#relaltionships

[tiredflowercrown]

fucked around and made a "full" family tree for my Black family (my longest list of ocs mainly hp based)

[lindszeppelin]

https://youtu.be/Vf7bpzB8DzQ?si=TRE9LTwwLZWiVLTi

So this isn’t Austin related but he is talking about Ariana Grande and Ethan Slater. He speaks on how their “sources” are always saying how they are in love . Not sure if you’re aware on what happened with them and how they became to be but Ethan was married and basically cheated on and left his wife/baby mama/high school sweetheart for Ariana.

Back to the sources comment. That youtuber made a statement in the video saying how it’s weird for celebs to send “sources” to tell people that they are so in love and a real deal and such, and how if it were true then they wouldn’t need to tell anyone it will show. Made me think of all these “sources” who be telling us how in love Kaia and Austin are.

I love Sloan, he makes create content. He did one recently on Kris Jenner setting Kylie up in PR relaltionships. Watch that one, it's really informative!

But he's right. If these couples are truly in love, they don't need their "sources" to say so in the press. It will just be obvious. Otherwise, they're overcompensating and trying to control a narrative. Kaia and her team always does the "they are so in love" when that is bull fucking shit, we can clearly see they are not. It should be obvious and not spoon fed to us. That's the first sign this shit is not true.

[thelostgirl21]

Tips for those of you that wish to enjoy Geraskier as a romantic couple, without erasing Jaskier's greyromantic (more specifically sapioromantic) identity.

Alright, here's the deal...

I've recently gone on a very long rant re: how queer baiting has conditioned most of us, in the queer community, to read any emotionally intimate friendship between two same-gender characters as romance.

Because:

A) The lack of officially acknowledged same-gender relationships on screen - in major TV shows and series that aren't specifically about LGBTQ+ themes - has put us in a situation where, if he want to enjoy any same-gender romance at all, we are forced to interpret close "officially platonic" (*cough*StormPilot*cough*) pairings as romantic couples.

B) The TV and movie industries have been purposefully encouraging such perceptions, and inserting as many "romantic cues" as they can into such same-gender "friendships", to keep their LGBTQ+ audience involved in those stories without alienating their more conservative audiences by having to depict some actual queer romances.

So, not only are non-queer people under the impression that it's perfectly typical, for same-gender friends, to constantly become so emotionally and physically close and intimate with each other that they behave as if they are almost dating while also being 100% straight.

But, they don't realize that there is barely any equivalent of straight men/women characters on screen developing such emotionally and physically intimate friendships without them inevitably "getting together" romantically at some point.

Unless one of them is already romantically taken, that is (and even there, a dreaded "love triangle" may occur and they'll still wind up together anyway!).

But, if the boy and the girl are both straight and available, and they behave as you would expect a married couple at some point, obviously they are romantically/sexually into each other! What else?!

If it's two same-gender characters, however?!

Well, it's obviously a friendship all the way (while nevertheless often heavily dousing that friendships with romantic subtext).

And sadly, the way queer baiting has been heavily messing with our perceptions of platonic vs romantic relationships is putting the aromantic community at a huge disadvantage.

What huge disadvantage, I hear you ask?

I mean, after all, if all those emotionally close and intimate relaltionships remain platonic in canon, shouldn't people on the aromantic spectrum be happy about it, and feel represented? Don't they have tons of "queerplatonic ships" to choose from, and enjoy as such?

Sadly, no.

The answer is firm and resounding NO.

Wanna know why?

Because, most of the time, whenever a relationship might read as "potentially queerplatonic", it is virtually never acknowledged as such.

It is virtually never about them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with both, or one, of those characters being on the aromantic spectrum.

When we talk about classic models of "bromances", those are virtually always occurring between two men that are assumed to be otherwise straight (or, at least, one of them is, ex: Jace Herondale & Alec Lightwood from "Shadowhunters"), or two women that are assumed to be otherwise straight (or, at least, one of them is).

When "bromances" occur between a man and a woman (I'm thinking Steve and Robin, from "Stranger Things"), it is usually because one of them is gay.

The implication and the message being sent to us with all those close friendships is thus a very clear:

"You can only achieve such emotionally close (queer)platonic friendships, and/or companionships, because you are not sexually compatible.

