#i do not think any of these are inherently flawed i think i am VERY picky | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stolitzsings · 8 months

Text

This is a sort of response to a post I've seen floating around, drawing parallels between the chains in Blitz’s trip that bind him to Stolas and the chains that bind Husk, Angel, and Fizz to Alastor, Valentino, and Mammon respectively. I'm not commenting on that post directly bc I avoid Discourse (tm) at all costs for the sake of my health, and I don’t want to get drawn into an unproductive argument that will mess with my anxiety for a week. I'm not trying to start a fight, just get my thoughts out on why I feel that comparison is inaccurate, and hopefully provide some helpful context and nuance.

So! Let's start with a few disclaimers! First of all, I'm not going to debate the moral purity of any of these characters. I just don't think it's an interesting or valuable critique. On a related note, I am not trying to excuse any of their behavior. I'm happy to admit that my favorite characters in this show have hurt people and are sometimes total assholes. Stolas treated Blitz very poorly at the beginning of their relationship, frequently pushed or even ignored boundaries, and was just kind of a dick about things. My objection to a direct comparison between Stolas and the other characters mentioned above isn't because I think Stolas hasn't done anything wrong; I just think that saying they're similar without further clarification or commentary ignores the nuance of the situation.

Read on below the cut, it's gonna be another long one folks!

Let's start by examining the "agreements" forged by Val, Mammon, and Alastor. I think it's important to note that, in their cases, the person they got to sign their contract could have been anyone. Husk and Angel could have been any sinners, Fizz could have been any imp. They aren't interested in them as people; they were only using them to gain more power for themselves. The only thing that matters to them is, "What can you do for me?" Angel and Fizz quite clearly become cogs in the machine of Val and Mammon's businesses, and Alastor only thinks of Husk as a tool to be leveraged in specific situations to further his own mysterious goals. Each of them has demonstrated to their subjugates that they own them, body and soul. They have signed legally and spiritually binding contracts that essentially surrender their autonomy to a more powerful demon.

Stolas and Blitz’s agreement is... not that. In the most literal sense, they don’t appear to have made any sort of binding deal. They just made a verbal agreement, which I sincerely doubt has anywhere near the force of a signed soul contract. Additionally, Stolas did not ask for and does not seem to want that sort of total control over Blitz. He very clearly does not view this as any sort of power exchange (which may actually be part of the issue, since it leaves him blind to Blitz’s discomfort with their class difference), he sees it as "favors for favors." While this agreement is inherently unbalanced due to Stolas's status, it's worth noting that they’re both putting something on the line here. The other three risk practically nothing (if the person bound to them fails they can always get a new one), but Stolas IS taking on a real risk by letting Blitz access the living world illegally using his book. Again, that doesn't make his actions right, and probably helped him to justify them, but it does set their relationship apart from the others.

In my opinion, some of Stolas's greatest flaws are his thoughtlessness and his ability to justify his own actions to himself. This manifests in the fact that he clearly doesn't see the ways in which their relationship is hurting Blitz. He convinced himself that this was just an equal exchange, and a continuation of the dynamic Blitz established in their first encounter as adults: "I fuck you, and you give me the book". As he becomes more aware of his feelings for Blitz, though (stay tuned for a deeper analysis of this progression later), he also begins to realize that Blitz isn't happy with this relationship. And this, as @masonshmason pointed out, is the central fact that separates Stolas and Blitz from the other relationships. Stolas did not realize- or chose to ignore- how he was hurting Blitz. Once he came to terms with it, though, he understood that he had to make things right. He specifically says this in "Just Look My Way"; "I will try to make amends/ For making you means to an end". None of the others could say this, because in their case, that was the POINT. Angel, Fizz, and Husk were ALWAYS a means to an end, intentionally trapped for that purpose.

We also need to talk about the CONTEXT of the scenes in which the chain imagery appears. For both Angel and Husk, the chain is at least semi-literal, a physical (and perhaps supernatural) manifestation of the way their souls are bound to an overlord. In "Two Minutes Notice," Fizz purposely CHOOSES to represent his relationship to Mammon as chains around his wrists. However, Blitz's scene is part of a drug trip after being forcibly dosed with hallucinogens. It does not exist in any literal sense, nor is it a representation of Blitz’s conscious, literal thoughts. What it DOES do is showcase Blitz’s deepest fears and his greatest flaws through symbolism and metaphor. Blitz is not literally afraid of being forced to wear a clown costume; he is afraid he'll never escape his past traumas or Fizz's shadow. THIS is the context in which Blitz sees himself being chained by Stolas: a bad trip all about his fear of intimacy and vulnerability.

Stolas appears in this trip as someone elevated high above him, something he's climbing towards, reaching for, even though it means being chained to him. It's directly preceded by his ex girlfriend and his former best friend berating him for how he pushes people away even though he hates being alone. Then Stolas directly asks him, "Are you afraid to love people, Blitzy?" Furthermore, the WAY in which he is framed is alluring, slightly hazy, golden and tempting. It couldn’t be further from the ugly, slime-covered past he's fleeing. It's a new start, a chance for something better that seems too good to be true. This trip is all about Blitz’s inability to be vulnerable with another person. The chain around his neck is a representation of the fact that, by getting closer to Stolas, he's giving Stolas the power to hurt him emotionally.

And man, there's a part of him that wants to give Stolas that power. At this critical moment, he's not baring his teeth in defiance or anger. He's blushing, just slightly, and he looks... nervous. Blitz's instinct, when things get too real, is to cut and run. Hurt them before they can hurt you. Abandon them before they have the chance to leave you. It’s how he tanked his relationship with Verosika. This is a manifestation of what might happen if he stays. This is the sort of trouble he can't fight his way out of.

This is the emotional climax of the scene. There are so many ways they could have gone with this if they wanted to represent Blitz being chained and trapped by his agreement with Stolas. If that was the fear--if that was the POINT--they could have had the chains wrap around him until he couldn't move, or glow white hot and burn into his skin, or a million other more direct metaphors. But the chains aren't the thing that hurts him. It's the feathers: the thing that's left behind after Stolas abandons him, sing-songing "you're going to die alone" right alongside two other people who he loved and who now want nothing to do with him.

Finally, let's look at Blitz’s reaction to this scene. It's a moment of revelation for him, in which he realizes he's pushing everyone away and starts to make an effort to change. It's why he's a bit more open with Moxxie in the next scene. The trip sequence ALSO inspires him to get closer to Stolas, indicating that the trip didn’t make him realize "I'm trapped and I need to get out of this" in the same way Fizz did. Rather, he realizes that he doesn't want Stolas to leave him like everyone else, and he wants to start feeling out what it would be like to deepen the connection between them. As I've mentioned in other posts, their kiss at the end of "truth seekers" represents a level of intimacy that we haven't seen before; it's teasing, affectionate, shows Blitz’s interest in making Stolas happy, and takes place in front of M&M, who have repeatedly teased him about their relationship before.

In summary, while the image of chains may have been invoked in all four of these relationships, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing across the board. Blitz and Stolas's relationship differs substantially from the others in its dynamic, and the context of their scene also sets it apart. It's important to look into the details and the nuance of their relationship to interpret what's going on under layers of trauma and unreliable narration.

#stolas #blitzø #stolitz #helluva boss #helluva boss spoilers #helluva boss meta #hazbin hotel

216 notes · View notes

keepingeahalive · 3 months

Text

Miss Rosabella Beauty: The Queen of Wasted Potential

Okay, I'll admit it. I do ship her and Daring. I'm a sucker for Beauty and the Beast, and I couldn't help myself. That said, objectively, this ship and Rosabella's character.... yeah, it kinda sucks.

