firm against the hailing storm. Beliefs, unwavering, unwilling to hear. Opposition is wrong, and he knows it as well as he knows the stories written in the night sky. He is strong-willed and stubborn; a brick wall would be more receptive. He thinks himself open-minded, but it is only another belief.

✕ Doesn’t think through consequences ——- “What is life without a little risk?”

He is snap decisions made in the heat of the moment. Turbulent and emotional, judgement shifts as easily as debris caught in the tide. Words, biting, leaving scars as easily as laughter erases them from his mind. Passing thoughts in an endless stream of chaos - why waste time paying mind to outcomes when you can just act?

✕ Hellacious attitude ——- “There are things worth dying for!”

He is 2 am, leather, and a mess of discarded liquor bottles scattered about the floor. Blood-kissed knuckles and knuckle-kissed jaw. Smirks and sighs toppling from carved lips. Caught in a tempest, winds whipping his hair about his face, unable to see, blindly stumbling along, deafening roars threaten to consume him - one foot in front of the other. Raw magic crackling in the air, electricity against your skin; a beautiful sight when it implodes.

&;;—— WAND: As badly as Sirius sometimes wishes his wand was made from Dogwood (think of the irony! the puns! the beauty of the universe!), he was chosen by a Cypress wood wand with a Dragon Heartstring core, 15 inches, rigid.

“Cypress wands are associated with nobility. The great medieval wandmaker, Geraint Ollivander, wrote that he was always honoured to match a cypress wand, for he knew he was meeting a witch or wizard who would die a heroic death. Fortunately, in these less blood-thirsty times, the possessors of cypress wands are rarely called upon to lay down their lives, though doubtless many of them would do so if required. Wands of cypress find their soul mates among the brave, the bold and the self-sacrificing: those who are unafraid to confront the shadows in their own and others’ natures.”

Sirius won’t think about the wandlore behind cypress wands and their masters dying a heroic death until the fleeting, infinite moment in which he begins to fall in the Department of Mysteries. He will think it ironic, then, that his death is hardly heroic at all; that, naturally, James and Lily had far more heroic deaths than him. (He will also think about finally, finally reuniting with them again, and he will think of how sorry he is for leaving Remus and Harry behind, but James, here I come.)

“As a rule, dragon heartstrings produce wands with the most power, and which are capable of the most flamboyant spells. Dragon wands tend to learn more quickly than other types. While they can change allegiance if won from their original master, they always bond strongly with the current owner. The dragon wand tends to be easiest to turn to the Dark Arts, though it will not incline that way of its own accord. It is also the most prone of the three cores to accidents, being somewhat temperamental.”

It is of interest to note that dragon wands tend to be easily swayed towards the Dark Arts. Sirius thinks it should be noted, and then he will tell it to fuck right off, thank you very much. He knows that, had things gone just a little differently, he wouldn’t have had any difficulty using Dark Magic; in fact, he’d have been rather adept at it. Sirius laughs at the notion - and would like to tell the Dark Lord that he can fuck right off, too.

Sirius is a very quick learner. He is intelligent and, when he puts his mind to a task, he is able to stay determined and focused. Magic runs strong in his veins, so it’s only natural he be paired with a wand that is able to keep up with him and his raw power. That being said, however, Sirius’ magic is - too often - unpredictable. It has been since he was a child, and he still experiences outbursts of unintentional magic when his emotions get the better of him; the dragon wand nurtures his accidental magic, at times.

&;;—— PATRONUS: It’s commonplace that a Patronus will match a witch or wizard’s Animagus form, if they happen to be such, and Sirius is no exception. His Patronus takes the form of a dog, matching that of his Animagus counterpart: a bear-like German Shepherd. German Shepherds are known for being intelligent, loyal, and fiercely over-protective. Any close friend of his would attest to the fact that Sirius exemplifies those qualities. He is a bright wizard, and he would do anything for those he cares about.

&;;—— The best thing that has ever happened: ”I know that you will make us proud, Sirius.”

No one ever expected Sirius to be a Gryffindor; he certainly hadn’t when he had stepped up to the stool to be sorted his first year at Hogwarts. His entire family had come from Slytherin. He even knew that, somewhere in his lineage, he was related to Salazar Slytherin himself. But as Sirius’ attention had drifted to the far table of green and silver, he had felt a tug in his stomach that he hadn’t really understood.

….“GRYFFINDOR!”

He ignored the shouts and jests coming from the Slytherin table to rightfully take his place amongst the lions of Hogwarts. He was joined, thankfully, by James and the redhead he had met with the greasy boy (he was grateful - and always would be - that the greasy one ended up in Slytherin).

It wasn’t before he was whisked away to his dorm and he got to know his fellow dormmates: one sickly-looking boy named Remus and a short, ordinary boy named Peter. Sirius thought he could do without Remus and Peter. Who needed them when he had James, his best friend? But Remus and Peter did prove themselves when they turned the greasy boy’s hair a bright shade of pink for a week. That, Sirius decided, was enough to earn his respect.

The four of them quickly became inseparable, and Sirius decided that being a Lion was worth the consequent Howlers he received, even if meant returning from the Christmas hols with bruises hidden beneath scratchy sweaters.

&;;—— And the worst:“Blood traitor! Filth! Scum!“

He tried not to cry out as his mother punished him one final time for being an insolent disgrace; he wouldn’t give her the pleasure. He was worse for the wear, however, when she finished with him and sent him off to think about his disobedience. Again. Sirius sat, on the edge of his bed, trembling; it was out of his control. He thought, but it didn’t take long for him to realize what he must do.

He needed to leave.

He hastily threw what belongings he could into his school trunk, gathering up anything he deemed important. He was able to perform a simple expansion and levitation charm - he decided he could deal with the Ministry later - and led his trunk out of his room. But he knew he needed to stop at his brother’s room before he left.

Sirius loved his brother and he has always loved his brother, but Regulus was not like him. He was weak-minded and bent to the wishes of their parents. Sirius always wanted to keep Regulus safe from them, from Mother, but he went to school and was sorted into Gryffindor and it changed. He became the disgrace, and it had been up to Regulus to be the perfect son. Sirius never wanted that for him, and he didn’t want that for him now. So he tried to bring Regulus with him. He wanted to ask, wanted him to leave and escape the hell they had grown up in.

