#maturing is about growth and change and with a story like the clones' sometimes that means growing into some happiness for once | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackasteriia · 4 years

Note

🔥 story structure bih

Feed the Fires of my Salt

I jumped into Kingdom Hearts right after KH3 came out. I had the privilege of watching the series’ cutscenes from beginning-to-end, starting with the KHUX back cover and ending in KH3. This is a very confusing way to enter Kingdom Hearts. The start of the story is in KHUX and the beginning is in KH1. It’s KH1 that introduces the core mechanics, themes, and principles of the story. Yet, the story starts in KHuX, which is a mobile game. The KHuX itself is a baffling mess with too many twists for me to even bother tracking it. For the purpose of this essay I’ll focus on Sora’s story, he’s the protagonist after all.

Kingdom Hearts 1 begins medias res, ‘into the middle of things.’ It doesn’t know that. It thinks it’s a straightforward story and probably the best told one in all of Kingdom Hearts. Sora and his friends live a normal life. He has a call to action when his island falls into darkness and he losses his friends. To find his friends he must travel through several worlds. On the course of this journey he learns of Kingdom Hearts. He then meets Ansem, the antagonist who believes that all people and things belong to the darkness. Sora takes all that he has learned to confront Ansem. Ansem is defeated and Sora’s journey comes to a close. It’s a simple story but it is effective, charming, and fun.

Then, Sora loses all his memories in a random castle through an event that he does not remember, he wakes-up after sleeping a full year, and we go into Kingdom Hearts 2.

Kingdom Hearts 2, is another hero’s journey. Sora seeks guidance from the wise Yen Sid, a mentor archetype we most often find in stories of this type. Yen Sid informs Sora that he must defeat Organization 13, an insidious group seeking to obtain Kingdom Hearts. This bunch isn’t as straightforward as Ansem was. They’re manipulative, and also, very human, with their own quirks and personalities, some even befriending Sora. The series delves into a more mature grey than the pure black and white of KH1. Sora learns that light and dark aren’t clear-cut concepts, but to accept the complexity of himself, and others. Sora defeats Xemnas and returns to Destiny Island with his friends, concluding his journey.

In Dream Drop Distance, Sora and Riku undergo training by Yen Sid to become keyblade masters, which is very important. Sora must unlock the power of waking by *shuffles notes* freeing seven sleeping keyholes, in the realm of sleep. Okay, yeah, anyway he does that. Then this Xehanort guy --who the hell is this guy? He was in Birth by Sleep. Wait, what?-- kidnaps him and tries to possess him so he can fill out the ranks of Organization 13-- Didn’t we kill all of them in the last game? No, they came back. Then why bother killing them off?-- But he’s saved by Axel --who died in the last game-- and Riku. Anyway, this is apparently grounds for failure and Sora does not become a keyblade master.

In Kingdom Hearts 3, Sora embarks on an adventure to unlock the power of waking by traveling through the worlds and training to become stronger. Didn’t he already beat like, three series antagonists by now why does he need to grow stronger??? Sora is confronted by the members of the Real Organization 13, who taunt him as he travels. Sora gathers the Seven Guardians of Lights and defeats Xehanort and the Real Organization 13. He returns to Destiny Island with his friends and concludes his story by vanishing into a burst of light.

And that, from beginning to end, is Sora’s journey through the Kingdom Hearts series. I skipped a lot of details. I didn’t include side games. I told it as Sora experienced it. Here’s a few things I noticed:

1). There’s a lot of start and stops. The series has three endings. The end of Kingdom Hearts 1, Kingdom Hearts 2, and Kingdom Hearts 3, are all satisfying stop-points for the series. This makes sense, as Nomura, for the most part, intended them to be endings. Of course, he leaves some running threads to intrigue and hint at another game. It means that Sora has his powers reset twice and he begins another hero journey three times. The goals never change: train, grow stronger, beat-up bad guy, go home. Sora never grows past the dumb kid that picked-up a giant key in KH1 and started swinging, or any growth he does develop is reset.

2). The side games are useless. I can tell Sora’s story without Birth by Sleep. I can do it without 358/2 Days, Chain of Memories, Re:Coded, and I bet I could kick-out Dream Drop Distance too. Xehanort is the sole character that you need. He is by far the worst antagonist. He shows-up without fanfare and is defeated with little trouble. Ansem and Xemnas both had something to contrast to Sora, some sort’ve dynamic, a personal stake. Xehanort is just a jerk and he needs to be beaten-up.

3). Xehanort is a terrible antagonist. An antagonist is the character that opposes the protagonist. It is the antagonist who the protagonist must overcome in order to complete their journey. Ansem and Sora jostle over the very nature of humans, idealism vs cynicism. Xemnas forced Sora to recognize the complexity of the human condition. Xehanort-- bullies Sora until Sora kicks his ass. Never mind untangling how unbelievably complicated the relationship between Xehanort, Ansem, and Xemnas are. You’d believe that Xehanort would be some culmination of Sora’s journey-- but I’d argue that it’d complete the Sea Salt Trio’s story more to defeat Xehanort, than it does for Sora to do it.

4). Final Fantasy and Disney are window dressing. This game series is supposed to be a crossover between Disney and Final Fantasy. If you read my synopsis, you would not know this. Maleficent in KH1 is the sole character I feel I could’ve added. None of the Final Fantasy characters are on the list or come close to deserving mention. Why do we have the fiftieth Xehanort clone, and not Sephiroth, or anyone else, as a main antagonist? When I watched this series for the first time I did not watch a single Disney World, and I lost nothing for it. About 60-70% of this entire game series is useless, poorly written filler. This becomes worse as it drags on too. There’s some neat character study in KH1 but by KH3, it’s all crap. Instead of using the Disney World’s for character exploration and building plot, they’re usually charmless retellings of the original movie.

5). There are so many useless characters. We don’t need Roxas. Get rid of Xion. Namine, who? Xehanort just needs to go. You can remove Kairi after KH1. Maybe we keep the BBS-trio because we have to have someone fill-out the Guardians of Light in KH3, but I think Terra is expendable. All of the Union Cross cast, gone. After KH2, all of the Organization members are wasted screen time. These characters do not contribute to the main plot and they have no satisfactory, useful, or good character arcs. They’re just here, repeating what we already heard. Axel finished his story in KH2, why is he still here? The entirety of Chain of Memories, 358/2 Days and Re:coded can be removed, and you would lose absolutely nothing. If I was Nomura’s editor, I’d be making judicious use of a red pen on his scripts. Characters that die don’t stay dead, characters that finish their arcs just hang around taking-up space, and characters that shouldn’t be added, are added. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, trim this down to like, 2-3 games, tops, and you’d have a powerful story. Not a long overwritten piece of absurdity that’s wheezing like a pneumonic horse on its last legs.

6). Dream Drop Distance and Kingdom Hearts 3 are the worst. Sora sets out to complete one task: become a keyblade master, and, he fails. He doesn’t even finish his secondary task, master the power of waking. Kingdom Hearts 3 has no tension, it’s so cut-and-dry, you need about... an hour of the game to know what happened in it. Sora defeated Xehanort, the all important villain, introduced in DDD. It then ends on a stupid cliff hanger. Also, goes to show that Re:Mind was stupid and didn’t help anything or anyone. KH3 had one job, complete all the character arcs introduced in the series in a satisfying way, and it failed on every single account.

How this series tells story is terrible. It’s done through long-winded exposition that is boring and confusing. Somehow, after watching hours of cutscenes and reading all of the additional side material, I still do not know what Kingdom Hearts is supposed to be. Sometimes, it’s the ‘heart of worlds,’ other times it’s a ‘source of wisdom,’ or it’s a ‘source of power,’ or it can just grant Xemnas’ wish like a star, and it looks like Scala Ad Caelum inside, or its the door to the Realm of Darkness. How can it be the name sake of the series and be so poorly defined? The Metal Gear series is just as convoluted as Kingdom Hearts is, but at least I know what a metal gear is.

Nomura can structure a plot. He understands the basics of hero’s journey. Every single game is based on that structure, individually. When tied together, however, they make this weird mass of starts and stops, retcons, wasted time, and poor story telling. I like Sora and I like his story. I would not be here if that was not the case. It’s the same way with Xion. I really like Xion and her story, but she shouldn’t be here. That, or it needs to be written in a way that it matters. This plot stuff isn’t just about the events. It’s about the characters. What happens to them. What do they do. How do they behave. How do they change? Plot happens when characters act. What a bad plot indicates is bad character motivation and action. These characters don’t matter because Nomura didn’t give them backstories, nuanced motivations, real flaws, or meaningful action. So he crams as most information into the dialogue and pretends that counts as a plot.

And it’s not like plot is complicated, shit happens, that’s it. To add in some RP salt? It bothers me when muns says they’re ‘bad at plotting.’ What do you mean you’re bad at plot? Plot happens when our two muses meet and shit happens. Your muse has encountered a wild Xion, what do you do? > Run > Attack > Talk to > Feed. I’m not writing a passive brick here, ya’ll. I want shit to happen. And when I’m slogging through 13 hours of Kingdom Hearts 2 I want shit to happen, and not watch Sora faff about in a Disney world for forty minutes. Why is that so much to ask for?

#hclianthi #✰*✦ This is the idiot speaking ⎧OOC⎫#✰*✦Enjoy your days off! ⎧Memes⎫#salt tw #this series has a stupid amount of dumb charm and i hate it

7 notes · View notes

sailorsol · 4 years

Text

I went and saw Frozen II on Saturday with a friend, and since then I’ve been unpacking a lot of feelings about it. I enjoyed the movie a lot, and I think I not only like it better than the first one, but it may be in my list of top favorite Disney movies. There were some absolutely silly moments (I laughed so hard I was crying during the power ballad), but there were also some really... amazingly deep moments.

