#ships vs reality | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

horizon-verizon · 1 year

Note

HOT TAKE:

Rhaenyra x Alicent

Rhaenyra x Harwin

Rhaenyra x Daemon

Daemon x Laena

Rhaenyra x Aegon II

Criston x Rhaenyra

Aemond x Lucerys

Criston x Alicent

Viserys x Aemma

Aemond x Helaena

Aegon II x Helaena

every single ship/couple on the show is either VERY problematic or toxic, so fans picking and choosing who is better is stupid. every single male character in the show has done something problematic and I mean EVERY single male character. The day the fandom just admit that every ship/couple is problematic/toxic is the day the HOTD fandom will know peace and the day shippers just admit that they only give certain male characters a pass because they find them attractive is the day we'll know peace.

*EDITED POST* (4/28/24)

i do agree that some male characters are given a pass when they shouldn't, however there are some who people acknowledge are bad, amoral, morally ambiguous, or just plain evil but ship them with certain people bc of various reasons. The human experience is not just about being "moral" 100% of the time, or being "rational"; other times, it's about fun and thrill and empathizing with a feeling, etc.

There is also reason why some ships are canonically real and lasted with little internal conflict between the couple (w/o there being an external intervention not of either their faults) and why some did not...

And why are "fucked up" people's relationships/love in fucked up or dangerous situations not "real"? Or valid?

I consider it to be a sort of miracle when this does happen, so I tend to positively fascinated! Because they tend to be more passionate, even thought they may not always be the most dramatic. Two (or more) people find each other and come to trust each other despite the odds or what could never or not as likely happen anywhere else? Sign me up! (except parent-child, grandparent-grandchild incest; physical abuse; emotional abuse; teens with 40 yr olds, and I'm sure i'm forgetting some things)

I find that this growing protest against any fictional relationship that is not the ideal healthy one that real-life people dream of in of itself indicative of being out of touch with reality, specious, and tedious. As if it is not "healthy", then it doesn't deserve to be fictionalized and distributed to be read.

There is frustration with stories like Romeo and Juliet, Wuthering Heights, and the enemies-to-lovers trope itself...as if the writers of those stories expected you to copy their main characters 1:1 and take their tale as their own personal ideas in the first place. It is a protest that criticizes romance fiction/general fiction for not being 1:1 to what we should go for, or what we are taught to, in reality for the sake of morality teaching, censored. That fiction writing, especially romance, should only show fluff or as little conflict or high stakes between couples as possible because people are not discerning enough to always tell what is abusive behavior and what is grey behavior.

Like with Romeo and Juliet, people think R&J is an endorsement of this sort of relationship or they conflate the relationship with suicide for one that you love bc there's so many iterations and people going "I wish my love was as dedicated as Romeo to Juliet/vice versa" bc it speaks to their desire for passion in romantic relationship. But again, they conflate, they forget, or never knew that this story is really about the pressures put on vulnerable people's who merely wish to have love and peace in their lives but can't bc their families/communities refuse to abandon a cycle of hate or forcing their children to marry or limit their own ways of thinking for the sake of obedience. How the only relationships that matter are those made b/t the couple and not those constructed by ambitious forces who do not care the amount of blood they spill or lives wasted unless it's to gain more power and gain more "glory" in these hierarchial systems. Romeo and Juliet's love (no matter how you feel about it) is meant to be the direct contradiction to the hatred, and their suicides are meant to be seen as tragic bc they could have bene prevented if the adults aroud them got their heads out of their asses. But bc people are going, "oh, those kids are so stupid" all the time, this point is entirely missed!!!

Or rather, I say, people tend to misunderstand the value & appeal of some ships...canon or not.

No people, they write characters for ideas and philosophical concepts. Innovative, new or familiar and already developed, or something in the middle. We also don't read fiction stories to just be educated into copying behaviors, otherwise, we'd read nonfiction. Fiction is for emotional reality, speculative/philosophical thought, and creative thinking skills, again, they are for exploration of taboos, urges, ideologies, historical propaganda, narratology, mythology, some mysteries that run in the back of ones mind but aren't discussed sometimes because we do not know what sort of consequences we'd have if shared for whatever reason, but for some some of these reaaosn include oppressive structures. And emotional realities, set in a world with its own laws and facts as ASoIaF is, are still important to write in to realize what one feels in their everyday life and have others take a peek into that. But it also doesn't always have to be so damn apocalyptic either, because these characters are playthings of emotional reality, narrative, and philosophy which are all examinable. We as readers can/learn to examine or spy on the trajectory and themes of the fiction and leave the rest to the story as we go about your day.

