#internal analysis

[aanalytic]

sunny s17 wishlist:

- dee takes a goddamn W for once

- dee and the waitress hang out. or kiss

- charlie covered in dirt (or blood. or both)

- emotionally charged dennis moment please megan ganz i know you’re out there

- charlie and mac best pals/partners in crime type episode

[littlebellesmama]

The SWOT Analysis: A Simple Yet Powerful Strategy Tool

In today’s dynamic business environment, clarity often comes from simplicity. One such simple yet incredibly powerful tool that helps individuals, businesses, and teams assess their current standing and plan ahead with confidence is the SWOT Analysis. It’s not just a buzzword you’ll hear in a business meeting or find in a textbook; it’s a real-world approach to making informed decisions, setting…

[happytakes]

2024.06.19 | Self-reflection is important so we learn the lessons from our own and other people's life experiences. Disciplining your thoughts is necessary so that you can look objectively at things and realize the lesson.

[bonskidin64]

“It’s not my fault you don’t like girls!”

[i-think-2-loud]

friendly reminder that jeremy has been beaten down so many times in his life by the people who were supposed to hold him up and support him that he genuinely believes he isn’t worth anyone’s attention. to the point that even in his own POV he doesn’t feel like many of his thoughts and feelings are worth sharing

[stellas-and-tonitruses]

Everything we know about Project Apple (and, by extension, Anya's past) thus far

thought i'd compile all of that now while endo's on break Just In Case the next chapter happens to start anya's backstory (i don't Think it will but endo likes surprising us LSDFKLFS)

important disclaimer that project apple and the organization in charge of anya's experiments have not been confirmed to be related! there's evidence that they have things in common, in particular employees, but that's our only real connection between the two thus far. still! worth looking into

more under the cut!

so, starting very strongly with the very first mention of anything related to the project: anya's introduction in chapter 1

despite her being a main character, we know very little about her past at the moment, and this little blurb at the beginning makes up a very big portion of what we know.

things to note here:

as an experiment, her name was "Test Subject 007". important to note that the notation differs between her and bond: she was Test Subject 007, bond was Subject 8, no zeroes in there;

she had been made thus by accident, the phrasing itself implying quite heavily that she was just a normal child before said accident (but this is the translation! i don't know japanese so i can't cross-reference with the raws to clarify if the phrasing changes anything, but the fanbook uses the word "gained" to describe her powers too);

because her mind-reading is an unintended consequence, that means the scientists were presumably not, at least initially, trying to achieve cognitive enhancements in humans, and were instead trying to achieve something else, whatever that might've been;

she escaped from the facility and then moved from institution to institution, looking for a family.

so, crucially, through this little introduction we learn that there is an organization, government-funded or otherwise, that is or was conducting human experiments for unknown purposes. we also learn that whatever family anya had prior to being involved in the experiments is more than likely unreachable, at least as far as she knows, and so she has settled for finding a new family to take care of her instead.

in terms of the facility itself, here we see they clearly drilled it into her that she can't ever reveal her secret (and the darn plush is there too -- in the anime it's even more emphasized, as you can see in the gif i made)

through her reminiscing though, we get our very first look at the scientists that were in charge of her! they're in the gif above but here they are in the manga too. it's so interesting that the anime actually shows their eyes behind the glasses though, fascinating choice.

the insistence on world peace is important, as it explains her own personal obsession with it and shows that it's not just because of twilight's own focus on preserving the peace. i also don't think twilight ever really talks about "world peace," only about "preserving the current peace between westalis and ostania" -- anya seems to be the only one talking about WORLD peace (even in the very first scene where either of them mention it in proximity to each other in ch 1, loid says "understanding the other party is the first step towards peace" and anya's interpretation is "understanding me makes world peace?") but take this with a grain of salt because i might be wrong! going through every single mention of peace in the story just to fact check this one little trivia fact is a bit much i think so i'm not doing it JSDFKLSD

but yes

remember mr hair strand and baldy, we'll see them again. not her though, ig she wasn't in charge of bond

now, fast-forwarding to chapter 19, we finally get a name and a premise for the experiments:

"but oana," you might say, "this is talking about animals only! how do we know it's the same project as anya's, which involved human experimentation?"

i don't think it is, is the thing! i think it's related to the experiments anya was a part of, which is evidenced by the same scientists being featured in project apple too, but there's more going on that we don't know about. there wouldn't be such adamancy on keeping the two separate in every official mention of them if they were just the same thing, imo!

back to the evidence, we learn that the project, conducted and funded by the previous ostanian regime (meaning donovan's related to it one way or another, since he was prime minister), was marked by franticness and desperation -- a prime place for accidents like anya's telepathy and bond's future vision.

we also learn that the project was sacked by the new administration and that the former test subjects ended up on the black market.

(this makes it very important, imo, to learn when anya escaped the facility vs. when the project was sacked. it's clearly no longer in function, but while we've heard nothing from them thus far, i'm willing to bet the shady dealings around the desmond group are NOT related to the war, as W.I.S.E. has been led to believe, but rather to reignite project apple. that is speculation however so i'm going to refrain from theorising much on why the desmond group is focused on acquiring pharmaceutical companies!!)

ok speculation tangent over, back on track

so, that's already a decent amount of info! but moving to chapter 22, when bond is finally home, and we finally see some familiar faces

behold! baldy and mr hair strand!

and 2 other guys we don't know but will see again in another bond flashback!

that's 2 out of the 3 scientists we've seen thus far from anya's own time as subject 007, confirming that there IS a connection between anya and bond's experiments, regardless of whatever the project anya was a part of might've been named.

this is also the chapter in which we learn that bond himself was subject 8 (or, if we take it from the fanbook, subject #8. still, diff notation from anya!)

in chapter 31, we learn an interesting tiny piece of trivia. we don't get any further info on it, but it IS mentioned as something that is known by W.I.S.E.:

ostania is rumoured to have done human experimentation! and W.I.S.E., and by extension loid, are aware of that.

do i know how them knowing may be important later? not really!

the next droplet of info we get is in chapter 40. we see that project apple had collaborators that are still functioning unhindered.

of course, born industries is only rumoured to have been involved with project apple, but regardless of whether or not they actually were, the rumour itself implies that the project likely pulled scientists from various other companies' R&D departments.

(this makes the desmond group's acquisition of glooman pharmaceuticals shadier, but anyway)

as a side note, twilight is emoting so much at just his wrong assumption that bond is seeking revenge against the scientists. imagine how he's going to react when he finds out about anya JKSDFKLFSD

and now aaaaall the way in chapter 58, we see the bald guy who anya also knows, the two scientists from bond's previous flashback, and one whole new guy!

and thus ends our current knowledge of it all!

the only other thing worth discussing is anya's knowledge of classical language

but plenty people have already discussed these scenes, especially recently, so here are some links: 1 | 2 | 3

the only thing i can add is that i'm fairly certain that classical language is a lot more likely to be latin than old english, because it's a very common language to learn in school (in europe at least, and ostania is based on east germany so it makes sense to me. i learned mandatory latin in school for a few good years too, even if i wasn't that good at it lol) and because one of the most common modern usages of latin are in medicine and science, it would make sense that she'd be better at it due to exposure.

a possibility is also that the scientists would think in latin to conceal their thoughts from her, and that's how she ended up learning so much. she's not fluent in latin, she's just well acquainted and that cicumstance would explain the how.