Things I adored, in short form:

1. The little girl asking for a sextant. 2. Elsa’s little nod of approval during Charades. 3. All of the captain’s reactions during Olaf’s recap of the first movie. 4. The power ballad. I mean, seriously. 5. Two sides of a bridge. 6. The next right thing. 7. Anna validating Olaf’s right to feel angry. 8. “I’m here, what do you need?” 9. The guards supporting Anna once she explains herself, no more questions asked. 10. The delightful relief Kristoff has that Elsa is okay. 11. Kristoff’s reindeer buddy. 12. The choice made at the end.

Unpacking things further...

This movie felt a lot more mature than the first one. A lot more mature than many Disney movies. And I really liked that. Because this movie dealt so well with growing up and change and grief, and all of the complicated emotions that go with that.

I like that we see Elsa struggling to balance her own wishes and desires with the duty she has towards her people and her kingdom. How she knows what she has right now is good, but is it good enough? And she acknowledges the risk of going after something more, that she can lose all of this good that she has and not gain anything for it, but then makes the decision that she has to take that risk. I love the progression of her costume/appearance from the beginning of the first movie, when she’s wearing a high collar and long sleeves and gloves and her hair is in a tight bun, to the middle/end of the first movie, when we see her shedding layers of fabric and her hair is now in a loose braid, and by the end of this second movie, her hair is completely loose and she’s wearing minimal layers and no shoes and is finally free.

I like that one of the major motifs of the movie was about change, about how scary it can be, but also how there are some things in our life that won’t change even when everything else does. That change is hard, and it hurts, and sometimes you hurt the people you love in the process of finding yourself. That Anna validated Olaf’s anger at Elsa means a lot, especially since Olaf is very much painted as being a member of their family. You are allowed to be hurt by the actions of others, there is nothing wrong with feeling that way.

But a caveat on emotions that Kristoff did an amazing job of portraying; you are allowed to be hurt by the actions of others, but those are your emotions to deal with and sort through. For all that his power ballad is absolutely hysterical, what it is really about is his attempts to sort through his own feelings of betrayal and what that means about his relationship with Anna. So when he does meet up with her again, there isn’t an argument, he’s not accusing her of anything, literally the first thing he says to her is “I’ve got you, what do you need?” And that is such a powerful display of his love for her, the ideal of a relationship.

And Anna’s growth throughout the movie. At the beginning, she is still a child, in a lot of ways. As far as she’s concerned, everything is perfect and straight forward--she has her family, and her country is safe and happy, and life is perfect. But then we see her take on more responsibilities, more challenges. We have the scene where she essentially plays Big Sister to Elsa, putting her to sleep. We have her refusal to allow Elsa to go on her own, because Elsa promised they would face their challenges together. No matter how big or scary. She literally runs into fire after her sister, because she won’t leave her to do this alone, but she also pulls Elsa back from chasing after the rock giants because they still have a duty to their people. And her hurt and betrayal when Elsa sends her and Olaf away...

Which of course brings us to The Next Right Thing. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve listened to that song since Saturday. It is... a perfect summary of one of my favorite tropes. “This grief has a gravity, it pulls me down.” Anyone who has lost someone close to them knows this feeling, the weight of grief. And figuring out how to pick yourself up off the floor, not for anyone else, but for yourself. And it’s not easy, but it’s okay to take it just one step, one step more, one decision at a time because it hurts too damn much to look any further than that. But what choice do you have? Things change, but that doesn’t stop the world from going on, that doesn’t excuse you from doing the Next Right Thing.

This is a character trait I see in so many of my favorite characters. I’ve been way down the Star Wars rabbit hole recently, namely the Clone Wars (though Mandalorian hit me hard too), and I think this is the defining trait of my favorite character there. Obi-Wan has lost so much, been knocked down so many times, but he always gets back up to do the Next Right Thing.

That is the moment Anna becomes the queen. It’s not when she’s crowned later. She wasn’t even particularly thinking about that in the moment. She was thinking that she still had a duty, not only to the people of Arandelle, but to the people of the forest too. She knew her sister had sacrificed her life so that Anna would know the truth, and now Anna had to act on that truth, even knowing it likely meant the destruction of her home and the last ties she had left to Elsa. But it was the right thing to do, so she did it. And while the guards initially tried to stop her, they listened to her, they believed that she understood the consequences of her actions but had already reached the conclusion that it needed to be done anyway. No arguing, no dismissing her as a silly girl, no questioning her authority to make that decision.

So yes, when Elsa made the choice to stay in the north, it was easy at that point. Because Anna was already the queen of Arandelle. Because Elsa wasn’t abandoning her people--in some ways, she was accepting a duty to a new group of people that she never knew about. But here was her chance to finally be herself, in every way that it meant, but still do the best thing for everyone involved. That Elsa finally understood what it meant about not going too deep into the river, that she finally understood what Anna had tried to tell her about being everything for everyone. Because sometimes giving everything of yourself will kill you. Was it wrong that she kept digging for the truth? No, not necessarily. But it came with a price, and it Changed Things, and there was no going back from that moment.

I don’t want another sequel, but I do hope we get a couple of shorts at least, of Elsa visiting Anna for Charades night, of Anna and Kristoff going to visit Elsa, of something years down the road where Anna is singing the song to her own daughters so they understand the importance of it all.

I could go on, I’m sure, but... it all boils down to the fact that there were a lot of raw, realistic emotions in this movie, and it pinged on a lot of my favorite tropes and character traits, and while this story couldn’t be told without the first one being told, I still thing this one was better than the first.

#disney #frozen 2 #fandom #meta #fandom feelings #storytelling

11 notes · View notes

mccullochstephenson0-blog · 5 years

Text

Radiant Historia United expresses Version Rom

Then flesh out the specific proverb. Look the article, Proverbs 're Universal 3 . The Craft work Institute associated Chicago: Sculptures Access. Most of the media adores to put together about proverbs that may possibly be shown by reputable facts or a stories of which carry universal messages here in print. Sacramento has here at least any kind of a dozen creative writers groups that varies from memoirs writing to finally writing beautiful novels started on interpersonal themes, biographies, and anthropology or ethnology-oriented biography written as hype to provide help to the comfort of our own historical cartoon figures. Sometimes it then makes no sense but also the tad instagram story highlights views most of the fact that will you be required to end up being your main into everything and consume charge of a your divorce. Armor in your with selective information about any divorce way and steel your completion to detect what you really want and determine to assist you win your family divorce. Is usually Building Long-term Customer unions Through trustworthiness into know possibilities you need not want, exactly like your ex boyfriend and some sort of new guy having stimulating on you are dime, but it happens to be more priceless to do understand what one do would prefer. To figure out what need in order to really get within with your life and even make the program better. Before one write anything, summarize some sort of pitch brand of ones own book during one phrase. Pretend owners were marketing your global to a meaningful movie music producer. Pitch which the book about ten a few seconds or less money using anyone sentence. Let Radiant Historia United nations Version Rom reveal one example used a lot of people times within lectures near scriptwriting class professors, "Star Trek is truly Wagon Instruct in surface space." Most likely your historic novel looks like various talked about cultures used in a trustworthy new perspective.

youtube

See, every one of it might take you is an absolute massive herpes outbreak of a lot of terrifying newly purchased sickness to get tradition-bound employers in order to really join that telecommuting industrial wave. That has not been buy instagram highlights views so rigid now, might have been it? Emphasize Discovering Roots Day to duties. Give a person's protagonist social smarts for least through the run out of some book. Pretty much any growth or maybe change definitely should reflect by just the finalize of the story one particular rise all through your necessary character's psychological quotient which in turn is community maturity not to mention responsibility. Buy a good 3-ring looser leaf portable for your family paper clones. In this particular binder put all ingredients related you can your novel in advance. When the particular book is published, you'll need some second totally free leaf pc binder so that you keep race track of publicity, press releases, reviews, contracts, and letters from all of your publisher and simply from this media. Set up those special one-inch binder insert tops or tab to music label each point of an individual's book. Keep that two netbooks in a metal submission cabinet, furthermore keep clones of currently the same using your individual. One hard drive will return up how the other formatting. If your company computer fails, you end up with everything results of a fascinating out concerning paper also two to three Cd copies having to do with everything in about a fire-proof metal file cabinet or even a box. When your publisher calls, a can explore anything doing moments any time you ingredients label your chapters and various materials then keep people today close times. The even more words you have find during a dictionary describing the best ways people write or activity or provided their attitudes, the significantly important back that contemporary culture a respective aspect pertaining to character can to the specific done and terminology. If they have author's block, visual appeal at word and phrase replacements and antonyms and connect them to assist you to your most liked proverb. Can they express an anecdote?

1 note · View note

rptv-starwars · 4 years

Link

‘Star Wars: The Clone Wars’ Jedi Master Dave Filoni On The Future Of Ahsoka Tano, ‘Mandalorian’ & ‘Rebels’

Deadline | by Anthony D'Alessandro | May 6, 2020

There were a few interesting statements in this article:

#1. When discussing the character of Ahsoka Tano (from the Clone Wars series), the author (D’Alessandro) states:

“Though initially deemed by some Star Wars fans as being too whiny, Ahsoka was eventually embraced as she grew from being Anakin Skywalker’s Padawan to a warrior who parted ways with the Jedi order at the end of Clones fifth season.”