But Regulus didn’t leave with him. He wasn’t like Sirius. He was an idiot, and he didn’t leave. So Sirius goes. But not before he watched as his mother blasted his name from the family tree.

(Sirius still regrets not making Regulus leave with him.)

&;;—— AESTHETICS here [x] and here [x]

&;;—— PLOT POINTS    ~ I really want to explore the conflict that Sirius is facing between his loyalty to his friends and his allegiance to Aversio. He very, very strongly believes that the Order isn’t doing enough, but he knows that a lot of Aversio’s tactics and such clash with the Order. He knows that there are many friends and allies that would look down on his involvement in the group, and he loathes to disappoint them. But Sirius is firm in his convictions. He isn’t one to waver in his decisions, and he truly believes that Aversio is the action the world needs. Again, however, that contradicts his closest friends, and I want to explore how Sirius reacts in such a situation. I want to push his loyalty to the limits and see what he does when it really comes down to it.

~  On the same note, I would love to have some of his closer friends find out about his involvement in the rogue organization. I feel like I know Sirius fairly well, but I honestly don’t know how he would react in such a situation that calls to question where his loyalties truly lie. I think it would be an interesting bit of character development to really put the pressure on him like that.

~  Sirius has a dark side, whether he would like to admit to it or not. It’s part of who he is, so deeply ingrained in his being that he doesn’t recognize it in the slightest. But it’s there. War tends to bring out the worst in people, and I want it to do so to Sirius. I want to mess him up, to play with his mind and pit him against himself until he no longer knows what he is or where he stands. I want to dive into the more psychological aspects of the affect of the war, especially since this is full AU now. If he doesn’t end up getting messed up in Azkaban, I have to mess him up somehow  =)

IN CHARACTER QUESTIONNAIRE

♔ If you were able to invent one spell, potion, or charm, what would it do, what would you use it for or how would you use it? Feel free to name it: “S’pose I’d make one that’d be able to track the greater London area,” Sirius answers with a smirk, wand twirling between slender fingers. He shifts, eyebrows flashing. “Y’know, something along the lines of magical cartography, but…big. Large scale. Easy spell, I’d imagine, if you could figure out the scale.” If they put their minds to it, Sirius is sure he, James, Remus, and Peter could come up with something. “Be able to locate anyone anywhere in all of London just by looking at a map. Imagine how bloody brilliant it’d be!”

♔ You have to venture deep into the Forbidden Forest one night. Pick one other character and one object (muggle or magical), besides your wand, that you’d want with you: “James, Remus, and Peter. Package deal, yeah?” He quirks a brow. “Probably bring James’ cloak - usually do. It’s a bloody miracle, that thing. Gotten us outta loads of trouble over the years.”

♔ What kinds of decisions are the most difficult for you to make? Sirius grins, back straightening - pride rolling off square shoulders. “Well thought out ones. That’s what I’m told, anyhow. I’m better at the quick ones, the real difficult ones.”

♔ What is one thing you would never want said about you? He hesitates, smile faltering - though he catches it, corrects it before it can be noticed (he hopes). “I dunno,” he says, gaze averted, a shoulder shrugging. A pause. A flash of an image behind his eyes - his friends, hollow-eyed, telling him that he’s a Black, through and through, just like them, can never escape it, terrible awful cruel heartless Black. “That I’m like them. Because I’m not. I’m so much better than they are.”

REACTION TO LAST EVENT DROP

One of Sirius’ biggest fears - a pardoned Orion - had been just on the horizon - a horrible truth born of the wavering fealty of the Ministry to the people it should serve. The Ministry had not proven useful in any form when it had come to dismantling the threat of the Death Eaters, nor action been its strong suit. So, it was with gusto that Sirius had volunteered to finally -finally - do something about the useless Ministry. It was with little regret, no mercy that Sirius would have raided the Ministry, striking down anyone in his way, fear and rage and a childhood that haunted his every memory of Orion Black fueling his actions. Until–

It was too late. The Death Eaters had taken the Ministry, and Sirius couldn’t help but blame his hatred for his father for blinding him to what had happened that night. So, he fled, with those closest to him, to a safe house far from London’s ground zero, shame and disgust at his own actions grasping hold of him, crippling any sense of logic that may have remained. Sirius fell back - too quiet, maybe, not as bright as he was supposed to shine.

Still, as they settled in Scotland, worked towards a new goal, a new plan of action, Sirius found himself not quite wavering from the ideals that drew him to Aversio; again, they were waiting, holding back while the Death Eaters took hold of London. Again, inaction, when there should be something, some retaliation to show that they were still there, still fighting, and wouldn’t Lord Voldemort win. But - nothing. And Sirius wondered how differently the war might be if Aversio had full control over the decisions, over the course of action.

WRITING SAMPLE

(this is from an old post on here, i hope that’s okay! i’m just hella fond of this one, tbh)

In his youth, when the sky had appeared infinitely brighter and the days seemingly endless, when everywhere could bring forth a new adventure with little to no warning, when the silken tendrils of optimism wound around his body, weaving between pale fingers, toes - gently cradling and protecting; then, Knockturn Alley had not frightened him. But he had been young, naive. He hadn’t known the manner of the witches and wizards who frequented the cobbled street and dark, slanted buildings. They had towered over him, then, and he had stared back, challenging whatever authority they wordlessly claimed. He had challenged the world.

But, as it so often is, childhood naivety gave way to harsh truths, and accompanying his father to Knockturn Alley no longer offered boundless adventure. Instead, he saw the buildings for what they were, the witches and wizards as the cruel people they had always been. He saw the shadowed sky, tucked away behind pointed rooftops, and just how unlike its neighbor, Diagon Alley, it was. The Alley was no place for decent witches or wizards, which was why he supposed the Blacks held such fondness for it.

