I think... in many ways, I really just want to feel loved, but I'm scared of accepting it, and scared of feelings I feel like I "can't control" so I end up taking an overly analytical approach and overjustifying things like natural curiosity to myself by calling things "just scientific fascination" and "morbid curiosity" (because in my mind, things I feel I am not "allowed to" experience, be curious about, or consider, seem like they're taboo, hence 'morbid'). I can't really fault others for thinking that's messed up. I've definitely ruined chances at receiving any sort of care and/or love in the past by not only pushing people away in delusional self-sabotage states, but also by treating people like equations or research projects. I sort of hate admitting to myself that I DON'T know or understand everything, and that doing so is impossible no matter how much I like knowing things, especially since my inability to just trust and take what people tell me at face value is in juxtaposition with that desire for knowledge and thorough understanding. It is actually me and my own doubt of people that drives me into over-questioning everything I DO know.
I also am terrible at paying attention to others. I know this. I forget that other people are, well, people, and that they won't know how much I care about them unless I express it and KEEP expressing it. Not just verbally but with things like asking people how they are doing- assuming they'll just tell me if they want me to know is something I do, but I know very well how easy it is to feel like a burden and close your troubles away from others in fear of being "too much" to deal with. I've reflected on this, and my unhealthy manner of expressing fondness and trust for others being that I'm far too quick to traumadump and talk about myself, in the past, but I've not been making nearly enough progress on it.
I think, I seek and crave for too much clarity without offering any myself, that has driven people away from me in the past, and it's purely my own flaws causing it.
Maybe with another year or two of reflecting, I will be able to handle something like a qppr without it falling apart because of my aloofness and inability to pay enough attention to others. Perhaps in half a decade, I could consider a romantic relationship, if I've made any progress with all that + trauma work, by then.
5 notes
·
View notes
mango is very subdued today. she's eaten a little bit of her food, used her litter tray as normal (no peeing on the floor, what a good girl) and is drinking as normal but she's curled up on the back of the sofa and doesn't want cuddles. she didn't stand on her hind legs to say hello this afternoon and she is disinterested in the birds flying by the window.
maybe i'm over thinking this and she just needs a day to settle but i'm wondering if she's actually unwell and the vets brushed it off as stress because of the context i gave them when i took her in.
i know there's no harm in going in for a second opinion but i can't really afford it right now :/
i think i'll keep an eye on her and text my mum just in case she needs another vet visit.
12 notes
·
View notes
I focused on Rom and Caryll specifically for this one, as they have the biggest potential for the Micolash-level roles in the Choir! I have a post that collects the points about how it is possible that Healing Church maybe was not instantly isolated from Byrgenwerth ( x ), and under this idea Willem somewhat works too, albeit a bit more like 'eminence grise' than a present 'leader'. In short, Byrgenwerth was responsible for Fishing Hamlet massacre that became a fundament of the Church to seek eyes, Byrgenwerth is quite aware of Laurence's endeavours down to association with the Moon Presence, Willem coincidentally looks like a pope himself and Laurence is a vicar who are the guys that replace the MAIN guy, the Eye rune which is a voice of Ebrietas also served as a symbol of his pursuit for the eyes, Forbidden Woods have secret cave through which people like Fauxsefka could still access Byrgenwerth, Choir which formed from Research Hall honors Willem with their blindfolds and there are evidences of some Choir people (like Rom or Yurie the Last Scholar) "coming back" in Byrgenwerth!
Altar of Grief is very likely Rom herself despite legs not matching, as Rom in the Lake and Dungeons coincidentally has holes at the level where big legs on the altar form are! Besides, Ebrietas' lyrics seem to refer to Mensis Ritual as she is weeping for her:
( x )
We just don't know whether Insight given her to Kos was too much and she could not linger in human plane any longer, or she willingly abandoned it seeing (the future?) what would come from School of Mensis and hid the ritual in advance... But at the same time, especially since nothing in lore says she was one of the scholars, even, she could still just be a more "successful" patient they took from Research Hall, or even one of the children that took the "wrong" path into the Sea instead of peering into Stars (Adeline approves fjhdfhfds). Or maybe one of the members that turned special, or a secret agent from Willem, or even from Micolash since concealing the ritual helps not just the humans below but himself too, or or or-
With Caryll, it is a bit simpler: whereas Willem had a hunch of her, Ebrietas in person was finally found after Research Hall ran its course and the doctors figured, probably by patients like Living Failures, to seek for the Stars and not the Sea. This was how the Choir was formed around her, but who is a better person to be head of the Choir than THE one famous for being able to understand language of the Great Ones? Caryll could easily bridge the gap! And no matter the timeline convolutions, could've simply left Byrgenwerth with Laurence from the start but actually remembering to fear the blood all along!
But... Yeah, in the end, ever since @jarognieva pointed it out that we can't even be sure about Micolash's role in Mensis it's been a super interesting idea. That maybe School of Mensis itself functioned more on its own and Micolash was "chosen" as the most mad madman x) So, why could not Choir function in a similar way too? So Laurence would babysit BOTH of the factions full time, OR leave them to manage themselves at most only checking in for progress reports (would well explain the huge rift between his blood-drunk ass and both subordinate factions being focused on Eyes instead, too).
14 notes
·
View notes
I've decided to make my own post because I am not an idiot, but full disclosure that this post is 50% based on thoughts I was having while I was driving home from the auto repair shop yesterday and 50% a response to a post I saw just now that conflated "redemption arcs" (things fictional characters go through in fictional stories) with "community support" (things real life people offer to other real life people in real life) and how this relates to "fixing people" (making someone who mistreats or abuses themself or others not mistreat or abuse themself or others anymore).
Read my words very carefully.
