#i think being on a jury for a violent murder would fuck me up

[iamonlyhereforthefreefood]

I actually kinda want to get picked for a jury now but only if it’s for something cool

[lyledebeast]

Male Homosociality and War Crimes in The Patriot

Of all the problems The Patriot as a story creates for itself, the most interesting for me has always been this: how do you craft a villain when the hero is also a war criminal? It appears to me the filmmakers had a simple answer to this question staring them right in their faces, so why does a story that leans so heavily on the rumor that Banastre Tarleton habitually ordered the execution of surrendering Continental soldiers do absolutely nothing with the rumor that he habitually raped and allowed his men to rape colonial women? Surely, that would have helped to make Colonel Tavington as despicable as we are clearly meant to find him, particularly since the Patriot soldiers do not engage in rape, at least not literally. Instead, both Benjamin Martin and Tavington are tried by juries of their peers with Martin being nearly universally adored and Tavington being as nearly universally despised. This approach creates two problems. First, it means the Patriots, who something tells me are the people the audience is meant to sympathize with, are okay with some very fucked up actions both past and present. It also makes it hard to justify the Patriots' hatred for the British as whole when the audience sees how little support Tavington has.

Somewhat ironically given the myths about Tarleton, the only characters to directly mention rape in the film are Patriots, a father and son. As the Martin family anticipates survivors of the battle being in near proximity to them, Nathan attempts to titillates his siblings with this dire prediction: "They'll probably kill us men and do lord knows what to you women." In addition to shock among some in the audience, this elicits the question that always arises when a child says something incredibly fucked up: where did you hear that? Judging from her disgusted reaction, I do not think it was his caregiver Abigale. We get an answer some months later when Benjamin describes the events leading up to the Fort Wilderness massacre. "[The French and Cherokess] had killed all the settlers. The men . . . with the women and some of the children they had . . . we buried them." In the moment, Martin's hesitancy to name the particular violence these settlers suffered seems to speak to respect for them, but if so, he failed to convey that to either the son who makes the prediction earlier on or the even younger boy who giggles at it. This is the first time violence is referenced as a means of male bonding; it is certainly not the last.

The conversation between Martin and his oldest son referenced above is bizarre for a couple of reasons. Not only does the narrative twist Martin's confession to war crimes against the French and Cherokees in reprisal into evidence of his morality (he feels so bad about it!), but Gabriel is thoroughly nonplussed by this confession. He shifts the topic to his murdered brother and his desire to avenge him, but not at the expense of "the cause." Why is Gabriel so eager to take his father's supposed contrition at face value when he has personally seen him both hack a man's back to shreds with a tomahawk and participate in the murder of surrendering British soldiers a hell of a lot more recently than the French and Indian War? By the end of his life, Gabriel does more than tolerate his father's violent past. He approaches Tavington's prone form, believing him to be mortally wounded, to repeat it.

Bonding with his son through discussion of war crimes is not an anomaly among Martin's relationships. When he and Major Villeneuve recruit in the tavern, two of the men who sign up are acquaintances of Martin's from the previous war. One of them inquires about bounties and Martin give the intriguing response of "No scalp bounty this time, Rollins, but I'll pay for the gear of any redcoat you kill." How Rollins is going to prove the gear belonged to redcoats he killed who were not wounded or surrendering after Martin issues his orders against such conduct is a mystery the movie never clears up . When the other acquaintance, Billings, asks Martin if he is one of "that sort--" the sort Gabriel believes should not serve in the militia because, well, they're war criminals--Martin jokingly tells him, "You're the sort that gives that sort a bad name." Just boys being boys!

My favorite use of war crimes to further male bonding is the bizarre relationship between Martin and his second in command, Major Villeneuve. Initially the two grate on each other: Martin tortured French soldiers to death, while Villeneuve is French. The two offenses are presented as carrying basically equal weight. Ultimately, though, Villeneuve's objection to Martin is less that he committed war crimes but that he forbids Villeneuve from doing the same. But over time, they come to see each other in a different light. When Martin greets Villeneuve after the militia's ill-fated furlough, Villeneuve responds with a tongue in cheek, "Where else can I kill a few redcoats? Perhaps a few wounded ones when you're not looking." That Martin laughs nervously at this joke should be surprising, but it really isn't. While we haven't seen any wounded or surrendering men killed since Martin's order, nor have we seen any in militia custody. Has Villeneuve had a change of heart, or is Martin simply skilled in looking the other way? Later, Martin asks Villeneuve what color his slain daughters' eyes were as they march into the final battle, psyching him up to go and do their favorite activity together: vengeance! This shared priority, the only thing they have in common, outweighs their shortcomings in each other's eyes. Liberté, fraternité, and all that jazz.

Most of Martin's screentime, and he is in almost every scene, is spent developing his homosocial bonds, but even British men seem to regard Tavington with varying degrees of contempt, disgust, and fear. This lack of fellowship even characterizes his scenes with his own Green Dragoons. There are only two opportunities for dragoon comradery depicted in the movie: one where Tavington interrupts his men at dinner and one where he is grooming himself in the creek while they eat around their campfires. Tavington being left out of eating and drinking in particular becomes a recurring theme. His first meeting with Cornwallis, in the extended cut, happens after the Battle of Camden when the British officers are celebrating their victory. Tavington arrives late, apparently hungry from the way he immediately reaches for the food on the table, withdrawing his hand when Cornwallis draws closer to scold him. As he's dressing down Tavington, Cornwallis takes food from the same table and feeds it to his Great Danes. The exchange ends with Cornwallis proposing a toast, turning his back on Tavington and his second, who do not have glasses. The scene establishes that his role in winning a battle in no way makes Tavington's treatment of the enemy or civilians less odious, and his fellow officers are so united in this that no one so much as blinks when their general is incredibly rude to him. Over the course of the movie, they all maintain this conviction, except for one.

Producer Dean Devlin's describes Tavington as "seduc[ing]" Cornwallis into allowing him his brutal tactics, and this seems especially apt given the way their relationship develops on screen. As they grow closer tactically, they also grow closer physically. In their scene after Cornwallis ices Tavington out of his tent, Cornwallis remains seated at his desk while demanding that Tavington, who is standing on the opposite side, cease his brutal methods. In the scene following Cornwallis's humiliation at Martin's hands during the prisoner exchange, he is again seated at a table, eating dinner, while Tavington stands on the other side. From this point forward, though, there is a marked shift in the two men's positions. Cornwallis motions Tavington forward, and Tavingon approaches, putting as much space between himself and Cornwallis as we see between the general and the servant waiting on him as Cornwallis says, "I want you to capture [Martin]." If he intends to remind Tavington of his own servile position, the message does not register. Tavington takes a little stroll, peeks at Cornwallis's map, and helps himself to a glass of his claret, a stand-in for the glass he was denied at their first meeting. He assures Cornwallis, "I alone will assume the full mantle of responsibility, rendering you blameless" for his future crimes in pursuit of Martin. In light of Devlin's description of this scene, it does sound a bit like, Don't worry, babe, no one is going to know about this but you and me.

It is a ridiculous claim. When the Green Dragoons go on a veritable murder and arson spree after months of abstinence, it does not take a genius to realize that maybe the general of the whole fucking British army might have something to do with that. Nonetheless, by the end of this scene Cornwallis and Tavington are standing side by side for the first time in the movie. Their last scene is even more elicit. Cornwallis walks in on Tavington having his wound dressed to warn him against an early charge, the very same thing he scolds him for in their first scene, but this time Tavington is only in his shirt and his hair is loose and . . . it's a little on the nose, to be honest. And they're all alone. As powerful as Cornwallis is, he is also the only person Tavington ever convinces to condone his actions, and he can only do so by offering assurances he could not possibly grant. What does not change is the conviction of everyone in the British Army, Tavington included, that they will live and be remembered in infamy until the end of time if they do Bad Things to the Patriots. Meanwhile, the Patriots are bonding with each other almost exclusively through planning and doing Bad Things to them.

There are double-standards, and then there's this bullshit. Martin commits a dizzying amount of fuckery ranging from sending the Cherokees pieces of their fighters in bags to terrorize them into compliance to ordering his young sons to kill soldiers to apparently talking about rape in front of those sons in a way that left them thinking it is something to laugh about, and he is seen as a hero and a loving father by everyone around him. Tavington walks into a tent full of his fellow officers after a battle he helped win, and they all look at him like "Who invited Murder Molly?" Martin's men are devoted to him not in spite of his past war crimes but because of them, and the movie's insistence that he has changed his ways is, in the most generous terms, feeble. The thinly veiled homoeroticism of Tavingtion and Cornwallis's relationship only serves to underscore how marginal their position that war crimes can be justified under the right circumstances is among the British. Among the Patriots, that position appears to be standard.

Representing Tarleton's dragoons as the rapists some people of the time believed they were would obviously not have been great from a historical perspective, but it would be a drop in the ocean of inaccuracies the movie is adrift in. And it would have at least made the redcoats as bad as the characters the audience is meant to support! Both sides ultimately do terrible things, but they are framed by the narrative very differently in ways that inadvertently present the British in a favorable light. While the Patriots treat the vilest of war's excesses with understanding and sometimes even levity, the British have a horror of the idea that war exceeds the limits of the battlefield that is hard to fathom in professional soldiers. In the homosocial world of The Patriot, the ultimate measure of virtue lies not in actions but in the approval of other men.

[percontaion-points]

TBWSIMBW chapter 21

Today's review might be difficult for some; reader discretion is advised

Click to see the rest of the snark & image descriptions

Click here for the rest of the series!

Chapter 21

“I’m not going anywhere! I won’t let you do this, either of you. You can’t beat the crap out of him, you’ll get in trouble. You’re being freaking stupid!” she shouted. Tears rolled down her face as she spoke. 

I hate to be the devil’s advocate right now, but Amber’s right. Punching the shit out of the man is only likely to lead to assault charges for Jake (and Liam if he participates). I’m sorry for saying this, but they probably do need to wait until he tries to hurt Johnny, Ruby, or Matt. (Or possibly Amber again.) This way, it’ll be a justified defence of others, of which I’m like 75% certain that no jury would actually convict. 

“I love you too. If you get sent to jail for murder then I’ll wait for you,” she stated with no emotion in her voice at all. It wasn’t a joke; she really thought I was going to jail. 

Honestly, do you blame her for thinking that? They’re going out of their way to lure the guy to their house for the express purpose of hurting him. 

“Do you understand me? You need to leave town. Now. There’s nothing left here for you now. Ruby doesn’t want you either, no one wants you,” he spat.

I’m here once again to say that it’s good that they helped Ruby to leave. But as soon as she was out of the house, she should have contacted a good lawyer. Probably started drafting up a restraining order. (I think that they might be able to get an emergency restraining order.)

Yes, it’s only been two days, but still. Being slapped with divorce papers probably would have helped. 

“This is all your fucking fault! You and Amber had to open your filthy mouths and tell Johnny about what happened.”

I ain’t even sorry for saying this, but if you didn’t want your former victims to tell the world what happened… Maybe you shouldn’t have beat them and tried to molest your own daughter. 

Also, maybe don’t beat up your new family, too. That sure didn’t help Johnny and Ruby decide that they should leave.

He turned to look at me, hate clear across his face. “Fuck you! She’s my daughter,” he shouted, yanking her roughly closer to him. She turned and tried to push him away. His face turned hard. I lunged forward at the same time he slapped her hard across the face.

 I grabbed his shirt and punched him full in the face, enjoying the satisfying crack his nose made as my fist connected with it.

Once again acting in the role of devil’s advocate here, but I think Amber did the correct thing in letting the man who tried to rape her grab her like this. Again, it goes back to how harshly that this would be charged. 

Maybe I could just go over and be another witness, then that way when he starts something first I could say it was self-defence too. Another witness would definitely help their case.

I figured that Amber’s motives weren’t half as smart as I was giving her credit for. The fact that it happened to line up with the way that I’d defend the children was nothing but coincidence. 

(Note: I am not a lawyer. None of this is legal advice.)

This was going ruin everything; he wouldn’t want me now that I’d killed our baby. 

Honestly, if Liam leaves because Stephan hit Amber so hard that she miscarried, Amber seriously dodged a major bullet. 

“Hey, Angel,” I murmured, stroking her face lightly, it was sore looking and was already starting to bruise where he’d slapped her.

So um… while you’re at the hospital, why don’t you get pictures of that lovely bruise and start pressing charges?

Edit after doing some research: I’m pretty sure the violent feticide charge would be pretty heavy. 38 US states classify it as homicide. 

That asshole is pressing charges?

Chapter 21 summary: Amber gets into a huge fight with both Liam and Jake about how they’re luring Stephan over to the house for the purpose of beating him up. But she does leave. Liam then waits around with Jake until Stephan shows up. 

When he gets there, he says a lot of truly awful things. It mainly boils down to how he doesn’t seem to view other people (re: his wife and kids) as actual people, only things that belong to him. And he’s angry that his oldest son would have dared to tell his step-son about all of this, which obviously led to Ruby and Johnny leaving with Matt. (Again, he’s blaming Ruby and Johnny for wanting to get out of the abusive situation.)

Amber shows up right as the boys are about to start beating Stephan. Stephan grabs Amber and starts hurting her. This makes Liam see red, and he starts beating the shit out of Stephan. But then Liam realises that Amber is lying on the ground and crying. When he goes to her, he realises that there’s blood coming from her crotch. 