Now, Sirius had no need to traverse the uneven, dismal avenue, and yet… here he was. Hands stuffed into pockets, fist firm around his wand, Sirius averted his eyes, silently cursing the bloody wanker who had volunteered him for this bloody “mission,” although he was loath to describe it as such. Inquire about such and such item at some shoddy shite-hole shop, speaking only to Git McWanker blah, blah, blah. It was a fucking waste of time, was what it was.

Yet, here he was, pointedly staring at books on a shelf in some corner of Knockturn Alley - many of which he recognized as titles from the walls of the Black family library. They dredge up images of the study and lessons and evenings spent pouring over texts he had no care for, all in the name of properly educating the heir, or some bollocks. He almost scoffed at the thought, adjusting his jacket as he eyed the shopkeeper. Feign interest, then approach him for information; it was a decent enough plan, but Sirius was stopped in his tracks by the woman that rounded the corner.

Eyes locked, drinking up the vision before him - something out of a dream, a nightmare - and he was suddenly eight beneath her gaze, frightened and angry and improper, insolent, yet again. Hands balled at his sides, shoulders tense, and he resisted the visceral pull to back away, run away, get away from her. Instead, his jaw set and he held her gaze - challenging her command over him, because she now had none.

“It’s comforting to know that some things never change,” he remarked brazenly, determination settling squarely atop his shoulders. “Seeing you here, I mean. Of all places. Picking up a new addition to the library, hmm? Perhaps a copy of Magick Moste Pure: Grimoire of Pureblood Fuckery? I hear that’s been selling quite nicely with your crowd.” He sneered, arms crossing over his chest - tight. “Oughta be careful who sees you walking around with that shite. Hear the Ministry’s got eyes and ears everywhere these days. You’d hate to be caught up in all that, now, wouldn’t you, Mother?” The word was spat, harsh and mocking; she was nothing to him now.

[joie-university-rp]

Dear SILAS HART,

It is with great pleasure we invite you admission to Joie University! Welcome to the Thunderclap family!

-

Congratulations, MOE! Please be sure to check the New Members’ Checklist and send in your character’s account within 24 hours from now. We cannot wait to see all that you will bring to this roleplay! We love you already!

OOC INFORMATION:

Name/Alias; pronouns: Moe; she/her

Age, Timezone: 22 (birthday!!) EST

Activity, short explanation: Just, like… always here.

Ships: Silas/Chemistry, Silas/No Chemistry (for plot)

Anti-Ships: N/A

Triggers: RFP

Preferred photo for Character’s ID (please give a link): I make the IDs. I’ll find one.

Anything else: Heyyyyy, Daisy.

IC INFORMATION:

Full Name (First, Middle, Last): Silas David Hart

FC: Samuel Larsen

Age/Year at University (Freshman [1st Year], Sophomore, Junior, Senior, or Graduate Student): 22, 1st year grad student

Birth date (MONTH DAY, YEAR): Sept. 25th, 1999

Hometown (please be sure to check the hometowns listed for characters your muse is related to!): Twinsburg, OH

Gender/Pronouns: Male; he/him

Sexuality: Queer

Major(s): Make-Up Design (Focus: SPX make up)

Minor(s) [optional]: Computer and Information Sciences

Housing request (remember, only the president of a Greek Organization is required to live at a Greek House to be in it!): AXi House, Suite 3

Extracurriculars (Click here for the list. Be sure to specify any executive board positions [i.e. president, secretary, etc.] If something isn’t listed, please put it here and we will add it to the masterlist!): Drama techies, Robotics club, Archery, LGBTQ+ Association

Greek Life Affiliation [optional] (Please be sure to specify any executive board positions [i.e. president, pledge educator, etc.] or if your character is not yet a member, but plans to rush): AXi

CHARACTER PROFILE:

[At least] 3 Headcanons for your character:

TW: Character injury

Silas was born in Twinsburg, Ohio a few minutes after his identical twin brother, Joe. The two spent all of their developmental years in Twinsburg, but Silas had known since around middle school that he eventually wanted to go out and see what the world had for him.

Silas and Joe’s parents were both highly religious, but they were also recognizing of the need to allow their sons to find their own paths in life. Although they did encourage the two to study Catholicism, they never pushed it once the two were old enough to start making their own decisions. As a result, Silas is someone in the middle when it comes to religious belief and the importance (or lackthereof) of there being a God. It varies day by day.

Silas is someone who has always held himself in high regard. He has always been happy to acknowledge the fact that he is traditionally attractive, and although he does his best not to be too smug about it–he does still recognize the importance of humility, after all–he’s also more than aware of the advantages that being attractive can give him.

Silas has always had an obsession with how things look and how things work. As he grew older, he began flipping cars–rebuilding and redesigning them from scratch.

Silas can play the guitar and carry a tune, but music isn’t really much of a priority to him.

Although Silas is far from shy, he never felt much desire to be in the spotlight. Instead, he found pleasure in watching a performance and knowing that he was one of the reasons why things worked and looked as good as they did. This led to his role as a techie in middle school and high school theatre, and eventually led to him realizing that he wanted to pursue a career in special effects make up and possibly stage design.

Tired of small towns, Silas got his undergrad degree in make-up design at NYU and was a frequenter of many of the bars that Kurt Hummel bartended at; they found themselves talking quite a bit.

Towards the end of Silas’ senior year at NYU, his mother suffered a fall while their father was at work that resulted in her breaking her hip. It was an injury that Mrs. Hart was able to almost fully recover from, but it also re-highlighted the importance of family in Silas’ mind. Not wanting to experience something like that happening again, Silas packed back up and found somewhere much closer to home where he could continue his education so that he could take the 30 minute drive home whenever necessary.

STUDENT CENSUS SURVEY:

(Please answer the following questions IN CHARACTER. Responses can be as long or short as you see fit!)

What made you want to attend Joie University? “It was really just a situation where multiple paths intersected and pointed in the same direction: I wanted to continue to schooling, I wanted to be close to Joe and my parents, I was getting sick of the “hustle and bustle” of the big city… Maybe it’s more of the universe wanting me here than me wanting me here.”