It is related (not the exact same but there is a relation) to giving horror stories to children--stuff like Coraline--things some adults repeatedly wonder today why we/they were exposed to some films or stories. Some things they can should not be for kids: kids love to be scared, too but more than that they can get scared, get thrilled, get sad in a controlled environment while still familiarize themselves with stuff that one may not be able to articulate in just human conversation or is deliberately removed from them. It also promotes empathy in them bc they get familiarized with how people cause each other pain or the depth/process/development of different types of human suffering.

It is related (not the exact same but there is a relation) to giving horror stories to children--stuff like Coraline--things some adults repeatedly wonder today why we/they were exposed to some films or stories. Some things they can should not be for kids: kids love to be scared, too but more than that they can get scared, get thrilled, get sad in a controlled environment while still familiarize themselves with stuff that one may not be able to articulate in just hunan conversation or is deliberately removed from them.

Problem is that they don't grow some reflexes to avoid, say, predatory behavior, which Coraline shows through the Beldam.

And if I hadn't read stuff like Anne Rice's novels--which people make the mistake of thinking Louis was sexually abusive towards Claudia, when it's really that they are getting that sense from how Louis "stole" away her childhood and humanity in his own horror at his immortality (eternal isolation from the beauty of change that is inherently human), at his horror at his never being able to have experience, that access to that beauty then I have more trouble understanding the value of myself and my fellow human and how that can get mucked up by societal exploitation of the fear of death (religious institutions and their teachings). Yes, his relationship with Claudia is almost mirroring that of a pedo, bc like a pedo he "took away" her childhood for his own lack of self control at his not being able to understand the ramifications of being a vampire and the predator of humanity/enemy of God. And he keeps talking about her beauty and seductiveness (her visual and tactile features like coloring and smoothness of skin, her ability to draw in her adult prey to feed on them). with what we know of him being able to suck her blood out of her body and the oral imagery that can psychologically parallel the sexual, it seems an utter troubling of the innocence we credit to children, baptism did that. That's what Rice wanted you to feel and understand, vampirism and forcing eternity into a child is inherently wrong! no matter how much you yourself are trying to reinforce you own existence's meaning by getting close to "beautiful" things and people. Remember that this is exactly how she, just losing a daughter and w acting said child back and definitely feeling the urge to imagine a way she could have her forever while also going through religious trauma herself. But it is not the thing (pedophilia) itself.

Why do you bother to instruct others to not analyze when you yourself refuse to give a good reason why one should not?! When you claim that you are bringing an "analysis" that is so "simple that it must be genius?" Why do you even make a moral/ethical argument ("we would all benefit from recognizing that all these couples are 'toxic'" as if we don't already know that?!) if it is to tell people to not think?! To not name their own ships and analyze the text/context/subtext to understand what is even happening below the surface of "magical dragonriders"? You yourself did it -- how is it an issue when others do? You don't need to like these things, or to ship specifically how others ship. Just consider why and how shipping and how the "factionalism" in this fandom happens for each ship before you go barreling over telling people that they are amoral for not thinking exactly like you.

If you want to ship a couple just based on the feeling or understanding of what would be good for people's psyche in real life...that they would have both a happy, satisfactory and safe life together in real life based on your own personal preferences or the already agreed upon rules for a healthy relationship....that's fine.

But I, as a Daemyra and Jonerys shipper (these two always depend on the story where Jon and Dameon are politically subservient to these women, not even "equals": Jonerys specifically only if Jon is not her co-ruler not a situation where she is his Queen Consort. He should only be her consort if he becomes her husband and she out ranks him bc as brideoffires on Twitter pointed out, we see that a male partner is highly dangerous for Dany, Jon being the worst for his lineage), argue that the healthier and happier relationships are already RhaenyraxDaemon and JonxDany because of their respective circumstances, cultural/sociopolitical contexts -- their world and personal backgrounds. I not only look at what people say is "healthiest", I want to consider what the people themselves want in a partner, and let's be for real, Rhaenyra's desired partner was Daemon, not HArwin. She loved Harwin, that's for sure. But she wanted Daemon and part of it was for the assurance that he could protect her. (Jonerys is merely for the idea, even though I feel this is ship is more crackish with each passing day). And I do not judge every single piece of fantasy, romance, or romance part of a story by how well it conforms to that image of the realistic, healthy relationship. That's not what I and other shippers go for, including some of those who ship Rhaenyra with Harwin, etc., (since even Harwin is not the ideal modern choice for a woman he little started sleeping with when she was 19 (show) or 17 (book) while being not that far from either Daemon or Criston).

