#so no I don't condemn people who choose to have it be sex that gets coerced out of them

[guiltyidealist]

Imagine understanding that labor under capitalism is coercive -- all of it, by nature -- and being anti- sex work 💀

[princessfbi]

I think that anon is upset bc all of a sudden no one cares about buddie anymore bc bi buck is canon and that apparently means he needs to sleep with any man and that relationships have no sancticity anymore. It's bc of this type of "oh we just having some slutty fun" that Tim is not going to make buddie canon anymore bc people are happy with bi buck hooking up with anyone. After so many years of shipping buddie many "fans" have jumped ship and if they don't jump ship, they dip their toes into creating cheap threeways. It's upsetting

And respectfully that’s ridiculous.

Buck discovering his bisexuality is NOT a consolation prize. It’s an important story that affects a lot of people and impacts even more. Not just from his journey for his sexuality but also the way he’s discovering it later in life. To act like such is disrespectful to the character and the bisexual community.

And what’s even more insulting is to call that exploration which involves uncommitted fun sex “slutty” in the tone of condemnation you are using. That’s called slut shaming. And if you cared about Eddie at all then you would care that he would be allowed to experience the same gentle space to grow like Buck is being given right now. If that hasn’t been a concern for you then you need to reevaluate if your “loyalty” is care or obsession bordering on fetishizing.

It is fine to not like Tommy. What is not fine is to be an asshole to people who do. You don’t see me going around leaving hate anon to people who like Brussels sprouts now do you?

You people have GOT to learn how to cope with things not going the way you initially planned for it. The world is full of unexpected outcomes. I am here because I am having fun and because I love these characters. If you aren’t having fun, I’m sorry but that is not mine nor anyone else’s problem but your own. Take your temper tantrum somewhere else because I will not hold your hand through it.

I have quite literally written over a million words for buddie. I have thousands more planned. But what characters I like and how I explore them is up to nobody but myself. I write for me and I choose to share this gift. You have the choice to not read it. What you don’t have a choice in is what I do with my life and my fun. For me that’s exploring Buddie, Bucktommy, and the magnificent Throuple that is BuckTommyEddie.

Be upset if you must though I would urge you to try and live a little. But what you don’t get to be upset about is me not sharing in those feelings with you.

You’re not upset about Buddie. You’re upset because the world is an uncontrollable place and it’s not revolving around you.

[traceofexistence]

The Q&A from last night with Sam, put Karlach in a lot of perspective.

age wise, because of what Karlach says about her sex life, Sam prefers to think of her as a young adult during being Gortash bodyguard +10 years in Avernus

so between 28~30+

I have personally estimated a 27~33, but I'm old so I preferred the older options in my headcanons lol

that being said Karlach is played to be a bit immature, especially when it comes to romance. which makes sense, since she was young when she was taken to avernus and there she stayed celibate by choice as she couldn't trust anyone.

we do have lines of her being very sexually frustrated, and burning her tent while masturbating, and getting too excited. Which means she even had to keep her self pleasure toned down, because of the damn engine.

the soul coin analysis is soo damn interesting and well written. it plays on Karlach's morality and character. (consuming soul coins is equal to war crimes, and they are also addictive like crack)

and she has consumed them, even though she knows that she condemns a soul by doing so, and she has a craving for them, and you have to speak her out of it, as tav, and she has to make the choice herself when you play origin.

we know from her back story, in game dialogue etc, she's been around the wrong crowds as a kid(especially after her parents died), and as Sam pointed out, she probably had made some very bad things as Gortash bodyguard, that she justified, as "being loyal" to the person who helped her.

So Karlach as we have seen in the game, she's very loyal, and she despises being tricked and betrayed. but if you show her care she will stay with you forever.

she's not above murdering people as long as she does it to protect herself and those she cares about.

if tav signs the contract with Raphael, she's very angry (understandably so) but she vows to go back to avernus for you, and break the contract for you, because you are worth it, she will go back to the place she hates the most, the place that she choices death over returning to, but she will do it for you, because you have treasured her, kept her as your companion, romanced her, fixed her engine, killed for her, even advocated for her when you barely knew her.

that's why it hurts her so deeply, when you betray her.

I also love how Sam poked on the fact that Karlach has done some very bad things, but when she escapes hell, she is adamant to start anew, and do good by choice

and I think that's the most important aspect of her character, she wants to do good by choice.

