#or doing things inappropriate for polite society

[pearl-kite]

Had an idea for a tattoo for Adrian, but I'd also been toying with the idea of looking into finding an apprenticeship for becoming a tattoo artist. Thought hey, let's do an actual design for it so I can theoretically use it in a portfolio.

Yarrow represents heartbreak and healing from heartbreak and is used to banish evil from a place or a person. It's also called arrowroot.

Peonies represent a lot of things; they can symbolize anger, shame, and shyness, but also bravery, compassion, and loyalty.

I think snakes are neat.

[in-class-daydreams]

i think what the anon actually meant when they said “incestuous” was if their relationship contained any EMOTIONAL incest on sen’s side?

when reading, sen does seem to have some form of emotionally incestuous feelings towards his mother but it doesn’t seem like the mother has those same feelings. whether he does have those feelings or not is entirely up to you.

this isn’t to say your writing is bad or anything. it’s actually very good and i thoroughly enjoy this au. i wouldn’t change a single thing about the way you write, especially when it comes to sen and his relationships.

there’s also nothing wrong with writing about emotional incest. it’s a very real thing and can happen in situations like the one in your au. as long as it isn’t romanticized or sexualized, it shouldn’t be a problem.

obviously, you don’t owe anyone an explanation but the people that are turned off by that impression might feel better with some clarification on the relationship.

(also, idk if you do emoji anons but if so, perhaps could i be 🦤?)

Emotionally, it sure seems that way, doesn't it? I've said he's weird, I've said he's a bit yandere about it, but I feel this is one of those things readers have to interpret themselves. Is his behavior appropriate? And regardless of the answer, can you (the general "you" not you specifically) sympathize with how he ended up that way? Did we expect a boy - burdened with great power from birth, plunged into an inherently flawed society - to turn out well-adjusted?

And I'm not blasting you in particular, this ask is very polite/constructive - especially compared to a lot of other asks I've gotten since this AU blew up - it's just that I write expecting readers to do some mental legwork on the more complex themes.

Take Nabokov's Lolita for example. It deals with some pretty gross and problematic subject matter, but Nabokov is expecting readers to be able to read between the lines that just because that inappropriate behavior is at the forefront of the novel, the actual message is that this sort of behavior is reprehensible. The average person isn't sitting there like, "Wow, these are all great ideas!"

This AU won't be everyone's cup of tea, and that's ok, because work portraying problematic themes has a right to exist, but in the same vein, people have the right not to read it.

~

Thank you so much for the ask!

Click [here] for more of Sen being mean to his dad | Ask stuff about Sen and the fam [here]

[itsawritblr]

Fuck "sensitivity readers."

I see that a couple of my Followers and other writers on here are obsessed with writing POC "correctly."

As a full-time professional writer of fiction and nonfiction who's also Hapa, I need to point out:

So you're paranoid that you're gonna write something and POC are going to come after you, calling you "racist" or "insensitive" or that you're "appropriating culture."

The only reply you need to make is in 2 steps:

Say:

Then:

There's is no "right way" to write any group of people or any race or ethnicity. Know why?

I've seen this happen. A Black writer will tell white writers how to write Blacks. Then another Black writer will say, "Wait a minute, I'm not like that, my family's not like that. We're not all Urban BLM hip-hop lovers. I'm Christian, I'm against trans in women's spaces, I have several White friends, and I listen to classic country music."

So who's right? Both.

A "sensitivity reader" or some on this hellsite will tell you HOW to write POC. When all they're telling you is their POV. They can't speak for everyone. (A perfect example.)

If you want to write about a person of a race or ethnicity other than your own, sure, do a little research, as you would with anything. If a sensitivity reader tells you your Jewish character should be celebrating Shabbat, a little research on your own will tell you that not all Jews do (as it happens, I learned this from my Jewish boyfriend, whose family never celebrated Shabbat). So that "sensitivity reader" would have given you misinformation because of her or his POV.

Do not panic that you're gonna be canceled or yelled at for "getting it wrong."

There IS no wrong. Look,

All you need to remember is:

Writer and screenwriter Anthony Horowitz was told not to write Black characters because he's white and Jewish. This stunned him. He was supposed to leave Black characters out of his work? But if he did that he'd be accused of not having Black characters.

He didn't obey. In fact, I'm reading his current novel, and he has a perfectly fine Black character in it.

Read this article:

No, Authors Should Not Be Constrained By Gender Or Race In The Characters They Create. by Lorraine Devon White, Contributor

This was the BBC.com headline:

Spy Author Anthony Horowitz ‘Warned Off’ Creating Black Character:

Author Anthony Horowitz says he was “warned off” including a black character in his new book because it was “inappropriate” for a white writer. The creator of the Alex Rider teenage spy novels says an editor told him it could be considered “patronising” ... Horowitz, who has written 10 novels featuring teenage spy Alex Rider, said there was a “chain of thought” in America that it was “inappropriate” for white writers to try to create black characters, something which he described as “dangerous territory”.

Dangerous territory, indeed.

What are we to make of this? Is an author limited to only writing characters within their race? What about gender? Religion? Age? Ethnicity? Sexual orientation? Where do the boundaries stop?

The old adage, “write what you know,” is a thesis that implies a writer should limit their imagination to the parameters of their own life and experience. But does that maxim still hold true today? Certainly in these times of viral accessibility, contact, research, knowledge, and interaction with people, places, and things far outside our own proximity is as every-day as 24/7 updates from the farthest corners of the globe. Our ability, consequently, to gain perspective sufficient enough to write outside one’s own “house” is not only doable, but, perhaps, universal and insightful, presuming one does it well.

But is it “patronizing”? Are we, as writers, simply not allowed to write outside, say, our culture, regardless of how well we might do it? Has society become so compartmentalized, so hypersensitive, politically correct, and wary of triggering repercussion, resentment, or misinterpretation that reaching beyond our own skin ― literally and figuratively – has become verboten to us as creative artists?

Interesting questions, these; particularly when you consider that men have been writing about women since time immemorial without particular societal concern that they couldn’t possibly know, couldn’t authentically muster, the requisite experiential perspective. It was a given that they could get the job done; accepted without debate. Yet the specificity, the sensitive and unique nature of being female, could be considered as disparate from the male experience as being black is to a white person, but that hasn’t stopped male authors, from Vladimir Nabokov to Wally Lamb, from creating their women of note.

Which is fair. Because the explicit job of an author is to climb inside the experience of LIFE, real or imagined, to tell compelling stories that reflect the incalculable diversity of detail, nuance, thought, and emotion of any variety of people, places, and things. And the creative mind can find and translate authenticity whether writing about Martians, coquettish teens, dogs who play poker, or characters who exactly mirror the author‘s gender or race.

I’ve had my own experience with this interesting conundrum: my last novel, Hysterical Love, was told through the first-person point-of-view of a thirty-three-year-old man, and it goes without saying: I’m not one of those. Yet I felt completely capable of infusing my story with authenticity by relying on my skills of observation, as well as my experiential knowledge as the sister of five men, the mother of a son, the wife of a man; my years on the road with rock bands, and the immersive research of being a close friend to many, many men throughout my life. I’ve been told I pulled it off, even by the men who’ve read it, so my conviction proved out.