They call for an ambulance, where the EMT confirms that Amber is having a miscarriage. The doctors take her into a room to do a D&C. While she’s in there, Liam basically mopes in the waiting area while bemoaning how this is all his fault. When the doctor comes out, Liam goes in to be with Amber. 

Later, police show up to arrest Liam. 

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: Superman vs. the Elite

Superman is one of the greatest heroes ever conceived, if not the greatest. He is a man born with god-like powers but raised in the most humble environment possible, where he learns the value of human life, love, compassion, and all that good stuff. This all instills him with a desire to do good, but also to never use the unstoppable force he is gifted to enforce his will on others and play judge, jury, and executioner. He is the living embodiment of the American Dream, he is the living embodiment of freedom and righteousness, he is something to aspire to be…

And goddamn do so many people miss the point. I think the best/worst example of this is Bill in Kill Bill, who gives a really great monologue about how Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the human race. It’s all well and good until you realize, no, Clark Kent is not a secret identity, Clark Kent is who he is, Superman is the secret identity. This man was born and raised by humble Kansas farmers and you’re gonna tell me the Clark Kent persona is the fake one? Go in the closet and think about what you’ve done, David Carradine! But yeah, a lot of people don’t really get what the Supes is all about.

Joe Kelly is not one of those people. His comic “What’s So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?” took Superman and asked the all-important question: Are Superman and his ideals still relevant in the Dark Age of Comics, where anti-heroes who kill their enemies are the norm? The answer, of course, is yes, because Kelly understands Superman better than most, and in the end his idealism beats back the cynicism of the edgy Elite. In a stroke of genius, they decided to have Kelly write for the animated adaptation of his own comic, and that brings us to Superman vs. the Elite.

This is, without a doubt in my mind, the best Superman story ever. It really does just capture the core of why Superman works, and why heroes who kill are just not feasible. The Elite, for all their posturing and good intentions, ultimately come off as a bunch of bullies. Menagerie kills a dog for barking at her, Hat is an alcoholic, Coldcast… well, he’s honestly the most level-headed one there, he gets a pass, and ooh boy Manchester Black. That boy is a sniveling little hypocrite when it comes down to it. Mister Psychic Mind Blast is all about “Might makes right” up until Superman starts slapping him around like a redheaded step-child, and then he breaks down crying and pissing his pants about how unfair it is and how Superman shouldn’t do things like that. It doesn’t help the Elite actively make things worse, what with their collateral damage, disregard for civilian casualties, and violent escalation of conflict to the point that they murder two dictators and create a massive power vacuum the film doesn’t really address.

Superman counters their argument for heroes who kill brutally and efficiently in the endgame. I really don’t want to spoil it, because it is one of the most chilling and awesome sequences in any of these DC animated films, but it’s really hard not to since it’s probably the most famous part of this film; if you know of the movie, you know what happens at the end. Let’s just say that Superman should never, ever sound like George Newbern’s other most famous role (Sephiroth), because it is fucking terrifying. You will get chills when Superman shows just how utterly nightmarish it would be if he played by the same rules Manchester and his buddies do.

I think the only real issues I have is that the film is a tad too short, being barely over 70 minutes, and that it cuts a few things and alters a few things that make Superman seem like a cunt. In this movie it isn’t made clear that he temporarily deactivates Black’s power; if you’ve read the comic or at least are aware of what happens in it, you know Superman just gave him a super-conucssion, but if you don’t know that why would you think Supes didn’t lobotomize him like he claimed, especially since it seems the logical third option between killing and tossing in jail? And then there’s the whole “I’ve had your friends depowered” bit, which would be whatever if not for the fact he didn’t do this for Atomic Skull, a supervillain who was walking around turning people to ash. Kind of skewed priorities there.

Still, I genuinely think this is the best Superman we’re ever gonna get, because at its heart it understands why Superman is great, and it also understands that arguments that heroes like Supes should kill are fucking stupid and only limp-dick morons believe it. It’s a tale of hope and optimism standing in the face of reckless cynicism and telling it to fuck off (but politely), and really highlights the flaws of works like Man of Steel all the more. If nothing else, this is the best movie Superman has been in with some form of “Vs.” in the title!

[cabensonsgirly]

👼These Violent Delights Have Violent Ends (Multi-Char)[NSFW]👼

Multiple SP characters x fem!reader

Xandra, Billie-Dean, Ally Mayfair, Anne Gillette, Audrey Tindall, Wilhemina Venable, Ellie Staple, Diane Sherman, Mildred Ratched.

👼Slice 2👼

Co-authored with @billiedeannovak ​ even though she’ll deny it.

👼Wordcount: 1530👼

👼Published on AO3: Read Here👼

👼 Taglist: @mrsdeanhoward @okpaulson 👼

👼 Content (some for later parts): Super Au, dubious consent, slow-burn, manipulation, face-slapping, drug-use, alcohol, smut, cunnilingus, strap-on, cum, choking, degradation, sex-work, court, bruises, spit, mommy kink, daddy kink, humiliation, public sex/teasing 👼 

👼She rolls her eyes and lets out an annoyed sigh, she was not interested in this man in the slightest and he wasn’t even that good in bed, it was his money she was after, and she would leave the relationship with all of it after they get married. He had been talking about marriage for the past few months seeing as they had been together for a few years, completely unaware of how disinterested she actually is. Anne was not a woman to fall in love, nor was she the type of woman to settle down and get married. 👼

Rita leads Anne from the courtroom, the pair laughing quietly and talking amongst themselves as they made their way to an elevator. Rita gestured for Anne to enter before she went to herself, “Rita!” the older woman fights the urge to roll her eyes, telling Anne where she was to go and how to get there before she closes the elevator door. She turns to face the woman who yelled her name “Oh what a pleasant surprise, Detective Benson. What do I owe the pleasure?”

Olivia shakes her head, jaw set firm as she stops in front of Rita “What the fuck are you doing? The evidence shows that she was the one that set the crime up! Who cares if Prestwick was blackmailed!? Gillette killed her damned parents and you know it. Just because you have some vendetta with my team doesn’t-“

Rita laughs, shaking her head with an amused smile on her face “How many times must we do this, Olivia? It is my job to defend people regardless of what they do, just like it is your job to investigate crimes ethically. I know I’m doing my job to the books; I can’t say the same about you. My advice, lie back and pretend like you’re enjoying it. You’ll last longer.” She steps into the elevator after the doors ding open, she turns to give the detective one last cursory glance “You lost, Benson.” She states before the doors close.

It doesn’t matter whether she believes Anne killed her parents or not, the woman had paid her generously to defend her and she was going to do just that. Nor does it matter the two have history, it didn’t impact the case or her ability to do her job. She was looking forward to the end of it though so she could finally actually enjoy a quiet drink without the guilt of knowing she should be working instead.

Once the doors open, she makes her way quickly to where Anne should be, letting out a breath of relief when she sees Anne sitting back in one of the seats, her blazer draped over the back of it. “You really think I’d risk doing a runner after the absolute field day you had out there? Ms. Calhoun I’m offended” she laughs, a coy smirk tugging at her lips “I’m saving the energy for once I’m cleared of my charges. How does that sound? You come back to the estate and unwind, just like the-“

Rita hushes her, swatting her arm lightly as she takes a seat opposite the blonde “Ms. Gillette! The walls have ears.” She shrugs her blazer off as well and leans back in her seat, propping her elbow up on the armrest before leaning her head against it, a small smile on her face as she looks at the woman opposite her.

“I never thought I’d be defending you in a murder case too, Anne. It’s one thing helping you get out of minor assault charges, but for a double-homicide?” She lets out a laugh, shaking her head “That is something else entirely. You were always one to make a grand show of things though, hm?” Rita quirks a brow at the blonde, a faint smirk tugging at her lips which earns an eye-roll and scoff from the blonde.

“Oh please Rita, I’m hardly as dramatic as that Tindall woman. Now, after this is all over, would you like to join me for drinks? Nothing else will happen, just an extra thank you for your hard work.” Rita sighs quietly “I can’t- I owe Novak a round after being so rough on her in court. She’s an amazing lawyer and a hard-worker, I’d rather not burn that bridge.”

Rita’s phone buzzes against the table and she immediately grabs it, turning the screen on to see the message before her eyes dart to Anne’s “They’ve reached a verdict, Ms. Gillette” she breathes out, a very faint hint of a nervous waver. “Well then, let’s get this over and done with.” Anne stands up and puts her blazer on, doing a button up in the middle then brushing some of her hair behind her ear. She follows Rita out of the room and down the hall to the elevator, this is the first time since this case started that she feels genuinely nervous- Not that she committed the crime, anyone would be nervous if they were in court.

Rita gives Anne’s arm a gentle squeeze before they exit the elevator and make their way into the court room, both ignoring the glares coming from the prosecution as they take a seat behind their table. “All stand for the Judge.” They do just that, Rita glancing at Casey out the corner of her eye, noticing how tense she appears before they take their seats again once the Judge has sat down.

Court:                 Will the jury foreperson please stand. Has the jury reached a unanimous verdict?

Foreperson:          Yes.

                                  CLERK TAKES THE VERDICT FORM

                                     AND HANDS IT TO THE JUDGE.                              

Rita rests her hand on Anne’s thigh, giving it a reassuring squeeze upon noticing how anxious the woman was before returning her hand to rest on the table with her other one.

Judge:                    The jury find the defendant not guilty. The defendant is free to go home. Lets hope we don’t see you in this court again, Ms. Gillette. The jury is thanked and excused. Court is adjourned.

Anne lets out a shaky breath before standing up and throwing her arms around Rita in a tight hug, repeatedly mumbling thank you to her. Rita returns the hug before pulling back slightly, gently wiping away the few tears that had spilled onto Anne’s cheeks, giving her a soft smile “I told you that I’d make sure you were found not guilty, Ms. Gillette. I’m a woman of my word, you should know that by now.”

Anne smiles back and lets go of Rita before running a hand through her short blonde hair “A miracle worker.” She glances over Rita’s shoulder and sees Casey watching intently, a disheartened look on her face before returning her gaze back to the woman in front of her “I should get going, it looks like Casey wants a word with you and she definitely looks like she needs a few drinks. I’ll see you around, Rita.” She kisses the woman’s cheek in farewell before taking her leave, feeling considerably lighter and more free now that the case is over.

Once she is out of the courthouse, she takes out her phone and calls her boyfriend- well, he thinks he’s her boyfriend, but she really couldn’t care less. “Hi darling, you’re talking to a free woman. No I’m not upset you couldn’t be in court, it would hardly be a good look for a detective to be seen on the alleged criminal’s side. You can make it up to me tonight when you take me out for dinner- Yes Yn can come along too, she is your daughter after all. I will take her shopping for something nice- I won’t be spoiling the girl. She needs nicer clothing to go to the restaurant I have in mind. Don’t worry- I already told you I am not going to spoil the girl. I don’t like repeating myself so it would do you some good to actually listen. I’ll pick her up from university and we’ll go from there. Mhmm, love you too. See you tonight.”

She rolls her eyes and lets out an annoyed sigh, she was not interested in this man in the slightest and he wasn’t even that good in bed, it was his money she was after, and she would leave the relationship with all of it after they get married. He had been talking about marriage for the past few months seeing as they had been together for a few years, completely unaware of how disinterested she actually is. Anne was not a woman to fall in love, nor was she the type of woman to settle down and get married.

“You better not fuck this family up too, Ms. Gillette” Anne turns to find Olivia walking towards her, thoroughly pissed off “Yn is like a daughter to me, so if I find out you do anything to upset her-“ The blonde gives her a bored look “Do you have nothing better to do, Olivia? Were you not listening to what the judge said? I’m an innocent woman, so no, I didn’t fuck my family up, daddy did when he killed my mother before himself.”

She takes a step closer to the brunette, a smug smirk settling on her face “You may be like a mother to her, Olivia, but unlike you… I actually am her step-mom, something you will never be. Now, this may be a surprise to you, seeing as you’re someone that never works, I have things to do including taking Yn clothes shopping for our celebratory dinner tonight. You’re not invited.” She fakes a pout “How unfortunate” before laughing and making her way to the car that was waiting for her before getting in, telling the driver where to go.

[wildfey]

Anon from yesterday back again! About the set-up, a post on twitter explained the theory much better and I gotta look up the name. The gist is that Phoenix could've proved that he was set up. He did not have the time to have a forgery done since he got the job for defending Zak only the day before. Plus the money. Instead, there is no evidence at all he even tried. Why? Because he'd seen the courts' corruption before and decided it didn't matter anymore, plus too dangerous.

(continued) You could even point at his reply to the Judge's words and wonder if Phoenix has nothing to say because he knows it's useless to argue. Hidden powers have already decided that they will attack him and try to drag him down.

okay, okay, hello again anon, good to see you back with another excellent ask.

I always think that there are two ways to look at Phoenix's disbarment:

a) that the problem was straight-up with bringing forged evidence into court, no matter what the circumstances were.

b) that the problem was that Phoenix was assumed to have created the forged evidence and bought it into court intentionally.

Ace Attorney really flips around on which of these is true in universe (it's a plot point to some extent in 1-5, 3-3, 4-1, and 4-4) but considering that Phoenix gets his badge back almost immediately after it's proved that the second wasn't the case, I'm going to assume that presenting forged evidence accidentally is either not an issue or less of an issue. This tends to be the fanon majority stance too. (It's worth noting that Edgeworth is implied to have pulled some strings irt getting Phoenix's badge back. Ymmv and so on.)