What are at least 3 positive or neutral and at least 3 negative traits that you believe you possess? “I’d consider myself pretty laid back–as laid back as someone who’d actually bother acknowledging that they’re laid back would be, I guess. I’m definitely frugal–not cheap, but frugal–and… you know, all the more basic things everyone says like ‘creative’. As far as negative? I definitely enjoy my alone time when I get in a certain headspace. I could see that being negative. I’m also not the easiest person to get along with if someone just… keeps messing up the same thing over and over. I fucking hate that shit. As far as a third one? I don’t know… I’m not the most on-time person that even existed. That’s definitely one.”

Which of your traits do you value most? “Personally? Well… creative, actually. Had I read ahead to the future questions, I wouldn’t’ve shit on it so bad.”

How can that trait benefit the University (or its student body) as a whole? “Creativity’s just generally a good thing to have. It’s how things evolve and change. Society marches on and all that.”

What do you hope to gain from your experience at JU? “…A graduate degree?”

What is a quote or song lyric that describes you? “If I’d had done for the money I’d have been a fucking lawyer” -Make The Money, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis

[queenxcersei]

emotional about jaime | cersei parallels yet again: tywin’s death. this episode - dealing w grief for prominent figures they aren’t 100% sure how to deal w their own emotions about. main focus on cersei b/c this is a cersei lannister blog, but i have feelings abt jaime i’ll try to contain for the sake of clarity / focusing on the muse. jaimes feel free to @ my w/your thoughts

“The queen felt strangely calm. [... ] And my father. My lord father. Should I scream and tear my hair?** (see readmore) They said that catelyn stark clawed her own face to bloody ribbons when the freys slew her precious robb. Would you like that, father? She wanted to ask him. Or would you want me to be strong? Did you weep for your own father?” - cersei, affc

“It was queer, but he felt no grief. Where are my tears? Where is my rage? Jaime Lannister had never lacked for rage. “Father,” he told the corpse, “it was you who told me tears were a mark of weakness in a man, so you cannot expect that I should cry for you.” “ - jaime, affc

so, i’ll start off w/ the man himself. the paradox with tywin is he’s obsessed with ‘family’ but does not actually care for his individual children beyond their purpose to propagate lannister power-- by forming alliances through marriages, increasing their renown (and thus the family’s), etc.  he is pragmatic, yes, but to the point he fucks his kids up so much that they hate him, or at least cannot decide how to feel about him.

just from these quotes as they stand, you can see both twins struggle plainly with connecting any grief to the death of their father. “he felt no grief / the queen felt strangely calm”. how can you mourn someone you grew to hate? when, some part of you, though you can’t quite acknowledge it (isn’t it wrong? aren’t you supposed to be sad when a parent dies?), is glad that this immense shadow has faded, the eyes that made you feel “weak/worthless/ugly” are closed forever? their reactions are great examples of kids trying to deal with their emotions towards an abusive parent. they made your life hell, but they’re your parent. that’s meant to mean something, right? but tywin was never a father in the conventional term. he never cuddles his children or tells them they’re doing good. he starves them of any attention and projects his own hypocrisies and fears onto them. despite his icy facade, tywin lannister is a hypersensitive dick. he has a guy locked in the bowels of casterly rock until he starves to death for making a joke about his shit being gold-flecked. insecure much????? and he projects this onto his kids, primarily his ‘’’’golden twins’’’’’ because they hold all the hopes for house lannister, in his eyes. cersei is to be a queen, and jaime is to be the pinnacle of Man ; but both quiet and subordinate as far as concerns their father’s wishes. but also never cowing to the sheep. but also aware of the sheep. but also not caring what they think. but also you’re better than all of them anyway. he highlights his disgust of certain virtues and implies to his kids that they suffer from the same ‘ills’ when they displease him. peak manipulation! and people wonder why cersei and jaime are the way they are.

there is some relief, for both of them. of course it is a terrible event for the sake of their house, as tywin is believed to be the main power of the lannisters throughout the seven kingdoms ( though i have to talk sometime about how that idea is FAKE NEWS! and tywin is not this infallible mastermind everyone thinks he is, he is a huge hypocrite---- back to focus ). cersei fears the brightest star in the west has fallen, but she also revels in the idea of never being forced into a marriage again. never having to take someone into bed again that she does not wish there. she feels like with her father’s death some of her own agency has been restored to her-- a pipedream, of course. this is westeros, and we see in the latter part of the book and the next just how much she will suffer at the hands of patriarchal ideals ( fuck kevan lannister! ). they revere him, but they hate him. a perfect example of this love/hate is exemplified by cersei here:

“Such a man deserves a retinue to attend his needs in hell.” - cersei i, affc.

like?? this?? speaks for itself?? she believes tywin deserves accompaniment in the afterlife akin to a king. and i can’t help, personally, thinking of the ancient rulers ( especially in egypt ) that had servants buried with them to aid them beyond the grave. it shows her idolisation of tywin, but also how she views him. he’s not going up, he’s going down. and i don’t just believe it is because cersei is aware of the atrocities he has committed; it’s how she feels about him. tywin makes his children yearn for that pat of the head, but always withdraws the hand an inch further, forcing them to chase after these impossible ideals he puts in place for them! tywin gets his wish with cersei, she becomes a queen: but it’s still not enough. jaime becomes a renowned knight with many accomplishments: it’s still not enough.

“would you want me to be strong?” / “you told me tears were a sign of weakness in a man”

they even question how their father would want them to process grief!!! he has fucked his kids up so badly they can’t even be sad about his death, nevermind deal with it. the twins don’t even know if crying is ‘correct’, or if their father would be glaring down on them, disgusted with the show of ‘’’’’’weakness’’’’ (SUCH a toxic concept). it’s more Lannisters Bottling Up Emotion, and it isn’t healthy. 