But is the divide between cultures, races, wider than that of gender diversity? Does a white writer delegitimize their prose by including black characters? Is the reverse true?

I don’t think so. I think it depends on the writer, the quality of their work; the depth and sensitivity of their depictions. Those are my initial responses. But I also understand the question:

About two years ago I had an article up at HuffPost titled, “No, White People Will Never Understand the Black Experience,” a piece that became a flashpoint for much conversation on the topic of race. It was written in response to events of the time, particularly the egregious injustice of Sandra Bland’s arrest and subsequent (and inexplicable) jailhouse death, and the cacophony that arose amongst, amidst, and between parties on both sides of the racial divide as a result. My own thesis, my perspective on the tangible limitations we each have in perceiving and assessing the realities of life outside ourselves, is made clear by the title alone. But while there’s obviously much more to that debate, here and now we’re discussing the issue as it relates to the job of being an author and I have some specific thoughts on that.

Inspired by the many responses and conversations that ensued after the aforementioned article, as well as others written on the topic of racial conflict, bias, and injustice, I took one of the stories referenced, about an interracial couple’s experiences with police profiling, and developed it into a character-driven novel called A NICE WHITE GIRL, a title that reflects commentary made within some of the conversations I had.

This “sociopolitical love story” is told through the intertwining points-of-view of a black man and white woman dealing not only with pushback to their new and evolving relationship, but the ratcheting impact of police profiling that ultimately leads to a life-altering arrest. It’s a story that’s human, gut-wrenching, and honest, built on the foundation of my own experiences in a long-term interracial relationship earlier in my life, as well as journalistic research and interviews, personal interactions, even friendships with members of the black community. Given a commitment to creating the characters outside my demographic as authentically and sensitively as I possibly could, without watering them down or pandering to political correctness, I believe I served both my story and its cultural demands well. Did I?

Every author relies on, taps into; mines the wealth of thought, opinion, perspective, and acculturation of their own unique life experience. Certainly that’s true. But as artists, as observers and chroniclers of life by way of prose, we go beyond that pool of reference. We reach out, we expand; we explore plot lines and include characters that stretch our imagination, that dig deep into worlds, events and experiences, imagined or real, that can pull us onto less traveled roads that might demand the challenge of research, of specific observation, even outside consultation. We take these extra steps, even for fiction, because we want to infuse our work with inherent realness. Particularly when writing characters outside our culture. That was certainly the demand I faced when embarking upon this latest novel.

But I am a white woman who’s written a book with a black male character, inclusive of his mother, his sister, and various friends. I’ve depicted their family life, their interactions, relationships, thoughts and feelings. Do I not have the creative right to do that? Will I be seen as patronizing, insensitive, off base, and inappropriate? Will this make my book too controversial for representation, for publishing, for sale? Will it garner derision and disdain from members of the black community? Even members of the white community who may resent the harshness with which I depict some of the police?

I don’t know. Maybe. But it was a story I felt passionate about, compelled to write; that took the many debated aspects and elements discussed in my articles and put them into fictional form, with imagined characters who embodied and borrowed from people I knew, from conversations I’d had, from ideas, agendas, politics, and passions that had been conveyed to me by real people expressing essential and sometimes controversial perspectives. I was determined to honor them by candidly, honestly, and without apology, telling the story.

But perhaps, as Anthony Horowitz was told, I’m entering territory that is off-limits, that puts me at odds with those who might frame me as presumptuous and patronizing. “A nice white girl” who’s stepped outside of culturally acceptable boundaries.

I hope not, because I, like Mr. Horowitz, see that as “dangerous territory.”

Just as brilliant male authors have gorgeously written female protagonists; as female novelists have conjured male characters ringing with truth; as writers of one ethnicity have honestly depicted another; as fabulists have invented entire worlds of imagined wonders, authors must be limited by... NOTHING. Not a thing. They must be free to create without fear of cultural naysaying, societal judgment, threat of reprisal, or the discomfort of crossing cultural boundaries.

The only mandate to which they’re obligated is GOOD WRITING. Writing with wit and clarity. Honesty. Authenticity. Sensitivity and depth. Engaging prose, compelling plots, and visceral emotion. And, if need be, if determined helpful, the use of “sensitivity readers” who can ascertain if the writer got the cultural references right.

But just as Idris Elba could certainly make magic as James Bond, as Anthony Horowitz could create an intriguing black spy for his books; as I can write characters both male and of a culture outside my own, so must every author of merit and worth be allowed to view the entire panoply of life as fuel for their imagination. Anything else is antithetical to the mission of art... and stymying art serves no one. Not the writer, not the reader, not the myriad members of our diverse world hungry for stories that reflect their lives. Art is imagining; creating, mirroring, and provoking... all of which can and must be achieved by artists free to explore without the limiting effect of creative and cultural boundaries.

[puckpocketed]

i just hate when players do this and people call them “warriors” i know you wanna play in the playoffs to help your team but YOUR FINGERS ARE LITERALLY BROKEN MY GUY THEY COULD NEVER GROW BACK TOGETHER THE RIGHT WAY im crying

my poor cringefail wifes i love them all so much i hope they all take the rest they need

GOD I hope they get rest too :((

breaking soooo much character right now to give my fullest take, and it’s that we can hold multiple ideas in our minds and i don’t think they conflict

playing through injuries is terrible.

They are whole adult human beings and professional athletes who have resources to keep them informed about long term consequences, and they still get to make those choices even if we hate the choices they make. Even if those choices drastically reduce the length of their career. Even if those choices end with long term heath complications.

i might lose some people on this one but i don’t care!! it’s what I believe: being disabled or chronically ill/injured/in pain is not a death sentence. it is not the worst thing in the world. people live full and happy lives whilst also being disabled. can it suck for the person living through it? yes. absolutely. but to me, people are not and never will be defined by how able-bodied they are!!!

All of this is true (to me) and also we can still condemn the circumstances that cause them to make these choices. (culture of not wanting to be seen as soft, the normalisation/valorisation of playing through injury, all the other [gestures wildly] forces at play that set athletes up to make these decisions) Like i’m sorry to get political but choices do not exist in vacuums. sports does not exist separated from hegemonic models of masculinity or capitalism. there are so so so many reasons a player might choose to harm themselves by playing through injury and not all of them are noble or valid, some of them are stupid and informed by bullshit!!! and we should be mad at that bullshit!! because it’s awful!!!!

these are their jobs, and i’m talking in the sense that they are performing labour and i think labour laws and workplace health and safety must apply here too. I think we have to start talking about these things in terms of workers rights, in amongst all of the compassion we have for them as players. there’s the pressure to perform due to contract status and salary bonus milestones; there’s team doctors having direct conflicts of interest, a monetary and cultural incentive to look the other way when clearing people to play; there’s the plain fact of the best possible safety equipment (cages/bowls, neck guards, cut resistant protective gear) not being mandatory; the blatant denial of CTE coming from the league itself. there’s a lot. and it’s a workers rights issue, not just a moral one. someone will play through xyz because of the culture, because of the pressure, and they will die from it.