Otherwise, you would already be forming a romantic couple, and/or secretly longing to be in one.

If Robin wasn't a lesbian, she and Steve would obviously be dating."

And the reason why Steve and Nancy still love each other that deeply - despite no longer being a couple - is because they still have romantic feelings for each other despite Nancy also having romantic feelings for Jonathan and having chosen him as a romantic partner...

So, that has nothing to do with queerplatonic relationships, either, at all!

Also, can someone please sit these three kids down and have a good discussion regarding polyamorous relationships with them? Thank you!

So, how could anyone on the aromantic spectrum identify with those friendships, and/or feel represented by them, when they are always treated as being either "lesser than" a romance, or "a consolation price" when romance isn't an option?

That's not even bad representation, it's a complete lack of representation!

Yet aromantic love (be it defined as alterous, platonic, etc.) can be as beautiful, intense, and sincere as a romance, and there's a deep, almost spiritual connection there.

It is not "lesser than", but simply different.

The kind of emotional intimacy you share, and the way you connect together with the person you "platonically/alterously fell in love with" feels different.

The relationship dynamic you may achieve together, and the kind of commitment you may choose to make with those friends (that may even become life partners), as well as your needs and expectations, tend to be different than what would be expected of a romantic partnerships, although there can be many overlaps.

Aromantic forms of platonic/alterous love aren't a consolation price when romance isn't an option!

They deserve to be seen and treated as a first choice.

Those relationships provide a unique and profoundly valuable way of emotionally and sometimes even physically (because physical attraction can be sensual rather than sexual, and there are best friends that are comfortable enough to be sexually intimate together without any desire to form a romantic couple, too, by the way) connecting and being intimate with another person.

And what currently makes Geraskier unique in canon, is that they've established that Jaskier, at the very least, would have been 100% compatible with Geralt romantically and sexually (given he's a panromantic pansexual).

What makes the way Jaskier has been canonically falling in love with Geralt different from the usual BrOTPs the queer community are usually offered, however, is the fact that Jaskier's desires for Geralt are not romantic, but platonic in the way aromantic people are known to experience love.

Jaskier having no romantic crush for Geralt would thus not prevent him, at all, from wanting to share a loving relationship, and even perhaps queerplatonic partnership with him.

He could still love him in an amorous way. He could still yearn for sharing some sensual (or even sexual) intimacy with him.

Between having what people typically consider "purely platonic" and "purely romantic" feelings, there is a wonderful universe of affections and attractions for Jaskier and Geralt to explore together!

And aromantic people can experience the same level of heartbreak and loss upon losing their "best friend in the whole wide world" than they would a romantic partner.

I mean, when you listen to Jaskier sing:

Did you ever even care With your swords and your stupid hair?

in "Burn Butcher Burn", I've always felt like it was a callback to the very first things that Jaskier physically noticed about Geralt, and what initally sparked his (platonic? alterous? sensual? sexual? aesthetic? all of the above? other?) attraction for him!

If we compare the way Geralt and Jaskier behave together on screen with queerplatonic partners in real life, there is no proof of anything romantic going on.

I can't stress this enough.

HOWEVER, sadly, queerplatonic partnerships aren't really ever explored and acknowledged as such on screen. So, most people are very unfamiliar with them.

Instead, the TV and movie industry typically makes same-gender characters behave in an amorous manner to suggest romance and bait their queer audience.

AND it took them 4 FREAKING YEAR (we're actually a bit closer to 5 now) to confirm that Jaskier fell in love with Geralt platonically, rather than romantically, while canonically establishing Radovid as being Jaskier's very first sapioromantic crush.

This is where real life collides with fiction in a deeply heartbreaking way, to me...

Because during those 4 years, the queer community has been reading Geraskier as a romantic couple the way they've been taught and conditioned to identify queer romance on screen.

Most of them likely haven't even considered the possibility that Jaskier could have been on the aromantic spectrum, and thus "squishing" (hard) on Geralt rather than "crushing" (romantically) on him.

I don't believe that any of those fans would have had any desire to ignore and/or reject aromantic love and/queerplatonic relationships representation, if they'd known earlier on that Jaskier simply wasn't someone that experiences romantic desires (unless certain very specific conditions are met).