I also love Sam's opinion on Lae'zel

she rightfully criticizes the space racism that is going on, but also acknowledges that Lae is very young, and a product of her upbringing, therefore redeemable.

and let's be real here, contrary to some people's believes, Lae, does change dramatically throughout the game, even before she realizes that her whole world was a lie.

I bring up Lae in this Karlach post, because Sam mentioned her, and how Karlach just outright attacked the tieflings (her own kin) to save her, without a second thought, because Lae saved her from the nautiloid.

and back to Karlach

is she best girl?

ABSOLUTELY

nothing will change that

does it means she never done anything wrong in her life?

absolutely not.

sadly in recent years, fandoms suffer from what we call "purity politics"

if a character is not 1000% the purest of pures who has never done a wrong ever, then they are bad and we should be ashamed for liking them.

but purity politics is stupid, and do not belong in my reality.

like every companion, Karlach is beautifully flawed, and she's best girl because she sees the positive first, actively chooses to be good, and she finds the join in life, regardless of what fucked up situation she's in.

she's also fucking adorable so what's your argument really against her being defined best girl I dont understand.

remember friends

DON'T! POKE! THE KARLACH!

[shadowgast-recs-weekly]

Shadowgast Recs: Scourger AUs

This week we have an even dozen recs for a darker type of shadowgast - Scourger/Evil AUs!

ties that bind by wytch-lyghts (72058, Explicit) Warnings: None Mutual manipulation as both play for the upper hand, until the slow shifting of allegiances. Reccer says: It’s a great series of fics that pose interesting questions of loyalty and who holds the leash. Very enjoyable!

Birds of Prey by Mlle Kurtz (91852, Explicit) Warnings: Marked as a mix of no warnings and creator choose not to apply warnings, so definitely read the tags on each fic A series of Bren/Essek fics as they come together and fall apart, exploring trust, dependency, and delicious questions of morality. Reccer says: This is such a detailed look at an alternative set of circumstances with nuance and incredible characterisation. The writing is gorgeous, the sex is hot, and it’s worth a read!

Bound in Anticipation by AmerValk (24426, Explicit) Warnings: Rape/Non-Con, Graphic Depictions of Violence, it's very dark, not really a happy ending Bren is a Volstrucker and becomes Essek's captor. Essen tries to handle the situation while Bren toys with him. Reccer says: It's a really intriguing dynamic between Bren and Essek.

darkness, walk with me by magisterpavus (18856, Explicit) Warnings: graphic depictions of violence - more specifically, torture by magic. not between caleb or essek essek is a prisoner of scourger!bren and agrees to share knowledge in exchange for bren's body/company. a little bit of torture, a lot of bratting and edging. Reccer says: i ADORE their dynamic in this and how sharp both of their minds are. they're intelligent, dangerous, and sexy, and they have the most unhealthy dynamic. 10/10 no notes

A Secret Only to Condemn by hanap (10812, Explicit) Warnings: under-negotiated kink, angst, unhappy ending Bren and Essek end their arrangement, but not before having sex one last time. Reccer says: Do you like sadness and people who have done horrible things having feelings for one another that they would never speak aloud? Because this is the fic for you!

The Altar of Verisimilitude by marsastronomica (marswithghosts) (9877, Explicit) Warnings: Author Chose Not to Use Archive Warnings - read the tags and A/N What if Bren didn't break and Astrid and Eadwulf met Nott the Brave instead? This is a fascinating read into a Bren/Essek au that touches on some of the darker depths. Reccer says: This author’s writing is always incredibly stunning in the world-building of what is said with each line, and this one is no different interesting show-build of character moments, a richly detailed world, and snippets into seeing how out-of-his-depths Essek really is.

Wants & Needs by Cardinal_Daughter (11604, Explicit) Warnings: Creator chose not to use Archive warnings, some dubious content/nonconsent (not between Bren and Essek) Bren and Essek plan and plot how they will travel back in time and fix things Reccer says: Despite the author's own warnings, it's a very soft fic, two people in a situation they don't like actively working to get out of it.

the space in between by KmacKatie (9120, Explicit) Warnings: None Bren and Essek are in a mutual manipulation game, each trying to get the upper hand while Essek is operating with far less facts than Bren. Both are in deeper than either cares to admit. Reccer says: The shifting power plays and dynamics speak to a much wider world and history, the banter is sharp and fun, and the sex is just another card in the game that they are both playing.