Maybe I didn't want to admit it because Beauty and the Beast is my favorite fairytale. But the more I look into her character, the more I realize she embodies virtues that contradict her own story. Epic Winter was more about "fixing" Daring's supposed selfishness than addressing the real elephant in the room, and Rosabella was a plot device to push that narrative. I think she could have been an interesting character with flaws and a lot of depth. But she wasn't, and I am very very disappointed.

Her Character

The first time I saw her, I was really rooting for her. She's an animal rights and monster activist. She could have been great friends with Cerise for that reason. She could have even had interactions with Ramona in the past. But she comes off as self-righteous and preachy.

I get she's an activist and that's the joke; activists are inherently self-righteous. But this is Ever After High. Where's the nuance? She could be an animal and monster activist because she's experienced prejudice herself. She's the daughter of Beauty and The Beast. Look me in the eye and tell me she doesn't have any Beast genes. I dare you!

It's canon that Beauty and the Beast is considered a bad destiny story, with the stigma of the heroine falling in love with a creature most fairytales would pin as the villain, and a handsome prince carrying the stigma of being of being a beast even after the curse is gone. She should understand that better than anyone. And yet, this kindness and compassion she tries to convey comes off as condescending. She inserts herself into situations because she feels she's needed when nobody has asked for her help.

2. DARABELLA

Rosabella was only introduced in one minisode and suddenly gets a big role in Epic Winter? She and Daring hadn't had a meaningful conversation up until that point. Really, she barely knows Daring.

For the daughter of Beauty and the Beast, she's so .... judgmental. She's supposed to have the ability to see people's true intentions, but why does she get it so wrong? She immediately assumes Daring is self-centered and narcissistic. On the surface, I can see where she's coming from. But, that's only on the surface.

Daring is more complex than she made him out to be, and Epic Winter wanted the audience to think she was in the right. We know this isn't true. Daring loves being a hero and saving people. He loves his siblings and does what he thinks is best for them. He certainly cared about Lizzie enough to respect her wishes. He's chivalrous to a fault!

Daring is clearly going through some things, and it doesn't seem like anyone's paying attention to what's really bothering him: He has no purpose anymore. He's been brought up his whole life thinking he would be King of Ever After, and now his world is shattered. He's not coping well. And Rosabella thinks he's full of himself when she's barely met this guy.

Having him become the Beast from Beauty and the Beast felt natural to me in the story progression, but Rosabella's inclusion felt forced. She gives him the same old advice from her original story when she should be hinting at something greater. This should be the turning point in Daring that destiny is malarky, and he can break away from the expectations his family and peers put on him. But she doesn't understand that. She only sees that he's obsessed with his looks because his main form of coping is gone.

He's not really upset about his looks. He's upset that his destiny is gone, and either that's not as important to her as him getting over his looks or she doesn't know him well enough to know what's been put on him. Assuming it's the latter, why wouldn't she try to find the root of the problem instead of fixing what she thinks needs fixing?

Daring is the victim here, even if he has issues to work out. And it doesn't seem like she's really listening to him.

3. The Cousins No One Talks About

Yeah. Rosabella and Briar are cousins. And there is very. little. BACKSTORY!!

We know their dads don't get along. Briar's is a monster hunter. Rosa's is The Beast. Their moms are sisters. That's all we know. What's her relationship with Briar? Is it a tragic sisterly bond? Or did the two drift apart/fall out because of their family conflict? Rosa's mom is likely the black sheep of the family, so do she and Sleeping Beauty still talk anymore?

How does Briar feel about all this? Does she have time to feel anything about it at all? She has her own family and her own destiny to worry about. What kind of influence did Briar's parents have on her views on beasts? She hadn't even been to Rosa's home until they were both well into high school. How much do they even know about each other?

We know so little about their dynamic. Family conflict shapes a child, and both of them probably have some deep-seated trauma relating to their families. But did the writers forget that they're cousins?

4. How I Would Write Rosabella (and maybe Daring)

First, give her the ability to transform into a beast. It's not hard.

She's advocating for people like her to exist. She wants people to see both sides of her and those like her to be seen as more than monsters. But she's had her fair share of prejudice, even within her own family. Her uncle is a monster hunter, so a half-beast niece would be considered an abomination. Because of this, she suppresses her anger to better the image of beasts. She doesn't want to, but she feels like she has to, for her own safety and to make herself more palatable in society. However, the more anger she holds in, the less control she has over herself. Her judgment becomes clouded, and this makes her jump to conclusions about people's behavior. She wants things to be fair so much that she gets in trouble for it. She wants to be understanding and patient, but having a hair-trigger temper gets in the way of her goals.

Give her a backstory with Cerise and the Hood-Badwolf family. Her family would know more than anyone the hardships that a human-beast family goes through, and they should be very good friends because of that. Her growing up around Cerise and Ramona would give her more of a reason to protect the beast population.

If any sort of relationship with Daring were to work, they would both have to learn from each other. Daring would learn to let go of people's expectations of him, and Rosabella would learn to let her anger out in a healthy way and pick her battles. Daring can't be the only one learning from her, and Rosa shouldn't see anything to fix in him. She needs to accept him for who he really is, not just preaching about appearances.

She should be embodying both Beauty and the Beast, all the kindness and grief that comes with it. She's not meant to be a paragon, and the writers should not have portrayed her as such. She needed to be a character with her own development. She needed to be portrayed just as in the wrong as Daring was when they met, not about appearance but about each other. She needs to admit her mistakes and acknowledge she is not always right about everyone. Or, at the very least, have her see right through Daring's facade about looks and realize there's something deeper going on.

The writer's dropped the ball on this ship, and they did Daring so dirty here. But they also did Rosabella a disservice by making her so two-dimensional and preachy, almost not even her own character. There are so many routes they could have taken with her. She could have been great, but she wasn't.

#eah #ever after high #eah rosabella #rosabella beauty #eah beauty and the beast #beauty and the beast #eah daring #daring charming #darabella #eah briar #briar beauty #this has been weighing on me for a while #but #yeah #epic winter did everyone so dirty

139 notes · View notes

valtsv · 1 year

Note

is all true crime bad? genuine question. not referring to the very obvious disrespectful ones that are usually brought up when discussing the topic but rather documentaries and things of the sort. I feel like a lot of the documentaries around real crimes I watched bring up issues that aren't really talked about and a lot of the times are covered by institutions/media and also inform people on various things that they probably wouldn't have been aware otherwise so to me they can be very informational. there's also cases where victims of abduction for example have been recognised years later because of media like this which is objectively a good thing so I would like to know a little more about other negative impacts that might not be so obvious. if you have any source I can research on that's also great. sorry to bother!

i think that "true crime" in itself is a nuanced and varied topic and have no intention of tarring everyone who has an interest in it with the same brush, because there are definitely respectful ways of engaging with it that do their best to avoid and minimize harm. however i think that the popular culture depictions of true crime and capitalization on it as a form of entertainment tend to do more harm than good to both victims, who are frequently exploited for "content" and/or have their trauma dredged up for consumption, and consumers/producers, since a lot of mainstream true crime media reinforces harmful stereotypes, paranoia, surveillance tactics, and social divisions, and sensationalizes human cruelty and suffering. not to mention that this kind of approach to and fascination with horrific crimes and unusually cruel and violent criminals may encourage more people to inflict violence on others in order to gain notoriety and fame.

i don't think it's wrong to be interested in these things and to want to understand what makes people do horrific things to other people. one of my hyperfixations is the history of decapitation/capital punishment and its legacy, which is a topic that is fraught with issues surrounding the abuse of some of the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society. i myself am fascinated by it partly because of my own past experiences with abuse and marginalization. being interested in unpleasant things doesn't make you inherently a bad person, and thought crimes don't exist. however it's really important, especially when it comes to topics like this, to be self aware and critical of the information you're given, and to be careful not to be taken in by popular opinion and stereotypes without questioning them, or to get so immersed in your pursuit of knowledge and understanding that you lose your grip on reality and fall victim to misinformation and bias. believing too strongly in your personal ability to recognize and identify criminals and "criminal traits" and "solve" crimes, especially when the justice system is as flawed as it is, is more likely to lead to incorrect assumptions, the persecution of the marginalized and vulnerable, invasions of privacy and miscarriages of justice than it is to help.