EVEN STILL. there is beauty and narrative resonance and something compelling about it all, and I don’t want to deny that. as someone looking from the outside in, sports captures people’s hearts because of these narratives. sacrifice and teamwork and triumph — we have an appetite for these things. I am never going to sit here and deny that I feel compelled by it (which is simultaneous to the anger, the fear, the deep deep well of “i’m sorry you have feel you have to do this”) This appetite I/we as a society have for pain — unpacking it and addressing it is a whole other conversation and I am not qualified to have it. I’m just going to acknowledge it exists because I think pretending it doesn’t would be dishonest of me.

we are allowed to feel fucked up about all of this. call it parasocial, call it entitled, call it inappropriate, i don’t know!! we are people and knowing other people are in pain tends to fuck us up — and as much as I try to keep a healthy distance from these celebrities, as much as I remind myself they’re strangers, I care when they’re hurt because I’m human.

anyway. YES OUR POOR CRINGEFAIL WIVES 😭🤲

[skaldish]

People who say Loki isn't real because there's no evidence he was worshiped are really annoying. How do I rebuttal?

By understanding this is not a proper argument to begin with.

This argument in its entirety typically goes something like this:

Loki isn't a god because he wasn't worshipped in ancient times. If he was, he would have had locations named after him (place-names), people carrying his namesake, and the presence of a cult following. Since Loki wasn't a god in pre-Christian Norse society, it would be inappropriate to consider him one now.

The origins of this argument are Asatru Folk Assembly. The full argument made by Stephen McNallen goes like this:

There was no devotion given to Loki in ancient times. No place-names marked ritual sites for him; no human bore names related to him; there were no priests or priestesses of Loki. Some modern practitioners of Asatru have apparently considered this an oversight, and one occasionally hears toasts to Loki at Asatru gatherings today. However, I strongly discourage this in the Asatru Folk assembly, and I do not permit horns to be raised to him in my presence. My experience is that Loki-toasts are followed by discord all-around bad luck.

Believe it or not, this is not a valid argument.

Logical argumentation is a kind of math, and an argument will always be invalid if it follows an invalid formula, no matter how true its predicates are.

Here's an example:

Some people are pagans, and some pagans are white nationalists. Therefore, some people are white nationalists.

This is an invalid argument because it follows an invalid formula. We can see this by reframing it:

Some people are herbivores, and some herbivores are deer. Therefore, some people are deer.

The "Loki wasn't worshipped" argument is riddled with these kinds of flaws, and not just ones that follow this particular formula. There's also issues of rocky facts, unfair standards, and general argumentative fallacies:

Heimdallr also doesn't have place-names, and is considered a god.

The absence of developed, structured cultus is not the litmus test of "worship" within the context of Old Norse religions.

The argument is predicated on the idea that the Old Norse people conceptualized "gods" the same way that the Greeks and the Romans did, in that this term applies only to high beings with widespread followings.

Same applies to how the Old Norse people conceptualized "worship." We have no idea how they defined it.

The argument's evidence does not consider all possible data, i.e. attestations found in extant Scandinavian oral traditions.

I can go on, but basically the argument is predicated on assuming the Old Norse people did polytheism according to what we think polytheism should look like.

But honestly? All of this actually doesn't matter, because the ultimate goal of this argument isn't to win the debate of whether Loki's a god or not.

It's to get people to associate "Loki's followers" with "degenerate behavior."

By painting Loki-worship as both factually incorrect AND superstitiously unlucky, it implies that anyone worshipping Loki is not right in the head somehow; that the can't think or reason correctly.

Many of Loki's followers correlate with the political and social Left. They're often queer/gnc and/or neurodivergent, and support socialist policies and rejection tradition. If worshiping Loki is deemed irrational and dangerous, then it stands to reason that these things are also irrational and dangerous, and therefore all of this must be a sign of degeneracy. Or so the argument would suggest.

The fallacies in the argument are there by design, because that is how cryptofascist writers radicalize reasonable people.

The best way you refute these arguments is to deny them a platform. Delete them from your inbox. That doesn't mean you have to ignore them though. You can always speak up about them on your own time. Personally, I try to make sure that whatever it is I bring up about them will be useful to the community at large, as opposed to being an angry hate-letter to those provoking conflict. (It's a philosophy I use regardless of what the motivations of an issue are, simply because devoting my attention to the community makes for a better online experience and is ultimately more effective in the long-run.)

[asparklethatisblue]

i feel like the only true issue with “children in public” isn’t that they’re loud or annoying or whatever. That’s fine, children can play and be silly and frankly who cares. The only real issue is parents who just? Don’t want to parent. If a child does something dangerous or inappropriate (actively breaking stuff or actively bothering someone in ways that cross a line) and so fuck all. Yeah let children be children but you should pull them aside and explain “hey, this is dangerous” or “I know you want to do Thing but it’s not polite, you should ask permission, if you want to play with someone it should be a game they also want to do.”

The most basic (age appropriate) instructions on how to function in a society, you know? “You should ask if you can pet a dog before rushing at it” or stuff. Or “yes you can run around but be careful not to knock into people”

genuinely any time a child is over the top annoying I feel like the parent should do something instead of ignoring them. It’s not the kid’s fault their parent doesn’t want to parent

[yandere-romanticaa]

William frustrates me beyond belief but I'm still so incredibly, madly in love with him. Also, reader is kinda yandere for William here as well. Reader is female.

The pale moon in the night sky starkly contrasted the glow of a freshly lit candle, its warm flames just barely reaching the parchment of paper. Her hands shook violently as (y/n) analyzed it, word for word, heart racing in her chest as she positively beamed with joy, her (e/c) blown open wide with excitement.

William had written back to her. Finally.

The two had developed a friendship a little bit over a year ago but what William remained oblivious to was that (y/n) had been helplessly in love with him for years now. The Moriarty family was well known and regarded within polite society and their status as free bachelors boosted their popularity even more so, especially amongst the women. No matter which Moriarty brother entered the room, they would turn heads and people would talk. Be it in awe or jealousy, the entire family was something worth gawking at. Truth be told, their staff was also the hot talk of the town. They were easy to talk to and friendly, Moran and Bonde in particular. That was exactly how the girl managed to step into the threshold of the house and finally have a proper word with the handsome mathematician.

Their talks started off innocent enough with William indulging her with his company every now and then. She managed to slide through the tough cracks of the mysterious man, bit by bit. She would watch him grade papers sometimes, his gaze cascaded downwards as (y/n) played the role of the dutiful young lady who was minding her own business over some hot tea.

(y/n) was many, many things and eager was one of them. This, whatever this was - it was not enough for her. More, she needs more. Having afternoon tea with William was the highlight of her day but by God, it felt as though she was going to implode!! William, ever the gentleman, never once made a move on her, no inappropriate glance, no comment, nothing. Be it day or night William was constantly keeping her at the edge of her seat, wondering whether or not he would actually do something. Sometimes, if she was lucky, she could feel the touch of his slender fingers against her own as they both reach for the sugar. Their eyes would meet and William would give her a sweet smile, never actually recoiling in shame or embarrassment. Did this mean he was fond of her? Was she overanalyzing it? She couldn't know, William was such a hard person to get a good read on. (y/n) knew that no one was perfect in this world but in her eyes, William was more brilliant than the stars that hung high in the night sky.