A Fair Exchange by Firefright (4135, Teen) Warnings: None Bren discusses future plans with Essek after disposing of his former teacher. Reccer says: It's oddly sweet and in character, considering these are very evil versions of Essek and Caleb. They talk around their feelings but still manage to like each other.

reflections and other illusions of control by atlasarcana (15022, Explicit) Warnings: No warnings for first fic. Dubcon for fics 2 and 3 in the series, and graphic depictions of violence in fic 3. Caleb and Essek summon an echo, but the timeline they get is Bren, not Caleb. They proceed to negotiate a BDSM scene between Essek and Caleb's scourger alter-ego, like any reasonable couple who's had issues spicing up their sex life would. Reccer says: The delicious contrast between Caleb and the person he could have become, some delightful gender fuckery, absolutely brilliant writing, and a fascinating character study. Also, the rest of the series feature some very hot sex.

And then these two have two recs each!

the shadow of a truth by royalgreen (allyoop) (2184, Explicit) Warnings: Temporary Character Death, Ambiguous Ending, Dubious Consent Bren is sent on a mission to kill the Shadowhand. He ends up biting off more than he can chew. Reccer 1 says: It's a short one, but it still manages to have the power plays and competing arrogance that I love in Scourger AUs Reccer 2 says: Bren is so very confident, right until he isn't. And Essek is PERFECT, so ruthless and entirely in control of the situation.

Breaking Inertia by futureshieldmaiden (31096, Teen) Warnings: None Scourger Bren tries to use a Beacon to go back in time, and creates a time loop. He has to work with Shadowhand Essek Thelyss to break out of it. Reccer 1 says: It's a very fun read, with a couple of twists and turns. I love the use of time loops to get closer and learn about the other person, and this was a great version of it. Reccer 2 says: I love the slow burn between these two, working together on a shared goal, and how their relationship develops and changes over time. I also love it's the two of them against the Assembly, instead of Scourger Bren betraying Essek for Ikithon, which seems to be the more popular flavor for Scourger AUs.

All recs were provided by Aeor is for Lovers, an 18+ Shadowgast Discord server. Have any questions about what this is? Check out the FAQ! Next week’s theme are fics that involve gifting, so check back next week!

[human-souls-buy-dopamine]

Idk why I'm suddenly wanting to post a bunch of random unrelated shit but eh. Here we go I guess, under a cut because idk how long this'll get 😭 also tw, heavy discussion of religion (christianity) and religion-based homophobia/transphobia

So like. Love our grandma to death right. Never will stop loving her. Just GOD sometimes she frustrates us so much 😭 (for context we live with her, she's our parent)

I can't tell if she's trying to be accepting or if she's not sometimes? It's so confusing. She let us have a pride flag, let us get a binder, she sometimes tries to use our pronouns and stuff. But then on the other side of things she just. Also tries to slip stuff about Christianity and whatnot into a lot of conversation about it

Like. Okay, she has a right to her own religious beliefs, just like we have a right to our own religious beliefs. None of our business. But it's so difficult when she claims to accept us and then spouts blatant transphobia and homophobia, votes for the guy literally trying to take away our rights, tells us that "God only made man and woman," etc—

Also the fact that, during our stay at the children's home, we briefly had a period where we genuinely tried to believe in christianity (as opposed to pretending bc you basically had to there) and so we read some verses on those topics + others. And unless there's proof of it being some translation error, homosexuality is mentioned both in the new and old testament!! I can't recall if the word itself is used for Soddam and Gomorrah, but in the NT there's a few that are just. Way too direct to ignore

"(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"(9) We also know that the law is made ... for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality..." (1 Timothy 1:9-10, omitted some parts for length but I kept the meaning)

With that being said, you can't exactly cherrypick here. It's very explicitly stated, and while it very well could be a 'translation error', I haven't seen anything that supports/points that conclusion. (Not to say it doesn't exist, just we personally haven't)

So like. It's difficult to not feel frustrated, especially since she wants us to go to church— Like, you can't claim to support us as we are and then believe the thing that says we're condemned to hell for it?