And 2 complete seasons is a very long time for romantic Geraskier fans to get profoundly attached to their ship, and feel somewhat gaslighted by the show's producers and writers when suddenly they're told "Oh no, they were 'just friends' all along! Nothing romantic to see here!"

(Of course, with the establishment of Jaskier as a greyromantic, they were never 'just friends' in the typical sense, but I've feeling that many fans have missed how significant Jaskier experiencing his very first crush was to the narrative.)

So, I believe that the knee-jerk response of pure disbelief that Geraskier could have been representing anything other than a romance can be expected and understood within that context.

HOWEVER, the unfortunate consequence is how that anger and disbelief has lead some fans to claiming that Geraskier can only be read as romantic.

Using some arguments such as: only someone romantically in love with Geralt could ever have experienced the level of heartbreak that Jaskier did, and written a song such as "Burn Butcher Burn", following their breakup.

I've seen some arguing that, if Jaskier's feelings had been "platonic", he wouldn't have been so hurt by their "break-up".

What those that have been shipping Geraskier romantically for over 4 years are truly expressing, I believe, is:

"Once again, I feel like I've been emotionally used and baited by the TV industry that keep on denying any romantic intent whenever they heavily layer a same-gender friendships with romantic subtext; and I can't agree with what they've done, or accept that Geraskier should be read as platonic!"

And I do hear you, I get it, I see how wrong it is that you have been made to feel that way, and I do not believe that you should be forced to embrace Geraskier as being aromantic / queerplatonic, or made to feel guilty for wishing to continue to ship Geraskier romantically.

But what I want to help you realize, is that by using such arguments, what your fellow queer siblings, on the aromantic spectrum, are hearing is:

"The way you love not only does not exist, but even if it did it can't be as strong, nor as valuable, as romantic love."

And that's not okay. The anger and hurt you feel is okay and 100% justified, but insisting that aromantics are not capable of such love, by saying that Jaskier's behavior with Geralt has always been obviously romantic, is not okay!

If you've been using those arguments before, first take the time to acknowledge how you feel, realize that you are not to blame for those feelings, remember you're still an amazing person, and take a fucking deep breath, alright?

Because you're 100% entitled to blame the people that have kept messing with your head and your perceptions through their queerbaiting practices for those mistakes you just made.

If we go purely by classic TV show queerbaiting standards, that relationship did seemingly present itself as romantic. You weren't wrong for seeing romance there.

But queerbaiting isn't real life.

Remember this: queerbaiting is not at all representative of how relationships work in reality.

In reality, you have romantic same-gender relationships that read as romantic and that are romantic.

In reality, you also have queerplatonic relationships that people often mistake as romantic, but are nevertheless queerplatonic.

In reality, queerplatonic relationships do happen between same-gender partners, but also between sexually compatible men and women, too.

In a strongly stereotyped TV and movie world, where relationships are oversimplified and watered down to follow rigid rules and expectations, canon Geraskier is a relationship that feels refreshingly real.

This is the kind of friendship I have with some of my own best friends. I know at least 5 friends (and maybe more, but they're the first 5 faces that popped to mind), for whom I've got 100% platonic feelings for, that I'd feel 100% comfortable rubbing chamomile onto their lovely bottom, alright?

On TV? Thanks to a legacy of queerbaiting, such a scene feels gay as hell!

In real life? Look, if you've pulled a muscle in your buttocks, and a massage will do you good? Pants down, my friend! Pass me that chamomile oil, I'm here for you buddy!

You're a heterosexual man and I'm a pansexual woman? I don't see how that changes anything to the task at hand! Or how that would be supposed to make me suddenly develop romantic feelings for you I've never had! You don't suddenly fall romantically in love with a best friend just because you've *gasped* "touched the butt", for frak's sake!

Just... give me a moment to recover from that ludicrous idea...

So, you want that butt massage or not, dude?

The physical contact might be affectionate, sensual, and feel intimate... but friendships are emotionally and quite often physically (though a bit more rarely sexually) intimate, too.

And demisexuals, like myself, might actually tend to favor and enjoy sensual intimacy (tender caresses, kisses, snuggles, etc.) more than they enjoy sexual intimacy, even with their romantic partners.

So, I can't blame any of you for how you might have instinctively responded to the announcement of Geraskier being canonically platonic.