Letting out a sigh, (y/n) hugs his letter close to her chest as she looks out the open window, the crisp air giving her a sense of relief as it blew into the room and onto her hot skin. It was so late in the evening, no one was awake now. What even was the point of all this?

Unbeknownst to her, William was wide awake in his office as he looked out his own window, his cheek resting on the palm of his hand as a wicked little smirk made its way onto his face. Several papers were sprawled out in front of him, all of which were your letters. William took great pleasure in reading them all from time to time and analyzing everything you said. You tried so hard to act like a perfect little noblewoman, always having a polite smile on your face and carefully choosing each word you dared to utter. He felt a little bad, toying with you like this, keeping you dancing on the very edge until you finally crack.

William was desperate to see the real you, the oh so jealous (y/n) who did her best to hide her seething rage in front of the other ladies who gushed about William right in front of you. He never failed to spot the way you bite the inside of your cheek, the rage in your eyes was so evident but oh so precious. He was selfish, keeping you on his tight leash like this but it was all worth it in the end. He was driving you mad with desire and before long, he was sure that you are close to your breaking point.

He can't wait to have you, all of you.

There was nothing in the world that could stop him.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

I really don’t think we should be treating morality as a linear thing in ASOIAF because what often happens is that we start to stray from the actual conversations that we need to be having regarding the depths of making a moral choice and even the circumstances involved. To try and blankly paint any one character as the “most morally good” isn’t really taking us anywhere. And it certainly isn’t helpful when people in this fandom want to try and prove that characters are “grey” but not moral (what does that even mean??) because they did one “bad” thing. If ASOIAF stans were to have their way, then:

Jon is not a morally good person because he threatened Gilly

Dany cannot be considered to be compassionate because she sanctioned torture against the wine seller’s daughters

Arya cant be good because she has killed people

and so on, and so on….

But this is such a draining, and oft times frustrating, conversation to have because you see just how shallow the above listed examples are? Readers are listing only singular instances across a narrative that spans thousand and thousands of pages, and there’s absolutely no context involved. Why did Jon threaten Gilly? Why did Dany resort to torture and at one point did she do it? Who did Arya kill and why? And why do those singular instances negate everything else in their arcs?

What usually happens when we have the 12847647282th unnecessary conversation about who is the “most good” character in ASOIAF is that we start getting blanket statements with no elaboration. And the only people ever considered are Ned, Brienne, and Davos, and sometimes the children like Shireen or Tommen. Mind you, Ned and Davos are not perfect or without their own faults either; much has been said about Ned’s abilities as a father and it’s implied that Davos was not entirely faithful to his wife. And based on her current arc, Brienne will surely have to make morally tough choices regarding oaths and knightly honor. Plus theres the irony of including literal children when they have not been put in situations where they actually have to make morally difficult choices and live with the consequences.

ASOIAF shows us that people who are capable of incredible kindness and compassion are also capable of doing unpleasant things.

Jon threatened Gilly….because he was trying to save another child whom he believed to be at risk of human sacrifice(!!) and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. But why does that singular instance negate the fact that his arc has been about him standing up for the “lesser than”? Why does that negate the fact that he stood up for Sam against a superior when there was nothing to gain for him? Why does it negate the fact that he went out of his way to equip Arya in a way that society would have deemed inappropriate? Why does it negate the fact that he dedicated the entirety of his time as Lord Commander to fight an institution that had upheld racism/xenophobia for millennia? Why should we filter out all those moments of kindness, compassion, and deep empathy that Jon has even without him thinking?

Dany sanctioned torture….but she was trying to solve the murder of an innocent victim AND this brought her no joy. But why does that negate the fact that when she gained unimaginable power, she could’ve high tailed to Westeros to use it to her benefit and become queen, but instead chose to stay in Essos where she has no personal responsibility just so she could fight the institutional evil that is slavery? Why does it negate Dany who went to personally treat plague victims at great risk to herself?

Arya has killed some….but it’s in self defense or in defense of others who are disenfranchised. But why does this negate that she is one of the few people in the series how goes out of her way to show kindness and friendship to those who are not as economically or politically advantaged as she is (e.g., Mycah)? Why does it negate that she took fellow slaves under her protection when she herself had little power to fight for her own survival at Harrenhall? Why does it negate that when she saw those caged soldiers whom she was angry with for their actions, instead of leaving them to die instead offered them the only kindness she could at the moment: a drink of water?

Trying to have arguments about morality but stripping everything down to ‘x character did y bad thing (regardless of context) and that’s why they can’t be good’ is, to be blunt, ridiculous. And it isn’t a particularly interesting way to engage with the text. Character journeys, especially well written ones, are rarely ever in a straight line. There’s amazing highs and terrible lows. GRRM gives us so many characters like Jon, Dany, Arya, Sansa, Ned, etc. who even in their lows, have gleams of compassion and exceptional kindness. It doesn’t do anyone any good to filter those moments out to make the books more digestible; and I’m being a little generous here, because so many readers have a very shallow level of engagement with the series and it shows in conversation. And we also shouldn’t pit these characters unfairly against those who have never been in similarly difficult situations that required them to make hard choices. Because when we do, we start to completely miss the point all together.

[writingquestionsanswered]

Hard Times Humor Done Right

Anonymous asked: My current work deals with difficult topics. I have no issue writing wholesome, heartwarming, or bitter-sweet scenes, as in the inhuman environment humanity shines through brighter, and have done it before with a bitter-sweet comedy/dramady. This project is a drama, though, yet it needs humor as a natural "painkiller." And my main themes are hope and grief. What would humor done right look like in such stories?

[Ask edited for length] [Content warning: death/dying/grief]

Humor done right in a drama is humor done honestly. What that means is being honest about the fact that humor is a natural coping mechanism, and as such it shows up even in the darkest of times, even when it may seem "inappropriate" to polite society.

It also means being honest about what the humor means... what it means to the character saying the humorous thing, what it means to the characters hearing the humorous thing, and what it will mean to the reader. And part of that: situation and timing are everything.

Let's say you have a character who is dying because they used all their magic in the big battle. It's a done deal, can't be undone. They've accepted it, and so has everyone else, more or less. Now, let's also say this character has a funny phrase they say a lot to get the goats of their companions. It sometimes annoys them but also makes them laugh. Now, let's say you want someone to say this phrase when the character is dying. Let's start with who and the why (honesty), then we'll go with the when (situation/timing).

Who: the dying character Why: because it's a last laugh, a reminder of better times, and a way for this character to say, "It's been fun!" (It also serves as a fast-acting dose of THIS IS WHY THIS CHARACTER MATTERED to the reader right before the character shuffles off this mortal coil.) When: since it was this character's own phrase, they're the one dying, and they're saying it for the benefit of their companions, they could say it up to their last breath. Even in those critical seconds, it would be fair for that to elicit bittersweet smiles and sentimental laughter from the others. That's an honest moment of humor in an otherwise humorless time.

On the other hand...

Who: one of the character's companions

Why: as a sort of nod... a way off offering comfort to the dying character... we love you... this is why we loved you... we're going to miss you but we'll be okay and will never forget you.