With our framework safely in place, the question arises: If Phoenix could have avoided punishment, or at least public shaming, by revealing the set-up, why wouldn't he? As you point out, the forgery doesn't make sense once you start to look into it and we know that Phoenix did put a lot of these pieces together. Hell, he could have made these arguments when Misham testified during the Gramarye trial. But he doesn't. (Warning: this is a more headcanon-y meta than my last one, because the 7yg is... a gap and we have very little concrete info on what the fuck Phoenix was up to. He got a kid, worked on jury trials, played good poker + bad piano, and had some sort of frenemyship with Kristoph. That's pretty much all we've got).

Firstly: Corruption. The AA court system is ridiculously corrupt, and at the point that Phoenix is disbarred, he becomes emblematic of this - he's a man with a history of revealing injustice - notably Von Karma & Gant, but even without them he still won some high profile cases - and once he's disbarred, it's implied that the narrative is flipped, turning him into a figurehead for that which he fought against (dark age of the law, etc). The obvious conclusion is that his disbarment was a convenient way to discredit him - powerful and corrupt figures (and in AA there are many) don't need to fear Phoenix Wright if he isn't a lawyer and his reputation is ruined. The counter argument is that Phoenix... has always done some questionable things with evidence (1-5, 2-4, and 3-3 stand out to me). But no more so than anyone else in this fucked-up universe. Either way, Phoenix has always worked in a system stacked against him, and it's very possible that he suspected there to be manoevering behind the scenes (and there was! We know Kristoph existed and was purposefully working against Phoenix.) HOWEVER, I don't believe that any of this would stop him on it's own, because it's been long established that Phoenix Wright does not give a shit about bad odds.

So, what would make him accept it? Anon, you mention danger in your ask, and I do see that as partially true - Phoenix isn't concerned about danger to himself, but he has a kid to care for. I would say, however, that especially when we come to Kristoph, as much of a bastard as he is, Phoenix had no evidence that he could be violent to the point of murder until 4-1. Before that, his influence was long-distance life ruining, rather than active threat (though long-distance life ruining is pretty scary on its own when you're raising a small child with low funds). I do see that as a cause, but one of many, and this is the point where I'd like to go back to the conversation on motivation.

I am going to make the argument here, as I did in the other answer, that Phoenix, in the 7yg and possibly elsewhere, is depressed, and that one symptom of that is a loss of motivation. It's implied by the game itself, and makes more sense than most of the alternatives.

(I won't get too personal, but the years of my life where I dressed like this... not good years lol)

My headcanon has always been that by the point that Phoenix had sorted out his guardianship of Trucy and got himself out of that initial low that came from having his life ruined, it was too late to fix his disbarment and he had to change tracks, and that's when he became interested in MASON. (Not to self-promote, but I'm realising that a lot of what I've said here is rephrased ideas from The Path Once So Clear, so if you want 15,000-ish words on the subject, it's there). Of course, when talking about Phoenix's 7yg depression, I think it's also important to mention that Phoenix in AA4 is very much implied to be putting on an act (which is pretty common in AA4 in general. Most characters in that game have both a public and private face). Being 'Beanix' - eg. the piano/poker player with no prospects who works in a shitty restaurant and takes nothing seriously - is a convenient cover while he works on the things that he doesn't want to be targeted for (and here we come back to the corruption angle).

As to how far the depression helps that act... well, that could be a whole conversation on its own. Once again, I'm very much coming into headcanon here, but I'm reminded of the phenomenon where someone with depression will deliberately exacerbate it, either as a form of self-harm or as some attempt to fit a role (artists are especially prone, due to the 'depressed artist' stereotype. I see it most in the emo scene). Beanix has always seemed to me as someone who is deliberately messing up his own life - he repeatedly provokes Apollo, essentially sabotaging their relationship, he puts himself into dangerous situations for no real reason (this is a general Phoenix trait), and despite the fact that we KNOW Maya and Edgeworth were supportive of him during this period, we never actually see them around, presumably because he's keeping them at a distance. How much of this is for the act, and how much is real?

Again, we've come very much off topic (whoops) but I see a lot of this as another aspect of Phoenix's low self worth - is there a difference between the image he projects of a man who has given up due to being disbarred, and the real Phoenix who is still actively working behind the scenes but is very obviously not doing well because he can't 'save people' - the thing which so much of his identity relies upon? I think there is, but I also think the image too often becomes the reality, and AA4 does carry this underlying theme of how wearing these masks of a public persona can affect your 'true self'.

As always, I genuinely love to see other people's takes on this, either in the tags, in reblogs, or via asks. This one is very headcanon-y, and I know there some entirely different perspectives out there, some of which I really like. (Also this one got to be heavy. Look after yourselves guys.)

[annapogorilayas]

LoD season 3 rewatch Thoughts

kate's undercover had no right to be so successful this season, she was about as subtle as a fire extinguisher through a glass office door brick through a window. it's hilarious to me that on paper, this was her best undercover op - it was the only one in the show's history where nobody figured it out!

it blows my mind every time i remember that danny waldron was only in one episode of the show. one. he's easily one of the most important non-trio characters. and he was in one episode. his influence to episode count ratio is up there with jackie lav's.

this was really the first season where the AC-12 office itself became a character. won't elaborate

ted saying "none of my people would ever plant evidence" while dot was running around putting phones in steve's gym bag is almost as funny as steve saying "this'll be good for me" before AC-12 thoroughly ruined his life

"the jury obviously thinks i must've shagged you into conspiring to kill a protected witness" "steven!" everything about the Truth and Reconciliation scene in 3x04 is absolutely A fucking star.

dot's line about how steve shouldn't be carrying a firearm because "this isn't the bronx" is funny as fuck in light of later seasons, when this mid-sized midlands town appears to have a violent crime rate on par with baltimore in the 90s

lindsay denton continues to be the GOAT. "because i'm a police officer" is, without question, my favourite scene in the whole show. i'm still emo about the fact that nobody went to her funeral. AC12 would be nowhere without her. her ghost would've been a better AC12 commanding officer than S5 Ted.

the repeated references to the real-life operation midland didn't age too well. (cw child sexual abuse)

i loved the scenes with lindsay and steve investigating danny's list. they are the dysfunctional buddy cop duo we deserve.

i wasn't expecting to laugh out loud in 3x06 and then we had individual reaction shots of everyone in steve's interview listening to the lindsay tape. even the lawyer.

i'm still not sure what exactly made kate clock dot's involvement. i'm torn on whether she went to AC-3 for undercover authorisation purely because the CO was a woman (and therefore not a mason, because she was investigating ted) or if she went there because AC-9 was dot's former unit and she was investigating him. we know she was suspicious of dot before lindsay's murder because she went to his flat and he saw he wasn't there. i'm tempted to think she was suspicious of all three of them; hastings was being oddly friendly and doing masonic handshakes with fairbanks, she just found out steve had lied about his involvement with lindsay which destroyed her trust in him, and dot failed to pass on her request for the second post-mortem and then pressured her not to look further into morton's statement about the caddy while pointing the finger at steve.

CW: child sexual abuse every time steve interviews someone about the sands view child abuse, we get long lingering shots of steve's expression. and then when steve visits dale roach in the home he's angrier than i think we've ever seen him with a suspect - same again three seasons later when steve interviews fairbank in prison. does anyone else wonder if jed was leaving crumbs to imply steve was abused or that there's something in steve's past that makes this a particularly difficult issue for him? on one hand, steve tells joe he had a nice childhood with a loving family. OTOH, when steve gets worked up about a case, it's usually because it has a personal connection to his own past (he got quite worked up about danny waldron's team lying to cover up the shooting of an unarmed man, and he was very determined to prove michael farmer was being framed)

it's "moaning about the trajectory of the writing" time:

as much as i think S3 was part of the LoD Golden Age, it was definitely the beginning of the end of the more authentic dialogue and rapport between characters. the trend of the season premieres being full of extremely clunky exposition began here also. aaaaand just as i wrote that, maneet appeared and made her charming little "get you a lead" joke. miss you babe </3

in my opinion, LoD at its most interesting was never about "which of these four characters is The Bad Guy?" it was about "how is this guilty but morally ambiguous person going to deal with the mess they've gotten into?" i feel like we gradually saw less and less of that as the show moved towards a traditional whodunnit with the introduction of balaclava man and H.

S3 really was Peak Ted for me; S5 and S6 sadly made me forget how much i loved his character. his "whole bloody barrel" speech to gill in 3x06 remains another one of my favourite moments on the show.

S3 was the peak of Kate the Brilliant Detective, just like S2 was the peak of Kate the Emotion-Having Human Being.

[beautifulchaostrash]

ooogogogo ok angst time!

Swearing, child abuse, neglect, and violence ahead!

So I just watched the black cristmas commentary and i have a Thought. His dad left, right? Billy’s mom started physically abusing him and blaming him for driving away his father because he was ‘stupid’ and ‘filthy’.

nothin out of what we already knew right? Well heres the kicker:

This whole time we’ve been assuming that ‘the baby’ = Agnes. But what if that’s not true? What if Billy had a third sibling, a baby when he and Agnes were still little kids.  This would make the line: “Your mother and I need to know what you’ve done” make sense, because canonically an interview Bob Clark said that he abused/killed Agnes AFTER he killed his parents. It also gives a new meaning to “Agnes, don’t tell them what we’ve done,” but I’ll get to that in a minuet.

So here’s how I think things might’ve played out:

Billy is the oldest sibling, born with Autism/neurodivergence. His parents resented his mental illness and abused him, locking him in the attic for hours on end and physically hurting him. Then comes along Agnes, his younger sister, who is perfect and good and treated like an angel sent from god. Even though Billy resents Agnes for getting all the love from her parents, he still loves her and does his best to be good.

Then comes the youngest, a baby(unnamed). The baby’s death is not actually Billy’s fault. It was an accident. The baby was taking a nap, but he and Agnes wanted to play.

...

He reached into the crib, gently shaking the baby to get it to wake up. It didn’t move. He shook harder. No response. He panicked, watching the skin turn a pale icy blue.

“It’s n-n-n-ot breathing! W-wake up-p-p! UP!”

Agnes peered into the crib. “Billy...Billy what did you do? What did you do to the baby? Stop shaking it! Oh my god...you killed it. BILLY WHY WOULD YOU HURT THE BABY?!?”

“I-I-I-I didn’t, no no no no, it wasn’t my fault I-’why would you hurt the baby billy, hurt the baby!’”

“Oh, no Billy! Stop it Billy! M-MOMMY! DADDY! BILLY DID SOMETHING TO THE BABY! IT’S NOT MOVING!”

“NO! AGNES! Pretty Agnes, no! no! Don’t tell them what we did! D-don't tell, don’t tell, don’t tell, don’t tell, don’t tell them it wasn’t B-billy’s fault! IT WASN’T-T-T-T, WASN’T-T-T!” tears streamed down his face as he shook the baby violently. “I didn’t do it-’Mommy! Did something to the baby, the baby, the baby! WAKE UP! WAKE UP PLEASE!”

“BILLY!” a hand yanked him back. “WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!? BILLY? BILLY! BILLY ANSWER ME DAMMIT!”

“NO!” he howled, writhing as his arm was twisted in father’s grip. “I didn’t do anything! It was an ac-c-c-cident! Accident! ‘dammit answer, Billy!’ B-BILLY D-D-DIN’T MEAN TO HURT THE BABY, K-KILLED TH-THE B-ABY! HU-RT THE BAAAABYYY!”

...

The autopsy proved him innocent. Barely. The thing that originally caused the infants death was unavoidable. It was SIDS. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The jury ruled him innocent on account of mental instability and he was sent to an institution.

It wasn’t top notch psychiatric care, god no, but it was better than the care he received at home. Anyone would’ve looked at him and seen that he was more stable there than he was ever before in his life. Medicated, properly fed, bathed. His doctors somewhat agreed that he would be better off staying in the ward. Even so, he was eventually discharged, and his mother threw out his prescriptions and cancelled his therapy appointments. Opting instead to lock him in the attic.

Stricken with grief and anger, his father left in the middle of the night. No note, no goodbye nothing. The only evidence of his passing being the new bruises that swelled on Billy’s face and arms the next morning.

His mother took her anger and grief out on him, Billy doing the same to Agnes in turn. He finally snapped the night of his eighteenth birthday. His mother told him that they were going to go on a drive. This exited Billy, as he rarely got to leave the house. His mother abandoned him at a park a little ways away, telling him that since was eighteen now, he would have to take care of himself. Leaving him in the freezing canadian winter, with nothing but a thin, green turtleneck to stave off the cold.

Somehow, he managed to backtrack to the house before he died. Slowly but surely he took his revenge. He snuck back into the house, murdered his mother, and captured Agnes, keeping her in the basement. From there he tracked down his father and killed him too. Eventually the sheer grief of what he’d been doing to Agnes caught up to him, and he killed her.

From there we know the rest, he killed the 13yr old girl in the park, terroized the sorority house and so on. I think that this version of his backstory makes for some HELLA good angst, and personally i think it makes a bit more sense for billy’s character. I threw in the institution part cause in the commentary, he says that he’s made a therapy appointment, meaning that he probably KNOWS that he needs help, and knows what that help looks like and how to get it because he’s had it before. 

It also gives Billy a reason why he would’ve snapped and killed his family outside of just ‘they abused him’. Agnes unintentionally threw him under the bus and his parents believed what she had to say. She was young, and didn’t know what was going on. In her eyes Billy did kill the baby. His mother single handedly threw away his only chance for recovering and leading a normal life by refusing him therapy. His father left a single mother to care for two kids, probably making them financially unstable, which only fed into his mother’s ire towards Billy.