BUT THAT'S SPECULATIONNN

also i don't think "ANIA" is an acronym, nor do i think anya's been misspelling her own name out of lack of knowledge. "ania" is a polish diminutive of anna and an alternate transcription of Аня, so i think it's far more likely that anya isn't ostanian or westalian than it is that her name comes from an acronym.

now,

TL;DR!

what we know about project apple (and the "mysterious organization"):

project apple was funded and conducted by what appears to have been donovan's regime and, from what W.I.S.E. knows, aimed to create highly intelligent animals for military purposes;

W.I.S.E. is aware that ostania is at the very least rumoured to have dabbled in human experimentation;

the project is presumably no longer on-going, though it is likely there are efforts behind the scenes to revive it;

it is rumoured but not confirmed that project apple had collaborating companies that are still functioning perfectly fine;

the same scientists who were in charge of bond were also in charge of anya, signalling that there is a very significant connection between project apple and the "mysterious organization;"

based on what they were telling anya, they were/are very focused on "world peace";

their experimentation methods include but likely aren't limited to electrocution.

and what we (vaguely) know about anya that relates to this:

she is at the youngest, 4 years old, and at the oldest, 5 nearing 6. we don't know her real age, all we know is she definitely lied about being 6;

she is very fixated on specifically world peace while twilight is focused on peace between ostania and westalis. the scientists are the very first we see talking about this, so it's likely their fault;

she is unreasonably well acquainted with classical language;

she has escaped the facility at LEAST 1 year ago;

and, one tidbit from the fanbook (page 29): "Anya has been reading minds for as long as she can remember," implying that her memory of a life before the lab is muddy at best and absent at worst.

that's all we know that i know of!!

if you got this far, thank you for reading :D hope any of this was interesting or sparked any theories >:] have a good day!

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

I ABSOLUTELY ADORE YOUR SQQ HE LOOKS SO FUCKINH DONE WITH LIFE

The recipe for SQQ is: calm on the outside, screaming on the inside.

[beneathsilverstars]

Was explaining my thoughts about Vaugardian attitudes towards mental health and therapy as part of a different topic, but it got really long so dfjkghdf here it is as a whole post! Starting with some more general worldbuilsing but hold on, we’ll get there.

Since Houses canonically contain libraries and infirmaries and provide things like education and transition care, I see them as a center of not just community but specifically community resources. If you have a problem or a question, you go to the local House, and if they can't solve it themself they'll point you in the direction of whoever can! Thus Housemaidens generally fill a role similar to social workers, and specific Housemaidens will have specialties like being a doctor, cook, teacher of a particular subject, etc. In larger cities, a lot of the more specific or labor-intensive resources would probably be outsourced to other charities/companies/organizations, or perhaps split into specialties by House, to better serve a dense population instead of trying to cram every resource into every neighborhood's House. But you would still go to any House first to find these other resources, so every House would maintain a focus on educating and advising. Combine this with the fact that religious leaders are often one of the first people that followers go to for personal guidance, and it makes sense that Housemaidens would provide all sorts of counseling, filling the role of everything from job coach to therapist.

If Housemaidens are the people providing all or at least most of the therapy in the country, then even if they're not trying to push religious doctrine, the Change belief is still going to be the source of the values and philosophies that their therapeutic models are based in. They can try to be nonpartisan and avoid mentioning Change in so many words, but it'll still be baked into the default assumptions of the local modalities in a self-perpetuating manner. If you want an entirely different approach, you're probably going to have find someone who specifically studied alternate modalities from other countries, any of which would have a much smaller market share than Change-based therapies.

So! Vaugardian therapy will focus on questions like "What Changes have been happening in your life lately, and how do you feel about them?" "What would you like to Change in your life?" "What can you Change about your thought processes and habits to address the things that trouble you?" and "Who do you want to be?" Which sound like just a particular way to word fairly common topics, but! These questions would be asked in pursuit of Change-y goals, as well.

The goal of irl mental healthcare as an industry is to make sure people can be productive. A common diagnostic question is "does this symptom interfere with your ability to work and otherwise get things done?" But Vaugardians are friendly and helpful to the point of approaching utopia, so I could see them being less concerned with this, because they're more willing to accept that some people can't work and some people need more support. In fact, in keeping with their distaste for carcinization, they might actively oppose the idea that there is any particular goal that people should be working towards. If there's one type of existence that is best for all people at all times, reaching it would mean there's no reason to ever Change again! So instead of any particular milestones, the goal is simply to set and strive towards goals that feel right to you.