But, now that it's done, and you've hopefully let that frustration out, I am inviting you to shake off all that queerbaiting conditioning, reclaim power over your own mind, and reflect on how love happens in real life, outside of those distorted TV standards.

I am inviting you to reflect on how those arguments might accidentally be invalidating the love that is experienced by another marginalized queer community.

And hopefully, bringing some measure of comfort to the aromantic community, as well, by letting them know that the vast majority of Geraskier fans that did have that knee-jerk reaction of saying "Geraskier is obviously romantic because there's no way Jaskier would have responded like this, or loved him so much, if there was no romance!" likely have been reacting that way because the TV and movie industries have been constantly "teasing them" with romance, while laughing in their faces and telling them that they are crazy for reading romance into those dynamics (hence why I'm calling it downright gaslighting)!

As aromantics, you did not deserve having your own sexual identity invalidated.

After all, I think this is literally the first time that aromantics have been offered some actual representation on a show that does not specifically revolve around queer characters or queerness, and a chance to openly explore a (queer)platonic ship where one of the two characters is an acknowledged greyromantic.

The last thing you need, is to have people come and mock Jaskier and Geralt's relationship, by saying that it can't be anything other than romance.

But, knowing where that hostile response towards the idea that Geraskier might be platonic comes from, might help you hopefully understand that the hostility wasn't meant for you, and that I'm sure the vast majority of the fans of that pairing would have been more careful, with the way they've been expressing their own hurt, if they'd realized the kind of message it sent.

Because if there are people that should understand how having their own sexuality being erased in fandom hurts - ex: whenever someone decides that they are going to start writing a canonically bisexual or pansexual characters as either straight or gay, depending on the gender of the character they are pairing them with - it should be bisexuals and pansexuals.

So, if you are unfamiliar with sapioromantism, here's what to know:

Sapioromantics are greyromantics that experience romantic attraction towards a person in response to the way they perceive that person's intellect.

This is what awakens their desire to form a romantic bond with another person and, under the right circumstances (because I'm guessing they might also need to find the other person aesthetically attractive, for example), allows them to fall romantically in love.

Otherwise, they can still fall in love with people, but platonically/alterously.

The show officially decided, this season, that Jaskier was to experience his very first crush with Radovid, feel confused about his feelings, sense that there's something different about the way he's attracted towards him, etc.

BUT there's no obligation for you to follow the show canon when it comes to Geraskier.

There's no obligation, at all, to give up on Geraskier as a romantic ship or pairing.

The fact is that Geralt is a deeply intelligent and insightful man, too. So, it's not unrealistic that a sapioromantic could have been attracted to that side of him, and fallen in love with Geralt romantically as well.

Yennefer is another smart, brilliant woman that can absolutely be romantically shipped with a sapioromantic.

There are many, many different types of intelligence, and what Radovid appears to specifically be displaying is more specifically high levels of emotional/relational intelligence, true.

But that's how the show decided to portray the specifics of Jaskier's sapioromantism.

And you won't be erasing a character's sexual identity if you decide to have your own version of Jaskier romantically connecting with other forms of intelligence.

People mention that Geralt, in the books, uses way more words than on the show, and would apparently rather discuss philosophy with Jaskier, at times, than hunt monsters.

You won't be disrespecting or erasing the aromantic community if you make Jaskier become romantically attracted to other models of human intellect.

You really don't have to accept Geraskier as a platonic ship after having grown attached to them as romantic partners for over 4 years! I don't believe it would ever be fair to ask that of you or even remotely necessary!

And, as far as I'm concerned, I'd never dare tell you that you "misread" Geraskier as romantic. I think Joey Batey might have been exploring the idea of Jaskier being an aromantic or greyromantic seeking a queerplatonic relationship with Geralt since seasons one, yes...

However, as he said in interviews, he had never received any clear answer regarding his portrayal of Jaskier's queerness before Season 3.

So, you couldn't really have "misread" something they hadn't fully made up their minds about now, could you?

Queerplatonic relationships do often read as romantic, too, as they tend to share many similarities.

What hurts, is when Jaskier's behavior and the strength of his love for Geralt is being used as proof that his emotions can't be platonic, and/or ignore that Jaskier is being portrayed as a greyromantic in Season 3.