When: since the phrase is being said mainly for the benefit of the dying character, a critical part of the timing is that they're able to enjoy it... if comes too late for them to benefit--to feel the love, to know they'll be missed but remembered, and to know their companions will be okay--then the phrase means nothing. It misses its mark completely. It would need to be said when they're still able to respond... to smile... maybe even come up with a comeback. In that way, it does all the things a moment like that should do.

So... honesty, situation, and timing are the keys to doing this kind of humor right. :)

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

LEARN MORE about WQA

SEE MY ask policies

VISIT MY Master List of Top Posts

COFFEE & FEEDBACK COMMISSIONS ko-fi.com/wqa

[nats-revival]

Not they tryna reenact KOSA… anyway yall, here’s why KOSA is bad!!

If you don’t already know, KOSA, or Kids Online Safety Act is a bill that was proposed to keep children safe on the internet. You might ask ‘why is this bill bad if it’s in favor of supporting the safety of children online’? Well, according to stopkosa.com, it puts pressure on platforms to add even MORE filters on anything they think is inappropriate for children. This is especially harmful for LBGTQIA+ youth because the knowledge about this topic would be censored, as well as knowledge on suicide prevention and LGBTQIA+ support groups. Do you see how this an issue? For those children who are wanting to learn more about these topics they’d be turned away because of this bill. It would also be likely that it’ll allow the shutdown of websites that allow them to learn about race, sexuality and gender.

This bill would also add more internet surveillance for all users across all social media platforms. It would expand the use of age verification and parental monitoring controls. These things in itself are already very invasive, but doesn’t take into consideration the children who live in unsafe environments where they are domestically abused and/or are trying to escape these situations. To add my two cents onto this, I strongly believe that the KOSA bill is an unnecessary violation of our first amendment rights (if you’re American), and doesn’t really make the internet any more safer. It actually makes it more unusable for youth. Hypothetically, if this bill were to be passed, then this would make social media unusable for literally anybody. To censor content from the youth about wanting to learn about their identity is extremely harmful. Blocking them from accessing resources that may prove as helpful in their scenarios is outlandish and unneeded. We try to shelter our youth so much to the point where we try to boil them down to only being with their parents want them to be and also not being able to let them learn and explore about other things that they may want to identify themselves with. This is very harmful.

This is a list of companies who are saying no to KOSA ..

• Access Now

• ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

• Black and Pink National

• Center for Democracy & Technology

• COLAGE

• Defending Rights & Dissent

• Don’t Delete Art

• EducateUS: SIECUS In Action

• Electronic Frontier Foundation

• Equality Arizona

• Equality California

• Equality Michigan

• Equality New Mexico

• Equality Texas

• Fair Wisconsin

• Fairness Campaign

• Fight for the Future

• Free Speech Coalition

• Freedom Network USA

• Indivisible Eastside

• Indivisible Plus Washington

• Internet Society

• Kairos

• Lexington Pride Center

• LGBT Technology Partnership

• Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition

• Media Justice

• National Coalition Against Censorship

• Open Technology Institute

• OutNebraska

• PDX Privacy

• Presente.org

• Reframe Health and Justice

• Restore The Fourth

• SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change

• SWOP Behind Bars 

• TAKE

• TechFreedom

• The 6:52 Project Foundation, Inc.

• The Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center

• Transgender Education Network of Texas

• TransOhio

• University of Michigan Dearborn – Muslim Student Association 

• URGE

• WA People’s Privacy

• Woodhull Freedom Foundation

There is something you can do to stop the KOSA bill from being passed! On the website I linked, there is a petition. All you have to do is fill out the information and it’ll send off an email for you. The email reads as follows:

I’m writing to urge you to reject the Kids Online Safety Act, a misguided bill that would put vulnerable young people at risk. KOSA would fail to address the root issues related to kid’s safety online. Instead, it would endanger some of the most vulnerable people in our society while undermining human rights and children’s privacy. The bill would result in widespread internet censorship by pressuring platforms to use incredibly broad “content filters” and giving state Attorneys General the power to decide what content kids should and shouldn’t have access to online. This power could be abused in a number of ways and be politicized to censor information and resources. KOSA would also likely lead to the greater surveillance of children online by requiring platforms to gather data to verify user identity. There is a way to protect kids and all people online from egregious data abuse and harmful content targeting: passing a strong Federal data privacy law that prevents tech companies from collecting so much sensitive data about all of us in the first place, and gives individuals the ability to sue companies that misuse their data. KOSA, although well-meaning, must not move forward. Please protect privacy and stop the spread of censorship online by opposing KOSA.

The website also gives you like a format of what you can say if you chose to call your representatives. If after reading this post, you feel inclined to do something then I would say just go ahead and do it. My first time learning about KOSA was today immediately after seeing the post I felt inclined to send my lawmakers an email. Please try to help when you can and this will only take a few minutes so I think this is something that you can consider. This post is getting a little long now, so I’ll stop here. There are more resources online if you would like to learn more about the cons of this KOSA bill, thank you for reading.

[hermajestyimher]

One of the things I've been pondering often on lately has been the overt level of infantilization of adults in our societies, not just Western but across many areas of the world.

This intrigue led me to read this amazing peace on the matter which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Throughout my life, I've often been referred to as "very mature for my age". That characterization may have been accurate and perhaps flattering during my early childhood and teens. Underneath it, there was a sea of trauma that forced me to grow faster than my peers. However, now at 24 years of age, I continue to get the same sort of comments, with many people being amazed at my intelligence or perspective of life at my age. I don't find those comments flattering but rather amusing at best and uncomfortable at worst. After much consideration, I've come to realize that as an adult entering my mid-20's I am not in any way "very mature for my age", instead, I simply do not behave in ways that are childish and inappropriate. That should be the standard and not the exception.

I often see around me how people, mostly men, in their mid 30's and 40's behaving like absolute children with no understanding of boundaries, wholly attached to unhealthy vices showcasing a total lack of self-control or discipline, with no regard at all for their physical appearance, with no ambition to grow as a person or getting educated by consuming truly edifying content. They resent many women for not giving them the time of day and the world around them for their shortcomings. They have no sense of accountability and self-awareness. They remain in this never-ending limbo of mediocrity and child-like ways that upon close observation ends up being extremely depressing.

I've also noticed similar patterns among some similarly aged peers of mine, and this time including women. It's genuinely shocking to see grown people derive their entire personality out of TikTok or Twitter trends, being unable to think about things critically and instead parroting the popular talking points they see having the most retweets and engagements, thus joining a hive mind as if they were still in high school following what is popular and requires little effort and independent thought.

Even our popular music is becoming more and more immature with lyrics and beat patterns designed to be consumed in numb and almost irrational ways. The kind of music we listen to dictates a lot of how we view the world.

Our politics have become a soap opera that drive with them hoards of cult-like followers behind the most stupid and caricaturesque ideas that lack the sophistication politicians used to have in the past. All while the decisions of the inept clowns the immature, and dumbed-down masses end up putting in power end up having negative consequences in our general lives. See people like Trump, Matt Gaetz, or Geroge Santos being elected to high positions in the most influential government in the world.