TLDR: i think billy might've had another younger sibling in addition to Agnes, who died of SIDS and billy’s parents blamed him for the death

Lemme know what y’all think!

-mod elith

[asterekmess]

1-4 What the fuck is a true alpha? A recurring joke? A convenient plot armor? A desperate attempt to make an irrelevant character look ‘relevant’ despite canon showing otherwise? Scott/Posey Stans think that Scott McCall has a right to command and dictate everyone’s life because he is a tWuE aLpAhA; Scott has a right to play judge, jury & executioner with his “inferior” friends, and he has a right to determine what is wrong or right based on his own benefit and bigoted black and white mentality.

2-4 If you think that this sounds an awful lot like the Divine Right of Kings, you are absolutely right. An unearned (and undeserved) mystical superiority or blessing, a fabricated sense of purity, goes a long way in ameliorating Scott McCall’s Failures and Fuck-ups. And like kings who rule by Divine Right, he can do as he likes. Which is why Scott can patronize and lie to Allison and Kira to control them, assault Isaac and Jackson due to his own pathological jealousy and possessiveness,

3-4 use Hayden (Liam’s girlfriend) as bait against the Dread Doctors without her consent to play the hero, dehumanize Stiles and accuse Stiles of being a violent, dangerous, inhuman monster and serial killer for daring to accidentally kill his abuser in self-defense, sell Derek and his Pack to the hunters, refuse to tell his girlfriend Allison the truth about her mother’s death to look ‘good’ in her eyes,

4-4 plot/conspire with Gerard Argent and Deaton behind everyone’s back to violate Derek Hale’s boundaries, bodily autonomy and consent for his own benefit, claim that the Argents had a reason to slaughter the Hales (including HUMANS and CHILDREN) in front of Derek Hale and of his comatose uncle – and then Scott/Posey Stans will consider everyone kicking Scott’s whiny, toxic excuse of an ass to the curb and not giving an utter crap when Scott died in Season 5 as an act equivalent of treason

I put all your asks together so I didn’t get confused (which is v likely to happen) and I thank you for numbering them for me. <3

The concept of a true alpha...sigh. Look, I see the intention, okay? I see the goal, the idea that you don’t have to kill someone to become an Alpha. That there can be “Good” Alphas who haven’t killed anyone. But I also think it’s lazy writing. This is one the few instances where TW hadn’t actually shot themselves in the foot yet. They gave us so little information on werewolves that they never actually said that the only way to become an Alpha was by killing another Alpha. They could very easily have said “Also, you can become an Alpha this other way” (Be it by passing the Alpha spark down to children willingly, or being beaten in a special kind of combat, or through a ritual of some kind)

But they didn’t just want another way to be the Alpha. They wanted a way that didn’t take any effort. It would be too hard to introduce another Alpha that would give up their spark to Scott, or to have him put in the effort to do a ritual. They needed a way to make Scott an Alpha without any additional effort. Part of me honestly wonders if they did it because they knew they’d lost a lot of Scott fans by the end of Season 2, what with all of his betrayals and lies and what he did to Derek. They needed a way to reaffirm that Scott was the good guy, so they made up the True Alpha thing and said “Look! He’s so pure and goodhearted and he has so much good will, that he can’t even help but become an Alpha”

They demonized werewolves by reducing them to murderers who had to kill for power (In Derek’s case it was survival, and i’ll fight for him.) and then held Scott up as a saint because he managed it without killing.

Except that he had killed. Or at least tried to kill. How could he be this pure person they claimed if he spent weeks poisoning a cancer patient, lying to everyone around him, and he took Pleasure in it. He was Proud of himself for his lies and his tricks and for getting back at Derek by hurting him. That’s the kind of behavior we expect from Stiles, who is established as a morally gray character. You cannot have Scott do something like that and then make the claim that he is morally pure.

Once Scott finds out from Morrell that killing someone will take away his True Alpha status, he goes out of his way to avoid killing people even when it puts others at risk. This ISN’T an Avatar moment, okay? He doesn’t summon the power of his ancestors and render the villains completely incapable of harm. He just fucking lets them go! Deucalion gets his fucking eyesight back for fuck’s sake. He was MORE dangerous than before and they let him go! (I know Derek was part of that, but I’m pretty sure Derek was possessed by a pod person by that point)

He never said he’d behave. No one checked on him or watched to make sure he didn’t hurt anyone. They just let him leave. He could’ve just rebuilt a new Alpha pack. Could’ve killed dozens more people.

Jennifer would have too, had Peter not killed her.

Even better, he brings Ethan and Aiden into his pack. They walked right up to him and told him “Everyone is hunting for us because we killed a ton of people” and he just took them in? Gave them protection from the families of the people they’d slaughtered? All because they followed him around for a bit and said “We’ll only kill for you from now on.”

And this is why I get so frustrated about the blue eyes. The concept of ‘taking an innocent life’ is so fucking vague? Scott is indirectly responsible for countless deaths throughout the show. Whether by inaction or because the people doing the killing were acting on his orders, or whatever the fuck else I can’t think of at the moment. It doesn’t matter if he hasn’t intended to kill anyone. He should not still have his True Alpha status. Period. But he does, so apparently Scott can kill as many people as he wants, actually, so long as he doesn’t do it with his own claws and teeth. Or maybe he just can’t kill a human who hasn’t killed anyone else? Who the fuck knows.

I’ll say it again. If The Alpha spark can be used to heal someone, why didn’t Scott use it to save Allison? She wasn’t cursed. She was stabbed. He could’ve done the same thing Derek did. Peter even said that it can be done on accident. All it requires is that he do the pain drain and not stop when it starts to hurt.

To be quite honest, I don’t blame Scott’s True Alpha eyes for his entitlement and his belief that he can do no wrong. He held that same notion way before his eyes ever turned red. The eyes are to blame for no one else calling him out for his actions. You’re told by the only fucking person who seems to know what’s going on in the supernatural world that this kid’s eyes turned red all on their own because he is meant to be an Alpha. That it’s because he is good and pure and it’s a sign of his worthiness. He literally was just gifted extra power, apparently because he’s the only one worthy of it. How the fuck are you supposed to deal with that? Are you supposed to be the one person who tells fucking Werewolf Jesus (technically Derek is Actual werewolf jesus what with the evolution thing, but before that Scott’s as close as it gets cus’ Peter’s just a zombie.) that he doesn’t know best? That he’s doing something wrong? If the Powers that Be made Scott an Alpha, what will they do to the one who tells him he fucked up? Everyone is just supposed to trust that Scott must be in the right. That his reasons are good enough. That he knows what’s best. Because if he doesn’t, then why the sudden Alpha eyes? Peter questions Scott often and happily, mostly because he doesn’t care if he gets struck by lightning or something. It’ll always be worth it to get that last quip in. Eventually Stiles starts to argue too, because he’s reached the point where he doesn’t care if he dies so long as everyone else important to him stops getting hurt. That’s when Scott starts cutting him out. When he stops believing Scott knows best.

And honestly, it’s like the first post I made that sparked this whole ranting binge. Scott cheats. He cheats and he uses his abilities to his advantage without ever thinking of what it does to other people. Except this time he’s not cheating at lacrosse. He’s not taking credit for bowling six strikes in a row. For some reason his eyes turned red, and everyone else is taking it as a sign that he must know better and he should be in charge, and he never disagrees.

Sure, he complains. “Why me? Why does it have to be my responsibility?”

Guess what buddy? It fucking doesn’t. If you stopped fucking ordering people around and admitted you don’t know what you’re doing to someone besides your MOM and you want someone else to take the lead? THEY WOULD. But because he will not admit any kind of weakness or that he isn’t sure what to do, he puts the weight on himself. He blames everyone else for the lead weights he tied around his waist. He doesn’t want to have to do the work, but he hates the idea of someone else being in charge. Of not being important. We’re told right off the bat that Scott wants to be important. He wants to be on first line not because he loves the game, but because he wants to be popular. He wants Allison to go out with him. This is just another way he wants to be important, and he won’t ever let go of it. He gives orders and makes calls on who gets to know what and who is worthy and won’t take responsibility for the failures, but happily takes credit for the successes. When he fucks up by not talking to people or by lying to them or making a bad call, he doesn’t admit it. He doesn’t tell anyone. He lets them think that he’s blameless so that when he actually says shit like “I lost them” someone will say “They’ll come back because you’re their leader” No. He’s not. He lost them because he pushed them away. It was his fault.

Whatever. I’m salty. *pouts* Anyway. True Alpha is dumb, and I’ve read a couple theories about how Deaton made it up, and tbh, I’d follow that logic. If you’re curious, I think I tagged it ‘true alpha’ or ‘deaton’ on my blog.

[firelord-frowny]

I want to complain for several paragraphs right now about why my whole soul and spirit or whatever is so tremendously BOTHERED by ~certain people’s~ pathalogical obsession with their “right to bear arms,” ESPECIALLY among those who insist on carrying guns in public and on a regular basis. 

Now, I do not use guns at all. I’ve hardly ever even seen a gun that wasn’t on a cop’s hip. 

When I’m Out In The World, however, and particularly when I’m traveling alone via uber or whatever, I do carry pepper spray. So I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for someone to want the comfort of knowing that if they need to defend themselves from someone, they have a way to do so. 

But I also have noticed that when I’m carrying pepper spray, I’m almost hyper-alert, on the lookout for any excuse I might need to use it. Situations that wouldn’t cause me much concern ordinarily suddenly become suspicious to me when I’m carrying pepper spray. A Strange Man that I’m about to walk by suddenly causes me to put one hand on my spray ~just in case,~ whereas if I didn’t have my spray at all, I wouldn’t have even glanced at the dude. 

So like... I feel like carrying any kind of weapon at all almost inherently means that you expect to use it. And when you expect that you’re going to need to hurt somebody, you look constantly for any cue at all that might give you reason to believe someone might be about to possibly act violently toward you or someone near you. And the human mind, I think, is really fucking skilled at inventing circumstances to justify a “maybe”. Your uber driver isn’t just an uber driver anymore - they’re an uber driver who might try to take you someplace other than where you’re paying to go. The guy walking toward you isn’t just a guy walking toward you - he’s a guy who might have a knife in his pocket, who might be planning to use that knife to mug you, and when he reaches into that pocket for his cell phone, you’ve already decided that he’s actually reaching for the knife, and you’re about to react accordingly.

Or even if somebody really is about to mug me.... I honest to fucking god would rather get mugged, than potentially kill someone just for trying to steal my wallet. I would rather just fuckin hand them my wallet and tell them to have a good day, because there is literally no material thing that someone could take from me that’s worth the life of another human being - even the human being who took it. There is no posession I hold so dear that I’d be willing to live with the mental and emotional consequences of having killed someone over it. 

And so when I hear people foam at the mouth about how they NEED, a GUN, specifically, to protect themselves or their family, and when they don’t even mention the possibility of using less lethal weapons like self defense sprays or tazers, I’m not hearing anything about how afraid they are, or how much they want to protect themselves or their families - I’m hearing that they want to kill someone. It’s not good enough for them to just deter wrongdoers. They don’t just want to stop someone from carrying out an act of violence or vandalism. They WANT to PUNISH a wrongdoer by taking their life. It’s not about defense - it’s about playing God. It’s about some crazy-ass power fantasy where they get to be judge, jury, and executioner, where the only person who’s thoughts or feelings matter are their own, and because it’s “self defense,” they’re protected under the law. Even if the facts of the situation eventually reveal that there was no real danger after all, that doesn’t matter - it only matters that they felt threatened, and THAT is the point. The point is that THEIR FEELINGS gave them the right to decide to take another person’s life. 

And there’s no other weapon that would allow someone to commit murder and still be able to easily claim self deffense. You can’t beat somebody to death with your bare hands and then say “I was scared for my life.” You can’t pepper spray somebody until they suffocate and then say you thought they had a gun. You could hit somebody in the head once real hard and knock them out, but you probably can’t be sure they’re dead without hitting them a few more times, after which point your “self defence” claim looks real fuckin shoddy. You could throw someone over a balcony, but again, there’s a decent chance they’ll survive unless you’re several floors high, and if you’re lucky enough that there aren’t any witnesses, you could theoretically wait until you know they’re dead before you called an ambulance, but the gap between the time of the “accident” and the time of the 911 call would be reeeaaall suspicious.

But a gun??? If you already know you’re a decent shot, and/or if you’re up close to whomever you intend to shoot, you can be pretty certain that you can kill them on the spot. You can pull the trigger several times in a matter of seconds and say it was because you panicked and wanted to make sure that you stopped them from doing whatever you claim you believed they were going to do. 

And I mean... I’m not even fundamentally opposed to people owning guns. I’m so aware that there are folks out there who are at an above average risk of encountering a genuine life-or-death situation where the only way to save theirself or someone else might be to risk killing another person - and not even just people! I fully intend to live in the middle of nowhere someday, and living in the middle of nowhere almost always puts you in closer proximity to large predators - wolves, bears, cougars. Even smaller animals can be extremely dangerous in the wrong place/time - racoons, foxes... even animals that aren’t even predators! Deer and moose can fuck you up! So like. When I’m finally living in that sort of place, I’m absolutely gonna get me a fuckin gun! And I expect that people living in those kinds of places have at least a shotgun somewhere in the house that’s easily accessible. Because they’re alone, and if danger shows up, there’s a good chance no one else is going to be around to help. 

So, I get that guns can be necessary. 