Aromantic representation matters.

I'm therefore hoping that we can find the right balance between allowing everyone to ship their favorite character(s) with who they want romantically if they need to; while at the same time avoiding to erase Jaskier's sapioromantism, and/or arguing that platonic/alterous attractions can't be as important nor as strong as romantic attractions.

I think with a little empathy, the queer community can find the right point of balance between everyone's needs, and be given the opportunity to ship and enjoy Geraskier (queer)platonically and romantically, without invalidating Jaskier's sexuality in the process either way.

I know this post is similar to that other one I'd made, but I've heard few a-spec people saying that they'd had to stop following certain fans, because of the way those fans were were aggressively arguing that it was impossible for Jaskier to have been loving Geralt platonically in Season 1 and Season 2.

And so, I felt it needed to be said again, with this time giving a bit more importance to the aromantic side of that issue, and offering fans that ship Geraskier as a romantic pairing some information on what sapioromantism is, and how you can make Jaskier's greyromantic identity work as part of your own romances and headcanons.

You could decide to have Jaskier experience romantic feelings for the very first time with Geralt (instead of Radovid), and be adorably awkward about it! The possibilities are pretty much endless!

I just hope you can realize that what's happening on the show is not yet again another case of "Stormpilot" or "Stucky", or any other same-gender straight guys acting queer together!

Geraskier is canonically queer. Possibly queerplatonic, but most definitely queer, because Jaskier is a pan greyromantic that fell in love with Geralt in a platonic/alterous way, and might have experienced sensual and sexual desires for him.

It's a queer ship, regardless of whether you ship them platonically or romantically.

Personally, I think I'm likely to enjoy

But that is entirely up to you.

Just please be mindful that, when you start mocking the idea of Jaskier and Geralt having platonic feelings for each other, you are ridiculing a canonically queer ship, as well as the type of love experienced by a canonically queer greyromantic character, though.

This is what I have a problem with.

And no, saying "Well, I can headcanon that Jaskier isn't a greyromantic because he hadn't come out as greyromantic in Season 1 and Season 2, so I'll continue to write him as being able to fall romantically in love with anyone!" is not okay.

Back in 2012, when Mass Effect 3 came out, Kaidan Alenko was revealed to be a canonically bisexual character, available to be romanced by both fem!Shep and m!Shep.

However, since some women were uncomfortable with Kaidan's bisexuality, they decided to continue writing him as straight in fanfiction arguing that, because he could only be romanced by fem!Shep in ME1 (and everyone had thus assumed he was straight since 2008) they were allowed to continue to write him as straight, and ignore the character having been established as bisexual in the 3rd game.

Yet, the fact that Kaidan is bisexual, rather than straight, does not create any obstacle for him to be in a romance with fem! Shep!

There is no rational reason to headcanon him, or continue writing him, as a straight character moving forward once he's come out as bisexual!

"Well, my Kaidan Alenko is straight!"

Congratulations! You are expressing a biphobic view of the character!

Understandingly, the bisexual and pansexual communities were angry about it, and called them out on it.

So, let's not put the aromantic community through the same thing, shall we?

Because there is absolutely no reason to ignore Jaskier being on the aromantic spectrum while romantically pairing him with Geralt, Yennefer, or even both!

If you purely go by the books or the games, it's another story. They have their own canon.

But if you are writing / using the TV show character, Jaskier being a sapioromantic has been made canon, and is not creating any obstacle for him to experience romantic love for other characters than Radovid.

Other characters are plenty intelligent enough to realistically spark a sapioromantic connection with him, should you wish to!

Have Jaskier be intrigued/enamored with some of their intellectual features, and you'll be doing just fine.

If you're unsure how to do that, simply ask.

Ex: once that romantic spark has been ignited, you don't need to have the character continue to constantly obsess about the other character's intellect... I'm demisexual, and I don't keep obsessing about how trustworthy I find my sexual partner to be, despite the fact that my own sexual desires are usually "sparked" by a deep sense of trust/emotional safety with the other person.

There is also the notion that you can occasionally find yourself with an exception that feels different without the character themselves knowing why. Ex: a friend that identified as a lesbian (romantically and sexually) found herself desiring a man for the first time and, to this day, she still has no clue what was special about THAT man, but she decided to go with her instincts rather than "Oh no! It doesn't fit my label or established orientation, and therefore I shall skip a chance at romantic love and sex with this wonderful man!"