475 notes · View notes

absolutebl · 11 months

Text

Rules: List 10 of your comfort shows

tagged by @he-is-lightning-in-a-bottle (thanks doll)

I rarely pass along tags but you should do this one and tag me if you do so I can see, comfort watches are my absolute FAVORITE.

This is a BL blog and I've watched most of them, so I will be picking BL. But I will only be picking BL I am rewatching for comfort right NOW.

Some of these may surprise. Ready?

My Top 10 Comfort BL's right NOW

1 kiss x kiss x kiss - perfect scandal (short)

My favorite of this series because it's basically office romance sexy bits we all wanted from Old Fashion Cupcake.

2 Jun & Jun

his show made up for in style what it lacked in substance. I like fluff. I loved this. I smile every moment I'm watching. This is very much MY style of BL.

3 Love is Science (BL cut)

Mark and Ouwen gotta be one of my all time favorite side dishes. LIS? is a noona romance with added mature side couple as well as these two, mostly interwoven. It’s a big buy in just for Mark & Ouwen but WORTH IT, and some kind soul uploaded a BL cut to YT. Everything is a touch quirky but the BL boys are beautiful, earnest, and high heat. It's one of Taiwan's favorite dynamics: the bisexual himbo meets the confident gay, but they are just LOVELY, plus tiny queer family at the end.

4 2 Moons 3

What can I say, it's utter trash but there is something about the main couple I love. A Thai pulp that felt like it came out 5 yrs ago with many of the flaws inherent to that time and studio system, including manufactured angst and convoluted plot, but an ultimately sweet main couple that (as a pairing) feels a bit more modern and is satisfying to watch. This will probably go down in history as one of the few BLs where I genuinely didn’t care about any of the side couples.

5 Love Class 2

But only "my couple." ( the mature student and the TA). I still hold that they probably should’ve had their own series.

6 Big Dragon

I didn't love this when it first aired but I am coming around to it more on the rewatch. (I may even up its score from 7 to 8 if the eventual movie sticks the landing). This is a pairing that proved itself to be a lot more sophisticated than I expected with nods at kink in a more respectful way than Mame could ever dream, plus excellent chemistry.

7 Why R U? Korea

The Korean remake of Why RU? is BOTH bizarro land, and EXACTLY what I expected. There is something comforting in watching the Cliff's notes version of a show I enjoyed before just in a different BL style. I don't know why I like this one so much, but I really do.

8 Takara & Amagi

I gnawed on my knuckles and squealed a lot with this show first time around. Now I still love it but I'm more calm. It is beyond charming: soft and gentle, packed with cuteness and high school angst, thirst, & yearning.

9 About Youth

A truly lovely little coming of age high school BL with a classic YA low drama but high angst and an earnest depth.

Clearly I'm having a bit of a high school phase because I've been thinking of doing this one next:

10 My School President

Yes, we’ve seen it all before, but I still ADORED this. And there is a lot to be said for the classics being re-executed perfectly. Who let my BL be this wholesome and funny?

199 notes · View notes

theelmoarchive · 2 months

Text

Sanders Sides theory (rant). I know im mainly a mh acc here but I have thoughts i need to get out there

(just fyi this theory is Roman centric, I know most TSS people nowadays are talking ab Orange and Logan so if Roman's not interesting then continue on 🔥🔥)

(Also slight TW, talking ab the sides "ducking out" and depression themes, so yeah👍👍)

Okay so. I was scrolling through Sanders Sides theories and found that no one seems to have this theory, even though I thought the Roman angst enjoyers like me would be writing this all over the place but. Ig that means I need to talk about it.

I've had this theory for years now, since the day I first watched SVS Redux.

I think Roman is going to duck out.

I dont know if I have to explain why but. I mean, just looking at the explosive end SVS Redux had will tell you a lot.

He doesn't belive Patton when he tells him they love him. He thinks Thomas has lost all faith in him in favor of the person Roman views as the epitome of evil. He's been switching views left and right to stay on Patton's side (because Thomas prides himself on his morals), but he always ends up doing something wrong - he always ends up as an antagonist. He no longer believes that he is the one thing that being has kept him stable since "Am I Original?" - Thomas' hero. The only side he has a stable and positive relationship with is VIRGIL of all people. And tbh that could quickly be ruined too. Logan is second, though, but that's EXTREMELY fragile, as we've seen.

Roman always does something wrong and it will and has sent him over the edge. From Roman's perspective, with a very flawed view of everyone around him, he is inherently the thing that flaws Thomas.

+ Roman is really dramatic obviously, so ofc he would do this.

When you look at Virgil's reasonings for ducking out, it seems plausible after everything Roman has gone through recently, too. I mean like:

"I quit. Decided it wasn't worth it anymore"

Why would Roman keep fighting a battle he knows he will never win?

"Well, It didn’t seemed like I was wanted. You all made that pretty clear any time I showed up."

Again, from Roman's perspective, he is constantly and consistently antagonized.

"If I wanted to stand around being insulted, I would've shown up I would've shown up in person like I usually do."

[same thing]

"I actually think you were right to not want me around."

Roman fears that he is becoming the villain (as we see in SVS, SVS Redux and DWIT).

(In fact, Roman has already said something quite similar to that last one in sentiment.

In SVS Redux, Roman says this, which is pretty funny because of the dramatics and the stupidity, and does get shot down quickly, but I am begging you to listen to him.

"The blame falls to me. If you're missing that do-gooder drive... I think It's because I'm in the driver seat... And I'm an awful driver... Perhaps... Perhaps I should let Patton take the wheel.")

(2nd sidenote to the Virgil quotes, can we talk ab Thomas' acting again I just love how tired Virgil is in AA. He's so. Troubled. I love him.)

WAIT ALSO I FORGOT TO ADD THIS UNTIL I WAS AB TO POST IT-

"I've always aimed to protect you,"

THIS!! First of all his face makes me so sad BUT SECOND OF ALL yeah. Roman core idk what else to say, you get it right.

"I thought I was your hero."

So yeah.

Anyway, I think the episode where Roman does this will be centered around depression. Without Roman, Thomas is depressed. Let me explain this further.

Roman is Thomas' creativity, imagination, ego, passion, love, wills and wants, hopes and dreams, aspirations and enthusiasm.

Without any of that, what is left? A guy who can't even will himself out of bed, but can still feel the nagging voice of reason and logic telling him how unreasonable he's being. A guy who cant will himself to talk to friends, family and loved ones, but can still feel sorrow for letting them down and worrying them. A guy who can't will himself to pursue creative content that he relies on for a living but can still feel anxious about letting millions of people down and never being able to create again. A guy who cant even make food for himself or brush his teeth, but still knows he NEEDS to take care of himself. A guy whose only creativity is activly trying to disturb and scare him.

So yeah thats really awesome idk.

Furthermore, I think the sides might be SEVERELY impacted.