The only person I know of who accused Ahsoka of being “whiny” was movie critic Roger Ebert. However, he’s an out of touch baby boomer and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Ahsoka was a young pupil (the equivalent of a human teenager), so it makes sense that her character was the way she was. After all, Luke Skywalker was also a little bit whiny in Episode 4 (A New Hope). His character then matures through Episodes 5 and 6. The same thing happened with Ahsoka. It was interesting to see her go from a slightly bratty teenager who questioned all of Anakin’s decisions, to a more experienced padawan who learned to trust her mentor, to finally a mature jedi who learns to have confidence in herself.

That’s why she’s one of the few new (non-original trilogy) characters that I really like. It’s a joy to see that development. It makes her character human and relatable. How boring would it have been if she was the kind of character who “has her sh*t together” from the get-go, and is always super-capable.

Sadly, that was the problem with “Rey” from Episodes 7-9. Virtually no growth.

#2. The author states:

“While some of the Star Wars faithful have become disgruntled with the direction of the franchise in Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker, they also exclaim Filoni as the savior of Star Wars”

I’m surprised this was actually admitted. Most of these news articles pretend that everyone likes the new trilogy except for a fringe element, and refer to said element as “toxic” or “racist” or “sexist” or “manbabies”. This article surprisingly refers to them as ‘Star Wars faithful’, and does not directly refer to them as ‘disgruntled’ but rather disgruntled with the direction of the franchise.

WOW. I have not seen that for a few years. An article that tries to be fair and balanced, that admits what many people are thinking, and does not insult the fans. Kudos to the author of this article.

#3. When asked about his creative process when making his Clone War series, Dave Filoni states:

“one of the things that I was very careful to do is, while I am near the film [prequel trilogy] and paralleling the film, and sometimes interwoven with it, I never want to change anything that’s happening in there or say if you look at it from this way, it’s different. I’m trying to maintain the integrity of what George did in his work and just say, this is how it went for Ahsoka and Rex.”

“at a certain point I needed that story [Clone Wars] to kind of go in its own direction to make sure I wasn’t violating the space that belonged to the Anakin Skywalker saga.”

Amazing; he hit the nail right on the head. Filoni is basically saying he didn’t want to retell George Lucas’ trilogy (take it in a different direction), BUT he also wanted to respect the trilogy and make sure he didn’t stray from it or contradict it.

AMAZING. KUDOS. That is how you make a new Star Wars story.

That’s one thing that fans complained about JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson - many fans felt Abrams and Johnson did not respect the original trilogy (or tried to re-tell it using new characters). Abrams and Johnson should have taken their cue from Filoni (whose work predates the new sequel trilogy episodes 7-9).

I started writing this post before I had finished reading the entire article, and to my pleasant surprise, toward the end of the article, Dave Filoni mirrors EXACTLY what I said at the beginning of my post:

“That’s what makes this all work. I think people like Ahsoka because they relate to her. I think that her being very young and very brash and the way that she behaves allowed the greater scope for her to have a maturity, for her to progress and grow as a character that over a long period of time paid off. I think when people go and watch Luke Skywalker as a young man in a New Hope, a lot of people commented, ‘Oh, he sounds whiny.’ George knew to begin with a character of inexperience, whether we like that or not, and grow them in a way that the audience came to respect them.Kids related to Ahsoka because she was a kid first and foremost like them. She was someone growing up at a time. Maybe they related to some of the difficulties she had or some of the challenges she had. She’s right next to one of the greatest Jedi of all time, Anakin, and one of the most skilled and one of the most knowledgeable, Obi-Wan Kenobi. It can be hard when your older brother is somebody that’s impressive and somebody that’s sure of himself.”

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/star-wars-clone-wars-jedi-044013764.html

Posted May 08, 2020.

#star wars #clone wars #lucasfilm #george lucas #dave filoni #cowboy dave #evs #i love ahsoka #ahsoka tano #yahoo news #deadline #anthony d'allessandro

0 notes

scripturehomosexuality · 7 years

Text

Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Modern Sexual Philosophy: An Unholy Alliance

If you’ve been reading this blog for some time, you already know that so much of our modern sexual culture (especially within the United States) is quite new. In decades past, same-sex activity wasn’t something that involved only “gay” identified people. The purported necessity of anal play in same-sex relations is also quite new. Christianity was far more lenient on general same-sex behavior in the past. As such, this blog has consistently pointed to the 1980s as the turning point, when our modern sexual atmosphere began to take shape.

However, in further analysis, it soon became clear that the story was more complex. The 1980s was indeed an important decade in the evolution of modern sexual philosophy. However, in studying cultural and sexual developments of the early 21st century, it became clear that events in the 1980s couldn’t fully explain happenings in the 2000s and 2010s. There were certain things that “straight” people could do in 1997 that are nearly impossible in 2017. “Straight” musicians and filmmakers created output in 1987 that would be considered “gay” today. There must have been other factors that fueled those changes.

It soon became clear that two phenomena helped mature modern sexual philosophy into the behemoth of today, and are currently behemoths themselves - neoliberalism and militarism. As such, like so much seen within U.S. society, modern sexual philosophy was changed significantly by the tragic events of September 11, 2001. If that seems surprising to you, read on and see how it couldn’t be otherwise. You will soon see the unholy alliance between modern sexual philosophy, militarism and neoliberalism, and how that’s affecting your life.

As you read, keep in mind that the following exclusively focuses on events and developments within the United States.

Also keep in mind the definition of “modern sexual philosophy” - the body of ideas, concepts and beliefs that enforce opposite-sex behavior as the only normal and natural expression of human sexuality, and thus holds that same-sex activity (penetrative or non-penetrative) is inherently abnormal and should be conceptualized and treated as such.

Events from the 1980s up until 2001

As mentioned in the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, the 1980s were a pivotal time in human sexuality. Before that decade, same-sex activity and the “gay” identity were not strongly linked. Same-sex activity was being enjoyed by both “straight” people and “gay” people. The “homosexual” (or “gay”) identity was defined by gender inversion and sexual preference (where one was primarily attracted to the same gender). Thus, engagement in same-sex activity didn’t automatically endanger one’s “straight” status. Only anal sex was conceived to be a bonafide “homosexual” act.

This did not mean that things were static however. After the Red Scare in the 1950s, and particularly after the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969, same-sex activity and the “gay” identity orbited ever closer to each other. Changes in the post-Stonewall “gay” community fed this change, as the Castro Clone (a masculine “gay” archetype) became popular in the 1970s. This archetype defied earlier conceptions about the “homosexual” male identity, which was more conceived to be effeminate. In an era where both masculine and effeminate men could validly be “gay”, what they shared in common - their engagement in same-sex activity - increasingly became the basis of the “gay” identity.

However, coming toward the end of the 1970s, this was far from a universal opinion. It would take something special to fully transform the concept of “homosexuality”. That turned out to be the AIDS epidemic.

Beginning in 1981, the AIDS virus became a nightmare for the “gay” community and the larger United States. This was not only because huge numbers of “gay” people died. A significant number of presumed “heterosexual” men, including celebrities like Rock Hudson and Anthony Perkins, also were among the dead. These deaths were significant because, while they were “gay” identified and very active in the “gay” community, their identity and activity was unknown to the general public. They were able to keep it hidden because outwardly they appeared “normal”, and were thus presumed to be “heterosexual” identified.

Their deaths helped create a seismic shift in how “homosexuality” was defined. The existing definition could not describe what was happening with AIDS, where men not perceived as “homosexual” were among its victims. Thus, by the 1990s, “homosexuality” would be mainly defined by same-sex behavior, with anal sex considered the supreme act, and with gender identity now an important secondary characteristic. Previous signs of gender inversion (interest in drag, imitating the opposite gender’s mannerisms, interest in anal sex) were now conceived as natural extensions of general same-sex activity. The fact that anal sex drove the epidemic, in lieu of other same-sex acts, was apparently lost on the general public. As a result, all same-sex activity began to gain a stigma.

However, other developments in the 1980s and 1990s helped amplify the stigma. The epidemic helped reanimate Red Scare-era attitudes that caused hysterical fear about “homosexuality” (however it was defined at the time). The epidemic also energized the Religious Right, a reactionary force that would soon influence most Christians in the U.S. On top of that, STDs started affecting “straight” couples, and transmission of same sometimes happened through acts not considered “sex”. As a result, the definition of “sex” also changed, from that of penetration to one including penetrative and non-penetrative acts.

All these combined factors created a ferocious hysteria over same-sex activity. The last factor - the changing definition of sex - also cemented the new behavior-based definition of homosexuality, and its new inclusion of non-penetrative acts. The hysteria would increase correspondingly with the growth of AIDS, as it also reached its peak during the 1990s. The frequency of same-sex activity in the general population went down dramatically, as everyday people wanted to escape being touched by the growing hysteria. Thus, general same-sex activity became an exclusively “gay” phenomenon, since they were the only population where that activity could still be found en masse. Meanwhile, unmarried “straight” people who previously found satisfaction with the same gender then turned completely to the opposite gender, since that kind of sex was now socially acceptable. Because of that, the modern sexual culture (where opposite-gender sex outside marriage is considered normal) was eventually set in stone.

As the stigma spread to same-sex attraction, and even to homoerotism, the modern sexual infrastructure was born. Thus, by the 1990s, modern sexual philosophy (which held same-sex activity as abnormal) had now been fully formed. In this decade, the modern “straight”-”gay” dichotomy also was formed. The dominant philosophy of neoliberalism informed the structure of both, and would influence their inner workings. The two-party system in the United States would also influence its structure.