You want to introduce a bit of flexibility to Jaskier's sapioromantic instincts? You can do it respectfully, while still finding a way to point out, in your writing, that him having a crush on Geralt, Yennefer, or [insert name of the character here] is still an uncommon occurance.

You can enjoy what you love, without erasing a canonically queer character's identity to suit your own romantic narrative, is basically what I'm saying.

And you can enjoy your own romantic ship, especially, without mocking or belittling a canonically queer aromantic ship (Geraskier).

The rest is 100% up to you!

Our sweet aromantic sisters, brothers, and non-binary siblings deserve some love and visibility, too. And to enjoy things that have been made canonically theirs without becoming the unfortunate casualties of other people's disappointment.

If you hadn't realised canon Geraskier was a queer ship, and/or understood/noticed that Jaskier was being portrayed as a greyromantic that experiences romantic attraction for the first time in Season 3, it's okay.

Once again, I'm not taking the time to explain all this to blame those that jumped on the "b-but... Jaskier so obviously has romantic feelings for Geralt!" conclusion.

Had they been a sexually straight man and woman on a TV show, chances are they'd be "romantic endgame" or at least go through a "romantic phase" (a practice that is deeply wrong and damaging, too, IMHO, and does not allow to properly represent what platonic / alterous love is, and/or offer queerplatonic relationships any actual visibility), yes.

And, like every instance of queerbaiting, it ended up with the close emotional and physical intimacy between them not leading to any romantic conclusion.

But it did lead to a very much queer conclusion, and Jaskier having been portrayed as a character that fell in love with Geralt aromantically, thus being highly representative of a queer community.

This is that "but" that I sincerely hope you now understand, and will be treating with the same care and respect that you want others to show the representation of your own sexuality.

If you are a fellow panromantic/pansexual, or even bisexual, omnisexual, polysexual, etc. Yes, the representation also affects you / is close to you.

But Jaskier has been canonically established as more than pan. He's also a-spec on the romantic side, and it's actually the first label that Batey used to describe his romance with Radovid.

That his romantic desires be triggered specifically by the way he connects with a person's intellect, rather than their gender, matters to the community it represents.

Now that it has been brought to your attention, please do not lose sight of that over your own joy of him being queer, and romantically/sexually compatible with men. It's all I'm humbly asking of you.

[oreganosbaby]

roman’s negative oedipus complelx plays an interesting role in highlighting the way being “not a real person” works within the show. he identifies with the sexual role of the mother in relation to the father. the identification is primal and comes from the imposition of the nuclear family, baby’s first social structure. roman is forcibly made aware of this, his femininity, as “abnormal” in childhood and so, roman becomes aware that he himself is “not a real person" because he relates to his own body, as well as others, in the way someone who is “not a real person” might. i think this episode reminds us of that because without logan, the social order becomes self-regulated but, on their subjective interpretations and according to the traces of the hierarchy he once controlled. now, we have marcia and kendall (and frank?) controlling it.

this episode, we see roman empathise with kerry. she gets “taken out back” and marcia says that she’s gonna take the “subway to her little apartment.” it’s a classist comment, of course but, she’s also saying that kerry is vermin. marcia is fumigating logan’s life, controlling the narrative by exterminating kerry, making her “not a real person.” that there is nothing left by logan to legitimize their relationship makes her all the less “real,” so “not real” that she may as well be dead. after all, what’s more “not real” than real emotion, that lack of self control that’s so animal. kerry, to marcia, was nothing more than a body for logan to fuck. that’s always what not being a real person was, being just a body.

earlier, willa says to marcia “look at us,” implying that she and marcia are the same. marcia was disgusted by this notion because willa is a sex worker, vermin, “not a real person.” again, it’s this idea about being “just a body.” willa’s worth to the market, in both her career as an actor and as a sex worker, is her body— she’s defined by it. it’s a very old fashioned way of thinking about the performing arts but, it rings true with the way the roys treat those in it. marcia being logan’s wife implies a sexual relaltionship and therefore, also makes her defined as a body within this context. the difference is that it’s legitimised through language. “wife” is a title that separates her from a courtesan but now that the courtesan bares the title “wife,” is this title now degraded or is willa somehow illegitimate as one?