And, maybe I'm making shit up here, but in our years of being in a conservative Christian town and listening to sermons, the way that sin is talked about is very much framed as a choice? Like, obviously in Christianity it's believed that humans are inherently sinful/unworthy (which is a whole nother can of worms), but you *commit* sins. You *commit* murder, you *commit* idolatry, you *commit* sexual immorality, etc— Gramatically I can't frame everything in that language, but you get the idea. While humans are apparently predisposed to sin, it's never implied (to us, at least, and from what we've read) that some people just ARE murderers, ARE idolaters, ARE cheaters, etc— people choose to commit these acts while having the option not to.

Therefore, using that logic, in Christianity, being anything besides straight would be a choice. Which we know from experience isn't true— Like, sure, we love our identity, but stars, dude, wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier if we could just be cishet?? Why would we continually CHOOSE to be something that puts us at risk of being the target of a hate crime, of being murdered, of being harassed?

We've brought up these points, but it's like she just. Doesn't acknowledge it? Or she'll just go "I don't know why" when we bring up the last point, as if she thinks we ARE faking it somehow ???? It's like.,.,,,., ma'am. I love you. Please realize that while I'm fine letting you have your religious beliefs, as any decent person should be, if I were to be insistent about my own the way you are about yours you'd say I'm persecuting you. Your stance is inconsistent and we are rhe ones who have to live with the knowledge that under your beliefs we are a sinner condemned to hell for something we cannot control. That sucks. Like, I love you, but it sucks.

Idk man I'm just. Agh. I love her and she's a great parent, she takes care of us and loves us and provides honesyly a LOT for what we have available, don't get me wrong!! it's just this specific topic that bugs me aghhh

[checkoutmybookshelf]

Ok, having sat with it and thought about it, I want to talk about Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story for a sec.

There are things the show does astoundingly well. Everything about young Lady Danbury and young Charlotte, for one. The handling of women's relationships, sex, women's pleasure and desire, and sex after a marriage has ended were all done extraordinarily well. I particularly liked the interactions between Regency Lady Danbury and Regency Lady Bridgerton where they really talked openly about sharing their stories and talked as openly as possible about wanting sex and experiencing desire. All of this was done well and spoke to the whole of women's experience, it didn't suddenly kneecap sex and sexuality just because you're not 18 with a mint condition uterus anymore.

I think there were also things the show did really poorly. For one, I think not explaining where Reynolds disappeared to between the past and present is generously a massive plot hole and at worst a stealth version of the bury your gays trope. We objectively spent too much time with Reynolds and Brimsely and their relationship to not have some explanation of what happened there.

I also think that the handling of George's "madness" (and I use the term intentionally here, not with its sanist modern connotations but because that would have been the historical term and we don't have a more specific term to apply to it. I believe some scholars also use mad and madness in a reclaimed sense, so I also choose to give the show the benefit of that doubt and use both the historical and reclaimed sense. Terminology can get tricky, so I wanted to explain myself here.) Doubled down on ableist assumptions and tropes in subtle but nonetheless present ways. I won't get too deep into analysis here because I'm typing on my phone and that's a pain, but examples include the following:

- George's mother tends to infantilize him, insist that he is dangerous, and facilitates both the actual torture of her son and the removal of his bodily autonomy where his mental health and madness is concerned. Then the show frames it as a concerned parent looking after her child--who is a grown ass man at this point--and does not really go out of its way to say that she or the social assumptions and expectations are in the wrong for their treatment of George. The doctor gets blamed for being a torturer by Charlotre, which he absolutely is, but there lacks an indictment of the systems and social mores that prompt their treatment of George. It's not enough to point a finger at an individual and say "we removed the bad man, it's all better now." There are norms and systems involved in the harm that were not addressed, and we cannot allow parental mistreatment of disabled kids to go without condemnation.

- the show goes out of its way to tell us over and over and over that George is somehow dangerous, that he might hurt himself or others. His knives are dull. His windows are sealed shut. There are locks everywhere. You know what the show doesn't do? It doesn't support the gazillion number of times that someone says the George might hurt someone with evidence. Statistically speaking, disabled people are far more likely to experience violence than to perpetrate it, and while the show muddies this a bit with Charlotte's actions and attitudes toward George, there is a tacit reiteration of the myth that mad people are dangerous. It is the year of our lord 2023. We cannot keep spreading this myth.

- So this might be subjective, but I think the fact that every time George frames how.own experience of madness as lesser, a deficit, or a burden really highlights internalized ableism and the more general ableist and medical model framing of disability as a deficit that is located in an individual body and must be "fixed." I don't love that messaging, and as a chronically ill woman, I do not love it when characters in my media bemoan how much of a burden they are to everyone around them. That's ableist, pure and simple, and again, we cannot keep reiterating and reaffirming that this kind of framing is acceptable. It's not.