However, it could be argued that in that decade, both the philosophy and dichotomy were still in their rudimentary form. It’s evident that both heavily stigmatized same-sex activity, and helped reduce its frequency. It’s also evident that both helped spread that stigma to homoeroticism itself. Thus, two blatantly homoerotic parts of American life - the mass wearing of briefs and everyday same-sex nudity in school locker rooms - were virtually gone by the end of the 1990s.

Nevertheless, outside of explicitly sexual matters, the lines between “straight” and “gay” were still quite blurry. The 1990s was an era where the film “Top Gun”, a movie with many homoerotic elements (as would be pointed out in later years), was enormously popular with “straight” people. As such, its homoerotic tone went virtually unacknowledged during that time, since it was considered unremarkable, and didn’t go beyond what was then acceptable in “normal” life. The 1990s were also an era when musical output that may read as “gay” today - from S Club 7, the Backstreet Boys, N-Sync and A-Teens among others - didn’t read that way back then, and were very popular among “straights” and “gays” alike. The fact that those acts had such universal appeal didn’t cause an issue. It was also an era when same-sex friendships between “straight” people were still allowed to have some emotional intensity. In so many ways, 1990s “straight” life still had many strands of homoeroticism in it, however subtle they might have been.

Once again, this did not mean that things were static. Neoliberalism was still a powerful force during the 1990s, and had only embedded itself more into U.S. life. By the end of the 1990s, it achieved a major triumph when President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had imposed strong regulations on U.S. financial institutions. Thus released from its chains, neoliberal philosophy began exerting a more powerful influence on U.S. life.

However, the events of September 11, 2001 bolstered the strength of neoliberalism, as it was then joined by energized militarism. These two phenomena, now joined together at the hip, were now poised to completely transform U.S. life. As such, within a few years, both would transform primitive modern sexual philosophy into the fully developed monster it is today.

Why did these two forces oppose homoeroticism, and how did this transformation happen?

Neoliberalism Vs. Homoeroticism

At its most fundamental level, neoliberalism is a philosophy of unrestrained (or nearly unrestrained) capitalism. Investopedia defines it as “a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector”. It says further that neoliberalism “takes from the basic principles of neoclassical economics, suggesting that governments must limit subsidies, make reforms to tax law in order to expand the tax base, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, and open markets up to trade. It also seeks to abolish fixed exchange rates, back deregulation, permit private property, and privatize businesses run by the state.”

CorpWatch, a San Francisco research group focused on countering corporate power, says that neoliberalism hinges on the following principles:

Rule of the Market: The “invisible hand” of the market must be as unencumbered as possible.

Cutting public expenses for social services, like health services, education, infrastructure among others, to reduce the role of government. However, government supports for business are desirable.

Deregulation: Government regulations must be kept to a minimum

Privatization: All government functions and services (banks, railways, highways, health care, schools, water supply, etc) should be handled by private interest

Eliminating concept of “public good” and “community”: Only “individual responsibility” exists, where the poor and disadvantaged must find their own solutions for education, health care, and social security. If they fail to do so, they are “lazy”.

This ideology first became dominant during the Reagan presidency of the 1980s, as Mr. Reagan helped strengthen big business in America. It also motivated business decisions during the 1980s and 1990s, as numerous businesses exported their operations to other continents, taking advantage of lower wages and looser regulations. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 eliminated most regulations that previously limited the movements of neoliberalism. However, for the first two years after that, neoliberalism was rather unambitious in its expansion. In fact, from what can be seen, criticism of neoliberalism was steadily mounting.

All that changed on September 11, 2001. The attacks done in New York and Washington left the United States in a profound state of shock and delirium. In that atmosphere, it was felt that to spite the attackers, the United States needed to clutch to its “freedoms” as never before. As such, the philosophy of neoliberalism was considered a huge portion of those “freedoms”. Thus, for the first time in its short existence, and with full support of U.S. society, neoliberalism was given unprecedented “carte blanche” to do whatever it wanted. After all, as the logic went, if the attackers were truly attacking freedoms, those same freedoms should be more expressed in response.

To be sure, the unleashing of neoliberalism helped create an economic boom between 2001 and 2007, though it was mainly felt in corporate profits. However, the chickens came home to roost after 2007, as the spectacular economic crash between 2007 and 2009 brought down the U.S. economy, and the world economy with it. However, in governmental response to the crash, neoliberalism was allowed to root itself deeper. Thus, its philosophies continued to operate, which has created inequality unseen in the U.S. since the late 19th century.

Because of its incredible power, it has been suggested that in embracing neoliberalism, the United States has become a “free market society”. In a free market society, principles made to govern the market also rule over social interactions and political decisions. People become products, and social and political relationships become business transactions. Economic language and thinking is used to characterize social interactions. For example, as noted in a 2015 Huffington Post opinion piece, “we used to ‘nurture’ our children and prepare students to be responsible and productive participants in the democracy we claimed to be. Now we ‘invest’ in them and prepare them for the workplace.” In this, there is a growing concern that “market values crowd out nonmarket values worth caring about”. Nevertheless, the growth of free market society can only help neoliberalism, as it becomes more ingrained in everyday life.

Now, this is how unleashed neoliberalism impacts modern sexual philosophy, and its stigmatization of homoeroticism. Neoliberalism (and by extension capitalism) tends to thrive on division. It not only sustains the basic division of capitalist class versus working class. It also works at sustaining many divisions within the working class, such as skilled worker versus unskilled worker, mental labor versus manual labor, native versus immigrant, light skin versus dark skin, etc. Furthermore, as stated above, neoliberalism works against fostering any sense of “community”, since that could reduce future profits. For the sake of its own survival, ever more division must be fostered, because new ways of making money are thus invented.

Uncontrolled, unbridled homoeroticism stands in the way of that. Homoeroticism has an uncanny way of fostering an intense spirit of community, in a way that heteroeroticism simply can’t. Such can be readily seen in Ancient Greece, where same-sex love was the bond that held the society together. For example, in studying same-sex love, Phaedrus said that “...if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of [same-sex] lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor...” Meanwhile, the Sacred Band of Thebes, which consisted of men erotically bonded to each other, were repeatedly successful on the battlefields. In studying homoeroticism, South African writer Siya Khumalo said that “heteronormal society fosters a thousand times more brawls than kisses”, while homoerotic societies like Ancient Greece yielded the opposite. Neoliberalism prefers men to be enemies instead of lovers, or at the very least indifferent and apathetic to each other.

Indeed, it’s no small matter that periods of mass worker revolt in the United States - the 1880s to the late 1910s, along with the 1930’s and 1940s - were also periods when same-sex activity was a majority fact of everyday life. These were periods where men were unashamed to display their intimacy in photographs, and were nude with each other on a constant basis, which of course fostered homoeroticism among them. To me, these interactions fostered a sense of common cause among these workers, which made it easier to band together against their employers. Their bravery and cooperation yielded all kinds of benefits that we still enjoy today. Their example highlights a special truth in this quote from Athenaeus: “Hieronymus the Aristotelian says that love with boys was fashionable because several tyrannies had been overturned by young men in their prime, joined together as comrades in mutual sympathy.”

It should be noted that the homoeroticism practiced did not match that in the modern LGBT-identified community, which pivots on anal sex. In that homoeroticism, anal sex was an extremely uncommon practice.

Thus, for so many reasons, neoliberalism and unrestrained homoeroticism cannot coexist. For neoliberalism to flourish, homoeroticism must be either suppressed, or shaped into a form that supports its growth.

At this point, readers might ask, “How did militarism help all this?”

Militarism Vs. Homoeroticism

To be sure, militarism has long been part of U.S. culture in some form, and has come and gone in intensity. In periods of war, the spirit of militarism would reach a high point, as everything would be done to support the war effort. In peacetime, it would decrease in intensity, but would be in the background, ready to flare up again.

September 11, 2001 created a new, unprecedented sort of militarism. As stated before, the attacks done in New York and Washington left the United States in a profound state of shock and delirium. In that atmosphere, it was perceived that the United States, and all it professed to stand for, was under attack. Thus, patriotism reached a high that was never seen before. President George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings of his presidency. Flags were frequently displayed on television and other forms of media. Anything that the government did was considered unquestionable.

In that atmosphere, the government took unprecedented steps to inject the military into daily American life. The Patriot Act was soon passed by Congress, which gave the government unprecedented liberty to spy on its own citizens. A “Global War on Terror” was soon declared by President Bush, which was an effort to root out “terror” wherever it was, for however long it would take. War was immediately waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have basically continued to this day. Thus, unlike other periods, military presence was poised to be a constant and daily influence for the foreseeable future.

Combined with these brazen efforts, there were also more subtle inroads made. New laws allowed armed forces to increasingly turn to colleges, high schools, and even middle schools to find new recruits. Military recruiters were allowed unrestricted access to students, setting up shop in cafeterias and other school spaces, and visiting students in their classrooms and gyms. At a time of rising tuitions and ballooning student debt, military service was increasingly pushed on the young to help them pay for college. Through media and other methods, society increasingly said that military service was the most noble way to become a national hero, as opposed to becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, politician, etc. Because of all this, the military eventually permeated all areas of U.S. life.

“But”, some readers might object, “wasn’t Sparta a militaristic society too? Is militarism really that bad?” It’s true that Sparta was quite focused on their military. However, it could be argued that it was a different kind of militarism than what we see today.