shiv, roman’s sexual inverse, tends to see herself as a “real person” and not “dirty” like roman; however, in logan’s death, she is being very obviously excluded because she’s a woman and with her being a cis woman, it also shows up in this possibility of her being pregnant, the ultimate in domination. her body is now colonised. logan had seen her as something of a hyperreal person, a mere signifier for purity without any substance, without a body but, kendall doesn’t see her that way. that’s not the relationship they have so, she’s unable to feel like a “real person” because she is being explicitly treated like “not a real person” by everyone without being able to go somewhere where she can feel like one, at least not in that moment.

roman doesn’t have this need to feel like a “real person” the way shiv does. i’m not sure if he knows what that would feel like, anyway. instead, roman seems to feel like some “not real people” will get treated better than others. roman obviously wants to be one of those but he’s also constantly expected to grow into being a “real person,” a role he doesn’t aspire to nor does he know what that would even feel like. for roman to intuitively reject the “real person” role that’s so privileged compliciates the value ascribed to these roles by logan. in fact, this was already complicated by logan himself through dignifying titles like “wife,” seeing shiv as hyperreal and expecting roman to grow into being a “real person” despite already deciding he’s “not a real person.” being “not a real person” isn’t inherently a bad thing and it isn’t even something that will put you in the worst position but, it’s a role marked by bodily objectification and vulnerability because this role is inevitable in capitalism. roman can’t see anything better for himself because this system, his father’s, can’t have anything else for what he would understand as people like him.

[loveslikemoon]

God, I hate this family, I hate the people I live with. I don't even have it in me to tolerate the disrespect and the neglect anymore. The fucking "I am always right, I'm always better and I'm always the one who's to win an argument" banter. Because even if they don't touch you, the anger, the silent treatments, the neglect, the projections are still abuse. Psychological AND emotional abuse. No wonder one wouldn't have in them the strength to get education, fill their stomach with good food, have healthy social interactions, the fucking ability to think that a good family can come out of you!

When you grow up, and you still try to mend relaltionships that previously only taught you how much space you took, how much of an inconvenience you were? I think it is pretty useless, stupid and a dumbfuck attempt to be good and to go out of your for them.

To hurt for them, to consider them when they are perfectly fine hurting you and discarding you, I think you should go and live on your own and go about your own life. Because what have you even done to let that guilt drown you?

They are not going to understand in any, any way you speak, make them understand, make them see it with their own eyes. It is almost their fate and I hope you don't think that it's yours too.

May we find better people than the ones we now recognize.

[harbans-khajuria-stuff]

KARVA CHAUTH : A FESTIVAL WITH A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO CONSOLIDATE RELALTIONSHIP

HAPPY KARVA CHAUTH : A FESTIVAL TO CONSOLIDATE RELATIONSHIP BETEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE  Bhagwad Gita teaches us to see others as ourselves. In love when we see others as ourselves we will not mistreat them. To have the easiest of love relationships put the other person first and see how beautiful your life becomes. Lord Krishna,  tells us: I am the same to all beings, and  my love is everthe same;…

[archer3-13]

This nonsense about Alear and the two lizard has been going for almost 2 month and I know it will outlive us like Byleth and Rhea so why not simply asking IS directly what is Alear's relaltionship with the lizard since it matters so much ? After all Oda did debunk the Yamato thing on twitter cause Twitter never heard of Joan of Arc nor Mulan

i disagree on that first bit, these things come and go, but im curious about that second bit with oda and yamato and twitter and all that cause i regularly follow one piece but keep far away from the fandom and twitter so i wouldn't have caughten wind of whats going on with that. mind telling me anon?

[schuylerpeck]

pre-order To Hold Your Moss-Covered Heart here!