It has been said many times over the series that the sides are purely figments of Thomas' IMAGINATION. so. Without Roman, I doubt anything would be left. Obviously, if Roman does duck out, I don’t think they'd all immediately just cease to exist because an episode still needs to occur, but I find it likely that they'd all start slowly fading or maybe even "malfunctioning", glitching, putting them on a timer to get back Roman and making it far more tense.

Is this theory weird?????? I feel like it's the natural progression TO ME but I've seen no one even getting near this and im just confused ghfhfhfh. Maybe it is kind of weird and im just too much of a Roman enthusiast. SORRY I LOVE ANNOYING WEIRDO FREAKS!!!! AND IF I WAS HIM ID DUCK OUT TOO BECAUSE NO ONE IS APPRECIATING HIM ☹️☹️☹️ EVEN THOUGH HE'S LITERALLY WHAT MAKES THOMAS DO THINGS. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Anyway.

I also think it fits really well because of Prinxiety's parallels, such as:

(using the ship name just as a duo name because that's what I usually do I am not trying to push the prinxiety agenda although I am a fan of it ghfyfgfh)

"Thanks everyone... Well, almost everyone."

And

"I mean, it's cool to see you all trying to be helpful. Well most if you, but-"

The only difference in these two is obviously that Virgil just silently ducks out, while Roman has the entire "You make us better" speech, probably effectivly saving Virgil and Thomas, because it seems like Virgil was going to insist.

(Also another sidenote that I think everyone will agree with: WE NEED A "YOU MAKE US BETTER" SPEECH BY VIRGIL FOR ROMAN that is all)

Also. Who can forget.

Virgil saying that he tried to "duck out" and then

"That's a thing you can do?"

😐

Do you understand what I'm saying. Do you. Huh.

Okay anyway.

Idk how to end this I feel like theres still more I wanna say but i forgot. In conclusion: prin up that xiety. Reminder that FWSA was real and not a fever dream. I lied this is actually prinxiety propaganda.

But Hey That's Just A Theory. A really quite depressing and sad theory. Thanks for tumbling down a hill with me 🫶

#Sanders Sides #TSS #roman sanders #roman sanders angst #sanders sides theory #TSS theory #Prinxiety #Because i feel like you guys might appreciate this and I love you #Erm yeah this one's been cooking in my brain since the year 2020 #I feel as though it just makes sense????#But im also pretty sure that I sound completely incoherent to anyone else pfyfyfhfh #MAYBE I AM BLINDED BY ROMAN ANGST ENJOYMENT!!! SO WHAT!!!! HES MY ORIGINAL BLORBO #Also fun fact about me: when I was around 10-11 I wrote a list of ways to emotionally and pshychologically torture Roman #One of the point just said “he gets hit by a car”#So #Uh #That's something!!#I am so mentally stable #Always have been

52 notes · View notes

funnier-as-a-system · 7 months

Note

Hiii. Not sure if this even counts as a question to be fair, nor is this a funny suggestion, but like.

For my final project in college I'm kind of making a game concept about plurality (as a system host myself) and uhm long story short I guess.

I made two characters-alters, one of which is female and the other is male, and the teacher who curates my project was like (super paraphrased) "I'm getting some romantic connotations here and I think we shouldn't show people that you can literally date yourself, cuz that seems super unhealthy" and he then backed down a bit and was like "well it's not really normal so maybe think about that some more".

And so like. The concept I'm making is based on the complicated relationship between me and my co-host. I am heavily basing the characters on me and that co-host, I am heavily using the issues we had in our relationship, to hopefully be able to show people who are new to plurality that you shouldn't treat your alters the way me and my co-host treated each other before, because THAT is what was unhealthy.

All of which is to say, right now I am married to that co-host and I'm very happy about that, but my teacher's words quite hurt me. Like I literally don't even understand what could be so unhealthy about in-system dating. How rare even is that? Is my perception of in-system dating just that skewed, since nearly all our alters are in a relationship with each other? Most importantly, am I faki-

(Also, by saying that, the teacher inadvertently recommended me to make it a gay ship. Lol? I wish I could make one of the characters an enby like me and avoid the issue entirely, but I can't) (My husband The Co-Host said that the teacher is just rude)

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about intrasystem dating. I've found most people who claim it's "unhealthy" actually mean "I find it weird and I can't distinguish between my personal discomfort and something that's actually bad." – a frustrating argument, but one we're familiar with, and one that should largely be ignored unless you're looking to engage in an educational discussion with someone who holds this view. Others claim it is unhealthy because it "encourages division/dissociation between headmates", but this is largely based on the idea that headmates having any sort of personal identity or self-identification gets in the way of achieving final fusion, which has its own flaws as an argument, including final fusion not being the goal or healthiest option for all systems, as well as ignoring that [harmful] dissociation may increase if a headmate does not have any sort of personal identity to distinguish themselves from the rest of their system with. In short, the arguments against intrasystem dating tend to boil down to "I think this is bad for you because it doesn't fit into what I think people should do", which only shows one's own close-mindedness.

Since plurality is an unfamiliar concept to most people, they don't have the experience necessary to distinguish between genuine red flags and something niche that just takes time to get used to the idea of. Intrasystem dating is niche, but it's no more inherently unhealthy than other kinds of niche dating, like t4t partnerships. The same argument has been used against polyamorous relationships for being similarly uncommon and going against what people expect of relationships (particularly romantic ones), but those are not inherently unhealthy either; it goes to show that people will reuse the same arguments against any kind of relationship they do not approve of, rather than taking a step back and considering for themselves if a particular relationship dynamic is inherently unhealthy. While intrasystem dating can be unhealthy, it is not inherently so just due to the relationship dynamic.

When backing down, your teacher said intrasystem dating is "not really normal", and that truly is the crux of this argument. People do not like that which does not fall neatly into their understandings of "normal", and think anything that isn't normal is automatically bad. This is untrue. I would say to hold strong to your original vision for your project, not just for yourself/ves, but because refusing to fall in line and pretend to be "normal" is how we achieve progress. Even if your teacher doesn't change his mind, your work may introduce the concept to someone else, making it less unfamiliar (more familiar) and more normal to them, leading to more people understanding and accepting not just systems in general, but intrasystem dating specifically.

Speaking of, to answer your question, while intrasystem dating is uncommon, I don't believe it's especially rare – I could name several of our headmates right now who are in a polyamorous partnership with each other, as well as a handful of other couples. We've known many other systems who have had some or all headmates dating each other. It's not the most common topic to talk about in the community, but it is certainly a topic frequent enough to be brought up from time to time.

Your teacher was rude and incorrect. I have sympathy for the hurt you feel because of his pluralphobic words, and I hope you're able to feel better about this incident soon. Remember, staying true to yourself will almost always feel better than hiding who you are for the comfort of others, so if you feel safe enough to go for it, push onward and continue your work with all its authenticity and intrasystem dating included. I wish you luck in your game development and your final project!