- There was also a bit of a narrative inclination to lean on the "the live of the right person can fix/mitigate a mental illness" which like...don't imply that meds and humane treatments aren't important. They are. Drink your water, take your meds.

I think that overall, Queen Charlotte did some amazing work with women's empowerment and Charlotte herself did some work to disrupt some ableist assumptions (I admit, I appreciated her line "let him be mad, if madness is what he needs." Thank you for meeting him where he was and for yeeting Dr. Evil's ass to the curb. Also, they didn't magically cure Goerge! Or kill him! Low bar, and probably only because of show continuity, but credit where credit is due with not leaning into the kill or cure trope.). That said, there were some insidious things that reiterated and reaffirmed ableist tropes and assumptions, and I would wish for those to be handled better on future.

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

i just found your blog and i find you super cool but i see that you’re a christian. i personally have nothing against it but from the impression i get as a non American is that christians don’t really support the queer community and stuff so what are your opinions on that??

Well first of all, I'm not American myself so if you're looking for the American approach unfortunately I couldn't give it to you. But the belief I have regarding it is this:

(I'm gonna be using the phrase same-sex attraction in this thing because I'm not comfortable using queer because I myself am pretty sure I'm not, and I don't think I can reclaim it, and gay feels too restrictive if that makes sense? I'm aware it feels like a weirdly clinical term and I'm sorry for that but it's sort of like the clearest term I think I can use? But I'm aware it might be off putting and I'm sorry and these are my reasons for it).

Same-sex attraction is natural, it isn't some weird perversion, it isn't just a form of lust and it isn't something that can be "prayed away" or whatever some people think, conversion therapy is horrific and also fundamentally useless. To treat someone who is same sex-attracted as in any way different or more sinful than the rest of us, or to claim they can't be Christian, is not just cruel, it's actively hateful and wrong. Violence against people for any part of their identity is vile and utterly unsupportable.

In the Bible and thus in Christian faith, there are multiple verses in both old and new testament that indicate that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong. This is one of the many restrictions surrounding sex, which all arise from the same concept - that sex isn't just a physical act, but a spiritual one and as such there are a lot of rules surrounding it (no sex outside of marriage, for example, is equally emphasised). So I suppose we don't support the queer community in that we don't support sex between people of the same sex, but we also don't support a lot of other stuff that I myself as a straight cis woman could engage in and would literally be seen as just as bad.

The problem with this is that a lot of homophobic people in homophobic churches (which tragically do exist and can cause extreme damage and trauma to many people) have twisted this all to mean that "if you're gay you're going to hell." This is inherently wrong not just morally but also from a theological standpoint for a number of reasons. Firstly, that's simply not how hell and heaven work. Within the Christian framework, the idea is that everyone is condemned to hell automatically due to inherent sinfulness arising from original sin, and the only way not to go there is to repent and turn to God. So you can't be going to hell because of one particular thing. Secondly, same-sex attraction isn't a sin, it just isn't! Nothing says it is! It's literally just the act of sleeping together that's frowned upon! And sleeping with someone of the same sex isn't a worse sin than the rest of them, it's not like some special secret evil thing! It's literally not!

Actually, I'm not the expert on this obviously, but over the past few years I've seen the phase Side B be used more and more, which I think is a loose term used by Christians who are same-sex attracted but choose either celibacy or to only marry (and thus sleep with) people of the opposite sex if they're also attracted to them. To me, this sounds like a great trial, and I am always in awe of their strength of faith to do this. If someone who's reading this is Side B please feel free to weigh in on this because you probably know more about it than I do. So yeah, that's a direction that a lot of SSA people in the church take.

Regarding non-Christians, tbh the major thing there is that they're not Christian which is a more overarching issue, so like when I have SSA friends who aren't Christians if I went around like "ooh you shouldn't be sleeping with people of the same sex" that's just like, creepy weird of me? They don't follow the same moral framework that I do. I think they should, I think Christianity is right and I think it is the only path to salvation, but my focus should be on that, rather than on an issue which honestly is not at all the heart of the religion.

(Also to clarify I don't go around preaching to people all the time, I do think evangelising is important but I don't think randomly telling my friends hey you should be christian now all the time is going to actually help at all, it's just going to make them stop being friends).