If you are going to use "incest!" and the misapplied "grooming!"/"pedophilia!" arguments to just conclude that every single relationship of ASoIaF is "toxic" (and nothing else) and thus we shouldn't care about who survives or wins or how.....then you also say we should ignore particular aspects of how in spite of the incest, some characters found ways to actually build good enough trust and bonds and when they didn't it wasn't bc of incest but bc of gender political imbalances and sexism (Jaehaerys and Alysanne) and not care about the sociopolitical events, ramifications, and philosophical questioning about identity, sexuality, power, gender, etc. that does go on in ASoIaF. Again, you're saying I/we should not think, that nothing matters at all in this universe, nothing matters. But then, those very things put into question makes this series! It seems like you're saying that the Dance doesn't matter at all...but then why are you here, watching the show and/or reading the books if you did not think the Dance mattered in some way?

And not every shipper ships what they want in real life for every story they create ships for. Ships are made for how well it appeals, and the appeal exists from how/what subtexts one interpreted from the text. Sometimes the conclusions they make are just wrong, other times not very informed or fair. In thise instances, where they et certain lore facts or characterizations completely wrong, fine, criticsims may be even necessary. Other times it's colored by or processing their own traumas, or it's about what shaped the possible/canon relationship that actually inspires the shipping, in which case, I don't think it's worth it to criticize their preference unless it leans into complete delusion that misrepresents the character/story and/or bigotry. The ship shipped is alluring, charismatic, enchanting, and/or engaging and tickling for one reason or the another.

You may argue that realistically, uncles and nieces can't be in healthy relationships -- of which there's no point to this argument in-universe as a serious criticism because this is a series where literal magic-blooded, dragon-riding people marry siblings, uncles, nieces, aunts, nephews in order to maintain that power within their respective bloodlines or that Daemon is a one-dimensional evil, evil person, no cap (he's violent but not crazy evil), and we all already know that obviously this sort of shit shouldn't happen. But these characters are contained within a world they must navigate, and of all the options that Rhaenyra had, Daemon wasn't so bad as us to say he was her doom. Once again, he's been the most loyal to her, which is what she needed.

In other words, Watsonian versus Doylist.

We saw:

Rhaenys and Aegon I -- no known quarrels

Jaehaerys I and Alysanne (pre-Quarrels. It was rather Jaehaerys' misogyny and Alysanne's need to empower herself but also feeling the need to conform in some ways that broke them up but if you are in the habit of not looking past the incest, you wouldn't likely understand that and how it came to be that way with them)

Rhaena and Aegon the Uncrowned -- reasonably harmonious

Jaehaerys II and Shaera [Aegon V's kids] -- no known major quarrels

so we can't even argue that in-unverse, these couples went through their traumas just or only because of incest specifically. Aegon IV-Naerys and Aerys II and Rhaella: these couples' problems were feudal/monarchial/patriarchal problems of the man having too much power over his wife/subject. and going by how the Starks ruled for nigh 6,000-8,000 years....feudalism in some form in this world is going to be here for long after even Dany dies.

So we focus on the revolutions and changes that Dany and Rhaenyra's reigns could have or would have brought for this system.

Back to the Targs, they and Valyrian dragonlords are one only a step ahead of the Westerosi lords, who the Faith allowed, can, and often married their first cousins. As Tywin Lannister did. Yet I have heard/seen nothing about how Westerosi marry their cousins and often. One of Sansa's arranged marriage options was with a Arryn/Vale first cousin.

The prime reason why sibling-marriage is considered taboo amongst Westersoi is because the Faith of the Seven rules that the gods say it so. That's it. There is an absence of logic where some Targ anti claim there is when it comes to why Andal Westerosi reason why incest is bad but still do cousin marriages.

There are even two uncle-niece marriages in the Stark family: "in the north, Serena Stark had been wed to her half-uncle, Edric, while her sister Sansa Stark had been wed to her half-uncle Jonnel Stark (AWoIaF; "Incest in the Seven Kingdoms")". One of these marriages produced children, and neither were ever ruled as sinful by the Faith, nor are the Starks ruled as being all seeds of "abomination".