#thanks for the ask!#pluralphobia #intrasys sweethearts

76 notes · View notes

saintsenara · 7 months

Note

if you are still doing ship game, thoughts on jily?

thank you very much, anon - i am always taking questions both on romantic ships and on characters' platonic vibes, the more unhinged the better.

although jily can't really be described in those terms, not least because their narrative purpose in canon is to be little more than blank canvases onto which harry can project as he goes through his series-long character arc, shedding his initial hero worship of james when confronted with the reality of his father's behaviour in order of the phoenix and starting both to fully appreciate lily's centrality to the course his life is taking and to see his dad with nuance as a real and fully-rounded person, flaws and all.

this narrative role means that the glimpses we get of them in canon feel kind of superficial - their bantering during snape's worst memory is basically high-school-teen-movie level, the snapshots of their life under lockdown in deathly hallows lovely and bittersweet but also just colour to a storyline which is already all of those things.

and this is not to say that i find jily uninteresting as a ship - i completely reject the common anti-jily position that they didn't really like each other, that they had nothing in common, or that their backgrounds made them incompatible [i'll expand on this below, but while i do think that their respective blood statuses and the impact of these on their relationship are worth thinking about, i loathe fics which portray james as chafing against his marriage because, as a pureblood, he'd be more comfortable with someone 'of his own kind'. this is bullshit, and there's far, far too much of it in this fandom]. my views on one of james' most frequent non-lily partnerships are well known, and i share the outrage many jily fans have for the way lily in particular is treated in a subfandom increasingly dominated by rigid fanon which prioritises giving depth to male characters [even if those characters are, in essence, oc's] and slash relationships over exploring the canon female characters, partnered or not.

but i do also find that a lot of jily falls into the same trap as much of the hinny i dislike - that is, a tendency to present as a sunshine-and-roses fairytale a relationship which is much more interesting if the things which canon implies [and which can be reasonably inferred outside of canon scenes from a canon coherent engagement with the text] might have introduced an element of dysfunction into james and lily's partnership are taken into account.

the shadow of the war is obviously one of these things. what role lily actually plays in the resistance is something which preoccupies me [she is never mentioned in canon to have taken a combat role - and i find it considerably more plausible that any attempt voldemort made to recruit her was at snape's request and connected to her potions prowess] particularly because, as we see in the way her death is memorialised in deathly hallows, the series regards the defence of the integrity of the nuclear family as a key aim for the good guys. how does she interact with james and his wartime role when she's pregnant, nursing, or in hiding for the vast majority of her time in the order? how does she feel about her husband being a soldier if she's behind the scenes?

indeed, what role james [and sirius] plays in the order is also something i'm obsessed with thinking about - not least because so much of the inherent tragedy of the marauders' storyline is caused by the fact that james and sirius think they're fucking invincible and that their plans to keep the potters safe are foolproof. it's entirely reasonable to read james and sirius as being pretty gung-ho about being paramilitaries - and my headcanon is absolutely that more battled-hardened order members didn't like them very much [moody does not, after all, seem massively fond of sirius] - and lily seems affected by this too [she's not holding her wand either!], and what they thought they were doing as 1981 rolls around is compelling to me.

james and lily's divergent backgrounds is also something i'd like to see explored more in fandom - not, as i've said, in the dull 'james should have married a pureblood' way, but in a way which deals with the fact that their relationship follows wizarding norms. molly weasley can blame the war all she likes, but [although i doubt this was jkr's intention] the evidence of canon is that witches and wizards marry and have children extremely young as a social standard, that couples generally don't live together before marriage, that divorce doesn't seem to be common, and that married women tend not to work. lily - a mother at twenty and, therefore, presumably married at nineteen - is coming of age, then, in a magical world which thinks about gender very differently from the muggle world of the 1970s, and i think that tension is worth exploring.

[similarly, the way in which her marriage is self-protective - lily gains a pureblood name and the social cachet which comes with it at a time when she's in rising danger on account of her birth - is something i think it's worth looking at when considering the pairing.]

there are other flashes of dysfuntion which i adore thinking about in relation to jily - lily's relationship with the other marauders [you can pry the reading that sirius resents her for stealing the love of his life - and i certainly don't mean lupin - away from him from my cold, dead hands]; how much of his misbehaviour at school james conceals from her; the fact that lily becoming more overtly interested in james from her sixth year onward must have a little bit of attempting to make snape jealous mixed into it - and whenever i stumble upon them in fics i say oh ho like horace slughorn and kick my little feet in the air.

i care rather less about 'we're so hot and flawless and not doomed' as a trope.

but i do stan james for beefing with vernon dursley even though lily told him to behave. the man really is just that annoying.

#asks answered #asenora's opinions on ships #jily #james potter #lily evans #is this an 'i'm in danger' one?#only time will tell

68 notes · View notes

soracities · 1 year

Note

Hey! It has been on my mind lately and i just wanna ask..idk if it would make sense but i just noticed that nowadays ppl cant separate the authors and their books (ex. when author wrote a story about cheating and ppl starts bashing the author for romanticizing cheating and even to a point of cancelling the author for not setting a good/healthy example of a relationship) any thoughts about it?

I have many, many thoughts on this, so this may get a little unwieldy but I'll try to corall it together as best I can.

But honestly, I think sometimes being unable to separate the author from the work (which is interesting to me to see because some people are definitely not "separating" anything even though they think they are; they just erase the author entirely as an active agent, isolate the work, and call it "objectivity") has a lot to do with some people being unable to separate the things they read from themselves.

I'm absolutely not saying it's right, but it's an impulse I do understand. If you read a book and love it, if it transforms your life, or defines a particular period of your life, and then you find out that the author has said or done something awful--where does that leave you? Someone awful made something beautiful, something you loved: and now that this point of communion exists between you and someone whose views you'd never agree with, what does that mean for who you are? That this came from the mind of a person capable of something awful and spoke to your mind--does that mean you're like them? Could be like them?

Those are very uncomfortable questions and I think if you have a tendency to look at art or literature this way, you will inevitable fall into the mindset where only "Good" stories can be accepted because there's no distinction between where the story ends and you begin. As I said, I can see where it comes from but I also find it profoundly troubling because i think one of the worst things you can do to literature is approach it with the expectation of moral validation--this idea that everything you consume, everything you like and engage with is some fundamental insight into your very character as opposed to just a means of looking at or questioning something for its own sake is not just narrow-minded but dangerous.

Art isn't obliged to be anything--not moral, not even beautiful. And while I expend very little (and I mean very little) energy engaging with or even looking at internet / twitter discourse for obvious reasons, I do find it interesting that people (online anyway) will make the entire axis of their critique on something hinge on the fact that its bad representation or justifying / romanticizing something less than ideal, proceeding to treat art as some sort of conduit for moral guidance when it absolutely isn't. And they will also hold that this critique comes from a necessarily good and just place (positive representation, and I don't know, maybe in their minds it does) while at the same time setting themselves apart from radical conservatives who do the exact same thing, only they're doing it from the other side.

To make it abundantly clear, I'm absolutely not saying you should tolerate bigots decrying that books about the Holocaust, race, homophobia, or lgbt experiences should be banned--what I am saying, is that people who protest that a book like Maus or Persepolis is going to "corrupt children", and people who think a book exploring the emotional landscape of a deeply flawed character, who just happens to be from a traditionally marginalised group or is written by someone who is, is bad representation and therefore damaging to that community as a whole are arguments that stem from the exact same place: it's a fundamental inability, or outright refusal, to accept the interiority and alterity of other people, and the inherent validity of the experiences that follow. It's the same maniacal, consumptive, belief that there can be one view and one view only: the correct view, which is your view--your thoughts, your feelings.

There is also dangerous element of control in this. Someone with racist views does not want their child to hear anti-racist views because as far as they are concerned, this child is not a being with agency, but a direct extension of them and their legacy. That this child may disagree is a profound rupture and a threat to the cohesion of this person's entire worldview. Nothing exists in and of and for itself here: rather the multiplicity of the world and people's experiences within it are reduced to shadowy agents that are either for us or against us. It's not about protecting children's "innocence" ("think of the children", in these contexts, often just means "think of the status quo"), as much as it is about protecting yourself and the threat to your perceived place in the world.