My belief is that if you know you are someone who strives for excellence and greatness in your life, you cannot succumb to the ways of the masses. You cannot emulate the trends and habits that are popular around you because those same habits are designed to keep you in a toxic loop of immaturity and stupidity. If you know you are destined for greatness, don't fall short of your potential by wanting to be like the rest. Those who stand out do so because they are different. Keep improving yourself, hitting your goals, continuing to grow and evolve, and rejecting stagnation and regressivism. You are above that.

[whereserpentswalk]

You were accidently infected with a device meant to turn someone into a cyborg. It's not anyone's fault, it was an artifact from a civilization several star systems away, (though like yourse, the civilization is human) left in a drawer at your university, you didn't know what it was when you touched it. None of the countries on your planet make technology at all similar to this so your doctors don't know what to do. They say they can try to remove it while it's still early on in the process, but that might hurt you more badly, mabye even cost you your life, alternatively you can just let it take its course. You say you'd rather live as a cyborg than die, it's a decision not everyone in your society would make, sometimes you consider yourself a coward for giving up on removal.

It's not a big problem at first. Your freinds, your girlfriend, family all say they're accepting of cyborgs. And people kind of downplay it at first, they can't see the changes. Your skin becomes deathly pale, and you lose almost all your body fat at an alarmingly rapid pace, but it doesn't worry people as much as it worries you.

Your skeleton changes before anything else. Nobody else can see it but you can feel it, your bones turning to metal, twisting their shape. How every movement you make feels diffrent, how even getting out of bed changes. People don't understand why your upset, someone even said you have internalized cyberphobia, they don't understand how everything feels so diffrent. Your girlfriend complimented you on how strong you were, she didn't realize just how strong you are now, that you have to be careful when you embrace her not to hurt her.

Things start getting worse. You can feel unnecessary parts of your body leaving you. The first thing to really cause you grief is realizing that the transformation took your reproductive organs, that you'll never have a child of your own. People don't understand how painful it is. You feel like your own body is alien to you. One of your freinds hugs you to try to comfort you but it doesn't feel right, not in a body like this.

Your teeth fall out one night. It all happens at once. You worry you'll never have teeth again, but over the next few hours new ones grow in their place, metal ones, sharp ones like a shark's teeth meant to rip things apart. Your eyes are taken next, the new ones are shaped the same but they're pitch black, when you look closely you can see the camera inside, you can see so much better and you don't like it, colors that are alien to your mind, there aren't imperfections and that makes the entire world seem so weird. You can't ignore what you are, you can't even see yourself in the mirror without wanting to cry, but your eyes don't cry now.

Your appearance changes more and more. The skin in strpped from your limbs and replaced with metal. Bits of machinery can be seen sticking out of you. Your body hair falls out, until all that's left is long silky hair on your head, even your eyebrows are gone. And the skin you do have is a diffrent texture now, it doesn't feel alive. You don't feel like yourself, people treat you differently, you can't feel like you're you when you remember what you look like.

People go from ignoring the issue to treating you like an issue. Your family mourns you as if you were dead, it's like it would have been more convenient for everyone if you weren't around. People are way more likely to assume you're dangerous or suspicious, you don't feel safe around cops anymore, people find things you do inappropriate that weren't inappropriate when you were human. It's weirder with well meaning people, for the first time you've been complimented on "how good you are at feeling emotions", people will be polite to you but weirdly uncomfortable around you, or try so hard to be inclusive and show that they care about you that it makes you feel like a prize animal. You start hanging out more and more with freinds you have who are also cyborgs or robots, even aliens feel more like you than humans, and you make more and more cyborg freinds because they treat you like a person. But still most cyborgs chose to become what they are, so it's hard to relate to that aspect of it. You'll here other cyborgs talk about how great their bodies are, how much they prefer their new selves to being human, and it just makes you want to cry.

Not to mention how much you start to change as a person. Your eyes have a hud now, it's not even like you can see it but like it's another sense, you can get it to go away. You used to leave the city every few months to see the forest, but now nature seems weird and separate from you, and machines feel familiar and comforting. There are weapons inside you, they were the last thing to come in, you're not even allowed in a few places because of it, you can always feels these blades inside your body that want to come out and strike. You don't sleep, you miss dreaming, you don't eat either, and sexual pleasure is impossible in your new body. Food itself is weirdly gross to you. And when you see your girlfriend laying in bed you don't feel lust anymore, you don't want to play with her breasts or rub her penis, your instinct is to attack her, you see that soft vulnerable body as an easy target, like a predator seeing prey. You don't know what she sees in your to still stay. And even among them you're considered a low functioning or low humanity cyborg, whatever that means.

It's weird, it feels like your story should have ended. Like you should have become a monster for someone else to fight by now. But you didn't, you live in the same apartment, go to the same college, you're still you even after all that's changed what being you means. There's people who make you feel better, it's always awkward when people try to comfort you, but when people talk to you just about normal things, and when they're nice to you the way they'd be nice to anyone else, you're experiencing that more now that you only really interact with people who accept you, and now that people you know have adjusted to your new movements and mannerisms. You don't like most physical affection anymore, but being pet gently with two fingers, like a snake, that's weirdly nice. Daytime is overwhelming, but you enjoy the night more with how your eyes work, and feeling the cool night air, on your metal skinless limbs, and your hairless flesh, it makes thing seem strangely peaceful.

[drdemonprince]

If we are true abolitionists, and do not believe that the declarations of the state are somehow innately moral and right, then we have to confront the fact that 18 is not in fact a magic age at which a person suddenly becomes both deserving of freedom and no longer worthy of social protection. 

No age absolves us of our shared responsibility to look after a person’s life and honor their autonomy -- whether they’re 13, or 8, or 54, or 25. Control over one’s body, authority over one’s destiny, the ability to have a say in how one’s community is run and to actually be listened to some of the time, the ability to access  food and shelter and the freedom to choose and follow one’s own religious practices -- these are all things that ought to belong to all people of all ages. And these are things that unjust systems of power (including the state, the education system, or a controlling and isolating family) currently have the ability to take away from people of all ages. 

when we acknowledge this, conversations about how power can be leveraged against the young, and the old, and the disabled, and the otherwise vulnerable all get a lot more complex. conversations about consent, religious freedom, political representation, access to education, body autonomy, and the like all get way more complicated and dynamic too. There are just so many ways that we as a society trample all over others because they are too old or too young or too disabled or too poor and all kinds of ways that we coerce people into behaving the way society wants them to behave, often causing them great psychological suffering, and not only when they are a minor. 

But it’s non considered socially appropriate to even have these conversations, or to even openly acknowledge that 18 is not in fact some objective standard of when conscious competent personhood begins -- even if you bring this up in the context of needing to extend more and greater protections to people of all ages, folks will call you a groomer. It’s annoying to me how many left-leaning people I see, people who oppose the authority of the state in nearly every other conceivable respect, talking about age and freedom using the frameworks the state laid out as if they represent some objective moral and psychological reality. 

getting into the weeds on this topic is really really uncomfortable because people want to believe that children are both sacred and incompetent. they’re made into objects who both have no right to weigh in on how their bodies are treated, and are so precious that they need to be hidden away from the wider world and controlled by their families completely. and neither of those approaches actually make children safe -- that point of view endangers and dehumanizes them -- and it also does when we apply that kind of thinking to anybody else! (say, institutionalized people with intellectual disabilities, or persons with mental illness forced under a conservatorship). 