So.... something is going on here that is more than just "it's incest!" These kinds of questions, not "is this my idea of healthy", are the ones that actually give you answers to how people think, how much does culture influences and where, train you to practice empathy, etc.

It is also Westerosi/medieval/ancient history and general practice to marry what we Western moderns see now as older children (15-17-year-olds) to other teens adults. Real European societies (one of them Westeros was adopted from) still preferred marrying at least 15-16 year olds minimum out of fear of messing with their humors and the girls' physical safety--still delaying consummation.

[Removal of past statement about GRRM and tone for age-gap relationships in story, he has many large-age gaps in the more romantically-told relationships of ASoIaF]

Westerosi custom has the age of majority of 16, but still, both genders can marry or get betrothed way before their 18th nameday. And girls who had their first period were considered safer to bed. It's considered "perverse" to bed a girl who hasn't had her period yet. The incongruence of GRRM's habit of featuring relationships (or suggested intimacies) b/t people w/large age gaps and real life medieval attitudes and practices regarding marriage is a relevant topic, but to claim that basically none of these people felt love or cared about their partners and ignoring how they interact in-text that proves otherwise is fallacious and dumb.

These are screenshots to the link about maidens and the Westerosi age of majority:

That means that from even younger ages, both Westerosi girls and boys understood that they might inherit adult responsibilities and political power, as well as get to be married or betrothed younger than what we'd like them to. And we can expect that since the entire world is modeled after ancient/medieval cultures the people we call teens also experienced this. And even 15-year-old nobles understand that they will be arranged to marry and have sex with (to reproduce) whomever their authority figure chooses, for that's the practice. Because 15-year olds can and do sometimes become lords and ladies with the power to order armies. Fifteen-year-old boys have been trained to use the sword and other military weapons (ahem, Daemon became a knight at 16, Aemond trained under Criston since he was 10, Jon was 14 in the beginning of the ASoIaF books and became Lord Commander around 16-17, etc.).

To call them all automatic forever victims-from-child-brides, etc. is to completely erase/the/does:

Removal of past points about people dying earlier being the main reason for earlier marriages, it's actually more complicated than that, which I simplified in second point below.

ignores that even medieval nobles in real life and in Westeros do try not to marry their kids too young for the girl's safety -- with the first also believing that to have sex too young would deplete your humors (that they themselves did express real care towards their children)

ignores, reduces/makes less significant/important/thematic how Rhaenyra and Dany, for example, actually gain back autonomy by being with Daemon, Harwin, Daario Noharis (Not the HotD, Fire and Blood/canon. They show how fucked that messaging up in relation to how it sets up a cultural presence against the female chastity model of this society by making her the possible aggressor towards Criston....what happens between them also cannot be made 1:1 to a modern capitalist boss-employee relationship).

And you end up dismissing, even not understanding, the bigger stuff of this series, taking for granted how power is imbalanced and different from how it would be in the real, present-day worlds. Like how some people claim Dany abuses Irri when that is far from true; even going so far as to claim this proves she will go mad like in the show...another way to demand her progress and character and misinterpret all the Azor Ahai symbolism tied to her. Misogyny.

If you wanted relationships with absolutely no age gaps, teens marrying each other or adults and uncomplicated fluff and that's it...I'm sorry to let you know that you stumbled onto the wrong place, anon. Even if GRRM decreased the number of prominent age gap relationships, there would have to be one or two within the Targ line because the truth is also that real medieval peoples did have age gap marriage that were early-consummated and a few 12-year olds getting married and having that marriage consummated, even if it was uncommon and frowned on. "Uncommon' reveals that it still happened and that were was enough room for it to happen.

END

Don't pretend as if none of these relationships somehow got you to buy in and be emotionally involved!!!!

I've asked this before: not that there is no such thing as a relationship being unhealthy, but when it becomes about shipping=promoting or always saying this is the exact sort of relationship, 1-1, that people should have in real life, what does "toxic" even mean anymore?

What is this such a catch-all term as if it perfectly encapsulates "evil"? We throw that word around as if people know exactly what you mean 100% of the time in a specific case whenever spoken when that's far from the truth or even truth-seeking. What are you specifically talking about when you say RhaenyraxDaemon or AemondxHelaena are toxic? These are all very different people and GRRM never stays with such black-white thinking.