But if you get blindingly angry at the very prospect of there being diligent and comprehensive efforts to make sure that guns don’t make it into the hands of people who are shown to be dangerous or irresponsible, 

all that says to me is that you intend to be dangerous and irresponsible, and that you are counting on getting a chance to shoot somebody someday, and that you’re going to search high and low for that chance, and that when you find it, you intend to make it worth your while, and that this desire is SUCH an integral part of your personality, and SUCH a prevailing aspiration in your life, that anyone who looks hard enough at you is going to know exactly what you hope to do someday, and they’re going to prevent you from ever being able to do it. 

[96thdayofrage]

Since Republican Senator Tim Scott’s remarks on Wed April 28 (following President Biden’s address to Congress) the question, “Is America a racist nation?” has found renewed traction on the major news networks. Hot takes on our social media feeds also abound. There are many ways to think about how/why this question has been able to garner the attention it has in our public square. But for those of us who study how the history of race and anti-black violence unfolds in the North American context, one thing is abundantly clear: It’s precisely because the United States is a place where racism in general, and anti-blackness more specifically, can thrive that this question is able to capture the collective attention it has. In other words, that we’re still asking this question of whether or not “America is a racist nation” seems less about the question itself, and more about the existential threat that it poses to our collective investment in what Eddie Glaude, Jr. calls “the lie”. The lie, Glaude writes, is that “broad and powerful architecture of false assumptions” that gives to whiteness the subject position in the American grammar book. The same architecture of false assumptions that stitches together the horrific brotherhood of twenty-five year old Michael Stewart, forty-four year old Eric Garner and forty-seven year old George Floyd.

The minutes leading up to the jury’s verdict in Derek Chauvin’s trial were harrowing, in a historical sense. They are minutes that many of us will always remember. We’ll always be able to recall what we were doing and who we were with as they slowly ticked away. What made the wait most difficult for me was watching my sons – both young black boys growing up in and against the “powerful architecture” of the lie – wait through those minutes, knowing that no matter what the verdict was, there was really no good news to celebrate with them. So when ‘guilty on all three counts’ finally came, there was some sense of relief, for sure. But it was the kind of relief you might liken to standing on the edge of a precipice, and being lucky enough to not have fallen off ‘this one time’. What I mean by that is that alongside the relief one feels in not falling off is that more overwhelming ‘wobble’ of dangling over the edge of a precipice in the first place. It’s a relief, yes. But not enough to undo the horror of what you’re all too aware was statistically way more likely. Not enough to undo the horror of knowing that you’re alive not because you were supposed to survive, but because of, well, some alchemic combination of grit and dumb luck.

It was in that way that I was relieved to hear that Derek Chauvin was going to be held accountable for the life he had taken away (in that slow and casual way he stole George Floyd’s life). The trifecta of guilty counts felt like being given a chance to steal away from a precipice’s edge, just a little, so that you saved yourself from falling off. At least this time. When I found out that George Floyd’s murderer was going to pay a price for taking his life, I felt like I needed to hug my two boys, in the way I imagine George Floyd’s family felt the need to embrace each other. Not quite in a moment of celebration, although there was a clear battle that had been won. I hugged my boys because we were seeing what looked like a criminal justice system working to value black life, affirming a black man’s sacred humanity. But I also (and, to be honest, mostly) hugged my boys because what we were seeing that day felt so very happenstance, so ‘this one time’, so unexpectedly against what we’ve come to know as statistically likely. Nothing about the relief of the Chauvin trial’s guilty verdict takes away this wobble of being racialized as black in the US, of having to insist on one’s right to freedom in a world in which black life is unequivocally unfree. I guess you can say that I hugged my boys because they still needed to understand this as their reality, even as the guilty verdict came across the TV that afternoon.

Rehearsing, here, all the police killings of unarmed black women, men and children that happened in the months prior George Floyd’s murder and immediately following the conviction of Derek Chauvin feels somewhat like indulging in catastrophe porn. (It is also something that would make me very fucking tired, and so I’m not going to do that.) However, I do want to point to this ever- and always-growing cluster of police killings to raise, perhaps, a more useful question than “Is America a racist nation?” And that is: Is there something about the intimacy between racism and self-formation in the US, which will always make that question a false start?

In a 2003 co-authored piece, Steven Martinot and Jared Sexton write that “notions of the state as the arbiter of justice and the police as the unaccountable arbiters of lethal violence are two sides of the same coin. Narrow understandings of mere racism are proving themselves impoverished because they cannot see this fundamental relationship. What is needed is the development of a radical critique of the structure of the coin.” What if we’ve already missed the rot of anti-black racism if we wait for a Derek Chauvin to express our outrage? What if what we should mean by ‘anti-black racism’ is not only the “flash point” of Breonna Taylor’s murder, but (before that), the disproportionate access to life-sustaining healthcare, education, clean water and safe housing that structures being black in the United States? What if “a radical critique of the coin” shows that anti-blackness – the racially uneven distribution of death across all aspects of our social field – makes someone like Derek Chauvin not a statistical anomaly, but rather a likely product of a state machinery invested in the capture of black life?

The black radical imagination and black activisms have historically understood the need for this kind of radical critique – of the whole coin, and of the interconnectedness of all its sides. It is only then, on the heels of such a critique, that an ‘otherwise’ future opens up for black life, an otherwise future in which “black” can, indeed, be free and human and sacred. To be sure, working toward such otherwise futures has always been the impetus for black politics in this radical sense, the sense in which studying blackness (in the words of the poet, Charif Shanahan) reveals what is both the “pained and possible” of black life. What is possible — it is also with that in my heart that I hugged my two boys on the afternoon of April 20. Imagining and working toward otherwise futures is essential to mothering black children. We raise them for living, for breathing, and for taking up the task of demanding – with an audacity of hope and a suspicion of cheap optimism – a world in which they can be free.

And so the question of what is possible for black life – possible as abolitionist rehearsals of naming ourselves – has always accompanied and ruptured the impossibilities coded in the violent algorithm of “the lie” in which the US continues to invest. And for this reason, what is of most concern to scholars of the history of race and anti-blackness in the United States is not the question of whether or not “America is a racist nation”. Rather, what most concerns us is the more urgent question of how we might gather our present and ancestral resources in order to – in the words of Ruthie Gilmore – “change everything”.

[amphtaminedreams]

A/W 2020 Fashion Month: Before Vogue Went Blank (Part 2)

Hi to anyone reading,

I was going to start this post by jumping straight into Dion Lee and part 2 in general but there's been a lot going on the past couple of days-although this blog is primarily fashion, it wouldn’t feel right to start talking about designers without acknowledging all the shit that’s been going down.

^Photo Credit to @spiltcoco on Twitter

Yesterday, police footage came out of US police murdering yet another black man in broad daylight-George Floyd. He joins Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, and Alton Sterling, plus hundreds more named and god knows how many more unnamed African American citizens in the ever-growing list of victims of police brutality.

The majority of these are just people going about their daily lives, a majority of them doing absolutely nothing wrong; even those we know to have committed crimes have been unarmed and non-violent offenders. That being said, their offences are beside the point when we’ve seen the white perpetrators of mass shootings be calmly cuffed and escorted into the backs of police cars as if they were the ones selling cigarettes without permits. American police, given the amount of them that are armed, regularly become judge, jury and executioner trained for 8 weeks by an institution that originated from slave patrols. I cannot imagine how terrifying it is just to walk around as a PoC in America. I cannot imagine the collective trauma that has been suffered because of recent events on top of the intergenerational trauma that most likely exists because of centuries of oppression. I cannot imagine what it’s like to live in a country that was built to suppress you and was by law allowed to do so until very recently, those original structures still in place. I cannot imagine what it’s like to be made to feel like this is your fault. I mean, Boris Johnson is a useless, cold-hearted twat and I won’t defend him or this country for a minute (we have much blood on our own hands, and racial profiling is just as much a thing here as it is in America-I read earlier that you’re 28 times more likely to be stopped and searched in London as a non-white person compared to a white person), but I still can’t imagine him publicly advocating for the mass murder of groups he knows to be primarily made up of black people via Twitter. This whole situation is so unimaginably fucked up; anyone who still sees America as one of the world’s most developed nations needs to take a long, hard look at what is going on and reconsider that opinion.

Whilst we can’t fix everything, we can all speak up and make our voices heard, and it is our duty to do so. It’s not good enough to just “not be racist”, you have to be ANTI-racism, even if that means constantly reflecting on your own privilege and challenging your assumptions. Neutrality is complicity. Signing a petition isn’t going to change the world, but it’s a start:

https://www.change.org/p/mayor-jacob-frey-justice-for-george-floyd?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=7ba70000-a127-11ea-87fb-d1ff0bf6ea96

As I publish this, there’s less than 50,000 signatures needed to hit the target of 6,000,000 so if you happen to see it, get signing! There are lots of other petitions online but Change.org seems to be the only major one you can sign in the UK as the other are US based and require a zip code. I never thought I’d close a paragraph by quoting Macklemore but the line “no freedom 'til we're equal, damn right I support it” is at the forefront of my mind right now. Again, neutrality is complicity. We’re never going to achieve a fair society by sitting on our asses and hoping things will improve. Let’s all do the best we can.

Sorry if that intro wasn’t what you came here for, but I just think it’s so important to talk about. I know I’ve said in the past that fashion is supposed to be an escape from everyday life but there are some times when real life needs our attention and this is one of them. Feel free to unfollow if you disagree.

Anyway, onto the fashion. If this is the first post you’re reading, welcome! There’s a part 1! But I don’t wanna be pushy so start here if you wish!

If you read part 1, welcome back! 

I ended that post by practically falling at the feet of Dilara Findikoglu, and I so wanted to start this post by regaining a sense of dignity and go straight into what-the-fuck-ing at Dior, but I know breaking chronological order would really piss off those “OmG I’m SoOo OCD, tHis BuzZfeEd aRtiCle WiTh DiFfereNt SiZed TiLes ToLd Me!” which is basically me minus claiming liking things to be organised means I have OCD-no, just dermatillomania and the denial that a compulsive skin picking disorder has anything to do with OCD because the neuroses club that is my brain doesn’t have any space left. SO, I have to continue where I left off and star the post with Dion Lee, whose collections I am a big fan of.

I could ramble a bit more but I did enough of that at the beginning of part 1 and am sure I’ll do more than enough in this post anyway, so here it is, Dion Lee:

Considering we ended with the maximalism of Dilara Findikoglu, sliding back over towards the other far end of the scale with a designer that tends to pitch their tent on the borders of the minimalism camp feels correct. Dion Lee, fortunately, seems the perfect collection to open with. There aren’t many other brands who do edge in such an understated and masterful way. If you want to be ready for combat and look like you’d fit right in at Vogue at the same time, look no further. This season’s collection is full of perfectly placed cut outs and immaculate tailoring and subtle street fighter-esque details as ever, and that’s why it pains me to say it:

Not that this is enough in the way of critique to restore my dignity by any means, it’s not a patch on last season.

I don’t think there was a single bad look in that show, and at times it felt like I was weeding through them here. When the looks were good, they were GOOD but a lot I found to be disappointing. Plus I have no idea why you’d put tie-dye in an A/W collection. I appreciate that it’s an Australian brand and that our winter is their summer, but they’re presenting to the rest of the world at fashion week and anyone in Paris, Milan, London and New York is going to be freezing their tits off and looking like a twat in an orange tie-dye sundress. There wasn’t much of a dip in quality for the menswear compared to last season, but honestly womenswear left a lot to be desired. That’s what happens when your expectations are high.

I used to think that if you assume the worst, it’s impossible to feel let down. And then I saw Dior’s A/W 2020 collection. Did a full 180 on that statement.

I suppose it’s a step up from haute couture, but then at least the styling in that was simple, and it just didn’t look like anybody had tried at all; here it’s clear Maria Grazia chucked everything she could at this collection, every headscarf, every gingham print, every shallow feminist undertone, and it was still a fucking mess. At first you think some of the individual pieces are cute but have just been ruined by the styling, and then you begin to look, and realise that even those individual pieces could’ve easily been bought in a New Look Boxing Day sale.

THIS IS CHRISTIAN DIOR, SUPPOSEDLY ONE OF THE MOST LUXURIOUS BRANDS OUT THERE. WHAT IS GOING ON!? 

I don’t know, I included as many looks that I didn't mind as I could, but it’s like there always has to be a crappy, unnecessary detail in there. Everything is so literal. Of course the collection based around the divine feminine has the models dressed like basic ass Greek goddesses, so of course the collection based around the modern woman and equality has women walking the runway in ties and ill-fitting shoes too. Maria Grazia, here is a box:

Think outside of it. 

Next is, thankfully, Elie Saab:

No, not exactly a trailblazer of a collection, but executed with poise and elegance as always. I mean, the styling is spot on. It looks like each part of the outfit was made for another, to contribute to a whole clearly envisioned look, similar to what we saw in the Alberta Ferretti show. Elie Saab is known for its haute couture shows where all the tiny details, the sequins and the silk and the embroidery come together to make something beautiful, and this is just that on a larger scale, with less “wow”s and more quiet admiration, more wishing you were the one wearing that outfit. If you’re gonna play safe, do it this well. The night dresses are stunning of course, but not even my favourite bit of the show. It’s the casual looks, the pussy bows and the ruffles and the neck scarfs and the private girls school monochrome colour palette with the occasional pop of red or purple, a toned down version of what we saw at haute couture, any of which deserve to be worn whilst eating macarons in front of the Eiffel Tower before trip to Musee D’Orsay. It’s Poppy Moore’s school uniform grown up and made fit for a fashion magazine editor:

Somehow managing to cram an Emma Roberts early 2010s fashion moment into every post is my talent, who knew. Wild Child was really a gem.