[nancyy-marie]

This resonates with my heart 💛

@rainbowsalt

[theanonymousentries]

consequences

you got comfortable

you stopped trying

now i have tears in my eyes and you don’t understand how your words and actions affected me

you say work made you exhausted but now you’re working somewhere else and tell me that ‘you’ve changed and will be different’

i tell you it’s too late-but it still hurts when i say those words to him

you tell me, ‘so you don’t want to be with me romantically anymore.’

i take a long pause and then a deep breath

‘yeah. i can’t’

silence.

he tells me he thinks of what he could have done differently, like tell me more of when he might have felt uncomfortable but chose to be quiet instead.

i tell him i wish he could have shared those feelings with me.

he drops me off and i close the door.

as my hand leaves the car handle i take a breath and look behind my shoulder and see him staring at me.

i feel like my heart is on the floor and i let out a slight smile

but it probably looks more like a broken one.

[lindszeppelin]

K bitch is at the LA Bikeriders premiere! 🤮

since i've got an influx of these same messages, i'll just answer the one specifically saying she's there lol. we don't need 10 of the same message.

while i did not expect her to show up, it is not surprising that she did show up. as memphis said, it is all just a PR tactic at damage control. that article is damning and expresses Austin's true feelings about his relaltionship with her. im sure she didn't take it well and it rubbed her the wrong way. hence the girls vacation. and this will be one of the last things we get of austin and kaia together before they split by the summer. the article suggested the end of summer, so somewhere around there we will get something.

i understand the PR tactic, to be seen so people don't start to speculate. there is a way these celeb breakups happen. and we just gotta ride the wave, girlies.

but austin's body language at the LA premiere does not lie. he looks miserable, he doesn't sound happy when doing press interviews, he has not interacted warmly with jodie. his feelings are in plain sight and do not lie. remember that. Kaia is the only one that relishes this.

[traveleroftimeanspace]

I've been in such an unhealthy relationship so long I don't know what to do I avoided every sign that told me to leave (which I don't regret because we have an amazing son together now) but when I started stripping I realized how much being in this relationship has changed me for the worse . We've been together for 5 years off and on and before him and when I'm not around him im fr such a better person like I'm so social and fun and love myself but being around him I feel so boxed in and can't really be myself and you'd think after 5 years I could be myself around him but no . I'm happy I'm finally realizing this but I'm sad I let it go on so long .

[oreganosbaby]

can we know the bad takes

Ok sorry for not answering this sooner and yes, this is about the few Especially Bad Roman Takes I rotate every so often. I'm sorry if anyone sees their own take here but, it's not like I'm documenting this shit so, I'm not gonna link it or whatever lol.

Roman doesn't have an erectile dysfunction; I won't go into why this is stupid.

Roman's submissiveness only extending to his father but, otherwise having an actual will to power which like ?? hello??

Roman being basically a rapist/sexual predator; I understand why people think this if early s1 Roman has been seared into their brain but, like it's also wrong and dogbrained because Roman can't really impose himself on anyone in that way on purpose nor does he really want to. Like, his whole deal is about wanting to be desired and objectified as like someone who is helpless, weak, delicate, and pretty so, this is antithetical to that. He wants to be the prey.

Roman having a Madonna-whore complex is why he is uncomfortable with the idea of Tabs having lots of sex, Gerri having a boyfriend or the possibility of her having gotten fucked by Logan and doesn't respect Shiv; This misunderstands what a Madonna-whore complex is and also, Roman's relationships with sex and gender in general. Going back to my last point, Roman simply doesn't identify with the subject of the Madonna-whore complex so, he wouldn't have one. The subject is usually a straight guy who compartamentalises sacred and profane love causing him to desexualise the women he respects/admires and loves, usually mother figures but redirects his desire to women he doesn't respect. So obviously, I think Roman's relaltionship to the ideas of the virgin and the whore are a bit different and usually have him as an object within this schema rather than as the subject. Also, for all the comments he makes about Shiv's sexuality, I doubt he's thinking of it hard enough. Like, as his sister, she shouldn't exist in this schema if he were the subject in it. Besides, mere quantity of sex wouldn't make someone a whore. It's how "easy" you are.

[quench-my-thirst]

Life’s whirling around me again. Can’t tell if I’m a cloud or a ghost. I’m keeping busy doing well it feels odd everything is going better than I ever experienced before. Life’s strange being in two places at once still stuck on disappear mods yet trying to present in daily life. I’m much more successful now unlike before. Things are changing for the better. I’m grateful despite these challenges I’m happy.

[snappysierra]

[not-btanner]

Her: Why are you so beautiful?

Me: Cause god fucked everything up inside me.