Politics is the activities associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. Shipping has a political interest or consciousness. ASoiaF is politics and magic and exploration of social relations as well as psychological development, which doesn't always mean that we need to "slove" bad relationships. Sometimes it's fun to indulge. Shipping can indicate what the person thinks of what should and should not be prioritized, but is not automatically an indication of moral success or failure because the characters are not JUST models of morality....they are explorations of humanity and psychology. If you cannot reason that a problematic ship should not happen in real life, you need better critical thinking skills instead of censoring people and stories that serve to make people aware.

You are basically saying people who read speculative politics should not speculate.....you've lost the battle anon. Shipping is more about liking the story or one or a few particular aspects of the ship (created by the specific circumstances that made this ship) than its canonical reality or its "healthiness" because of the implied possibilities that one speculates from it. Why would I shut all that creative thinking down for the "healthiness" of people who don't even exist, for patting myself on the back for liking the "appropriate" relationship that is closest to the real life one real people should have?! I don't need that badge.

#hotd neutrals #shipping #asoiaf shipping #westerosi age of majority #asoiaf writing #hotd writing #asoiaf asks to me #fantasy fiction #fantasy writing #fantasy vs reality #anti neutrality #asoiaf #a song of ice and fire #house of the dragon #hotd #asoiaf fandom #fandom

25 notes · View notes

starrbar · 1 year

Text

"Personal Red Flags": A weird conflict that arises when I as an anti-anti still judge people when they engage with fiction in specific ways.

(I have to name my essays okay? xD)

I had recently started thinking about this topic again, and I was curious about what other people in my "neighborhood" thought. So I wrote this as a discussion for other anti-antis basically, and posted it in a majority anti-anti/proship space.

CONTENT WARNINGS: Brief descriptions of noncon/rape rps and irl creepy/predatory behavior, discussion of kinks

We're all some flavor of "pro-fiction" or such here, as in we don't think liking something in fiction means you support/condone it irl, which extends to wanting a space like ours that is built around allowing us to host the kind of artwork that gets us weird looks (or worse) in more general places like Twitter.

With that said, I've never been of the opinion that red flags just don't exist? because that's just silly. Of course there are things that kind of tip my eyebrow up in suspicion sometimes, but when I've asked people in proship spaces what their general idea of those red flags are, they almost seemed afraid to provide anything. As if having some level of personal standards would make them as bad as antis or something.

I feel like a lot of anti-anti/proship people cling to the idea that there's NEVER a reason to be concerned about the way someone engages with fiction, because we've gotten so used to feeling attacked when people question our moral character over fiction. And I understand that! But I think the more measured stance, rather than "no, never" is the simple fact that it's important to look at ALL relevant factors when trying to judge whether somebody has malicious intent or is a danger to others... unless the factor in question is "they've literally already hurt someone", ofc.

That's such a basic thing that probably applies to almost everything, and I don't imagine that even the average person would disagree with the idea that you can't know everything about a situation from just one detail on its own.

I guess the issue here is that antis treat taboo kinks the way they treat homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc. The kinks themselves are seen as inherently evil, just like bigotry certainly is, and thus they see no use in looking any deeper into it. When you find out someone is a TERF, for example, you don't go "yeah, but they're nice to their dog and they gave to charity!" You... condemn them for being a TERF, which is an inherently harmful thing, period. Doesn't matter at that point.

But it's wrong to treat kinks the same way. I've never seen solid evidence that any kink does INHERENT harm the way bigotry does. Another factor has to combine with the kink to make it harmful or malicious.

Like, for example... having a foot fetish is fine, yeah? Giving a foot rub to a friend is also fine. Hell, giving a foot rub to a friend who consented, knowing that you have a foot fetish, is fine too! You were both honest and communicated your boundaries. Now, offering a "foot rub" while you're secretly getting off to what your friend thinks is an innocent gesture is... creepy... at best. The kink provides context that changes things, but only because the behavior mixes with the kink in an unsavory way. If the person instead had a spanking fetish or something, that wouldn't really be relevant to a foot rub, so both the spanking kink and the foot rub would be neutral things in that scenario.

With that said, my go-to thing that I find to be kinda suspicious has to do with the way some of my past roleplay partners have reacted to me commenting on their character's behavior. And ofc I don't mean that I scolded them for writing the character that way. It's not like I didn't ASK for the character to be like that haha.