Erdem was a mixed bag:

With a lot of the outfits, I can’t tell if I actually like the garments that much or if I just like the look as a whole. I mean, without sounding too gluten-free Callie from the Valley, I like the VIBE, but there was a lot of outfits I almost included before I had to ask myself “LAUREN, do you ACTUALLY like this or do you just like the walking-into-your-sugar-daddy’s-will-reading-to-claim-his-fortune DRAMA of it all!?” 

It happened a couple of times, where once I took off my black and white, theatrical violin accompanied entrance filtered sunglasses, I realised that the actual print was ugly. A collection so cohesively ornamental and kitschy is going to lean too far into that at times, and they were a few overly-fussy moments where it seemed less nudge nudge wink wink and more like Erdem Moralıoğlu fell into his grandma’s wardrobe, stole some fabric, and called it a day. I don’t want to sound like I’m not a fan of the collection because overall it’s gorgeous, I just thought it was a bit much at times.

Continuing with the theme of clever seasonal continuity that weaved its way throughout this year’s A/W offerings, Ermanno Scervino kept the core of his summer collection and made it just that little bit darker, added some weight to everything, and this is one of the rare occasions where I like the winter incarnation a lot more. I’m not huge about either but there’s a lot of things I’d love to wear here, the coats especially.

Up next is a reliable favourite of mine: 

Etro.

Was it REALLY necessary for you to include ALL those coats I hear you ask?

Alaska Thunderfuck as Gia Gunn voice: Absolutelyyyy.

When it comes to bohemian fashion, Etro is unbeaten. Everything is always exquisitely coordinated and styled. Like I usually fucking hate aztec print but I love the way it’s done here. I’ve never known a brand to make belts seem like such an integral, tasteful part of the outfit in a field where they so often seem like a last minute addition for the sake of accessorising; it pains me to say it, but Elie Saab, I’m looking at you. It’s your only fault. 

Yes for bringing back embroidered jeans! Yes for all those high necks! Yes for the tapestry print! Yes for the Afghan waistcoats! Etro will keep fedoras cool forever and I love them for that; I don’t know if she ever actually wore any of their stuff but I just know Stevie Nicks was in her prime would’ve ate this shit UP and she is my style icon for the ages. Plus, I might be way off base here but a lot of the collection seems to be inspired by traditional Romani style and it’s a beautiful direction to take things, a treasure trove of layers upon layers and rich textures and opulent prints.

I can’t wait til the phase of my phase of my life where I can swan around in maxi dresses and ponchos. I just hope those maxi dresses and ponchos are Etro.

Onto another brand which hasn’t had a bad show since I started my reviews: Fendi. This season, they took their late 60s/early 70s wild child aesthetic and gave a millionaire’s high maintenance wife spin on it, and what’s not to like about that? 

I mean, Fendi is a brand which is always going to excel in its F/W presentations-the rich, bohemian prints (pro-tip: if you can’t already tell, me mentioning the word bohemian in a review pretty much guarantees I like the collection), the furs, and the warm colour palette all perfectly translate into clothes suited for walks through a city going through a post-summer burnout, where it rains red and orange leaves. You can tell Silvia Fendi is in her element when she’s got texture to play with, something that comes across in the gorgeous coats Fendi consistently puts out, and this season continues that trend. Plus, there’s a lot of adorable details here-shoes that show off the decorative socks underneath, the cube shaped bags and those furry ear muffs which I hope bring about a high street muff renaissance because they���re the equivalent of slipper socks for my ears and THEY’RE ACTUALLY REALLY PRACTICAL. The only thing I’m not in love with is the mirrored glasses, and I can’t help but think how replacing them with a pair of grandad style aviators would be the icing on the cake for the collection. Maybe I just need to see Miss Robyn Rihanna Fenty wearing them and then I’ll get on board. Usually works.

Ah, GCDS. I got so excited for it after last season but this time round, it was a bit of a disappointment. There were a few outfits that semi-matched up to how cutting-edge I saw their last collection, however a lot of the pieces looked pretty low quality. I get that streetwear is in the name, but it’s supposed to be a high fashion take on that, and a lot of the looks were quite pedestrian. Stand outs are the top 2 rows and the leather motocross style jumpsuit on the far right, third row down, but the quality of these pieces wasn’t consistent across the board and I feel like I ended up having to convince myself I liked some of the others just so I had enough photos to justify including the brand. It really sucks when I look back on how ahead of the game last season’s collection was-we’re talking outfits that wouldn’t be out of place on Instagram’s Tokyofashion page and as far as I’m concerned that’s the fashion holy grail. Some of these looks, especially the menswear, could be from a Boohoo TV ad and that makes me sad.

Meanwhile, Giambattista Valli put out a collection that looked like a virtual postcard of Parisian fashion; if a St-Germain-des-Prés streetwear themed Instagram doesn’t exist already, someone should capitalise on that, stat, because if my typical vision of French feminine fashion is correct it would be full of outfits like this. I feel like this is what a fashion novice EXPECTS Chanel to look like. Trust me-these days the reality is much more disappointing.

There’s many things I'm happy to see here besides the tulle and florals and prettiness I expect of the brand. Obviously the berets and the bows and the elbow length gloves are the kind of off-duty ballerina style touches I’ve become accustomed to but there are also some nice surprises here: the military style white jacket, the unexpected snake motif on clothing that’s otherwise overly delicate, and to my delight the return of the boater hat. IDGAF, this is the summer where I’m buying myself one off Ebay and making this happen for me whether they become a “thing” or not. I shouldn’t squander having this little of a double chin; the opportunity may never present itself again. 

I haven’t watched Killing Eve in a longggg time since there’s only so much of two women attempting to kill each other and then miraculously avoiding death you can watch but I’d love to see Vilanelle prancing round a city in this kinda shit slitting some necks again. I hope that doesn’t make me sound like too much of a sadist; only in a purely fictional world is this something I want to see, I assure you.

Givenchy was really, really great this season too, imo. Definitely a step up from the last RTW anyway. Aside from the drama of the exaggerated floppy brim hats and the quirky tassle detail dresses a la Schiaparelli, a lot of these outfits kinda remind me of something a Miranda Priestly/Cruella De Vil type would wear, and you know me; I’m all for that kind of intimidating, about-to-either-slap-you-or-fire-your-ass bad bitch energy. The gathered leather gloves with the androgynous subtly checkered power suits feels CORRECT and if Giambattista Valli is the bottom in this relationship, Givenchy is the top. Am I allowed to reinforce sapphic relationship stereotypes as a bi girl? Probably not. I’m sorry. Won’t do it again. Just this once. And you know I’m right really xoxo

And OMFG Gucci. Another impeccable collection for me, honestly. Once again, it’s probably my favourite of the season. How it is that Alessandro Michelle gets it SO right for me despite his vision being so bold and different every time? He has this specific brand of strange, conceptual beauty which blends past and present trends in a way so supreme it should be considered art. It’s not a term to throw around loosely but the man is a genius, and tbh I’m still not over the human head props from the 2018 F/W winter show.

In my Haute Couture week review, I talked about the Viktor and Rolf collection (which I loved, don’t get me wrong!) and said that pretty meets grunge is my fave thing ever-this is that, but much even more substantial and intelligent. The Wes Anderson-esque pieces or that late 60s/early 70s hipster aesthetic that I loved in last season’s show hasn’t been done away with either-be it the level of detail or the colour scheme, it all somehow fits together. Never did I think I’d see dresses fit for porcelain dolls through the lens of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen seamlessly slotted in between outfits that could’ve been put together from the clothing rack of Dazed and Confused’s costume department. I want it all-opulent fur-trimmed coats, crucifix jewellery and pilgrim hats I’m sure both Edgar Allan Poe and modern goths would approve of, and the tiered skirts that wouldn’t be out of place in a Westworld saloon. The models were delightfully sad and almost creepy looking and I wouldn’t change that for the world. To say 10/10 doesn’t do it justice, so I’m gonna have to open a reviewer’s can of worms and say 100/100.

Gucci is a tough act to follow, and I’m sorry it has to fall onto the shoulders of Halpern. In the nicest possible way (as if there is any nice way of saying it), I don’t think I any expected anything but a downgrade, so if anything, my standards will be lower so...Michael Halpern, you can thank me I guess? 

That was really mean, I’m sorry. It’s not a bad collection, and I definitely like it more than last season’s. It’s a slightly garish colour palette at times but an exciting one in spite of that, which when paired with the animal print dotted throughout makes this collection the perfect fit for a tropical beach party or at the very least, a semi-decent night at the Caribbean themed bar in your local town centre. The sequins and silk, a Halpern trademark, are as tastefully done as ever, and seeing them on the models, I can’t deny these are some power fits-the kind of clothes you are bound to look and feel confident in; if you wanted to play queen of the urban jungle for a night, this is what you need to be wearing.

Ah, Hermes.

Generally not one to stoke a fire inside me. In all fairness, the tailoring here is really, really nice and French biker chic, and the pieces are perfectly crafted-it’s not that I don’t like the outfits because I think that if I saw one of them individually in a natural, messier setting I’d probably be impressed. These are classy, elegant winter looks and what more could you want when you’re looking for outfit inspiration for this season? It’s just that it’s always a little too neat and uniform for me, and on the runway I like my fashion to be risky. This could almost be the sophisticated mother to a Tommy Hilfiger collection and whilst that’s something I would probably wear if I wanted to look put together, it’s not what you get excited to see at fashion week. Primary colours all together aren’t where it’s at for me either, the infamous colour scheme of the cheap plastic playhouses you’d find in the garden of every working/middle class British household back in the day. Yes, I had one. So did the after school club I was forced to attend whilst my mum was at work. Apparently the negative connotations are still too much for me (a boy I went to the after school club with did once fall off the back of one and crack his head open so maybe it’s justified).

Isabel Marant was pretty much exactly what you’d expect from Isabel Marant; if the Etro bohemian woman is one who rolls out of bed and chucks on the first thing she sees, the Isabel Marant bohemian woman is the one who claims she’s done the same thing but who actually planned it all out the night before. She designs for the gluten-free, bikram yoga Kourtney Kardashian style “hippy” who claims to be a free-spirit but would definitely not do acid with you. I was gonna say it was a collection for the Gwyneth Paltrows of the world but then I remembered Gwyneth proudly released a candle she claimed smelled like her vagina and changed my mind-she’d definitely do acid with you. 

It’s definitely a cohesive transition from the summer collection; both have that seemingly laid-back, clean-cut vibe, and cater to the rich, impeccably groomed scented candle loving woman everywhere. Obviously the pieces are a tad more suited to an alpine lodge in Switzerland than a beach in Malibu this time round, but that same mild colour palette, pretty, naturalistic patterns, and generally relaxed fit persists. It’s cute enough.

J.W Anderson is a bit of an enigma.

Despite the experimental silhouettes and the kooky details that you think would very “look at me!”, the collections still seem to have a chilled, easy-going feel to them. They toy about with the strange but remain entirely sophisticated whilst doing so-I think it’s because aside from the little quirks that make the garments J.W Anderson, they’re otherwise fairly reserved and simple; even the quirks themselves mostly tend to be exaggerated, more conceptual takes on more typical stylistic motifs anyway. Anderson has a knack for producing statement pieces that don’t look like they’re trying too hard to be statement pieces, a talent he expertly deploys at Loewe as well. Whilst Maison Margiela collections are like the fashion equivalent of that Jughead “I’m weird, I’m a weirdo” speech, J.W Anderson’s refusal to conform is quiet and modest. I like it. It’s not generally my personal style but I can admire the thought behind the work, and there are still some things I’d love to try. I have a few standouts-the shoes with the hoop detailing dancing from the ankle straps, the dress on the bottom right with what appears to be art nouveau typography on, the trench coat with the cape detailing and the gossamer dress to its right are all stunning, especially that dress. If I ever want to dress as the bubble Glinda the Good Witch descends in when she meets Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, I know where to go, though I don’t suppose there’s going to be an occasion that calls for that any time soon. Can I just have the dress anyway?

Kim Shui is another new designer I found through blessed Twitter screencaps-thanks guys for doing my research for me. Much appreciated.

But anyways! Like Charlotte Knowles, it’s clear she’s still establishing her aesthetic as a designer, and thus far I love it. The whimsical, throwback prints on urban silhouettes that range from the androgynous suits of city dwelling cool girls to the amped-up sex appeal of nightclub dresses is gorgeous, especially twinned with dainty headscarfs and opera gloves-all in all I think this a very cool and wearable collection and I’m looking forward to the next collection she puts out.

Next up is Lacoste, and IDK why I always include their collections to be honest, considering they’re not really known for “high fashion”. I guess it’s because my dad has collected Lacoste shirts since I was little so I kinda have a soft spot for it and feel obligated to include it every time presentation season comes around. Yes, the outfits are unbearably preppy and the colours are garish but I feel like that’s kind of the appeal? So what if some of the tracksuits look like they could’ve been pulled out of a bad mafia movie? I see the argyle jumpers, with a bit of wear and tear, as a charity shop gem my sister would come across (she has the #Y2K Depop girl knack for finding old designer pieces in the shittiest charity shops without the audacity to try and sell them at a 70% markup) that I would then steal from her wardrobe to wear myself, contrasted with a ripped mini skirt, chains and and docs. I see the POTENTIAL of a look that is very fuck you to the rich middle age tory styling we see here. It’s punk, okay?