And in all honestt I think the same holds true for the other side--if you cannot trust yourself to engage with works of art that come from a different standpoint to yours, or whose subject matter you dislike, without believing the mere fact of these works' existence will threaten something within you or society in general (which is hysterical because believe me, society is NOT that flimsy), then that is not an issue with the work itself--it's a personal issue and you need to ask yourself if it would actually be so unthinkable if your belief about something isn't as solid as you think it is, and, crucially, why you have such little faith in your own critical capacity that the only response these works ilicit from you is that no one should be able to engage with them. That's not awareness to me--it's veering very close to sticking your head in the sand, while insisting you actually aren't.

Arbitrarily adding a moral element to something that does not exist as an agent of moral rectitude but rather as an exploration of deeply human impulses, and doing so simply to justify your stance or your discomfort is not only a profoundly inadequate, but also a deeply insidious, way of papering over your insecurities and your own ignorance (i mean this in the literal sense of the word), of creating a false and dishonest certainty where certainty does not exist and then presenting this as a fact that cannot and should not be challenged and those who do are somehow perverse or should have their characters called into question for it. It's reductive and infantilising in so many ways and it also actively absolves you of any responsibility as a reader--it absolves you of taking responsibility for your own interpretation of the work in question, it absolves you of responsibility for your own feelings (and, potentially, your own biases or preconceptions), it absolves you of actual, proper, thought and engagement by laying the blame entirely on a rogue piece of literature (as if prose is something sentient) instead of acknowledging that any instance of reading is a two-way street: instead of asking why do I feel this way? what has this text rubbed up against? the assumption is that the book has imposed these feelings on you, rather than potentially illuminated what was already there.

Which brings me to something else which is that it is also, and I think this is equally dangerous, lending books and stories a mythical, almost supernatural, power that they absolutely do not have. Is story-telling one of the most human, most enduring, most important and life-altering traditions we have? Yes. But a story is also just a story. And to convince yourself that books have a dangerous transformative power above and beyond what they are actually capable of is, again, to completely erase people's agency as readers, writers' agency as writers and makers (the same as any other craft), and subsequently your own. And erasing agency is the very point of censors banning books en masse. It's not an act of stupidity or blind ignorance, but a conscious awareness of the fact that people will disagree with you, and for whatever reason you've decided that you are not going to let them.

Writers and poets are not separate entities to the rest of us: they aren't shamans or prophets, gifted and chosen beings who have some inner, profound, knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to (and should therefore know better or be better in some regard) because moral absolutism just does not exist. Every writer, no matter how affecting their work may be, is still Just Some Guy Who Made a Thing. Writing can be an incredibly intimate act, but it can also just be writing, in the same way that plumbing is plumbing and weeding is just weeding and not necessarily some transcendant cosmic endeavour in and of itself. Authors are no different, when you get down to it, from bakers or electricians; Nobel laureates are just as capable of coming out with distasteful comments about women as your annoying cousin is and the fact that they wrote a genre-defying work does not change that, or vice-versa. We imbue books with so much power and as conduits of the very best and most human traits we can imagine and hope for, but they aren't representations of the best of humanity--they're simply expressions of humanity, which includes the things we don't like.

There are some authors I love who have said and done things I completely disagree with or whose views I find abhorrent--but I'm not expecting that, just because they created something that changed my world, they are above and beyond the ordinarly, the petty, the spiteful, or cruel. That's not condoning what they have said and done in the least: but I trust myself to be able to read these works with awareness and attention, to pick out and examine and attempt to understand the things that I find questionable, to hold on to what has moved me, and to disregard what I just don't vibe with or disagree with. There are writers I've chosen not to engage with, for my own personal reasons: but I'm not going to enforce this onto someone else because I can see what others would love in them, even if what I love is not strong enough to make up for what I can't. Terrance Hayes put perfectly in my view, when he talks about this and being capable of "love without forgiveness". Writing is a profoundly human heritage and those who engage with it aren't separate from that heritage as human because they live in, and are made by, the exact same world as anyone else.

The measure of good writing for me has hardly anything to do with whatever "virtue" it's perceived to have and everything to do with sincerity. As far as I'm concerned, "positive representation" is not about 100% likeable characters who never do anything problematic or who are easily understood. Positive representation is about being afforded the full scope of human feelings, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and not having your humanity, your dignity, your right to exist in the world questioned because all of these can only be seen through the filter of race, or gender, religion, or ethicity and interpreted according to our (profoundly warped) perceptions of those categories and what they should or shouldn't represent. True recognition of someone's humanity does not lie in finding only what is held in common between you (and is therefore "acceptable", with whatever you put into that category), but in accepting everything that is radically different about them and not letting this colour the consideration you give.

Also, and it may sound harsh, but I think people forget that fictional characters are fictional. If I find a particularly fucked up relationship dynamic compelling (as I often do), or if I decide to write and explore that dynamic, that's not me saying two people who threaten to kill each other and constantly hurt each other is my ideal of romance and that this is exactly how I want to be treated: it's me trying to find out what is really happening below the surface when two people behave like this. It's me exploring something that would be traumatizing and deeply damaging in real life, in a safe and fictional setting so I can gain some kind of understanding about our darker and more destructive impulses without being literally destroyed by them, as would happen if all of this were real. But it isn't real. And this isn't a radical or complex thing to comprehend, but it becomes incomprehensible if your sole understanding of literature is that it exists to validate you or entertain you or cater to you, and if all of your interpretations of other people's intentions are laced with a persistent sense of bad faith. Just because you have not forged any identity outside of this fictional narrative doesn't mean it's the same for others.

Ursula K. le Guin made an extremely salient point about children and stories in that children know the stories you tell them--dragons, witches, ghouls, whatever--are not real, but they are true. And that sums it all up. There's a reason children learning to lie is an incredibly important developmental milestone, because it shows that they have achieved an incredibly complex, but vitally important, ability to hold two contradictory statements in their minds and still know which is true and which isn't. If you cannot delve into a work, on the terms it sets, as a fictional piece of literature, recognize its good points and note its bad points, assess what can have a real world impact or reflects a real world impact and what is just creative license, how do you possible expect to recognize when authority and propaganda lies to you? Because one thing propaganda has always utilised is a simplistic, black and white depiction of The Good (Us) and The Bad (Them). This moralistic stance regarding fiction does not make you more progressive or considerate; it simply makes it easier to manipulate your ideas and your feelings about those ideas because your assessments are entirely emotional and surface level and are fuelled by a refusal to engage with something beyond the knee-jerk reaction it causes you to have.

Books are profoundly, and I do mean profoundly, important to me-- and so much of who I am and the way I see things is probably down to the fact that stories have preoccupied me wherever I go. But I also don't see them as vital building blocks for some core facet or a pronouncement of Who I Am. They're not badges of honour or a cover letter I put out into the world for other people to judge and assess me by, and approve of me (and by extension, the things I say or feel). They're vehicles through which I explore and experience whatever it is that I'm most caught by: not a prophylactic, not a mode of virtue signalling, and certainly not a means of signalling a moral stance.

I think at the end of the day so much of this tendency to view books as an extension of yourself (and therefore of an author) is down to the whole notion of "art as a mirror", and I always come back to Fran Lebowitz saying that it "isn't a mirror, it's a door". And while I do think it's important to have that mirror (especially if you're part of a community that never sees itself represented, or represented poorly and offensively) I think some people have moved into the mindset of thinking that, in order for art to be good, it needs to be a mirror, it needs to cater to them and their experiences precisely--either that or that it can only exist as a mirror full stop, a reflection of and for the reader and the writer (which is just incredibly reductive and dismissive of both)--and if art can only exist as a mirror then anything negative that is reflected back at you must be a condemnation, not a call for exploration or an attempt at understanding.