I also think they'd be less likely to work off of a diagnostic model at all; you can't just say that someone inherently has depression. They may be depressed right now, but that can Change! The Change might require constant upkeep, but some Changes are like that, and it doesn't mean the Change is any less real. Instead, they'd probably be more focused on individual symptoms (and traits!), which might tend to come in certain clusters, but those clusters would be seen as trends rather than criteria. The Change modality would be less concerned with whether a state of being is disordered vs normal/healthy (and they'd be less likely to conflate "normal" and "healthy"), focusing instead on whether you're happy with where you're at, but also willing and able to Change as suits you.

So, "I feel apathetic all the time, I don't want to put effort into anything and I don't care about anything, I don't know who I am or who I want to be" would be an experience of depression symptoms that a Vaugardian therapist would prioritize helping you Change. But "I don't care about any of the things I used to care about, I think I want to quit my job and cut off all my friends so I can spend more time sleeping" would be... an idea a good therapist may recommend you spend some time exploring, to make sure that's what you really want and you're ready for the ramifications... but they wouldn't say, "No, that's a bad thing to want, we need to treat your depression so that you no longer want to do that." If you really do hate your job and your friends right now, stagnating in that because you feel like you ought to would be the worst case scenario! If pursuing this Change ends up making you feel unfulfilled and lonely and sick of sleeping all day, then, well, you can just Change again at that point, once you've decided that's what you want to do.

In an opposite example, a common criticism of irl therapy is that it provides bandaid solutions for structural issues. "I'm anxious about losing my job" might be addressed by mindfulness methods to lessen anxiety, which is better than nothing, but if you're genuinely in danger of losing your job and thus access to shelter and food, that's not something you can mindfulness away. Versus, in Change-based therapies, they would focus on discussing what you get out of that job and what about it makes you anxious. You might decide that you want to change careers to something that fits you better right now — which would be a lot easier to accomplish in Vaugarde than it would be irl, because of the resources provided by the Houses and general community. Or, you might decide that there's something about yourself that you want to change in order to better fit the job. So instead of working on the feeling of anxiety, you might work on building new skills, or building better relationships with your coworkers.

... I wrote this post thinking that Vaugardian therapy might use similar techniques to CBT (therapy), since CBT focuses on understanding the patterns of thought, behavior, and belief that lead to psychological issues, so that you can replace negative patterns with habits that serve you better. Sounds like making mental changes in order to change your feelings and actions! It would just be in favor of different goals than irl CBT under capitalism.

However. I did some more research, and it looks like Humanistic therapy is very similar to what I made up just now? According to this text, humanistic therapy "emphasizes growth and self-actualization rather than curing diseases or alleviating disorders." Psychological issues are "viewed as the result of inhibited ability to make authentic, meaningful, and self-directed choices about how to live," so it focuses on "helping people free themselves from disabling assumptions and attitudes so they can live fuller lives."

It's less of a set of techniques and more of a philosophy. According to this website, the key is empathy and "unconditional positive regard," which means the therapist "shows warmth, is receptive, and is nonjudgmental." They cultivate a casual, friendly atmosphere, instead of positioning themself as an authority figure. Client-centered therapy is a subtype that sounds like the most cliché sort of talk therapy; the therapist "listens, acknowledges, and paraphrases your concerns," giving you a space where you can be honest and accepted as yourself. Another subtype is gestalt therapy, which "focuses on the skills and techniques that allow you to be aware of your feelings and emotions," and encourages a focus on the present and self-responsibility.

So! That sounds about right! Vaugardian therapists aim to help you recognize your emotions and figure out who you are and who you want to be, through casual conversation and empathetic active listening, without judgement. They help you look at your skills, emotions, desires, and struggles, and guide you to consider the full breadth of options available to you, so you can decide what Changes will lead you to happiness and fulfillment. They especially try to avoid diagnosing, prescribing, or otherwise telling you who you must be or what you must need. They may provide suggestions — help you put something into words, or bring up options that professionals are more familiar with such as medication, or challenge you to re-examine your assumptions — but it's a collaborative brainstorming, and they want you to freely choose the option you think is best for you.