Lanvin was STUNNING this time around. Maybe it’s because I’ve been watching Mad Men recently and it reminds me of the fashion on that-which I hope somebody won an award for at the time BTW, it is SO fucking good-but I just adore every look here. I can’t even remember if I reviewed Lanvin’s SS20 show, and so clearly if I did it wasn’t that memorable (no shade intended), however this collection is a different story. Every single one of these outfits is iconic movie moment worthy, a 60s Cher Horowitz plaid two piece equivalent that would get screencapped and replicated ad-nauseam, all the best looks of Betty Draper and Peggy Olsen and Joan Holloway and Megan Calvet brought together and refined for the modern day woman. I might even consider sacrificing my anti-royalist principles if it meant I could transport myself back in time and switch bodies with Grace Kelly so I could make this collection my princess-off-duty wardrobe and drive around Monaco in that Bella Hadid look, roof down, all the drama of the fur trim and the gloves and hair whipping about in the wind (but in this unrealistic vision I can actually see what I’m doing and I’m not choking on random strands and swearing at Mother Nature as if she is a real entity with a personal vendetta against me).

Loewe! More J.W Anderson! I’m gonna try not to repeat myself by arsekissing too much all over again and get the good points out of the way quickly! So rapid fire: elegant! Delicious colour palette! Interesting shapes! I think I’m seeing a Victorian/Edwardian influence there! Correct me if I’m wrong! I like it! The coats are strong! Remind me of the suffragettes! But lets pretend in this case these Loewe style coat wearing suffragettes are not raging classists!

AH. Apart from that, it was a bit too austere for me. I definitely preferred Anderson’s eponymous collection; there were a fair few recurring details in this show that I couldn’t get behind that I didn’t include, in particular this bib-like black panel that just kept popping up on everything. Sorry J.W Anderson. But a 50% success rate is still good! And at the end of the day, having 2 collections on Vogue Runway at once is more prestigious than the accumulative total of every accomplishment I’ll probably ever have achieved in my life by the time I’m on my deathbed so what do I know anyway? Sigh:( At least I’ll always have the honour of having the largest head by circumference of my class in year 4, right *sweats nervously*!?!?! 

Louis Vuitton was definitely a downgrade on last season for me. There were for sure elements I liked-the Vera Wang-esuqe mixing of the tulle bustle skirts with the rougher, more masculine biker inspired vests and jackets was a cool choice, reminiscent of Gucci’s mixing of the lace dresses with harnesses. I enjoyed the baroque jackets and subtle nods to steampunk style too. Though we’ve already seen it a lot this season, the wet look coat with fur trim I can’t help falling in love with, and I’m immune to the potential ugliness of the muted blue monotone look purely on the basis I can picture Ripley from Alien in it. So like I said-it’s not as if I hated it. I guess when it comes down to it, the collection wasn’t bad so much as I just had higher hopes. I will say though, the staging was INCREDIBLE. As a history nerd, I never thought I’d see the day when a Henry the 8th lookalike actor was part of the backdrop of a Paris fashion week show-and I always thought there was no interesting career path for me in the subject!

And another big name I don’t tend to be so partial to, Maison Margiela. IDK, I did like last season but I wasn’t a fan of haute couture and it took me a while to warm to this. Call it deconstructed, experimental, whatever, but you know when you can’t decide what to wear and you’re in a rush so you kinda just throw all the shit you decided against into a pile? Well, my initial thought was that this season Margiela is kinda that, on the runway.

I will say, once I let go of my need to see a clear shape, a lot of the individual pieces were stunning (NOT the puffed up tabis though, I still can’t even get behind the regular ones). I guess I just wish they’d go for less is more with the styling because as it currently stands, it makes it hard to actually take the clothes in. 

Ultimately, one thing you can always say about Margiela, like their clothes or not, is that it has a monopoly on being effortlessly bold.

Marc Jacobs I really liked again, though I will say it doesn’t stand out quite like the S/S collection did. That was absolutely STUNNING-I can’t remember specifically where I ranked it in my top ten but I know it was at least in the top 5. This, on the other hand, is...pretty. It’s very pretty, and very put together, so I’m not saying at all that I don’t rate it. I suppose it’s just a lot simpler than I expected it to be-I don’t have a problem with simplicity, at all, especially if it’s what a brand is known for but I feel like part of the appeal with Marc Jacobs is that it’s pretty kooky. I mean, not Thom Browne or Margiela kooky, but commercial kooky at least. I feel like the kookiness is lacking here? And that’s where this feeling is coming from? And also, the fact that Lanvin tackled the same era and did it a lot better? So there’s that, too. Plus, I adore Miley Cyrus but...why? Random celebrities waking the runway just doesn’t do it for me-it always comes across as a publicity grab, as if the designer isn’t confident enough in their collection’s ability to get people talking on its own, and I suppose in this case that says it all really.

Margaret Howell was...well, Margaret Howell. She’s known for her basics, and they’re always pretty non-offensive “regulation hottie” in the words of the icon that is Damian from Mean Girls. It’s been, what, four years? More? Since I last watched that film but I’m pretty sure watching it about twenty times between the ages of 9 and 15 tattooed it on my brain. I include her because even though they don’t get my pulse racing, I like these pieces; considering the fact that expecting straight white men to ever have style on the level of barbiedrugz (his instagram is my favourite thing ever) or Rickey Thompson is ludicrous, Margaret Howell’s menswear looks are probably are the best, realistic goal for any future partner. Because I like my men dressed like Paddington bear/a depressed Brown University English lit lecturer, okay? Or in other words, Will Graham from Hannibal.

Marine Serre had a few good moments-the looks that I liked were the ones that stayed within her lane of blending the weird with the visually appealing. There were a lot of cool things going on, and I like the utility vibe (the boot with the pouch detailing and the mask are perfect examples of this done well), but outside the fits I picked out a lot of it went over my head tbh.

Marques Almeida is a show I was looking forward to-it has such a youthful, experimental quality to its collections (it’s no surprise the designers said they were influenced by the HBO show Euphoria this year!), similar to Central Saint Martins, and you can tell the designers (Marta Marques and Paulo Almeida) are based in London too; we are talking about the birthplace of the punk fashion movement, and as a designer it’s probably almost a rite of passage that you incorporate elements of that into your work. Marques Almeida does that with a flair and consistency you can count on. Their clothes don’t have the wildest silhouettes or anything like that but the fun they have playing around with print and colour and the ease and confidence with which they settle on those combinations always comes through-the black and white coat with the yellow furs trim is one of my favourite pieces from the entirety of this season’s offerings.

I wasn’t so fond of Max Mara’s SS20 collection and I'm not gonna lie, this isn’t THAT much of a step up for me personally. It’s just one of those brands I feel obligated to include because it’s talked about quite a bit but I’m not totally sure if it’s for me. Too monotone, but I’ll give it another season! And I mean, there is a slight improvement here-this collection is a lot more laid back than the stiff, austere feel of the last, and there are some very well fitted and structured pieces. A lot of the looks kinda remind me of a 2020, fashion take on The Breakfast Club’s “Basket Case”, which is kinda cool, and just from looking at the clothes, the high price tag is palpable. Also, scruffy hair club unite! Though obviously it’s intentional here! That’ll be my excuse for the next time I turn up at work looking like I’ve been dragged through a hedge backwards-Max Mara made me do it.

Ending on those words of wisdom, I’m gonna bring this post to a close, because I can’t fit any more photos in! I’m desperately hoping that I can fit this all into 3 parts like I did with my last RTW review but even if I do have to make 4 posts, I still include my top 10 shows as I did before. I hope to get that post up within the next couple of weeks! After that, I’ve shot a Lana Del Rey inspired by each of her different albums and “era”s though given last week’s events I’m on the fence about whether to post it or not, especially given her silence over the last couple of days. I’m really proud of what I’ve put together and I’ll always love her art and music (I have 2 bloody tattoos, for fuck’s sake!), so I’m trying to think how I can reconcile that with those awfully worded posts and just the general lack of awareness of bigger issues that she’s displayed the last week. JFC, being a Lana stan has always been so chilled up until now. All the very valid and important takes aside, that “Lana pls delete that post and apologise, we can’t fight the barbz all your stans are depressed” tweet is the only good thing to come out of this shitshow. He got a point. Breathing feels like effort lately:( IDK, if you’re also a Lana stan and you have any opinions on the matter, feel free to DM me, because I’m feeling pretty conflicted rn.

Most importantly though, are the issues I opened this post by talking about, and I thought I’d finish by including the thread of petitions I saw on Twitter. Like I said, a lot of them aren’t available to sign in the UK but to anyone who read up until this point (thank you!) idk where you’re reading from so maybe some of them will apply to you:

https://twitter.com/yericvIt/status/1265801832930045953

Also, while we’re at it, because every tory voting twat seems to treat our country as if it’s some beacon of hope where racism is non-existent and love to tell PoC to stop moaning about their experiences, here’s a thread of black British men and women who have lost their lives to police violence:

https://twitter.com/illh0eminati/status/1266441604170223617

Thank you for reading until the end. I hope that you enjoyed the fashion part of the post but also that if you did read this far, you read the other bits too if you didn’t know what was going on already. It seems like everyone does but you forget that Twitter’s a bit of an echo chamber and that outside of it, there’s a lot of ignorance, whether intentional or not. I know Tumblr has a similar audience to Twitter so I imagine there’s loads on here about everything going on too, but ya know. I wanted to talk about it just incase. 

Stay safe, keep fighting the good fight, and again, thank you for reading!<3

Lauren x

[trikkidetroit]

THE REVELATION - GOD IS NOT DEAD

Do you believe in God? In Heaven and Hell and the fight for our souls on Earth against the false prophets who promise you more than they can deliver? If you do, these photos that I will continue to post (despite threats) might be of interest. If they deny God, they might ask me if "I'm okay" for posting something that makes them "uncomfortable" (LOL).

"Blessed are the pure in heart, For they will see God." Matthew 5:8

The photos above are from when I was paddle-boarding. I was living at a sober living house in Walled Lake. As my friend took photos from the shore, my body went translucent, I believe this was God sending a message to the astral projectors with demonic ability to make people fall asleep and drown while swimming. *Side note, when my mother was younger, she had a cousin that drown who knew how to swim. I avoided the pools this summer, I only went swimming twice, when I would get into the water, it was ICE COLD, but when I stuck my hand in to test how cold it was, it felt much warmer than it actually was. I believe the Angels were protecting me because people who have the ability to put people to sleep (albeit behind the wheel of a moving vehicle or while swimming) and it happens so fast, you literally pass out right where you are with no chance to either pull over in time and park the car or swim to shore/to the edge of a pool and get out in time. I have been put to sleep behind the wheel of my car while not under the influence of any sedating chemical substance, after drinking coffee or red bull and still I would begin to nod off while driving and while driving only. I believe that day at the pool, my core body temperature dropped so that I would get out and not swim that day, because the evil individual or individuals with the ability to decay a persons body from the inside out using demons could also sink me like a stone in the deep end of the community pool I was swimming in on that particular day. I feel that in the past 10 years I have been targeted for death by a small group of satanists in the Metro Detroit area, a group that has had all power over satanic/demonic abilities for over 70 years to cause severe bodily harm to people and they became addicted to blood. My family, friends, and I became targets and were forced into silence or else they can make you appear crazy, like you are "just imagining things", or that you "need psychological help" instead of what actually needed to happen, that GOD takes the satanists powers over our lives and the satanists get put in prison for the rest of their lives for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Not only has my whole world fallen apart since I started catching paranormal activity on film, but my physical body suffers weird and unexplainable pains and sicknesses, including but not limited to severe headaches, chest pains, body aches, nightmares, PTSD, and what seems to be an actual onset of cancer that they are able to grow simply by astrally projecting into people's bodies and chanting ridiculous words on repeat that are actually demonic incantations said with the INTENTION of causing physiological/psychological harm. The power of PRAYER IS POSITIVE INTENTION, A PERSON USING DEMONIC INCANTATIONS IS NOT PRAYING OR REPEATING A MANTRA, that is so disgustingly deceptive it is not even funny. People in my life went missing and when I considered going to authorities, I would instantly either feel physiological pain or would feel intense dread, like my life was in danger. I will continue my work in paranormal research because I believe my mission on Earth is to show the world that GOD is WITH US, no matter how bleak the situation or how trying things may seem, including the recent pandemic that is plaguing our world known as the Corona virus. This was Biblical misreckoning on the part of the satanists, and because of their ability to downplay the fact that they got away with exorbitant amount of stalkings/violence/murders that were made to look like accidents, then had the power (using demons) to downplay the fact that they murdered people/the severity of their actions. The ability to give a person cancer or a heart attack/stroke without even touching a person physically, using demons they know they can control, is BIOTERRORISM and ORGANIZED CRIME/CULT BEHAVIOR and the most violent acts I can think of because there is no way to physically trace it back to one particular person and bring them to justice via court of law. They can also blow up household appliances (including furnaces and computers) and crash airplanes/helicopters) using these same demons. They can shrink your hard drive space on your computer and cause software malfunctions, which is being looked at by the United Nations right now as Cyberterrorism. It's that serious. If they come to you and ask you to ask me if "I'm alright", just remind them that I am exercising my 1st amendment rights, then ask them "what exactly makes you think that Nikki Foglia is talking about you in her message that is clearly her just exercising her FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH/FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?" They undermine the entire U.S. legal system and it is as insulting as it is baffling to very nervous and terrified heads of Government, worldwide.  IT'S ONE NATION UNDER GOD, NOT ONE NATION UNDER SATAN. IT'S "IN GOD WE TRUST", NOT "IN SATAN WE TRUST AND GIVE OUR SOULS TO" (because they don't "sell their souls" they give them away when they deny God so they can get away with murder, and they will bear the mark of the beast for doing so, which won't be some fucking microchip but rather a physiological decline in the physical senses that the satanists who were out playing judge, jury and executioner, took for granted to begin with. THE TRUTH MUST BE RESTORED SO WE AS A NATION AND AS A PLANET CAN BEGIN TO HEAL. WE THE VICTIMS ARE CHILDREN OF GOD AND MENTALLY SOUND, A SATANIST MURDERER IS NOT

APATHY IS LETHAL // AGITATE AGAINST APATHY // RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT

"No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light." Luke 8:16

[deafblindshorty]

OITNB 7x01: The Beginning of the End

Yep, I’m doing this again! Final season, I’m so excited and anxious!