As I said, a mirror is important but to insist on it above all else isn't always a positive thing: there are books I related to deeply because they allowed me to feel so seen (some by authors who looked nothing like me), but I have no interest in surrounding myself with those books all the time either--I know what goes on in my head which is precisely why I don't always want to live there. Being validated by a character who's "just like me" is amazing but I also want--I also need-- to know that lives and minds and events exist outside of the echo-chamber of my own mind. The mirror is comforting, yes, but if you spend too long with it, it also becomes isolating: you need doors because they lead you to ideas and views and characters you could never come up with on your own. A world made up of various Mes reflected back to me is not a world I want to be immersed in because it's a world with very little texture or discovery or room for growth and change. Your sense of self and your sense of other people cannot grow here; it just becomes mangled.

Art has always been about dialogue, always about a me and a you, a speaker and a listener, even when it is happening in the most internal of spaces: to insist that art only ever tells you what you want to hear, that it should only reflect what you know and accept is to undermine the very core of what it seeks to do in the first place, which is establish connection. Art is a lifeline, I'm not saying it isn't. But it's also not an instruction manual for how to behave in the world--it's an exploration of what being in the world looks like at all, and this is different for everyone. And you are treading into some very, very dangerous waters the moment you insist it must be otherwise.

Whatever it means to be in the world, it is anything but straightforward. In this world people cheat, people kill, they manipulate, they lie, they torture and steal--why? Sometimes we know why, but more often we don't--but we take all these questions and write (or read) our way through them hoping that, if we don't find an answer, we can at least find our way to a place where not knowing isn't as unbearable anymore (and sometimes it's not even about that; it's just about telling a story and wanting to make people laugh). It's an endless heritage of seeking with countless variations on the same statements which say over and over again I don't know what to make of this story, even as I tell it to you. So why am I telling it? Do I want to change it? Can I change it? Yes. No. Maybe. I have no certainty in any of this except that I can say it. All I can do is say it.

Writing, and art in general, are one of the very, very, few ways we can try and make sense of the apparently arbitrary chaos and absurdity of our lives--it's one of the only ways left to us by which we can impose some sense of structure or meaning, even if those things exists in the midst of forces that will constantly overwhelm those structures, and us. I write a poem to try and make sense of something (grief, love, a question about octopuses) or to just set down that I've experienced something (grief, love, an answer about octpuses). You write a poem to make sense of, resolve, register, or celebrate something else. They don't have to align. They don't have to agree. We don't even need to like each other much. But in both of these instances something is being said, some fragment of the world as its been perceived or experienced is being shared. They're separate truths that can exist at the same time. Acknowledging this is the only means we have of momentarily bridging the gaps that will always exist between ourselves and others, and it requires a profound amount of grace, consideration and forbearance. Otherwise, why are we bothering at all?

#this is so much longer than i intended but yeah. those are my very long 2 cents #tbh i also think social media makes it worse in a way especially bc “transparency” has become a form of public vetting which is insane to m #me* transparency and honesty are not the same thing ans its ludicrous that this is where we're at and while we all have to live with this #demand for transparency i do think it affects writers differently bc the whole art as mirror thing comes to the fore in this argument #why would you sit with your feelings about a book when its easier and more accessible for you to @ the authors twitter handle #but anyway #ask #anonymous #book talks

396 notes · View notes

sinnersandoverlords · 3 months

Text

I originally did not want to engage in any of this nonsense because I honestly believe that taking sides in a toxic relationship where both parties have repeatedly used each other for their own gain and have a lot of ongoing misunderstandings and miscommunication is pretty stupid.

So I am gonna preface this with saying that I am neither „Team Blitz“ nor „Team Stolas“ and I do not hate any of them. Both Blitz and Stolas are inherently good people with flaws and issues due to their trauma, and that impacts all of their relationships. I think the narrative has been very clear on that, so idk where people get the idea from that one is the victim and one is the abuser in this situation.

They both are not innocent. Painting one as the abuser and one as the victim is disingenuous as they have both done objectively morally questionable shit.

But recently I have seen people shitting on Stolas so much and painting him as this awful abuser, even going so far as to call him the abusive party and the show adressing any faults Blitz has in this relationship as „victim blaming“.

Bruh.

So I really felt the need to adress this.

First of all:

„Sexual harassment“ – Please do look at the context of S2 ep 1. We are precisely told why Stolas acts the way he does. He believes that Blitz is into him behaving like a kinky bottom, and that Blitz wants him that way. That is why he acts the way he does.

Does that make it right?

No, but it is a matter of miscommunication rather than Stolas purposefully overstepping boundaries.

Once the Ozzie’s ep happens and Blitz confronts him about „Stolas only wanting him for sex“, his approach changes and he tones his aggressive flirting down a lot, as well as any pet names etc.

Yes, Stolas did things wrong.

He actively tried to mend things and do better.

Idk why people ignore that or call context and character development we have been given as „retcon“.

Then I have also seen some awful takes recently on how Stolas expected a relationship from Blitz and tried to manipulate him by offering him the Asmodean crystal.

Dude.

Are we watching the same show, guys?

He gave him that Asmodean crystal WITHOUT EXPECTING ANYTHING in return precisely because he wanted to form a relationship free of any obligations/transactions where Blitz could make a choice to be with him or not.

The power imbalance. Yeah, the power imbalance with the whole Grimoire situation and also just in general have always been a problem, but that is what Stolas tried to better by giving Blitz the Asmodean crystal so that their relationship would not involve the livelihood of Blitz in any shape or form anymore.

Also I am a bit annoyed by people ignoring that the whole relationship started because Blitz tried to manipulate Stolas to steal from him. Doesn’t make the transactional relationship ok, but Blitz never started out as a completely innocent party in this whole deal either.

Could have Stolas communicated his reasoning to Blitz better and asked him if he even wanted the crystal in the first place? Sure, I am not saying that Stolas handled everything 100% perfectly.

But some people here go out of their way so much to paint Stolas as this malicious sexual abuser, ignoring context, how both parties share blame on the situation derailing like that due to miscommunication and misunderstandings.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

#Stolas #Stolitz #Fandom rant #Blitzø #These hate campaigns against any of these two characters are getting on my nerves #They are not even enemies ffs #They are two flawed people who caught feelings and are terrible at dealing with them rn #Let them learn and grow #And please stop ignoring the context the narrative presents you with #pro stolas #i am also pro blitzø but i have seen less hate for him so

47 notes · View notes

fairuzfan · 9 months

Note

i’ve seen so many people simply claim that jewish palestinians point blank do not exist and it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of judaism/jewish history to claim they do… 🫥 deeply exhausting takes on this website

That's the thing is that it's just a blatant rewrite of history. And I'm not saying this to tokenize Jewish Palestinians or anything or make them a construct, it's just as someone who wonders at what point "Palestinian" ends and what point "Jewish" begins or vise versa. Like it's a question of identity. If I decide, myself, that I want to convert to judiasm... well right now, I can't as Palestinians aren't allowed to convert which is weird as hell, but if I could and wanted to — am I giving up a part of identity and switching it out for another one? Am I allowed to keep both identities together? If so, how do I fit into my community at large? What decides me, a 3rd generation refugee who has never been to Palestine, as "Palestinian" enough? Someone can deny my Palestinian heritage because there are arbitrary definitions being put in place without the consultation of all community members.