[robby-bobby-tommy]

The parallels that hurt so much

They both jinxed the most important event in their lives trying to help...

They both lost their closest friends to this....

And both were abandoned and hurt in the worst way possible by the sibling they've looked up to....

They had good intentions, they were so young......

And they're the monsters others have created.

[maxdibert]

You always say that JKR's female characters have sexist characteristics, and I agree. Now I'm thinking, do the male characters have the same problem? I feel like we talk so much more about the female characters, because we analyse them from a feminist perspective. But are the male characters that much different?

When I think about a male character who gets portrayed in a sexist manner, of course Snape comes to mind. Because he doesn't have traditionally masculine traits, and often gets treated as too emotional or "hysterical", even in the moments he has every right to be angry. Do we have any other examples?

Ohhh my friend, you just pick my favorite topic: gender roles in fiction. This is gonna be so long that's because i didn't answered before. But what can I say? I love gender analysis. Well, the sexism in Harry Potter doesn't just harm or flatten its female characters, it also shapes the men in rigid, gendered ways. The narrative tells us what kinds of men deserve praise and which ones deserve ridicule or punishment, and those judgments often mirror traditional, patriarchal ideals of masculinity.

Severus is a prime example. He’s written with traits that are culturally coded as unmasculine: emotional intensity, awkwardness, deep attachment, and vulnerability. But instead of being treated with compassion or complexity, he’s portrayed as bitter, obsessive, even “pathetic.” His grief, rage, and isolation are often mocked or pathologized, rather than explored. The narrative treats his emotions as excesses, as if he should be more stoic, more composed—more “manly.” This isn’t just a character flaw—it’s a rejection of any masculinity that doesn’t align with dominance, physical bravery, or emotional control.

Neville, for example, also demonstrates how the story treats alternative masculinities. Early on, he’s timid, forgetful, and sensitive. These traits are framed as embarrassing until he becomes braver, more assertive, and physically courageous. In short, until he conforms to the warrior-hero mold. Only then does the narrative grant him respect. The same applies to Harry himself: when he expresses emotions —particularly grief or anger— he’s dismissed as “moody” or irrational. The story often limits him to being a brave, self-sacrificing leader, but gives him very little emotional support or space for vulnerability. There's no real model for healthy emotional masculinity in the series, only the expectation that boys must “man up” to be heroes.

Hagrid is another example: deeply nurturing, emotionally expressive, and connected to nature and animals, traits often associated with care work and maternal energy. But instead of being respected for those qualities, he’s infantilized and often used as comic relief. His gentle masculinity is never truly valued: is ridiculed.

Contrast this with how the narrative treats women: the only ones who are consistently admired or respected are those who adopt traditionally masculine (but specifically patriarchal) traits: McGonagall, Ginny (in the later books), Tonks (to a degree), and of course Hermione. These women are praised for being rational, assertive, clever, emotionally restrained, and good at traditionally male-coded skills like dueling or strategy. But when they express vulnerability or compassion —or engage in emotional labor— they’re often sidelined or seen as less effective. The narrative doesn't reward care or softness in women any more than it does in men. Feminine-coded traits —empathy, nurturing, emotional openness— are simply not respected in Rowling’s world, she doesn’t uplift a deconstructed, emotionally mature masculinity in either men or women, she simply maps the traditional masculine ideal onto certain female characters and punishes the rest. The politics of care, softness, emotional labor are consistently devalued in the narrative, regardless of who displays them.

And this binary logic extends even to the depiction of villains. Take Lucius Malfoy and Tom Riddle, for instance. Both are presented as elegant, refined, beautiful even, traits often associated with femininity. Tom is repeatedly described as “handsome,” charismatic, and physically graceful. Lucius is cold, vain, poised, and his long blond hair and pristine appearance mark him as almost effeminate. These aesthetic choices are not incidental: the text uses their "feminine" physicality and polished manners to underscore their moral corruption. Their deviation from rugged, physical masculinity becomes part of their danger. It reinforces the idea that ambiguity—especially gender ambiguity— is inherently threatening.