IDK man I used to find conversations about the abolition of the family and the need to rethink the use of children as political tools to be very unsettling and creepy. it’s a conversation that upends everything we were raised to believe will keep us safe. and i think nearly all of us have been preyed upon as kids, were exposed to violence and adult sexuality and inappropriate adult emotional needs far too young. 

and if you have that kind of traumatic upbringing in your history, a person questioning society’s entire framework and theory for keeping children ‘safe’ can feel absolutely terrifying. it destabilizes everything. 

but i’ve been thinking about it and knocking my skull against these ideas for years and at some point i could not help but face how much merit these ideas have. the oppression of children is of a piece with the oppression of disabled people, women, Black people, undocumented people, everybody that the state has previously held (or currently still holds) to not be a full person and to only deserve a coercive, controlling kind of protection. that point of view has never helped any marginalized group and it doesn’t help minors either and instead of questioning it we see people arguing for the age of majority to keep getting pushed back later, claiming that no one should be able to determine the course of their future life (or start hormones, or make big financial decisions) until they’re 25 years old or later. 

[xjulixred45x]

Ling Yao x Abused Reader

This is technically the last part of a series that my sister had asked me for at the beginning of my account but that I forgot over time and I apologize for that (I may write on my own about this fandoms in the future I have several ideas but now I'm going with this).

Genre: Headcanons

Reader: female

Warnings: Mentions of child marriage, implications of physical and mental abuse, bad parents, egregious and alarming age difference, Hurt-Comfort, Fluff, Happy Ending.

To be fair, these two already knew each other in Xing.

(reader) is the only daughter of the war secretary of one of the many clans that were under the emperor's orders, the Han Clan.

But despite this, her father was not very interested in teaching her his work or making her stand out in general, he wanted her to become a "proper society lady" so he forbade her to come into contact with activities that could distract her from that task.

Her mother teach her, giving exhaustive lessons in etiquette, posture, manners, preparing tea and giving it a try (even if you didn't like it, since according to her "that would please your future husband"), teaching cooking, throwing dishes bad things in the trash or your head, etc.

Your parents prohibited or banned any type of material or activity that incited rebellion or that seemed "inappropriate for a girl." Learn to fight? "Boys don't like girls to have muscles" Politics? "Keep quiet you look prettier" Any type of physical activity that was not related to what is traditionally feminine? "It's not attractive to be running around like a beast."

And sometimes it was just too boring.

So you went out to see REALLY interesting things, like fights!

That's how you initially met Ling.

You both knew each other superficially through your parents, but when you started showing up to watch the Yao Clan's training, he became curious.

From time to time Ling would go straight to talk to you, thinking that maybe you wanted to join the fighting practices, but you couldn't really risk getting caught, so you would just talk or watch the other clan members train.

You went to Ling when you needed a break from the "lady" life your parents imposed on you. It was very liberating.

Ling, even at a young age, understood that kind of pressure quite well, not only having to fit into the mold but also having to constantly compete with his brothers and sisters.

Thanks to this they made friends quite quickly. You run away a lot more often just to be able to play with him. He was the only boy your age you REALLY got along with after all.

Your parents, even if they were against it, couldn't do much once you stepped on Yao land or found out WHO you were playing with, so it was AMAZING for you to finally be a girl.

Ling was more about acting before thinking, while trying to keep a cooler head, which made for a fun dynamic to watch.

At some point you even gave in and Ling taught you some basic fighting moves! Nothing great but at least it was a lot more fun than your dance classes.

Ling would even secretly pass you books about politics or books that your parents had forbidden you to read (things that you shared very lightly) and you would finish them in DAYS (but not without first giving Ling a kiss on the cheek as compensation, for his delight).

I think it's a little obvious that Ling may or may not have had a case of a childhood/youth crush on (reader) while they were growing up, but after a certain...situation, he didn't have the chance to really realize it.

Because one day (reader) simply disappeared.

She stopped going to training, she didn't go to the places where one normally found her to play, she stopped showing up.

What Ling didn't know was that (Reader)'s family had come up with an idea to end this rebellious phase and benefit once and for all now that she was finally of age.

Arrange a marriage, with the son of the emperor of the Han Clan...he was an adult and you were just a teenager.

Ling only found out out of mere courtesy of the clan.

And for a couple of months it was a pain trying to contact you. Not because he didn't want to! But because your family (and new "husband") made it very difficult.

The clans themselves had a complicated relationship with each other, after the emperor get sick it was even worse. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't risk generating even more conflict.

Although he had a chance to see her before he had to travel to Amestris, at a "family meeting" where the Han clan was.

Where would it be (reader)

....part of him is grateful he went and part of him wishes he hadn't.

Because when Ling came and looked for (reader) and found her, it was like seeing a ghost.

(reader) had become somewhat taller in recent months, she was well dressed and with several capes of makeup on her face, with a vacant and empty look, quite distant from the happy and unrestrained version.

She also didn't talk much before Ling arrived. Or even when he arrived, but at least her expression changed, that made Ling feel a little better.

Luckily her husband was busy enough getting into discussions about the country's military with his other brothers that he didn't notice Ling quite close to his "wife."

Despite everything, Ling was happy to see her being just as friendly, but quite tired, they took the opportunity to catch up.

(Reader)'s husband...could be worse. According to her. It wasn't easy, it's complicated, he got angry very easily and his friends are... shameless. but (reader) had been able to survive the situation well thanks to certain charms.

Even if (reader) is trying VERY hard to maintain control, Ling can see the anguish in all of this. They comfort each other in the situation.

The time before Ling goes to seek immortality, he spends it making small secret visits to the Han house or rather, visiting (Reader).

Try to make them have good memories before you don't see each other for a while :')

Imagine Ling drops the "I used to have a GIANT crush on you when we were kids" bomb☠️

During much of her trip in Amestris Ling thinks about (reader), sometimes she even buys things that she thinks she might like there (accessories, a book, things like that).

I can even see Greed making fun of him for that when it takes over his body☠️

When he eventually returns to Xing, he is mentally preparing to see (female reader). By coming up with a plan, you may not be able to help (reader) directly, but you can definitely do it externally.

(Reader) is DEFINITELY very surprised when Ling arrives not only completely changed, without Wu, and with his sister from the Chang Clan, but also comes with IMMORTALITY ITSELF...he achieved it..

All the commotion of Ling's arrival and her triumph over her other brothers means that (reader)'s husband does not notice when she sneaks away, wanting to have a talk with Ling.

They don't manage to say much to each other, precisely because of the rush and urgency of discussing Ling's appointment, but at least she manages to give him a big welcoming hug, telling him that she misses him and that she's glad he's okay.

Ling freezes for a solid second before returning the hug tightly and pulling away. Temporarily.

(female reader) is also present when he is declared the new emperor some time later.

Knowing Ling, he, May and Lan Fan will probably look for incriminating evidence of adultery on the part of (reader)'s husband so she can divorce him without problems. They leave the evidence "anonymously" but (reader) can recognize Ling/Lan Fan's writing patterns very well.