Like what's the point of this separation? I genuinely don't see a reason beyond segregation purposes. Some people say that it's to keep Jewish people safe (which I don't believe but to go along with this argument), But that safety relies on segregation and division of a society. Which obviously no real safety can occur, but also like you can't lie and say that it's something it's not. You can't say a society that makes distinctions based on identity legally is in any way democratic or just for all people for that matter. Because even if there are efforts to make people equal, when you have to say "Palestinians and Jews are equal..." Well you just straight up named the two groups you think have a difference between each other. That implicitly requires the reader to perceive a divide.

And you can argue, "let's just call everyone Israeli and make no distinctions between Palestinian and Jewish people," but Palestinians in Israel would never agree to that unilaterally, even if we are operating on a two state solution (which will never happen but for arguments sake). They'd rather not abandon their cultural identification. And even then, when the society is built of Jewish supremacy with the express purpose of erasing Palestinians codified in their founding documents, is that equality, knowing an indigenous population had to give up their identity to subscribe to perceived peace? Isn't that inherently violent and anti-equality?

Indiginiety, in Palestine, as i dont feel confident to speak on other peoples cultures and struggles, has to do with your relationship to colonialism as well as the land. For me, an indigenous person who has suffered the effects of displacement of colonialism and who regularly watches from afar as their land gets tormented, to hear that the only way I can go back to visit that land is to deny my centuries worth of ancestors buried on PALESTINIAN land, then I'd be incredibly heartbroken. This is even from my own perspective, which I consider the least important in my family line. My grandmother should be able to see her father's burial place without worrying about whether or not she's considered Palestinian or fully colonized as Israeli. My mother should be able to stroll the lands she's always heard stories about without worrying that the very essense of her personhood, the thing shes been denied her entire life having to grow up in refugee camp, as a palestinian is being denied in totality at the end of her struggle. People in refugee camps should be able to go back without worrying about where they fall in the world hierarchies of weirdly defined terms.

So like what's the real purpose with this distinction, exactly?? Any sort of society which operates on some basis of understanding that it is "for" a specific group of people and not anyone else is inherently flawed.

And like, again, Jewish Palestinians are a demographic that exist, I'm not saying this as a gotcha or construct, I am asking this for myself who has stakes in the matter of how this question is answered and dealt with in this larger framework. Would I stop being Palestinian if I decide one day to convert to judiasm? Am I "Palestinian enough" to receive the right of return based on the definitions of Palestinians you come up with in an Israeli society? If I'm excluded in any way, then yeah, I'm going to be angry about it. Most people would be. The issue is that I don't see a way to go about answering these questions without inevitably excluding someone or some group, if not in the definition, in the ways we form our communities after the fact.

58 notes · View notes

transmascpetewentz · 10 months

Text

A Short Guide To Writing Gay Trans Men

So a few disclaimers before I start:

I'm not going to talk about anything sex-related here because 1) people have made other guides and google is your friend & 2) I'm not very comfortable with it.

I am just one person, and due to the fact that I am white and thin and perisex, I will definitely have blind spots. If you want more information about intersections that don't apply to me, ask someone who it does apply to!

I did get lots of messages from trans guys giving me advice on this, but nonetheless I do not speak for absolutely everyone.

There will be very little info here on how to accurately write medical transitions because that's not something I've experienced. Google is your best friend on this one.

This is not a complete post. I will keep adding to it as time goes on. If you're seeing this post reblogged by someone else, click on the original to see if I've made any additions or corrections before you send me that anon hate and/or comment telling me to kill myself.

What Not To Do

When there is a trans male character written by a cis person, especially a cis man, there's a very solid chance that he is going to check off at least 9 of the following boxes:

Thin

White

Able-bodied

Neurotypical or LSN neurodivergent

Binary

No nuance given to his identity and expression

Sexuality not specified or elaborated on

A cis person's love interest

2 dimensional transmasc stereotype

Usually small and feminine, but not actually femme

Gay transmasc characters written by cis people are very difficult to find because cis authors will often not specify the sexuality of the trans man dating a cis man or elaborate on his connection to the MLM community. This is because many cis authors believe that writing a gay trans man is just writing a woman but switching one of the genders. This is, of course, not true, and there must be more care taken to provide nuance and create a more accurate (and non-dysphoria-inducing) representation.

Moving Past The White Twink Stereotype

This is one of the most basic bars to clear for a cis person writing a gay trans man, and yet so many continue to fail at this very simple task. Ask yourself: is your gay transmasc character a white, hairless, thin person? If the answer is yes, that's not inherently a bad thing, though it may be good to reflect on why you want to create a character like this if this is the only type of transmasc representation you write.

The biggest thing you need to do here is to give him a set of defining traits. Not physical traits, not even gender expression traits. Just personality. What kind of person is he? How does he cope with the transphobia in this world (unless you're writing a fantasy universe without transphobia)? How does he act towards strangers? How does he approach people of different genders? What is his outlook on cis people? Once you have the basics, it's time to think about his physical appearance & expression and how that has impacted his life and his personality.

You also want to avoid the trope where a gay trans man's personality is undeveloped and he is treated as an object for cis men to help them advance their character arcs. It's fine for trans men to serve a purpose like that in the story, but they need to be their own individual humans.

Writing Sexuality

If your trans male characters date men, and I cannot reiterate this enough, make them be open about their homosexuality or bisexuality. Give them a sexual orientation and make them be proud of it. Of course, not every gay trans man is going to identify heavily with a masc/fem role in gay male relationships, but you should seriously consider whether or not your character would.

Additionally, don't follow the flawed line of logic of "trans man -> vagina -> bottom -> fem/femme." It's fine to make your gay trans male characters fem but please, I swear to god please give them a good reason for being so. If you do make your character femme, be very cautious to use language that doesn't trigger actual trans men's dysphoria. Don't constantly point out the character's physical features that may be associated with femininity unless you're making a point either about his dysphoria or about how society treats him or maybe about how he comes to accept his body. However, please be extremely careful with the last one as this trope has been used in so many transphobic portrayals.

Have your gay trans male character exist in gay spaces with other gay men (both cis and trans). Have him be open about being a gay man specifically. Give him cis gay male friends. Give him trans gay male friends. Don't allow your reader to ignore the fact that he is very much a gay man.

Dysphoria

For the love of all things good, please do not write your gay trans male character's dysphoria as "from the day I was born, I knew I was born in the wrong body. I have had no internalized shame or guilting into making me doubt my transness, and it was obvious that I was not a woman." That's not how anyone's dysphoria works, even if they did know from a young age that they were born in the wrong body.

For gay trans men specifically, most of us end up realizing we're trans around either age 12 or age 20. This doesn't mean he has to be exactly that age, but that's generally the safest age to have your character's egg crack. Of course, you can sprinkle in signs that he's trans since he was a young child, but I know a lot of gay trans men and I have yet to meet one who has known since birth and has had no doubt in his mind about it. However you can and should write older gay trans men, even some who find out they're trans in their 40s or older. Representation of older trans people is seriously lacking compared to how many there are.

Don't make your character the stereotype of a straight trans man who doesn't face the specific intersection of being trans and gay. Facing this intersection does affect something even as personal as dysphoria. Many of us will have self-doubt, believe that we're disgusting fetishists of gay men, or simply exist as women in gay spaces for a time. You also have to take into account gay beauty standards & your character's upbringing to figure out what they're likely to be most dysphoric about.

hi :3

That's it for now. I'll keep adding to this post as I get feedback and suggestions. If you want more advice, feel free to send me an ask. When I get enough asks about things, I'll make an FAQ post answering some of them.

#wentz.txt #transmasc #writeblr #long post #extremely long post

58 notes · View notes