This is a very old trope: the villain whose femininity is a sign of deceit, vanity, and perversion. In contrast to the "good" masculinity of characters like Lupin, Sirius (though flawed), or even Dumbledore in certain contexts, Tom and Lucius are coded as deceptive, performative, and manipulative, traits historically attributed to women in patriarchal literature.

Rowling’s portrayal of masculinity in the serues isn’t just about punishing deviation from patriarchal norms. It’s also about celebrating and excusing those who most embody traditional, dominant masculinity, even when they behave in deeply harmful or morally hypocritical ways. Two of the clearest examples are Sirius Black and James Potter.

Sirius is a textbook case of this. The narrative goes out of its way to frame him as attractive, charismatic, rebellious, and brave, the quintessential "cool bad boy." He’s constantly described in a romanticized, even fetishized light: leather jackets, long hair, brooding stares, a tortured past. Rowling makes sure we know he was handsome as a teenager and still has that allure, despite everything. But beneath that carefully maintained image lies a deeply flawed, morally inconsistent man. He is impulsive, often cruel, emotionally stunted, and astonishingly reckless with Harry, treating him less like a child in his care and more like a replacement for his lost best friend.

Sirius clearly struggles with trauma and imprisonment, but the narrative infantilizes him to excuse his worst traits. His emotional immaturity, his inability to grow beyond the age he was when he was imprisoned, is framed as tragic rather than irresponsible. His deep resentment of his family background, while understandable, leads to abusive behavior, yet it's never really questioned or addressed. He taunts Kreacher, encourages Harry to take unnecessary risks, and repeatedly projects his unresolved issues onto others. And yet, instead of holding him accountable, the narrative bends over backward to present him as misunderstood, loyal, and ultimately noble. His hypermasculine traits—defiance, aggression, emotional repression—are romanticized, even when they make him a terrible role model and Rowling excuses him constantly because well, he's a man isn't him? Men are men after all.

James is similarly protected by the narrative. He's introduced, retrospectively, as a school bully: arrogant, cruel, and dismissive of others (especially Snape). In SWM makes this abundantly clear: he bullies Snape for no reason other than boredom and ego. But Rowling frames his redemption not through any internal change or reckoning, but through Lily. We’re told James "grew out of it" because Lily wouldn't date him otherwise. The implication is that the love or approval of a good woman is what transforms a toxic man into a worthy one, a deeply sexist trope that places the burden of male moral development on women, rather than demanding accountability.

James doesn’t evolve because he recognizes his behavior was wrong, he changes because it wins him the girl. There’s no moment of reflection or apology, no exploration of the damage he caused. Instead, the narrative assures us that because he was brave, rich, talented, and confident —because he died fighting Voldemort— his earlier behavior is irrelevant. He’s mythologized as a hero, a perfect father, a natural leader. Once again, the narrative rewards hypermasculinity —dominance, swagger, courage in battle— while erasing the harm it can cause when it goes unchecked.

These character arcs are deeply gendered. Sirius and James are not punished for their aggression, recklessness, or cruelty,they're forgiven, romanticized, even sanctified, because they embody traits traditionally associated with masculine greatness.

So when we step back, we see that Rowling's narrative doesn't just operate in a patriarchal world: it actively endorses patriarchal values. The story rewards characters who conform to traditional masculinity, regardless of gender, and punishes or ridicules those who don't. Emotionality, care, and vulnerability —whether in men or women— are dismissed or treated as weaknesses. And even when characters are powerful, if they possess feminine-coded traits, that power is portrayed as dangerous, unstable, or even evil.

The result is a world where gender roles are rigid, and where only patriarchal traits —strength, control, intellect, emotional repression— are validated. That’s not just a flaw in the world-building; it’s a political stance embedded in the structure of the narrative itself.