In fiction, it is more than okay to like whatever type of toxic or fantastical relationship you want. If you like to read stories about toxic, codependent people who are absolutely horrible to one another and will never, ever change, you read those stories. If you like to read stories about a tortured man who just needs The Right Person to teach him to be better, and then he is, sometimes exclusively only to them though, then you read those stories. Sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and fails spectacularly, and sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and succeeds spectacularly, and either way, you read whatever stories you want, whatever makes you happy, I'm sure it's somewhere in this vast Archive that we call Our Own.
However, in real life?
First of all, "arcs" aren't things real life people have. An arc is something that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Real life people don't have those, because our stories don't end until we die. Unlike a character, whose life presumably continues even after their story ends (except in circumstances where they die at the end but you know what I mean), we have to keep living day by day, with all the rises and falls that come with it. Now, this does not mean that a person cannot change, or that a person can't get better and learn from their mistakes; but it DOES mean that we can't have a "redemption arc" where we complete a checklist of story beats and then suddenly we're a better person who has experienced the necessary growth to be forgiven. First off, no amount of growth or change ever requires any victims to forgive. And second, that's just not how life works. That's not how change works. Change and growth are baby steps taken each day, and sometimes you go backwards, and you get angry with yourself, but then you pick yourself up and you try again the next day, and the next, and the next. It's an ongoing journey that does not end until you die. That's life.
But second and more importantly, the real idea that I think the original post was trying to get at, but missing the mark on was . . . okay.
So, the original OP of the post (and the person who replied to OP) got angry at the idea that the strawman they had invented (the person who had theoretically said "you can't fix him!") would deny support to someone who needs that help to grow and change as a person. The person who had replied in support of OP added that the strawman clearly believed in punitive justice over rehabilitative justice as well. On the surface, I can see where they are coming from. After all, on the whole humans are a social species and do need support networks in order to not only thrive, but survive. People such as drug addicts need support and assistance in order to get into better places in their lives, and the prison system has been proven to be far less effective at preventing repeated offenses than rehabilitative programs. This is all true.
However.
The reason why "you can't fix them" is still true, and needs to be said and understood particularly by those who are susceptible to falling into abusive relationships (e.g. people who have been abused before, particularly in childhood or adolescence) is because of free will. Specifically, the free will that each of us has, but specifically the other person. Person A can want so, so, so badly to "fix" Person B so that they stop being an abusive alcoholic 75% of the time. But if Person B doesn't actually want to stop being an abusive alcoholic (even if they say they do during the 25% of the time they aren't smacking Person A around), and refuses to put in the work that it takes to become sober and be a better person, then guess what? Nothing Person A does will ever make them be a sober, non-abusive partner. They will be unable to fix Person B. It doesn't matter how much time, energy, money, or commitment they pour into that person. It doesn't matter how much they genuinely, honestly, earnestly love them. Because unless Person B wants to change, and will put the work into doing so, then they will not change, and Person A, for their own health, safety, and sanity, needs to exit that relationship.
Now, does that mean that if, ten years down the line, Person B decides they are ready to put in the work to get their alcoholism under control, no one should help them? Of course not! They should absolutely be put in touch with sober counselors, support groups, medical professionals, friends and family who can help them. Person A could potentially forgive them, if Person A chooses. But that willingness to change and put in the work has to come from within Person B first.
I've been in the position where I've seen people in awful situations just tanking their lives, people I loved and cared about, people I begged to just listen to me and get help, only for them to not . . . and ultimately I had to accept that I couldn't fix them. I could be there to offer support when they were ready to fix themselves, but the core work that needed to be done had to come from within themselves. I couldn't provide that. Not because I was inadequate, not because I didn't love them, but because I couldn't force them to do anything they didn't want, or weren't ready, to do.
So at the end of the day, "you can't fix them" isn't about not giving support. It's about recognizing your limitations as a human being. It's about knowing that:
You cannot force someone to do something they do not want to do.
You cannot force someone to do something they are not ready to do.
Not being able to help or save someone is not a moral failing of yours.
Not being able to help or save someone does not mean you do not love or care about them.
Providing support should never come at risk of your own health and safety, physical or otherwise.
When you love someone, it can be really hard to accept this. You think, "I know I can make them want to try. I know I can inspire them to want to change. I know they love me, so if I just love them a little harder, they will want to change." Nine times out of ten, though, that is just not true. And if someone is abusing you, it is not worth the literal risk to your life to keep trying. You are worth more than that. You are more than just someone else's band-aid.
Keep yourselves safe in 2024.
8 notes
·
View notes
My own experiences with self proclaimed femboys and sissies in general have been deeply uncomfortable. I find it deeply upsetting that, even in places that claims to be pro-trans, gender inference on people perceived or currently identifying as men is seen as an equal or even bigger threat than objectification and transfeminine identities being reduced to an aesthetic. Like something you can find cute, desirable, in very specific circumstances, but they have to be able to opt out anytime for anyone's comfort. People like the idea of a boy who can be "pretty" enough to be mixed up for a girl but who is still confident in his masculinity at the end of the day. But playing along with acknowledging an idea of permanence in that identity is an hassle to most people, but they won't tell it that way. Especially if you don't fit their own standards. It feels a bit out of place to talk about it, since it isn't my own direct lived experience, since I'm not transfem. But since I get perceived as more feminine than I'd like to, the closest I can describe is how most people don't even grasp the difference between transmen and tomboys, and wonder why transmen would transition to begin with since tomboys are generally accepted (from their limited occidental perspective if I may say, i mean I don't even see that as a gender performance more than a specific aesthetic, a rather limited one if I may say also. And not every transmen portray masculinity in that caricatural sense) therefore what's the point. But, truth to be told, I hardly ever see any gender non conforming woman go at transmen the way tme of anykind go at transwomen for existing too much.
5 notes
·
View notes