But okay, so I once did a roleplay where my OC was kidnapped and raped by the other person's OC, and whenever I would go into the ooc chat and say, "Damn, that sure is fucked up!" or "Ahahaa it felt good to have my OC punch him after what he did!", the other writer would... get defensive?? Like, they would start arguing stuff like, "Well, he's really lonely, and your OC was just so beautiful and nice to him, and he didn't think she would say yes if he asked her out!" or they would be extremely averse to the rapist OC not getting a happy ending?? Not that you can't have the villain win in a story ofc, but this person talked about it as if her rapist OC deserved to get away with what he did, not just that it's what would happen in the story realistically. And... idk! Just... the way they talked about our roleplays was really uncomfortable and came off like they were mixing up reality and fiction.

In another roleplay I did with someone else, we wrote a scenario in which my OC was "punished" with gang rape for fighting back against their coworker. Which, yeah, I like "noncon as punishment" roleplays! But then the other writer would be in ooc chat trying to say that my character was being unruly or "well, she shouldn't have broken the rules", and like, never at any point was this presented as a "haha ikr she got what she asked for -wink wink nudge nudge" like kinky egging me on or anything. It was like he actually got offended when I said his OC was being harsh and twisted.

I come to these dark-as-fuck roleplays to revel in how twisted they are! So when my writing partner starts acting as if they don't realize that's what we're writing about, it's so fucky to me. The CHARACTER is supposed to make all these excuses and twist the narrative and gaslight my character, but the writer should have their damn head on straight!

And I probably wouldn't even go so far as to say that's a red flag that the person is literally dangerous, but at the very least, they sure are failing to read the room and it JUST FREAKING BOTHERS ME. It freaks me out when someone is unwilling or unable to step back out of the fantasy and talk to me in plain terms about what we're writing about.

When you can't even admit that you're writing abuse even when you blatantly are, I hate that. And come to think of it, I also hate seeing that attitude in media that I still love, because it makes the stories so much worse. (Heavily side-eyeing two of my favorite anime rn)

Anyway—

That's my personal "oh god, what the hell is wrong with you?" factor that I certainly don't consider worthy of like, a witch-hunt or anything of the sort, but it simply... drives me away from people who exhibit those traits.

It is NOT an "oh yeah, for SURE, this person is dangerous and needs to be silenced/deplatformed/jailed", it's literally just "bro, I'm kind of proshippy over here and even I think you sound nuts. Bye I guess". That's all! And it's okay to have those.

But I think we've gotten stuck in an environment where we feel like we have to morally justify why we dislike literally anything, which leads to people constantly doing that, which leads to me getting anxious just because someone said they don't like noncon—but they never said that they think people with that kink are horrible. I always ask for that clarification these days, before I go any further with someone. And it really, REALLY sucks that everyone feels so pressured to be in an all-or-nothing position on this whole proship vs. antiship thing.

Nuance is so important, but it's also scary because a lot of people will ignore it so that they can demonize you. And I hope I worded this post in a way that doesn't make anybody feel demonized if they truly are just enjoying a story or something. Honestly, if you and whoever you indulge in your kinks with are consenting adults and you're vibing about it and you're not hurting anyone, who am I to judge? Ya know?

BTW, with my above example, I'm not talking about people who just "stan" villain characters and say they did nothing wrong as a meme and say stuff like "I would protect them, idc!" I also don't see a problem with someone feeling bad for an awful character; feeling a pang of sorrow for them because they're suffering; feeling happy for them when they reach a goal that, in itself, isn't heinous; understanding them; getting into their head; etc. etc. there are so many ways to deeply connect with a nasty character that doesn't come off as genuinely DEFENDING them for real and making the same excuses their ilk would make for themselves irl.

I do all those other things I mentioned. Haha I think my recent post about Ellen would show as much. My friends do that stuff too, it's all good. Because it's very clearly just people enjoying fiction AS fiction and just, ya know, being overjoyed about their special little meow meows, or being fascinated with what makes them tick, or just enjoying a funny crack AU. I feel like the icky encounters I tried to describe above were just... a step past that, but they happened a long time ago, so I wouldn't be able to get like, screenshots or anything.

I just hope this made sense! I thought it was interesting, but I know it could have easily come off like I was being an asshole towards things I don't vibe with if I didn't make some clarifications.

I'm really interested in what other people may think of this or if other profic/antihara people also have these experiences.

9 notes · View notes