talking specifically of cersei: own father kept her locked up in a tower from the age of twelve to fifteen when he sent for her to join him at court. he denied every suitor because he wanted his daughter to be queen no matter what. jaime even talks about cersei growing more beautiful and ‘womanly’ locked up there; i can’t help think of rapunzel in her tower, locked up and barred by some patriarchal ideal that she has to be kept pure and untouchable until her [parental figure] finds her a husband suitable (in their eyes) for her.  ( then she burns her tower, her PRISON FOR YEARS, in affc..... my emotions ). and tywin makes a prisoner of cersei in more ways than just the literal. his control over his daughter is immense, and i believe he is a huge factor in her paranoia, her overreaction, her constant self-checking------ -- - and, of course, her internalised misogyny. his gaze pins her to her chair, and even tyrion feels pity for cersei. TYRION. “you are the queen, he should be begging your permission to leave” or w/e the quote is. cersei is the most powerful person in the room, but she turns to a child every time her father is near. a huge indicator for an abuser; i don’t believe tywin hit his children, but the emotional abuse... i’m not even touching on tyrion here, but think tysha. tyrion certainly gets the ABSOLUTE WORST of tywin’s treatment, but i don’t think cersei and jaime got off anywhere near scot free. tywin uses her as a pawn, and blatantly does not give a shit that his daughter was constantly r/aped and a/bused by her husband. women were made to smile and reproduce. as long as cersei did not make a fuss about it  ( and i hc part of her silence is the idea that her father would condemn her for being so weak as to either let it happen (disgusting), or to complain about it to him as if she cannot deal with it herself. which, she does. but how horrific is it that his own daughter didn’t feel she could come to him with her abuse? instead, she turns to jaime. but that’s a whole other meta. )

talking specifically of jaime: tywin disowns his own son for not acquiescing to his desires!!!! he tells his prized son that he is not a member of this family anymore, for not obeying Orders. as he should, because tywin’s children should be wrenches and hammers, tools for exercising his will. and tywin usually gets what he wants, by whatever means necessary. his brutality is legendary; his kids are no exception to this rule. jaime, it could be said, suffers the worst of all three from his father’s endless (impossible) expectations. he is to rule the rock, but also be an infallible knight, but also a commander, but also loyal to tywin/TheFamily alone, but also have wives and produce heirs, but also never complain about any of it and have any desires of his own. also let’s just mention how tywin uses his knowledge of jaime+tyrion’s closeness to manipulate jaime into aiding with the whole tysha scheme, leaving jaime with immense misplaced guilt and troubling memories. his father tells him at the age of ~eight that love is worthless because you cannot feed a horse with it, or keep a house warm with it. 

he wants control of them, and to get that control, he makes them compete for his approval / ‘love’. this obviously creates resentment, discord; and is another example of why i think tywin isn’t all the tactical mastermind people believe him to be. his tactics are all very well short-term, but long-term... there are many examples and fgs i’ll write this later, but in terms of his kids: they don’t know what parental love is meant to feel like, they idolise this abusive prick who is a hypocrite of his own ideals (married for love/has whores/is hugely insecure/ACTUALLY MAKES BAD DECISIONS SOMETIMES??) and places such high expectations on his kids that they break their backs trying to reach them. he wants his children to be empty little vesicles for his own desires, and by ignoring their individuality and pitting them against one another, he creates the downfall of his own house! i love this house of self-destructive idiots! i hate this house!

below: for me it is further evidence of how fucked the children of tywin are that they can’t even process SADNESS because what is an attachment beyond each other, as one another are the only love each has ever come to know? forget conventionality, forget the realm, forget what other people think. no one matters but each other, because, FAMILY IS ALL THAT MATTERS. ANYONE BUT A LANNISTER IS LESSER, right? thanks for the life fuckery lessons, dad.

“He was curiously calm. Men were supposed to go mad with grief when their children died, he knew. They were supposed to *tear their hair out by the roots, to curse the gods and swear red vengeance. So why was it that he felt so little?” - jaime asos

just had to highlight this Cool Comparison between cersei and jaime’s povs and how the parallels reiterate what i’m trying to say here about difficulty processing grief. and also, vague sidenote, about tearing hair out and how both twins lose their hair as a symbol of death/rebirth and the various literary implications of that------- but focusing on grief:

this quote is jaime finding out about joffrey’s death. he explains his difficulty feeling sadness, telling himself that it is because ‘joffrey was more robert’s than his’ as an excuse. he had no attachment to the boy, bc he didn’t feel like he should have one. cersei told him early on how that could endanger them, and he didn’t care. ‘robert was welcome to him’-- though this might be bias of hindsight-- he dislikes joffrey in the present-- but it is also seen in jaime’s jealousy colouring his view------ jaime lannister is inherently selfish, especially when it comes to his twin, and joffrey “took up too much of cersei’s time, cersei’s love, and cersei’s breasts.” ( still laughs 100 yrs later at jaime getting jealous of a baby breastfeeding ). 

[tipsycad147]

Why do people become Pagan? The top ten reasons

Posted by Michelle Gruben on Mar 02, 2017

“Why are you Pagan?” If you were to ask this question of a dozen people, you would probably get a dozen different answers. For Christians (and others who believe in one true God) the revival of polytheism may be confounding. For others, it is hard to understand why a sensible modern person would seem to turn their back on science to worship the gods of old.

Before we get too far along, let's cover some background info. Paganism is defined broadly as non-Abrahamic religion that is Nature-based, polytheistic, or both. Wiccans, for instance, generally worship a creator Goddess and a God who is Her consort. The Wiccan cosmology does not acknowledge the existence of the Christian God (or the concepts of Satan and Hell).

Wicca is the best-known of modern Pagan religions, but there are many sub-groups and branches of Pagan belief and practice. Druidism, neo-Shamanism, Greek/Roman reconstructionism, and Norse Heathenry are just a few. There are also eclectic Pagans who combine elements from various traditions to make their own “flavor” of Paganism. While occult practices (e.g., divination and spellcasting) are common in Paganism, not all Pagans participate in these practices. Conversely, not everyone who is involved in the occult is a Pagan.

Most Pagans are polytheist, meaning they recognise the existence of more than one God. But there is more to Paganism than “the more, the merrier!” Here are some general traits of Pagan religions (keep in mind that not every religion will have them all): Rejection of Judeo-Christian cosmology, observance of seasonal rites, reverence toward Nature, rejection of religious authority and focus on individual experiences, paranormal/psychic beliefs and practices, emphasis on personal responsibility over sin or evil.