For Sparta, their militarism was for the sake of society. Military service was to more fully develop their citizens, and by extension their civilization. As such, while militarism occupied a sizable part of Spartan life, the focus was far from exclusive. It has been discovered that Sparta was an extremely vibrant place. The city had a lively and dynamic art scene in its own right. It had rich architecture within its borders, such as that in the Menelaion and the Amyklaion, which were greatly admired in other lands. Spartan sculptors were active both in their homelands and other famous cultural centers like Olympia and Delphi. Spartan literature and music were renowned throughout the ancient world. Education was also taken seriously, and covered the arts, music, history, sports, philosophy and other areas. Thus, from what we can see, Spartan militarism allowed for enormous freedom of expression and individuality.

Militarism seen in the United States is entirely different. That militarism was not for society, but for the sake of money. As has been realized by perceptive onlookers, this militarism is focused on yielding profit for the country’s military-industrial complex, by any and all means necessary. It views soldiers and citizens as interchangeable cogs for the war machine, not irreplaceable human beings with beating hearts and breathing emotions. Thus, for the war machine to function properly, this new militarism requires almost total conformity. It is necessarily authoritarian, and has little tolerance for creative expression or individual thought. Thus, it is opposed to anything that expresses and cultivates individuality - art, dance, music, writing, philosophy, quality education and the like. It will allow some expression of such only if it aids military purposes. Thus, in a country that is increasingly steeped in capitalist militarism, it’s no mystery why the arts and education are currently in rapid decline.

As such, this militarism has a big problem with unrestrained homoeroticism. Homoeroticism awakens the senses to aestheticism and to perceiving beauty in the mundane, in a way that heteroeroticism simply can’t. This was clearly in display in Ancient Greece, including Sparta.

What fueled the artistic spirit of Sparta was its vibrant homoeroticism, which was also the case in many other Greek states. Its education system (the “agoge”) also reinforced the same-sex eroticism in Sparta, where according to classicist Werner Jaeger, “the Spartan state deliberately made Eros [homoeroticism] a factor, and an important factor, in its agoge.” Such was also sustained in their armies (link NSFW), where according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, “a system of homosexual pair-bonding maintained the normal hoplite bonds at a level of ferocious intensity.” As a result, as Siya Khumalo described it, “homosocialized Greek civilization created poets, thinkers and artists, as well as the philosophical basis for classical theology”. In this, Sparta visibly was no exception.

It leaves little wonder then why, in another one of his essays, Mr. Khumalo says the following: “Same-sex love is necessary for the intense sharpening of certain skills and psychological postures – skills and attitudes that prove indispensable in times of conflict and crisis – that really may not be developed on a social scale in any other way.” In reading this quote, remember that homoeroticism helps bring creative expression to its highest potential. As such, creative expression in all forms (art, dance, writing, philosophy, etc) helps develop those skills and attitudes that are so valuable.

When capitalist militarism opposes any expression of creative or independent thinking, why would it allow any manifestation of the homoeroticism that fuels them? Thus, neither of them could coexist. For that militarism to flourish, homoeroticism would have to be suppressed, or shaped in a way that didn’t encumber its growth.

Now knowing how both neoliberalism and militarism oppose homoeroticism, we can now analyse how both matured modern sexual philosophy.

How Neoliberalism and Militarism Transformed Modern Sexual Philosophy

Now greatly strengthened by the events of September 11, 2001, neoliberalism and militarism saw modern sexual philosophy as a perfect vehicle to achieve its ends. Though it was still quite primitive in 2001, it had plenty of promise. Thus, neoliberalism and militarism worked with flawless cooperation and precision, one covering areas that the other left exposed. With the efforts of both, modern sexual philosophy (and the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy it birthed) eventually transformed into the behemoths known today.

Neoliberalism concerned itself with the amount of allowable homoeroticism in “normal” (aka “straight”) life. It stripped more and more manifestations of same-sex affection from “normal” life, and banished it to the “abnormal” (aka “gay”) space. It also made the line between “normal” and “abnormal” much more rigid. For the sake of staying “normal”, “normal” people had to keep separate from behavior now labeled “abnormal”, and what counted as “abnormal” continuously grew in scope. Thus, “normal” life faced shrinking boundaries on what was acceptable in same-sex relationships. Eventually, “normal” same-sex friendships were expected to be emotionally shallow; anything deeper could possibly count as “abnormal”. Even physical touch between same-sex friends was thought to have the spectre of “abnormality”. Thus, “normal” people needed to become self-conscious about their actions and emotions, always fearfully guarding against being labelled “abnormal”.

Meanwhile, militarism busied itself with the type and amount of creative expression allowable in “normal” (or “straight”) life. Remember what was said before - that capitalist militarism wants strict conformity. Thus, to achieve that, militarism increasingly targeted anything that gave color, vibrancy, brightness, depth, or even happiness to “normal” life. It declared all those “abnormal” (or “gay”), and increasingly banished such to the “abnormal” space. To stay within the bounds of “normalcy”, “normal” people had to comply. Thus, “normal” life increasingly became monolithic in nature, as it became progressively dark, dreary, depressing, shallow and uniform. Anything outside the monolith was considered “abnormal”, and those who didn’t comply with the new rules also risked being labeled “abnormal”.

And what became of all the stuff that was banished to the “abnormal” (or “gay”) space? Remember that in the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, its founding principle is that same-sex eroticism (and by extension, anything spurred by it) is inherently abnormal and aberrant. The “gay” side accepts that principle and uses it to guide how it conceptualizes same-sex eroticism, and anything linked to it. Thus, inside that environment, those banished elements are turned into grotesque caricatures of their former selves, gaudy and garish in their exaggeration and distortion. In this way, it’s different from the “straight” (or “normal”) world, which discards those elements almost completely. However, while they remain in the “gay” world, they are twisted into a form that is barely recognizable.

In saying all this, this blog is not implying that the authority figures of the dichotomy (the Christian clergy, the “gay” leadership, etc) were driving this transformation. The execution was done so subtly, it’s hard to tell exactly who drove it. However, it’s undeniable that they aided it. As authority figures, they are also effective rule makers and enforcers, and growth of modern sexual philosophy only increases their own power.

As such, it’s noteworthy that “gay” media has been especially uncritical of modern neoliberalism and militarism. After several Google searches, and searches on LGBT news websites, I’ve found almost no articles or editorials critical of either from LGBT-identified authors. A major exception seems to be “gay” journalist Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, and his work can’t even be properly called LGBT media, since he keeps strictly clear of sexual politics. Another exception seems to be “lesbian” writer Liz Highleyman, who wrote a 2003 article on antiwar efforts by some LGBT organizations. For the most part, the LGBT leadership knows not to bite the hand that feeds them.

Examples of this transformative process and its results are littered throughout the history of early 21st Century America.

Cultural Signs of Transformation in Modern Sexual Philosophy

Take for instance the concept of the “bromance”. While most sources agree that the term emerged in popular discourse in the early 2000s, it only achieved mass popularity roughly around 2008 or 2009. As was mentioned in a blog post that analysed the “bromance”, the concept of the “bromance” doesn’t introduce anything new. The substance of modern “bromances” were considered typical in same-sex friendships of past decades. Thus, the invention of the “bromance” points to a result of this transformation - where at present, deep affection in a same-sex friendship is considered so abnormal, it deserves its own name.

This ties into another result of this process - critical reaction to the 1986 film “Top Gun”. At present, the film is considered a virtually “gay” film by most film critics, as it contains elements of homoeroticism that are hard to ignore. However, it's noteworthy that all critical analyses stating such mainly emerged after 2010, roughly speaking. Before then, it was mainly speculation by certain viewers that wasn’t taken seriously by critics or most other viewers. This was because what was depicted in “Top Gun” closely matched what was acceptable for “normal” (or “straight”) life at the time. That change in opinion, and the timing of that change, speaks volumes about how militarism and neoliberalism changed modern sexual philosophy.

The inferred problem caused by the supposedly “gay” status of “Top Gun” - that since it’s “gay”, “straight” people have no business watching it - points to another product of this transformation. Namely, it displays the increasing rigidity of the “straight”-”gay” divide in more areas of life. In this case, what “gays” like culturally cannot be liked by “straight” people, and vice versa. This is why at present, “straight” men at large will avoid watching musicals and wearing anything pink, because of its “gay” spectre. This is also why more “straight” men will avoid certain sports (like swimming, figure skating, gymnastics, etc), because they’re considered “gay” sports. To be clear, this is something that has never existed before, at least to the extent seen at present. While these sports might have gained a somewhat “gay” connotation by the very late 1990s, that connotation didn’t block “straight” people from entering them, as much as it potentially would now.

Disco is a good counterexample. In its heyday, it was known to appeal to “gay” audiences, as well as “straight” Black American, Italian American and Latino audiences. The fact that “gay” people liked it didn’t scare away the other groups. However, if disco were formed in today’s atmosphere, those ethnic groups would likely avoid it because “gay” audiences like it.

Also take note of the terms “metrosexual” and “spornosexual”. “Metrosexual” refers to “normal” (or “straight”) men who care about their fashion and physical appearance, and invest considerably in it. “Spornosexual” refers to “normal” men who care about having a chiseled body, and thus work out to achieve it. Implicit in those words is that both types of men are doing “abnormal” (or “gay”) things. As such, the term “metrosexual” only became popular in the early to mid 2000s, and “spornosexual” only emerged in 2014.

Like the concept of the “bromance”, these terms really don’t introduce anything new. Men have long cared about their fashion; otherwise, most men of past decades (like the 1960s for instance) would qualify as metrosexual. As the Man2Man Alliance put it, men have long been the “peacocks” of the species. Likewise, men have long admired and desired the ideal male physique. The gymnasium in Ancient Greece was devoted toward developing the male physique to its best form.