[aanalytic]

every year, mac gives up looking at oiled-up men for lent. he has never once made it to easter

[lune-moon-nuit]

The Tragedy of Misread Signals: Mike and Will at the Snow Ball

Everyone agrees that Mike pushed Will to accept the girl’s invitation to dance at the Snow Ball, only to immediately regret it once Will said yes, and then watched them walk off to the dance floor together, leaving Mike looking completely confused. But… what if, in the end, it was all a misunderstanding between Mike and Will — a twist of fate, even?

What if Mike had interpreted Will’s hesitation as him being flattered and shy, thinking he actually liked the girl and was just seconds away from saying yes — and so Mike tried to give him a little reminder, a nudge, like “We’re going crazy together, remember?”

But Will, who was actually stammering, unsure of how to respond, and was desperately looking to Mike for help to politely turn her down, took those nudges the way we all did — as a “Come on, man, what are you doing? A girl is asking you to dance, go for it!”

So, in the end, Will reluctantly accepted the invitation, even though he didn’t really want to.

Mike had wanted Will to say no. He was sending signals — but not clearly enough (because Mike is an absolute disaster when it comes to communication) — and those signals were misread by Will. That miscommunication led Will to do exactly what Mike didn’t want him to do.

And in that moment, Mike concluded that Will must be more interested in that girl than in anything they’d experienced together throughout season 2 — “crazy together,” the monologue, and everything else. That would explain his completely crushed expression as he watches Will dancing with her.

Mike assumes Will isn't like him, that Will doesn’t share the feelings he himself has (feelings he hasn’t even realized yet). Every one of Mike’s behaviors and reactions in this scene are clearly unconscious — he doesn’t understand what he’s feeling or why he’s acting that way, he just feels. Denial is a powerful defense mechanism, after all.

So the second he sees Eleven walk in, he doesn’t hesitate. He rushes to her, asks her to dance, and quickly decides to kiss her and start dating her. (Compulsory heterosexuality is also a fascinating defense mechanism when it comes to human relationships.)

As for Will, he had hoped — and expected — that Mike would help him decline the girl’s invitation without making things awkward. But he interpreted Mike’s facial expression and nonverbal cues as encouragement to accept. So Will assumed that everything they’d shared during season 2 didn’t matter to Mike as much as it had mattered to him.

And then, seeing Eleven arrive and Mike dancing with her — then kissing her — only confirmed that belief.

[grizzlybearattack]

I think a HUUUGE part of why op doesnt piss me off is cuz oda doesnt give the characters internal monologue most of the time

[saetiate]

copying roma and silas to ask which blue lock guy u would ship me with except u can’t pick sae

[meamiki]

Happy Anniversary In Stars and Time!! Have some Friend Quest based drawings :D

(These have specific quote picks related to them! And there's also a long ramble on why I like those specific quotes below if interested)

(And by long, I mean roughly 2k+ words of proper ramble total, so be warned before clicking keep reading this link right here to the rb!!)

[pointmetotheundertow]

It’s not just Will who’s helped Mike face his queerness. It’s El, too. If he didn’t date El, he wouldn’t be able to figure out so soon that he’s in love with his best friend. And I mean, like, at all.

Okay, he might have still caught himself staring at Will unable to decide why looking at his lips feels like he’s on fire and why his heart melts at the sight or why his palms are sweaty or why he’s curious about the shape of Will’s hands in his own. But.

I think it wouldn’t have mattered nearly as much as it does, because without El, he wouldn’t be forced to do something about it.

Mike’s journey would look a lot different, ‘cause being in love is one thing, but acting on those feelings is yet another, more complicated thing.

I dare say Mike would’ve been terribly good at lying to himself over and over again, because he’s just a boy at the end of the day. But.

El makes those feelings rise like bubbles and pop up in his face so it’s clear he doesn’t love her like that, like a boyfriend loves his girlfriend. Confronting the fact that he doesn’t have those feelings for El is part of why it’ll be easier to reach the conclusion that what he feels for Will is not, in fact, platonic.