Not surprisingly, a preference for one or more of these traits is what attracts many people to Pagan religions—but we’ll get to that in a moment.

At the risk of stating the obvious, religion is a choice. If a person follows a Pagan religion, they are expressing a preference for Paganism over another religion, or no religion. Thinking about the reasons why people choose to become Pagan can lead to better understanding of Pagan friends and family. If you are Pagan, you may even learn something about yourself!

For the record, I’m Pagan in a mixed-religion household. This (totally unscientific) list is based on my own observations within the Pagan community. I’ve tried to present them in a way that’s inclusive and fair. Without further ado, here are some of the most common reasons why people choose to follow a Pagan religion:

1. They were raised Pagan.

Contemporary Pagan groups began forming in the 1930s, and achieved breakthrough status with the emergence of Wicca in the 1950s. Before that time, very few people in the West were raised Pagan. If you wanted to be initiated in a Pagan tradition, you had to seek one out—often at great expense to your personal or professional reputation.

Nowadays, that’s not the case. Neo-Paganism as a social/demographic phenomenon is in its third generation. It’s fairly common to find adults who were raised Pagan, or even whose parents were raised Pagan! It’s also possible to find those who were raised Pagan, but left Paganism. “Mom used to go out in the woods with her friends and do weird stuff—I never really got into it.”)

Some Pagan clergy will participate in the general blessing of infants and children, such as the ritual of “Wiccaning.” However, most Pagan paths do not have formal initiation for children. Pagans also overwhelmingly value religious choice. If someone continues their Pagan practice into adulthood, it is likely because they found something meaningful in it.

2. They want sexual acceptance and/or sexual freedom.

Of all the world religions, Paganism is arguably the most tolerant of the varied expression of human sexuality. Sex is considered a divine gift and a sacred rite. Lusty Gods and fertile Goddesses appear in all the major pantheons. (Along with gender-bending, raunchy stories, and other sexy fun.) For most Pagans, sex is just no big deal as long as it’s between consenting adults (or deities).

Pagan groups almost universally accept gay members, and some traditions even have queer or queer-leaning branches (Radical Faeries, Dianic Wicca). Pagan activists have been on the forefront of the struggle for equal rights. Compare that to the sluggish response of churches—even liberal churches—to embrace LGBTQ members and clergy, and you’ll understand why sexual minorities have been so attracted to Paganism. For people who are used to hearing their sexual desires called dirty, sinful, or shameful, the difference can be life-changing.

It’s not just queer folks who embrace Paganism as a safe­ haven. Horny folks do, too. In most Pagan belief systems, sex is not considered a sin but a morally neutral act. Sex for fun is fun, sex for magick is magick. It’s not how much sex you’re having, but your intention that characterises the act. The only moral imperative is in how you’re treating yourself and your partners.

Partners? Oh, yes! Polyamory, group sex, and (legal) exhibitionism are accepted within some Pagan communities. That’s an undeniable treat for people who want to enjoy these activities without religious shame.

3. They don’t care for dogma and/or authority.

There is no holy book, no central governing body, and no real priestly authority within the mass of related beliefs filed under Paganism. This is great news for people of a certain temperament—religious rebels and militant agnostics. (“I don’t know, and you don’t either!”)

As a social movement, neo-Paganism is deeply indebted to the Transcendentalist writers of the 19th century. Their poems and essays held the germ of the idea that fuels Pagan practice: That God speaks directly to everyone—often through Nature—and not only to a specially qualified few, inside special buildings.

Some Pagan groups do have ordained clergy. But there are still significant differences between Pagan clergy and those of more established organised religions:

First, Pagan titles like “High Priestess” are usually self-conferred or passed along from student to teacher. This does not mean that they’re not “real” clergy, but it does mean that their power is limited outside their own group or coven. (A Pagan leader may also be ordained as a minister by another organisation, such as the Church of All Worlds or the Unitarian Universalist church. This allows them to receive certain legal privileges that independent Pagan clergy usually do not enjoy.)

Secondly, Pagan clergy tend to function more as community leaders than authority figures. Pagan priesthood does not confer any real power over others, either temporal or spiritual. Most Pagan leaders encourage discussion and self-study by their students and congregants. Certainly a dedicated Priest or Priestess will have more experience working with their deities than a beginner. They may have the skills to do rituals or advanced deity work that a novice does not. In a sense, though, every Pagan is their own Priest or Priestess—and the best Pagan clergy respect that. This makes Paganism very attractive to those who don’t want to experience God(s) secondhand.

4. They long for a connection to Nature.

The earth, the trees, the sky, the sea—most world religions recognise these wonders as the work of a mighty creator God. And yet, most leave it at that.

Not so with Paganism. Pagan religions are sometimes described as “Earth-based”—meaning the Earth and its cycles are central to what Pagans hold sacred. Most Pagans profess a deep reverence for natural places, the seasons, the web of plants and animals, and the processes of birth, ageing, and dying. While it’s not technically required, many Pagan services are held outdoors. “Skyclad” (nude) rites are another way that Pagans shed the trappings of modern society and get back to the core of being.

Some people come to Paganism as an extension of their environmentalist or eco-feminist views. Others simply want to reconnect with Nature as an antidote to the alienation that comes with busy, digitised lives.

5. They’ve had negative experiences with other religions.

It’s a sad but undeniable fact. People who turn toward one religion are often, with the same movement, turning away from a religion that has hurt them. If you spend enough time in Pagan communities, you will certainly meet some of these displaced folks.

Perhaps a certain religious doctrine—such as the prohibition against homosexuality—is causing the person emotional pain. Maybe they’re frustrated with persecution, corruption, or hypocrisy within the religious group they came from. Or maybe they’re rebelling against the religious beliefs of a parent or spouse. Whatever the case, Paganism appears to offer a chance for a fresh start, one with less restriction and oversight than they may be used to. Pagans don’t evangelise—which may make them seem more trustworthy to folks who have been burned.

As with all life choices, there are right and wrong reasons to become a Pagan. And you can’t ever really know someone else’s motives. The best thing that Pagans can do is treat religious refugees kindly, answer their questions honestly, and wait for them to figure out if Paganism is right for them.