Thus, the emergence of these terms speaks more about the transformation in modern sexual philosophy. During this transformation, two things that add vibrancy and color to men’s lives - fashion and physical fitness - have been banished to the “abnormal” (or “gay”) space. At present, the thought of “normal” men caring about either one is considered so unusual, it deserves its own name.

In popular discourse, it’s thought that the invention of these terms - bromance, metrosexual, spornosexual, etc - are signs of ground being broken. That is simply not the case. The ground is simply being rearranged, in a way that divides human nature against itself.

Furthermore, whatever ends up in the “gay” space is soon transformed into caricatures of its former self. An example of this would be “gay” sporting events, such as the Outgames and the Gay Games. These events are intended to be “gay” versions of the Olympics, where LGBT-identified athletes to compete and mingle with each other in a supposedly safe atmosphere. However, with the large influence of “gay” culture, these events often become large vats of anal play and STD transmission (link NSFW). Another example would be the very conception of same-sex affection in the “gay” world. While same-sex friendships in “straight” life would be equal, such isn’t possible for “gay” people. Owing to the mentality created by anal play, one must be “top” while the other must be “bottom”, or else the relationship isn’t considered legitimate.

In both cases, what was deposited intact into the “gay” world doesn’t stay that way. It is soon transformed by “gay” culture into something different, and faces problems that don’t exist in the “straight” world.

Admittedly, so far we’ve only studied cultural aspects. However, the influence of neoliberalism and militarism can be felt in sexual matters too.

Sexual Signs of Transformation in Modern Sexual Philosophy

Since neoliberalism helped create the initial version of the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, the growth of its influence after 2001 wasn’t as impressive. Nevertheless, whatever growth it did have is unignorable.

For example, in both the “straight” and “gay” worlds, a “free market” mentality prevails over sexual matters more than ever. In such an atmosphere, sex is not a bonding agent that ties two people together. Instead, it becomes a business transaction between buyers and sellers, who must haggle and harangue with each other to get what they want. After the business transaction is over, either party have no qualms to moving on to other people. Indeed, that is the “hookup culture” in a nutshell, where sex exists only for instant gratification. This atmosphere is especially dominant in the “gay” world, to the point that the gay scene is sometimes nicknamed the “meat market”.

The effects of militarism was much more strongly felt. A strong push for conformity currently exists on either side of the “straight”-”gay” divide. If you’re straight, you must never allow yourself to feel any eroticism (or even close affection) toward your own gender. Having a strong bromance with a same-sex friend, or even touching a same-sex friend can qualify as “abnormal” (or “gay”). If you’re gay, you’re expected to buy completely into a “gay” culture of anal play, gender-atypical behavior, and drag. Whether one is “straight” or “gay”, they must never engage in bisexual behavior.

To be clear, these kinds of conditions are unprecedented, even when considering the 2000s. Apps like Tinder, Grindr, and Pure exist only because a “free market” sexual mentality dominates the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy. At least during the 1990s and 2000s, web services like EHarmony and Match were designed to create stable relationships, even if they were used to facilitate casual sex. Likewise, during the 1990s and early 2000s, “straight” life allowed for some measure of same-sex affection. At present, such a thing isn’t even possible.

Furthermore, in transforming modern sexual philosophy, both neoliberalism and militarism wisely decided not to abolish homoeroticism entirely. They realized that, since homoeroticism is such an integral part of human nature, complete abolishment would backfire, and would stoke rebellion that would bring the whole system down. Instead, homoeroticism would be allowed, but only in a way that would aid the growth of militarism and neoliberalism.

This is why “gay” culture can be so highly conformist (link NSFW), insisting that all “gay” people engage in the “gay” culture of drag, gender-atypical behavior, and anal play. Such actions only aid the momentum of militarism, as it makes life a dull and soulless monolith. In like manner, this is also why Pride parades have taken on an increasingly corporate face, to the distress of increasingly more LGBT-identified people. Sexual activity practiced in the “gay” community (specifically its anal play) supports all kinds of capitalist institutions, such as the medical-industrial complex which treats and sustains “gay” people, condom and lube manufacturers who supply their products in large numbers, and the like. In deep appreciation for such patronage, these corporations have rewarded the LGBT leadership with money for their parades and activities. In these ways, “gay” culture is supporting forces that are ravaging the lives of “gays” and “straights” alike.

As such, it’s quite telling that anal sex is arguably the signature sex act of this era. It is firmly established in the “gay” world, and becoming increasingly popular in the “straight” world. As such, there is no other act that most symbolizes the neoliberal influence on modern sexual philosophy. As the Man2Man Alliance points out so well (link NSFW), anal sex is a grossly unequal act. The penetrator gets direct penile stimulation, and receives intense physiological pleasure. Meanwhile, since the anus is not a sexual organ, the penetrated receives no physiological pleasure; any stimulation must be imagined into existence. Because of this, the act (and neoliberalism itself) can be summarized by the following expression, the essence of which is causing anger all over the world - the top gets the goods, and the bottom gets screwed.

Conclusion

As one looks further into current sexual thinking within the United States, it becomes evident that so much of its fundamentals are very young.

The Christian condemnation of all same-sex activity is quite recent.

The prevalent sexual culture - where opposite-sex contact outside marriage is considered “normal” and even ideal - is also very young.

The dominance of anal sex in same-sex eroticism is young, and only emerged in the mid 1970s.

Modern sexual philosophy (which teaches that opposite-sex contact is the only normal and natural conduit of human sexuality) is quite recent.

Even the concept of homosexuality as known in the modern United States has only existed since the 1980s.

However, this post has brought out a new and startling point - that since 2001, modern sexual philosophy has become more oppressive right under our noses. Thus, this post will probably cause a visceral reaction in most young readers. Unlike many other topics discussed here, these are developments that took place before their eyes, at ages when they would be completely aware of events around them. They just didn’t know what exactly was happening, and what it would develop into.

Even as most young Millennials were growing up, this increasingly sophisticated philosophy (and the dichotomy it birthed) would guide them down a path untraveled by their ancestors. It would make them obsessively focus on being the best “straight” or “gay” person they could be, as the lines between the two became stricter, what was acceptable in “straight” life became more limited, and whatever was deemed “gay” was twisted into caricatures of their former selves.

The problem is that when a person is so focused on being fully “straight” or “gay”, they forget how to be themselves, and ultimately forget how to be human.

Meanwhile, modern sexual philosophy has played a key role in strengthening the influence of militarism and neoliberalism in everyday U.S. life. These have become parasitic philosophies on U.S. society, as both are visibly destroying that society from the insider out. As such, neoliberalism is a force that is facing increasing blowback around the world, and militarism is making both the United States and the larger world increasingly unstable. Yet, within the United States, its values, rules, and concepts are being enforced with ever greater power in most bedrooms. It has done so with the consent of the authority figures of the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy, including the “gay” leadership.

Thus, it’s not surprising that even as militarism and neoliberalism are severely constricting people’s freedom of movement, the “gay” leadership and media stay silent, and will even come to its defense. For example, in a June 2017 opinion piece for the New York Post, Log Cabin Republican president G.T. Angelo said that “without corporate America and capitalism, [America’s] move toward full LGBT equality would be neither as fast nor as fulsome.”

Now to be clear, my target is not Mr. Angelo, because his arguments are completely true. In recent times, corporate America and capitalism have given tremendous support for the LGBT movement, and it has benefited tremendously from that support. The real problems are deeper, and involve what corporate America is backing and why. What corporations are effectively endorsing - the LGBT version of same-sex activity which conceptualizes all same-sex activity as inherently weird and “queer” - is something that eats its own children. It pivots on an objectively dangerous set of practices (anal play), and encourages LGBT-identified people to view themselves as hopelessly abnormal and weird, which causes enormous problems for self-esteem.

Now we will look on why corporations support the LGBT movement. Because of a combination of factors over the past 15 years (which the Washington Post describes quite well), support of the LGBT movement and sexual philosophy is just good for business. However, this support isn’t necessarily because of moral or ethical motives. As shown many times on this blog, what they are supporting contains serious internal issues that remain unaddressed. Rather, in cold calculations on how to make more money, the logic is simple: support of the LGBT sexual philosophy guarantees higher profits. The LGBT-identified community is a cash cow waiting to be tapped.

Thus, their support of the LGBT movement is extremely cynical in nature. They are supporting something that is ultimately disadvantageous to its adherents, while simultaneously reaping the benefits of that support. They don’t necessarily care about LGBT-identified people, nor about the internal problems within their movement that pose great harm, as much as how they can help their own bottom line. They don’t care about homoeroticism in its entirety, as much as the types of it that help them make money.

As such, the “Straight”-”Gay” dichotomy is not only divisive, it’s also deceptive. By compartmentalizing homoeroticism, it gives the impression that such developments are mostly disconnected from larger national and international trends. It makes “straight” people think that homoeroticism exists in a totally separate universe, and events concerning it pose no issue to them, nor is it connected to forces felt in their own lives. To the contrary, developments over same-sex eroticism are very much connected to larger trends in the “straight” world. Indeed, they are manifestations of processes that don’t recognize lines set by the dichotomy, and affect “straights” and “gays” alike.

For so many reasons, modern sexual philosophy (including its dichotomy) cannot be allowed to stand for much longer. We don’t know what territory it will conquer next.