Here we go!

Oh, that’s right! Cal and Neri had a baby! It’s a baby girl named...Goodall? Maybe Goody or Allie for short!

Piper must have been out of prison for a while now if her probation officer “finally” gave her permission to to either use a car or go visit her wife.

Speaking of Alex, looks like Murphy is...mm. I wanna say “bullying” her, but I’m not sure that’s the right word.

And they’re doing voiceovers again. Twice in three minutes. It’s like a Glee episode!

“I want drugs” (Sigh) Angie 2.0?

Taystee! Hm. I half-expected her to look beat up since she was (wrongly) convicted for the murder of a CO. And she’s Murphy’s bunkie? The “thug” comment threw me off.

Um, Pennsatucky, you do know you are also a convicted murderer, right? I can’t believe she and Suzanne actually believe Taystee is guilty. Really?

Man, how long are Red and Gloria going to be in SHU?! I kind of like that Gloria is positive and I hope Red is depressed because she realized she missed her once chance to mend fences with her family.

Guess The Recipe? I wanna play!

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen Polly. 

Looks like Piper got a job at a Thai restaurant.

Oh, I guess Lorna’s baby survived despite her taking medications that would have been damaging. And it’s a boy named Sterling.

Hmm. Looks like Alex is trying to frame Murphy for smuggling contraband. Wait, though, did she put it in the right bunk?

Ooh...Taystee’s turned violent. So, Alex’s plan worked out...sort of. Badison was sent to SHU and the guards think Badison started the fight.

Well, Cindy sure gained a reputation for being a rat fink.

“But the judge and jury say she did it.” Sigh, should have known Suzanne would have that kind of attitude. She believed she slocked Red back in season 2 because Vee said she did.

Cesar/Aleida flashback?

Suddenly, Larry in a flashback.

Looks like Piper asked her dad for help after all, and he reluctantly agreed.

Fucking Hellman. I wonder if he’s the villain this season.

Oh, I guess Aleida got her kids back and Rick jumped into Daddy Mode apparently.

Did Daya just kill Daddy? Holy shit.

Oh, nevermind. She just drugged that hooch.

Hm. I expected Alex to have a negative reaction to those drugs.

Nevermind again. Daddy is dead. Dammit, Daya, are you trying to become a lifer?

And Piper just got fired because she’s not dependable. Assholes.

Aw, Vauseman flashback!

Yeah...why can’t you two talk about your hellish week?

Geez, what’s with all the voiceovers from different characters? Not even Glee does that!

Groan...I really hope Alex doesn’t get in trouble...

[thequeenoffish]

A look at the main argument of the antis

I just saw an anti make a list of mostly non-sequential ideas, in an attempt to argue that starker is bad because it is fictional paedophilia and fiction effects reality.  For now let's throw out the question ‘Is Starker fictional paedophilia?’ because quite honestly we could go round in circles about how people age characters up or how to define the word, or how the age of consent varies country to country etc. So let us assume that antis are right it is fictional paedophilia no matter the circumstance. 

Now let us look at the main argument antis use (and basically only), and some of the arguments that this person in particular used.

Before anything else, we need to define what we mean by ‘effecting reality’, I will be using this to mean a situation where something happened as a direct consequence for them reading fiction. As in, someone did something, they would not have done if they had not read the fiction. 

Of course, fiction does affect some areas of reality, because when we read fiction, we have read it, and so it makes us feel and think things, and maybe talk about or create because of those things. But antis are arguing that it is more than that, that fiction can change elements of our moral code, and lead us to believe things we previously believed were terrible are now right, and that they can even cause us to do said wrong things. Now I set the record straight on what exactly this argument is about, on to specific points.  ---

First, they use an appeal to authority, they know the ship promotes paedophilia because they are a CSA survivor. However this in no way informs them about the complex relationship between fiction and reality it only tells them that some humans are fucking monsters. 

I will take this opportunity to say that if you are a CSA survivor I am so sorry that it happened, and I hope whoever did that to you is rotting in jail. Those people are an example of the worst humans can be, and if I could I’d erase them all from the world. However, it does not mean you can suddenly decide which fiction is morally right or not. There are also many starker shippers who could use the same appeal with exactly the same grounds to argue for the ship, so that doesn’t really help anyone. They next argue that when things happen in fiction and are then condoned by people they become reality. They cite zero sources, and if there is anything I can tell you about arguments you should really cite your sources, or in fact, use a source at all so then I have some idea at least where you could be getting these numbers.  Despite the lack of sources, this statement is filled with the moral panic that has effected comic books, and then videos games. The debate on whether video games cause anti-social behaviour or violence is ongoing, and there are lots of studies for both sides but an article from Psychology Today points out that, 

‘That the latest statistics show youth violence at a 40-year low—despite the popularity of video games‘ Does that alone prove that video games, a medium where you are not just a passive reader, but an active player does not promote violence?  Well no, but I think it does show that this is likely to be the same kind of moral panic that affected comic books back in the 50s. And that Antis can in no way prove that even games, a medium where you can actively kill avatars of humans, affects reality by making people violent. Therefore them attempting to prove that people writing paedophilia is making people paedophilia’s is a huge stretch even believing studies that support the idea of videos games causing violence. 

Another related argument is that by shipping it, and seeing it in a positive light, shippers are in somehow affecting the social norms or society. I will not attempt to argue against this, as, there is no way at the most 100,000 people from all over the world quietly writing fanfic on tumblr can change the opinion of society. Far larger groups of fans cannot. Game of Thrones shows awful things like rape, paedophilia, incest, and murder, millions love it and the characters who do, yet rape, paedophilia, incest and murder are still illegal and considered morally reprehensible. 

Why is this? Maybe because people are perfectly capable of telling fiction from reality? Just a thought.

This person also claimed to know of cases where people used, the ‘it was in fiction and no one cared’ excuse and got off free in paedophilia case. If this happened wow that judge and jury are stupid as all sin, and that person is a sack of shit. I doubt this ever happened though, sorry you can’t make a claim like that with no evidence to back it up. 

Overall this argument boils down to the fear that shippers are leading to less CSA victims being believed, and if you can show me proof of that happening or beginning too, I will seriously reevaluate my position.

---

While I think that is the main argument has just been covered this person tried to compare the high rates of rape of sex workers and low rates of conviction to this argument, which makes no sense as it is part of a completely different argument. But as this bit pissed me off Sex workers are raped in higher numbers, and their rapist prosecuted in low numbers because sex work is illegal in most countries. Sex workers often have more to fear from the police than protection from them, and often rate the police as the biggest source of violence in their lives. Men know this and take advantage. This does not mention the stigma around sex work that means that sex workers are not taken seriously when they do report rape to the police. All this contributes to an unsafe environment for sex workers, it has nothing to do with fiction and its effect on reality.

This is clearly not connected at all. However, people should be more informed on issues facing sex workers, and this is a great video to start with. I encourage you to watch it. 

Overall I hope this post sums up somethings shippers think but have not articulated in this way. I could go on, but I am tired. So I hope you all have a lovely day <3

[scuttleboat]

So, talk to me about Octavia, what do you see happening to her, what has been your favorite moments from this season so far? Any ideas about about the Blake siblings future?

Okay so you sent this way back in the first half of the season! Many conversations have been had from all the different angles, some I agree with and some not. I think I’ve wrestled with answering this ask because I still don’t really know where her story is going. A lot of my opinions about what has happened so far will yet be shaped by how it resolves. And there’s also a big chance that Octavia v Bloodreina will carry into next season, so I may still not be able to really lay out my thoughts. But I do know that we’ve seen some incredible televsion drama come from Octavia (Marie) this season, and I appreciated that even if I’m still working through how I feel about the storytelling choices around her.

My current thought is about the similarities between what Octavia did as a leader and what other major characters have done. For me the biggest villains of the show are still the Mountain Men, specifically because they live via the pain and death of others without the sacrifice. Wonkru lives via the death of their own, and are very deeply involved in the sacrifice part of it. The whole success of Wonrku is how knowing and participatory it is. A recent thought I was mulling over with Octavia is, well, two thoughts that intertwine…

1. Octavia, more than any other “leaders” on t100 I think except Lexa, was pressured into her position and molded by the people around her. It started with Bellamy and Aurora, became Indra, became Jaha, became Gaia, and finally Abby. Indra makes this explicit in season 5, saying that she and Gaia created Bloodreina as well. The only other leaders on t100 who faced external pressures with that level of intensity and immediacy were the Commanders, and they a) had an A.I. to supplement their mental state, b) never had to face what Wonkru had to face. This is ironic considering how much Octavia has always pursued her right to individual agency. In that pursuit she became trapped, and she still is trapped. Although people like Jaha and Kane thought they had their hands tied on the Ark, they were middle aged adults but the time they took power, not 17 year olds. They didn’t have mentors telling them what to do, and they didn’t have a contextually violent culture as a starting point. Then take characters like Clarke and Bellamy and Monty–for all that they say things like “we had no choice”, they actually had an incredible amount of agency in what they did and why. Clarke and Bellamy didn’t have Indra or Gaia or Kabby standing at their shoulders, coaxing them on when they were pulling levers and making high-risk decisions. I think that diffence in autonomy, small though it may seem, may have helped them survive the experiences emotionally.

2. What I’m thinking about this week is that we had all these characters faced with the same leadership question over and over again (😑), but this is the first time we’ve seen a character broken as a result. Octavia’s mind is broken right now–specifically in the sense that she’s made seemingly irrational choices because of her pain and paranoia. She would not have burned the farm otherwise. That’s the difference really; all of our characters have been close to that collapse at one point, but they’ve been able to make it through. So far, Octavia hasn’t made it through. I hope that she does, but she might not before season 6. I think the reasons for Octavia’s break are pretty apparent, and worthy of sympathy. But if it’s not obvious to someone by now, I’ll do quick hits: she had far worse choices than anyone else so far as a leader, she came into it the least prepared, and she was in it many times longer anyone else. Years longer, during the part of her life when she transitions from youth to adult. And as I said in point #1, Octavia also was explicitly guided and molded into Bloodreina during those times as well. In a way, Bloodreina is all of those mentors combined with Octavia, compressed under incredible pressure and pain.

I don’t know if the other characters like Clarke and Bellamy would have been able to make it six years through that without being broken by it. Clarke was in charge for a few months and it almost broke her after season 2. Her flight to the woods and isolation before season 3 isn’t that far off from what Octavia tried to do in season 4, and probably would have liked to do in the last six years if the whole population hadn’t relied on her as their icon. Bellamy didn’t face the same pressures leading up to MW that Clarke did, but what he went through still haunted him, and his reaction to further trauma was to partition parts of himself in order to operate as a leader in season 3—again, shades of what Octavia would ultimately do as Bloodreina. So we’ve seen some of these tragedies happen to characters before on the show. But nothing of this scale, this depth, this complexity, or this duration.

For me the jury’s still out on whether I like this storyline; it’s certainly emotional, and parts of it are entertaining in a macabre way. I love Bloodreina’s look, and every time she sends a withering stare to Kane I’m like “I feel you girl”. Seeing the emotional depth in her various relationships has been good TV. But ultimately it’s not fun to watch. It’s a lot of ceaseless misery heaped on a character that I care about, in way that is so much more extreme than what the main characters have been used for previously. I’m gonna have a lot of reservations if Octavia dies as Bloodreina–in fact, I think I would pretty ferociously hate that. I would hate that more than bellarke being just friends for the whole show. If the show gives us a girl who is abused and tormented from the moment she’s born, then says that her desire to be autonomous is what brings upon her the worst bad-guy fate of anyone on the show where supposedly there are no good or bad guys… what the fuck. That is on par for me with Thanos being cosmically “rewarded” for abusing and then murdering his daughter. I don’t want “well she went crazy and then she died” to be how Octavia’s character ends. I think that’s shitty and pathetic. It’s beneath this show, tbh. Far beneath. This isn’t Melrin, ffs.

Ultimately, I don’t *think* that will happen. I’m pretty sure it won’t. But that’s why I’m saying I have to reserve my ultimate feelings about this until I see where the season finale takes Octavia, and the Blake siblings. Depending on where they go, I’ll either be intrigued or pissed off. I hope intrigued. There’s some amazing stuff about the darkness in the show and in Bloodreina and I’m not at all opposed to Octavia being used to explore that. But taking the character who’s already had it worse than anyone else and then extra-destroying her mind and soul just to say “whoa, isn’t tragedy cool??” …that would be a low point for the 100. So I hope they don’t end her story on a note like that.

Octavia can never be the same girl that was thrown in the sky box, or the girl Indra took under her wing, or the girl that won the Conclave. That girl is years gone. But I want to see the woman she becomes after Bloodreina.