6. They have trouble with the concepts of sin and evil.

Of all the barriers between Pagan beliefs and Abrahamic religion, the idea of sin is the thorniest. Original sin is a tough doctrine to swallow, even for many Christians. Who wants to suffer for something that happened before they were born? That Paganism has no equivalent concept to sin and sinfulness is one of its biggest selling points, so to speak. (Pagan beliefs about the origin/existence of evil are so diverse I won’t even try to tackle the topic here.)

As mentioned earlier, there’s no single Pagan concept of God. Still, one idea you see over and over in Paganism is the doctrine of non-dual immanence. God/Goddess existing here and now, and not in some distant place or kingdom to come. Lack of meditation or participation or acceptance can distance us from the sacred, but God/Goddess is always there. Furthermore, divinity is present within the material world, and the world is inseparable from its creator.

All of this is pretty difficult to reconcile with Judeo-Christian ideas about original sin and the fall of man. (Some Hermetic Pagans do accept them as metaphorical/alchemical truths—but that’s a whole other beaker of worms.) In Biblical cosmology, the world is created by God, but separate from God. The world we know is basically fallen and can only be redeemed through God’s intervention. In Paganism, the world we know is basically holy and does not require redemption. (Only observation and celebration, if we want to be happy and—perhaps—please the Gods.) The other worlds are holy, too—not more, nor less.

As for behaviour? Paganism emphasises individual freedom and responsibility over moral absolutism. Most Pagans live by an individual moral/ethical code, but shun universal behavioural codes. Pagan ethics have been heavily influenced by the Wiccan Rede: “An it harm none, do what ye will.” This in turn derives from Aleister Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”—possibly the most mis-interpreted eleven words of all time.

It’s not that Pagans believe that you can or should do whatever you want. On the contrary, Paganism teaches that actions (and even thoughts) reverberate through the universe to affect oneself and others. There’s no real concept of sin, but Paganism is not amoral. In encouraging moral behaviour, Paganism substitutes concepts like karma, duty, interconnectedness, for a paternal god figure keeping score.

7. They yearn for representations of the Divine Feminine.

Dion Fortune wrote “A religion without a Goddess is halfway to atheism.” Women’s bodies are the carriers of life. And yet, many world religions downplay or denigrate the contribution of women. In Abrahamic religions, women can be vessels and saints, but are rarely prophets and never God. Many people yearn for distant time—real or imagined—when women’s bodies could also be a representation of deity.

As a social phenomenon, the rise of Wicca and Goddess spirituality has coincided pretty neatly with the expansion of women’s rights. As long as women are to be regarded as equal to men in society, there are those who feel that patriarchal religions can never be wholly legitimate.

Everyone has an earthly mother and a father. If you believe in God, it makes a kind of intuitive sense that everyone has a divine Mother and Father, too. Yet religions that include a Goddess are usually labelled polytheist and Pagan automatically.

8. They want explanations for psychic and paranormal events.

Out-of-body experiences, premonitions, telepathy, ghost encounters—weird stuff sometimes happens. If you haven’t had an inexplicable experience, then you likely know someone who has. Pagans aren’t alone in experiencing the paranormal, of course. But they tend to be better equipped to talk about it than the average person.

Imagine a person who has recurring paranormal experiences, or experiences they believe to be paranormal. Mainstream science tells them that these experiences are illusory. Mainstream religion—when it’s not condemning them as evil—seems mostly too embarrassed to talk about occult happenings. It’s no surprise that the person would be drawn to a Pagan community where psychic stuff is openly discussed, accepted, and even encouraged.

Don’t get me wrong—mental illness and paranormal delusions do occur, and can cause great harm. But the not-crazy among us still yearn for a safe haven to discuss our psychic lives without condemnation. I believe—though I can’t prove—that so-called paranormal experiences are actually quite common among the general population. I’ve also observed that persistent psychic curiosity is one of the major reasons that people turn to Paganism.

9. They’re attracted to the power and control offered by magick.

I once read an academic paper that was trying to explain the rise of Wicca and witchcraft among teenage girls. The conclusion was that when a young women lacks a sense of control in her life—i.e., economic, sexual, or social autonomy—a religion that offers a secret source of power is immensely attractive. (Who wouldn’t want to be able to cast a love spell on a crush, or curse a bully?) The author observed that many teen girls become practising Pagans in junior high and high school. They tend to lose interest after finding another source of personal power (a job, a relationship, a better group of friends).

As a young Pagan woman, I found the tone of this particular paper to be condescending, bordering on insulting. But one thing is obviously true: Occultism purports to offer power to the powerless, esoteric means to an end when esoteric means have come up short. Why else would there be so many people interested in fast answers—love spells, get-rich-quick spells, and the like?

Lots of people approach witchcraft and/or Paganism because they want to learn to use magick. They see it as a way to fix their lives in a hurry or achieve undeserved success. Many of them move along when they realise that real magick is real work.

10. They’ve been called by a God or Goddess.

A burning bush, a deathbed vision of Christ, a miracle from the Virgin Mary—these are the types of religious experiences that are familiar to most people. But Pagans have religious epiphanies, too. Although most of us don’t talk about it outside of trusted circles, our Gods and Goddesses call to us in dramatic and in subtle ways.

Like any other type of religious conversion, some people drift gradually toward an acceptance of Paganism, while others are thrust toward it by a single epiphany. Some people may scoff at the idea of elder Gods asserting their presence in the 21st century. But it's certainly no wackier than what other religious people believe. (And it's hard to be so cavalier when Odin’s keeping you awake at night with a to-do list.)

For most Pagans, one or more of the above reasons has contributed to their finding their religious path. There are certainly other reasons that aren’t on this list. Of course, the best way to find out why a particular person is Pagan is to (respectfully) ask!

https://www.groveandgrotto.com/blogs/articles/why-do-people-become-pagan-top-ten-reasons

[peytonslist2000]

patron saint of desire

Perhaps one of the best surprises in pop music in recent years is the release of Carly Rae Jepsen’s album, E•MO•TION, in 2015. It isn’t so much the musicality of the songs or the arrangement. Rather, it’s the experiences embodied by the songs that had earned the attention of fans. Carly Rae Jepsen has earned a following in the past few years since releasing the aforementioned album that consists largely of the LGBTQ+ community.