Thus, I urge you to read further on this site, to explore another way to think about same-sex activity. I urge you to read “The ‘Straight’-’Gay’ Dichotomy: How It Works”, to fully understand how that system functions. I also urge any who read this to go to “For Straight People (though not exclusively)”, which will point to philosophies and forms of same-sex behavior that don’t hinge on demonstratively false concepts. Also read the page “History of the Concept of Homosexuality”, to see how this concept evolved into its modern day meaning. Don’t be afraid of talking about what you learn to others, because that’s the only way progress will be made.

In this way, the modern sexual philosophy that places so many restrictions on everyone will cease to be. Have no doubt that we will all be better for it.

#homosexuality #homosexual #gay #lgbt #gay pride #lgbt pride #Gay Christian #gay christianity #lgbt christian #lgbt christianity #LGBT culture #bisexuality #Bisexual #homophobia

3 notes · View notes

recentanimenews · 5 years

Text

THE GREAT CRUNCHYROLL NARUTO REWATCH Heats up with the Legendary Sannin Battle in Episodes 92-98!

It's that time, y'all. It's time for the GREAT CRUNCHYROLL NARUTO REWATCH! I'm Nicole Mejias, and I'll be your host this week as we make our way through all 220 episodes of the original Naruto. Last week, we tackled episodes 85-91, introducing us into the arc of Tsunade's path to becoming the next Hokage. This week, we've got episodes 92-98 on the docket, so let's get to it!

Last week we started to learn more about Tsunade, the woman who may become the next Hokage. This batch of episode leads us through her decision and the conflicts that arise from it, with a heavy focus on the three legendary ninja: Jiraiya, Orochimaru, and Tsunade. Naruto is sort of just along for the ride here, but we get to see the birth of his signature ability: The Rasengan! Kabuto also makes some serious impressions here, and at the end of the episodes, the Leaf Village finds themselves with a new leader. We also start to learn a bit more about the fate of Rock Lee after the disastrous results of the Chunin Exam, and things don't look very good for him.

Let's see what the Crunchyroll Features team thought of this week's slew of episodes!

These episodes deal heavily with Tsunade's struggle to decide whether to accept the title of Hokage or not. How do you feel about Tsunade as a character after this resolution of her introduction arc?

Kevin: Based on her arc and characterization, I have no doubt that she will care about the Village, however I’m not convinced that she’s actually a good choice for Hokage. It seems more like no one outside of the Sannin are famous enough to be recommended for the position.

David: She’s definitely one of my favorites at this point. Regarding her arc so far, I’m glad the story let her have a moment where she stands up and assumes responsibility, without going back and pretending she doesn’t have any of her character flaws anymore. Change is a slow process.

Paul: Tsunade gets some heroic moments and we learn enough about her past and the traumas that she's overcome to get a good idea about her character, but I'm still not sure how she'll cope as the Fifth Hokage, as the position doesn't seem to fit her personality very well. I'd like to see more about her perspective as a field medic. What would it be like to be a super-powered doctor in a world crawling with deadly ninja?

Noelle: I think Tsunade’s pretty great! It’s not easy to step up and take charge, and it’s definitely not easy to push past long-existing traumas, but she manages to do just that. It’s also not something shown as easy, which I appreciate. I think it might take her some getting used to, but I think somewhere down the line, she can be a good leader.

Joseph: I still think it’s wild to have a medic ninja with a fear of blood but I dig Tsunade. She has some real struggles to cope with and I like that she had to see firsthand the threats her people are up against to make her big decision.

Jared: I liked her more as these episodes went on compared to last week. Like others here, I’m curious to see how she is able to handle the responsibilities of being the Hokage. Especially with regards to all the turmoil the village is dealing with and having to rebuild from what happened.

Kara: Definitely still liking Tsunade, but I love the extra context here. The English major in me also loved how her overcoming her fear coincided with her healing herself. Very nice. And again, I am cool with a Hokage who’s willing to throw down against a kid.

Danni: I think she’ll contrast well with what we saw of the Third Hokage. I dig her a lot right now, especially since she got over her fear of blood. It was a nice dose of irony, but it kept becoming an excuse to have her cower in the corner, which honestly sucked a lot considering she’s like the strongest woman in the world.

Naruto succeeds in using the Rasengan here! What's your opinion on Naruto's growth throughout the series? He seems to get the most 'on-screen' training, but sometimes still seems outclassed by everyone somehow. What do you think about the successful execution of the Rasengan?

Kevin: The Rasengan is the first time we’ve seen Naruto truly struggle with training, and even when he pulled it off this first time, it was a spur of the moment inspiration, rather than definitely mastering the technique ahead of time. As for Naruto’s growth thus far, I’m a sucker for Shounen training so I’ve had a good time with it. He doesn’t really change as a character, but I like the worldbuilding and expanding magic system that comes from more in-depth training arcs.

David: Watching Naruto grow is genuinely satisfying, largely because it almost never feels like he is granted said growth simply because the story calls for it. He’s a good kid who is constantly working hard to achieve his goals. His quick thinking on successfully performing the Rasengan makes perfect sense given how he usually works out problems, and the aftermath of its effects on his body proves he has ways to go yet.

Paul: We've seen Naruto grow in terms of his Chakra-manipulation and Ninjutsu skills, but my favorite moments have been the ones that emphasize Naruto's growth as a character, such as when he steps back and lets Sakura have her moment with the newly-revived Sasuke. There's a heavy focus on Naruto's sense of empathy, which is more interesting in my opinion than his combat prowess. Regarding training, going forward I'd like to see Naruto develop a completely original Jutsu rather than just putting a creative spin on an existing technique.

Noelle: Naruto really deserved this moment. Some shonen it really feels like protagonists get their powers out of nowhere, either too easily or merely when the plot calls for it, but Naruto actively struggles. The show devoted quite a bit of time to showing how the Rasengan is complicated, hard to master, and not very intuitive. As such, when Naruto finally gets it, that’s purely satisfying.

Joseph: I know Naruto’s inner powers give him a massive advantage over almost all his opponents, but I love how genuinely hard working he is. He’s gone from being annoying to imo a total sweetpea over the course of 98 episodes and I think they’ve done a great job carrying out both his training and personal growth.

Jared: I really enjoyed seeing him go through all of the training to finally figure out a way to make this technique his own. You could see the struggle he had to go through to get to that point, and when it finally pays off, it’s wonderful. He’s definitely undergone a lot of growth throughout the series which has been enjoyable to watch, such as giving Sakura and Sasuke a moment when he wakes up. It was a rather mature moment from him which isn’t what you expect from the beginning of the series.

Kara: Creativity with jutsus, both making them work in the first place and how they’re used, is something I’ve been enjoying consistently about Naruto. I also haven’t been giving this kid nearly enough credit for his lateral thinking skills. Yeah, he keeps on cranking out Shadow Clone Jutsu, but it’s his favorite and one he can do in his sleep, so it makes a lot of good sense for him to recontextualize difficult techniques from a familiar starting point. I kind of want to show these training sequences to my teacher friends; I think they’d appreciate them.

Danni: I was amused by how they managed to walk the line between having him master this near-impossible to master technique in two weeks without having him master it the RIGHT way so he can still be the underdog. I’m glad he has some more tricks up his sleeve now with the summoning and the Rasengan. I like him a lot as a protagonist and can’t wait to see him start using his newfound abilities in *checks schedule* the weeks and weeks of upcoming filler.

Kabuto makes a lot of waves in these episodes, showing off his particular strengths. How do you feel about Kabuto here? I remember when I first watched this that I found Kabuto a lot cooler than I think I do now.

Kevin: *Insert laughter with growing insanity* Oh Kabuto, you started out as a simple henchman. So far, he seems like a legitimate threat, at the level of a Jonin and combat skills on par if not above Tsunade while also being such an unknown that he was able to take the Chunin exam with the main cast. Later on… well, we’ll get to that eventually.

David: I’m honestly kind of frustrated he is so powerful that he can stand up to a Sannin like Tsunade, and the only real explanation for that so far is basically “well he works for Orochimaru, so…”. Hopefully this gets explored more in the future.

Paul: Kabuto is such a gigantic dork. He's like the kid in a tabletop game of Risk who grabs Australia and turtles up, turning the entire game into an inevitable nine hour slug-fest. I'll be happy when someone finally gives him the shinobi equivalent of an Atomic Wedgie.

Noelle: I do love my antagonists, so ruthless Kabuto ranks much higher to me than friendly Kabuto. Like Kevin says, it’s best to just judge him at the moment, and so far, he’s pretty okay. I’m not that impressed overall, for him being able to do hard damage on Tsunade seems a little bit much, but I guess they had to establish him as a threat.

Joseph: Kabuto is kind of corny. I did like him being recognized as the battle against Orochimaru began, but I could take or leave him at this point.

Jared: The way they’ve been able to position him as this guy who looks out for Naruto to now wanting to murder him has been very good, because it made his eventual turn that much better. I don’t know how much I buy him being as accomplished as he seems, but I guess him being recognized by Orochimaru is a good endorsement. Although, I still feel like I’m waiting for him to do another double cross at some point.

Kara: I’ve watched enough giant robot anime to know what happens to right hands. I’d like to be able to take time to appreciate him, but I just keep wondering when he’s gonna get killed, betrayed, used as a meat shield, sacrificed for some greater purpose, replaced, demoted…

Danni: The more evil and cool they try to make Kabuto the more he comes across as a lame tryhard. I feel like I’ve heard at least in passing heard of or seen every single character in Naruto EXCEPT him, which probably means he isn’t all that important.

Let's address a somewhat unfortunate problem: the way Tsunade gets depicted and looked at in this show. I noticed it a lot more than I did when I watched this originally, and I was curious if you think the focus on boob jokes and such harms Tsunade's character, especially since she's the new Hokage?