Ling and (Reader) keep seeing each other at family events, which is hilariously awkward for almost everyone but them, since no one can REALLY say anything to Ling now that he's the emperor, not even (Reader)'s husband, who He only stands on the sidelines while his wife and half-brother catch up on the adventure he had in Amestris.

When (Reader) decides to divorce of her own free will, guess who makes it official? ;)

If we look at their current relationship, it's better than either of them would expect!

Ling was pretty depressed after Amestris, Wu and Greed, but at least (Reader) never fails to make him smile or laugh, which helps his mental health a lot.

You can even bring out your old habits, like embarrassing/angrying (reader) a little and see her expressions, it doesn't matter if she gets her butt kicked. It was worth it!

(reader) must be the most sheltered woman in all of Xing, and no wonder, although at least she always has someone to talk to ☠️

When (reader) goes outside with Ling they have to have limited physical contact for etiquette issues, but Ling always holds her hand or hooks her arm around hers to keep her close :3

Both at some point can talk more openly about their traumas and cope with them with each other's help lots of cuddles during bedtime on those types of days.

At this point they would be very lucky if (Reader)'s parents are even still in Xing after what they did to their daughter and Ling becoming emperor 😅

This man is cuddly as fuck! Sure, you have to reserve the PDA in front of the other clans for appearance and etiquette issues, but once you're alone or with privacy? Nothing stops him. Especially with hugs.

I think Ling would be very interested in his partner learning basic defense, especially with Lan Fan being highly trustworthy. Even if (reader) is contrastingly protected, she knows that she is never too much.

In short, very sweet love that rots your teeth❤️

Shares, reblogs and comments are very welcome!

[jiangwanyinscatmom]

Would it have been inappropriate for a unattached male and female of the gentry to exchange letters? Specifically in MDZS.

Mmmm, well, it's not exactly easy to say since the general society isn't based on any heavy historical context. (As when it comes to betrothal it was verbally decided for Jiang Yanli and Jin Zixuan by their mothers to show they were socially close as friends and was predetermined as s match). And Wei Changze married Cangse Sanren with little issue, as did Lan Wangji with Wei Wuxian. Jiang Cheng just sucks and matchmakers have abandoned him. It simply seems more lax on "traditional" marriage conduct and more grounded in modern day practice of dating and marriage expectations.

For those that were "eligible" in polite society and not necessarily tied by political promises, that's where matchmakers came in. Parents or the family elders would go through several candidates for daughters and sons based on zodiac compatibility, class standing, family financial situation, public reputation family compatibility etc and based on this would essentially have a pool of choices to try to match respective partners.

If the man took interest in a woman of course and with the blessing of his family to go forward he was to consult a matchmaker and expected to follow 三书六礼 (sān shū liù lǐ, three letters, six etiquettes) the courtship steps essentially.

I imagine they could send letters between each other as acquaintances of course before this, interest has to start somewhere and continue, but very light breezy conversational, I imagine, is what would be exchanged. If I'm trying to keep this to believable by what we have seen in novel. Just a matter of how traditionally set in ways you would want a family considered urbanized and well off to be. Gift giving though is a big thing for someone you are romantically attached to (to women especially, it's essentially saying I will take care of you and love to). MDZS seems to take a firm stance of what's expected out of the modern day romance practice scene with the veneer of period aesthetics MXTX particularly enjoyed.

Here at least for social exploration, anachronistic fun is open to do as one is want it seems to me!

[kakiastro]

Pluto Aquarius + the Power of your Stan’s

I usually follow pop culture because I think they are amazing examples to see what’s going on in our society.

Pluto has been Aquarius for a week now and you can feel the energetic shifts already. There’s already been some crazy ish going on and I think we’re seeing this transit in action already lol

Just a quick summary of the archetypes of this transit

-Aquarius is the sign of the people, groups, fandoms, social media, tech/Ai, thoughts and innovation.

-Pluto is the sign of transformation, rebirth, death, the underworld.

So Aquarius is the opposing side of Leo.

Leo is the performer and artist, the stage

Aquarius is the audience and consumers

You can’t have one without the other, they’re polarities

There’s been 2 recent big incidents that’s let me to this prediction.

1. Taylor Swift (Leo aka the artist) was just recently the target of a heinous AI video(Aquarius) where it showed her nude and doing inappropriate things(Pluto) on X(Aquarius). The Swifties(Taylor fan base) banded together (Aquarius) to get the account shut down I believe. Now there’s been a huge public outrage that’s even reached politics on what we should do about true dangers (Pluto) of AI(Aquarius)

Taylor has her NN in Aquarius 3h. So Pluto is transiting the house of the media, journalism, community. NN is destiny. No, I’m not saying this was destined to happen to her but due to this incident, will she be the example of the dangers of what lies ahead and what we can do to not let it happen again. Not just to her but to any of us, if ppl can make fake videos of you, that can be harmful and dangerous. NN leads the way and aqua is progressive. It wouldn’t surprise me if she became a spokesperson for the safety of AI. 3h rules over speakers. She’s also a Venus Aquarius, it makes sense now why Pluto is obsessed with her love life lol

2. Now this incident happened on Friday during the Leo Full Moon. So this means Leo moon was opposing Pluto Aqua. Megan thee Stallion released her new single “Hiss” which is essentially a diss record to the ppl who’s been trash talking her these last few years. Now Megan is an Aquarius Sun/Mercury 10h with a Leo moon 4h. So this single is poignant to her career, it’s already generating lots of buzz in the public(Aquarius) now here’s where it gets crazy. There’s a line in Megan song where’s she referenced Megan’s Law. Now if you don’t know what this is, it’s where you can look up sx offenders and horrible ppl like that. Now why is this important? Well, Nicki Minaj saw this as a slight about her husband and has went live and posted countless of threads(Aquarius) pretty much beefing with Megan, which included Megan deceased mother being brought up. Now Nicki is an Aquarius rising so Pluto is going through her 1h. Her as a person is going through changes, she has lots sag energy as well

Now there’s a Barbs vs Hotties thing going on (Aquarius). Now there’s always been rap beefs but I don’t know if it’s just me but this feels different, it’s personal in a deep malicious way if that makes sense. I feel it’s going come down to how these 2 fandoms responds to each other. I’m going to be real, it can get ugly between the fandoms

This leads to my predictions

-the people that support you will bè your army so to speak.

-the artist(Leo) will always be here but it depends on the connection the have with their Stan’s because they’re the ones who’s going to lift the artist up and defend them. We are in the era of the “people” that’s not just with famous people, it’s with you as well. Who are your ppl? I don’t care if it’s only 3 ppl on your team, having that support will be beneficial for you!

-I feel we are about to see a lot of Stan culture rise like never before. So yea, the celebrity culture (Leo)may be dying but the fan culture will be gnarly . We’re going from one extreme to the other yall lol. Celebrities won’t have to do really anything because there Stan’s will keep them relevant. So really celeb culture is “dying” but more like transforming into something else. I feel like the celebs who will be more in-tuned with ppl will be the most famous ones.

Let me know what y’all think? Do you think Stan culture will rise in the next 20ish years?