In Michael Waters' article titled "Carly Rae Jepsen's Queer Renaissance", he writes "She feels and feels and thinks and overthinks, but rarely do her desires manifest in the real world." Waters traces back to Jepsen's first single, "Call Me Maybe", and states that the music video nods to the queer movement when it is revealed that Jepsen's male love interest was another man. This may be an overreach, but her music since then has allowed listeners from the LGBTQ+ community to permeate the stories that unfold in her songs.

Evident in her songs, she embodies desire detached from its usual form: of simply pining for the beloved. This, in turn, allows the listeners (of any kind of sexuality or gender) to insert themselves within the song without the constraints of gendering the “beloved”—whom the songs are addressed to. She is often called the “patron saint of longing” by people on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. These same people say “give her a sword” or “let her steal a bike”—comments referring to her lyrics. Her music has become both a form of escapism and pride.

The LGBTQ+ community felt represented by her music when it talks mostly of the intensity of emotions and harboring secrets or longing for what’s forbidden. The experiences that the songs characterize about having to hide your longing are the same experiences that the community owns. At large, there are members who aren’t out yet. In my circle of friends, there are some whose families haven’t come to terms yet with how my friends identify as in terms of their sexuality or gender. Their experiences of having to hide their identity become a tangible reason for their affinity with Jepsen’s music. They would post tweets about Jepsen’s music, follow her on Instagram, analyze her lyrics. They would lift a certain lyric from one of her songs and make that as the caption of the photos they post online. There would be wholesome memes of her circulating. Off-line, this openness is limited. They aren’t quite vocal in expressing the acceptance they feel for themselves. In a way, the digital identity they’ve come to sustain, one openly acknowledging Carly Rae Jepsen as a representation of pride and longing, feels most like the true manifestation of who they are.

More than the ecology of longing and the expression of sexuality or gender, Jepsen’s music is liberating for the affirmation it imparts. Somehow, Jepsen had become a figure that validated the struggles of the LGBTQ+ community. Most of her songs, while utilizing upbeat 80s beats, actually underlie something more somber: relentless self-reflection, struggle with self-worth, longing and the melancholy attached to it. Rather than addressing the “beloved”, more often than not, she addresses herself. Her scrutiny is inward and after the process, she comes back a little less doe-eyed and a lot more self-assured. Jepsen’s music, after going through turmoil and the loss of love and the realization that everything is fleeting (even pain or suffering), acknowledges that everything will be alright in the end. Those who listen to her music carry this comfort.

In an article by Hanif Abdurraqib titled “Carly Rae Jepsen and the Kingdom of Desire”, he states that “Jepsen’s music is not the kind of pop music that relentlessly desires a body means that desire itself is the body. Desire is the living thing at the end of the tunnel, waiting with open arms, and to some, I imagine that isn’t a happy ending.” Desire, in the vocabulary of Jepsen’s music, intersects all forms. It may be romantic, platonic, universal. It could pertain to dreams or goals. Coming to terms with one’s desire results in acceptance. Desire detached from the body means the body isn’t a vehicle on its own. Perhaps it is this sentiment that the LGBTQ+ community identifies with and is affirmed by. That their experiences go beyond their assigned gender or sexuality. That their experience, as anyone else’s, is universal and natural.

Although there is a network of support that could be found online, reality is quite different. Online, whether on Twitter or Facebook or in blogs, you are able to curate your following list. You have the autonomy to choose to situate yourself within a space that is accepting. Calling to mind the situation in the Philippines specifically, there are still people in our society who are less open about the existence or emergence of sexualities and genders that deviate from the norm.

Sadly, there are people who cannot justify the existence of different genders or sexualities because these seem “unnatural”. “Other forms” of genders and sexualities do not fit one’s knowledge about the scientific and ordered categories of gender and sexuality. However, it must be realized that this kind of knowledge is man-made. Utilizing a concept from the framework of semiotics, the ordered categories of gender and sexuality are considered as a “myth”. It seeks only to preserve a specific kind of knowledge. But the world changes and its people are altered alongside these changes. When living in a society that may be hetero-patriarchal, when there is value to unfeelingness or toughness, Jepsen’s music seems to be a negation of this. Whereas society urges us to be rational, to not show weakness, Jepsen tells us to relive and chase what makes us human.

With a large following online, one would think that the sales of Jepsen’s music is at its peak. That her influence on the LGBTQ+ community, a community that is rarely represented by mainstream artists, would allow her to market herself as a bankable spokesperson. However, she doesn’t capitalize on her influence. She nods to the community and is sincere in receiving their stories. She doesn’t claim to outright identify with the LGBTQ+ community, she merely states that she hopes everyone can identify as any one thing or another. She remains, to this day, humbled by their warm reception of her music.

On social media, Jepsen is a recognizable figure. In fact, one would think her popularity exists only within the internet. Unfortunately, her album has since been ignored by popular media. It isn’t quite recognized by institutions that organize music awards. There are even some songs from her album that aren’t on streaming apps such as Spotify. In looking at the reception of Jepsen’s albums, the dominant ideas in America come to mind. If an album isn’t marketed by a big-shot record company or producer, chances are, it will fall flat. In Jepsen’s case, she was handled by producer, Scooter Braun. Braun chose not to focus on Jepsen’s career and allowed it fade to the background as he prioritized stars such as Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift. Perhaps it is unkind to say but the music of these artists don’t seem to resonate much within the LGBTQ+ community.

Perhaps there are people, both from the LGBTQ+ community and otherwise, who latch on to Jepsen’s music because it represents them the way that society evades representing them: fully. As something not to be made a spectacle of, but as a person whose longing is universal and whose identity is hinged on who they want to be.  Sources: Carly Rae Jepsen’s Queer Renaissance - Electric Literature

Carly Rae Jepsen's 'Boy Problems' Is a Beautiful Gay Song of Discovery

http://www.mtv.com/news/3021893/carly-rae-jepsen-toronto-symphony-orchestra/