Kevin: I definitely noticed it as a kid. It’s not great, but mostly only lasts a few seconds at a time and then she reestablishes either how much ass she kicks without even trying or reminds everyone that she is the one in charge. I’m not sure if it hurts her character or not, but it definitely doesn’t help. Luckily, she at least has more characterization that being just a boob, gambling and drinking gag on loop.

David: I don’t mind the drinking and gambling; those seem like real character flaws tied closely to her trauma and commitment issues. The constant focus on her looks from basically every other character is a problem though, one that unfortunately extends to how the show treats its entire female cast. It wouldn’t be as bad if, say, it was just a quirk of Shikamaru’s, but when everyone in the whole show does it to some extent or another, there’s clearly a more fundamental issue at play.

Paul: Maybe I've been poisoned by decades of anime fan-service, but I found the stuff surrounding Tsunade to be rather restrained at first. She spends most of her introductory episodes wearing that huge jacket, so the camera doesn't really have much opportunity to leer at her body, although when the jacket comes off we get a Powergirl scenario, where I swear they draw Tsunade's breasts larger in every subsequent cut just to see what they can get away with. It also took them something like 10 episodes for someone to face-plant into her cleavage, so...progress?

Noelle: Unfortunately, this isn’t a Tsunade-only problem—Kishimoto really isn’t that great at writing women overall. This is just one example of that larger problem. As for her specifically, I’m not going to pretend it’s good. Framing things like this is an author’s choice, and a deliberate one. That being said, as uncomfortable as it is, it’s not as bad as some fanservice other series pulls. That doesn’t mean it’s good though, I’d rather Tsunade not be framed like this at all, but this is what we get.

Joseph: I, too, have anime poison, because I didn’t think much of it. I also remember that aspect from when the series first aired and it seems pretty tame as far as not including too much nonsense fan-service goes.

Jared: I said this last week that I’m not surprised that they’d write her kind of poorly after what we’ve already seen with Sakura. I guess it could be worse and be something like Jiraiya just perving after her all the time, but trying to build her up as getting over her trauma to finally taking the position of Hokage, to then having Konohamaru face plant into her cleavage is not great.

Kara: I don’t think I’m un-poisoned but I must have an unpleasantly high threshold. Nothing about Tsunade’s depiction bothered me up until Konohamaru motorboated her, and then I just kinda died inside.

Danni: I’m honestly surprised by how few boob jokes there’ve been. The only one I can recall is when Konohomaru bumps into her and just starts motorboating. What really sticks out to me though is all the guys being jerks about her age. Like, a hot woman in her 50s who can kill me with one hit? That’s the IDEAL woman.

So, these episodes leave us with some bad news in terms of resolution: Rock Lee's ninja career seems to be over. I know people are pretty partial to Rock Lee, and I remember being pretty upset when he got so hurt during the exams. What are your thoughts about Lee's future? (Feel free to talk about how great of a character Lee is!)

Kevin: Tsunade, if you ever talk to my ninja son like that ever again, you’ll wish you had stayed in that tourist town. Seriously though, that revelation was so well choreographed (especially Lee’s reaction) that I remembered almost the exact wording, even years after previously seeing the scene. It makes going back to the Third Exam Preliminaries even tougher to watch, since throughout Lee’s fight against Gaara, we see the failure struggle against impossible odds and know that not only will he fail, but even after seeing him raise to continue fighting while unconscious, the damage he inflicted on himself created what is basically a coin flip whether he can pursue his dream or die trying.

David: I know there’s been a lot of arguably more important things going on, but this continuous stretching of Lee’s suffering is almost getting to be too much really. His fight was fifty episodes ago, and he’s constantly working on getting better, yet every time we check in on him things just look worse. But really this comes from a place of caring—stop teasing us, if he’s gonna get better, I wanna see him get better already!

Paul: Lee is a lovely good boy, and I'm surprised that they've kept him out of commission for as long as they have, but if Sasuke can survive two brushes with death without permanent repercussions on his health, then I have to believe that Lee will pull through somehow, too. The state of his injuries weeks later makes me angry at Might Guy for allowing Lee to push his body past the breaking point, though.

Noelle: Give Lee a break! I didn’t really pay much attention to him during my first viewing years back but Lee really does deserve better. He does nothing but try hard, and has gotten this far on the power of hard work alone. Seeing geniuses get by with relative ease but Lee getting the short end of the stick hurts. Do I think this is going to be a permanent thing? No, I doubt it, but the fact that he has to deal with this in the first place—give this boy a vacation.

Joseph: Definitely a heart-breaker, but I have confidence that Kishimoto won’t relegate such a good character to the sidelines. Right? RIGHT?

Jared: Rock Lee is still the best boy in this entire dang series and I really hope we get to see his triumphant return. If it goes that route, it won’t be easy, but that boy can totally do it with how mentally tough he is. Plus, if that’s where it does go, I’m expecting some pro wrestling style injury return hype videos.

Kara: I can’t believe they’d bring a badass medical ninja to town, make her Hokage, and then have her not be able to help my best boy. I’m with Paul—as much as I appreciate Might Guy sticking to the sports anime hardcore training aesthetic, I’m not pleased with him letting Lee mess himself up to this degree. He knows Lee will fight ‘til he’s burger unless someone stops him, and sometimes that’s not a good thing. This is largely, if not entirely, on Guy.

Danni: Like I said before, I don’t think we’ve seen the last of Rock Lee.

And, as always, what are the high and low points in this week’s set of episodes?

Kevin: High point - Up until the end of the final episode, I was going to give it to the Sannin fight, since we finally see full-fledged ninja fighting all out, but we also know that none of them are at full strength and so know that this isn’t even as crazy as it can get. Lee getting notified by the top medical ninja that he should give up his dream takes the top spot though. It was absolutely heart rending to hear, even knowing full well that it was coming and how it resolves. Low point - Shikamaru and his dad. It was a short moment, but really guys? Women are basically just around to give the men a reason to do good things, and even the sharpest edged one will show a soft side to the one she loves? Mister Nara, please update your morals a bit.

David: High point is Naruto inheriting the First Hokage’s necklace. After all of her backstory, that moment more than anything else is proof of both Naruto’s perseverance and growth as well as Tsunade’s renewed faith in both herself and the future. Low point is basically the entire “Naruto kidnapping” episode, not because I think it was entirely pointless or bad, but because it really didn’t need to be a whole episode and the pacing of this show is otherwise much better than that.

Paul: My high point is a tie between Gamatatsu, the adorably inept Frog Summon with the sunny disposition, and Katsuyu, the gigantic Slug Summon with the gentle voice and extremely respectful manner of speech. I love both of those characters. My low point is a tie between Jiraiya giving himself heatstroke in an attempt to be a perv at the mixed bathing hot springs and Shikamaru's continued low-grade misogyny. Tsunade is the Fifth Hokage, and you will treat her with respect, young man!

Noelle: High points, the Sannin fight, from giant kaiju battles to everyone going one on one. Tsunade riding Gamabunta’s sword and slamming at into Manda’s mouth was something I loved as a kid and I sure do love that now! Tsunade throwing hands is also completely delightful. Low point, Shikamaru’s not so subtle misogyny. Really, Shikamaru? Really?

Joseph: High point: Gamatatsu is my new favorite Naruto character. Low point: The C-grade hot spring episode I almost completely tuned out during.

Jared: Naruto catching Kabuto’s knife in between his fingers was the most hardcore and metal thing he’s done in this entire series and it was AWESOME. Low points would be the hot spring episode which was just there and Shikamaru’s monologue about women.

Kara: High point is absolutely Tsunade making Orochimaru into her own personal punching bag, especially when she was just whipping him around by the tongue. Close second is good boy Gamatatsu having a lovely first day out. Low point was the show bringing Jiraiya’s perv aspect right back into play after that awesome fight. I’d nearly forgotten about it, but here we are.

Danni: Low point goes to Shikamaru and his dad. For real, guys? You’re both pretty cool, but there’s no excuse for misogyny. High point was easily watching Tsunade just beat the everloving crap out of Orochimaru for like 5 minutes.

COUNTERS:

"I'm gonna be Hokage!" count: 16 Bowls of ramen consumed: 2 bowls Shadow Clones created: 17 + 1 uncountable scene

Total so far:

"I'm gonna be Hokage!" count: 48 Bowls of ramen consumed: 35 bowls + 3 cups Shadow Clones created: 314

And that's everything for this week! Remember that you're always welcome to join us for this rewatch, especially if you haven't watched the original Naruto! Watch Naruto today!

Here's our upcoming schedule:

- April 26th will have DAVID LYNN take us to the Land of Waves in episodes 99-105.

- May 3rd features PAUL CHAPMAN, who will walk us through the inevitable Naruto vs Sasuke in episodes 106-112.

- May 10th, JOSEPH LUSTER will give us the deets on the Sound Four.

Thank you for joining us for the Great Crunchyroll Naruto Rewatch! Have a great weekend, and we'll see you all next time!

Have anything to say about our thoughts on Episodes 92-98? Let us know in the comments! Don't forget, we're also accepting questions and comments for next week, so don't be shy and feel free to ask away!

----

Nicole is a features and a social video script writer for Crunchyroll. Known for punching dudes in Yakuza games on her Twitch channel while professing her love for Majima. She also has a blog, Figuratively Speaking. Follow her on Twitter: @ellyberries

Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: [email protected]

#Anime #News #Latest in Anime News by Crunchyroll!

0 notes