The fact of it is, there is a lot of homophobia within the church. God is perfect, the people who follow Him or claim to follow Him, often not so much. I mean, even in some of the Christian circles on here people can be horrifying about it, bigoted and cruel and it's disgusting and not right. I am eternally thankful that there does seem to be, at least in Britain where I live, a shift away from it, but I'm also aware that depending on the church a lot more needs to be done, not just in this but in many areas (I mean, I have a friend who was once told her anxiety attacks were possession by a devil, IT'S LITERALLY THE 21ST CENTURY AND SHE WAS TOLD THAT, not to get off topic but there genuinely are many many issues within many churches which really need to be addressed, and thankfully as I said, at least at the churches I know and go to, they are being so).

Ultimately, the core of Christianity is meant to be love. Love doesn't always mean agreeing with people and letting them do anything they want, love can mean correcting people if you think they're doing something wrong, like if your friend were doing something you thought was wrong and there would be significant consequences you'd tell them because you love them, right? And we do believe sins are wrong and do have consequences, and we try to correct our fellow Christians who do wrong when we can without being twats about it, but any correction should be done with love, with the recognition that no one is worse than we are, with the understanding we aren't any better. And if people aren't Christian, randomly insisting they follow individual Christian beliefs rather than attempting to convince them of the actual heart of Christianity (Jesus's death and thus the salvation of all of humanity who turn to God) suggests that people who do it don't actually care about saving or helping people, they just want to prove they're special and above everyone else which is, y'know, unbiblical.

I would argue that thinking same-sex sexual relations are wrong isn't inherently hateful, especially because that belief would never lead me to mistreat another human being. Some people however might disagree, You might even disagree, anon! And that is, of course, perfectly fine and valid. I'm glad I come across as super cool, if my Christian beliefs make you uncomfortable (which I know they can do) to the extent that you don't want to hang around, it's your online experience to curate, I wish you nothing but goodness and happiness. If however, you want to hang around, amazing!!! I hope the new fixations every four weeks where my entire personality changes to center around my new blorbo aren't too distracting.

(Also I am not going to make this rebloggable because I'm on my holidays rn and don't have the energy to face Discourse. Thank you for being polite about this, often people have Not Been and it's a little exhausting, so thanks for being chill in asking! I hope you have a great day, if you celebrate any holidays around now I hope they're wonderful!!! and I hope this makes sense I know it's a bit rambly).

[raphaelapproves]

Today, focus was a precious commodity and I ended up behind at work so did not get the chance to post the conversation as promised.

But now, here we are, the "conversation"--and I do use that term loosely--that I had with an Astarion girlie.

Allow me to set the scene.

This happened on a video where a streamer was, I assume, HORRIFIED to find that if she just self-insert played the game with answers she would give--SHOCK!--Gale was the companion who liked her the most. I can't imagine why.

Anyway, the comments section was the predictable Gale-bashing. Some in good fun. Most of it not. And I'm me, so I just couldn't help myself, because I see too much of my younger self [ who still tried to engage with people and connect but didn't know how ] in Gale, so I responded to a couple of comments. This was the one that prompted this little meeting of the... well, one mind and then whatever the other person was operating with. Must have been a different Operating System, because it sure didn't make sense to me.

It is below the cut, as are my thoughts because it turned into a long post as, apparently, I had many thoughts.

Astarion Girlie [ henceforth AG ]: THEN HE CAN GO SUCK OFF LETTO II ON ARRAKIS CUZ I AM NOT HERE FOR GALE'S SEXIST A$$ 😤

Me: First: how is Gale sexist? Second: and yet you're okay with Astarion [ NOTE: the username had something to do with what Astarion could do for them, so I made an educated guess ] who is canonically racist, knowingly lured people to their deaths, and was fine with condemning the world for himself???

AG: are you serious??? 🤣 Gale mansplains EVERYTHING to the women around him including magic to other magic-user, uses coercion as a flirting tactic, & slvt-shames Tav if you're romancing someone else.

Me: Wow. There is so much wrong with that. 1) Tell me you don't have an autistic friend without telling me. 2) He explains to EVERYONE not just women. 3) Genuinely? What coercion? 4) He just tells you -- He isn't for an open relationship [ says he wishes you had asked him first which is y'know healthy? ] and asks you to choose, then says he wishes you well if you don't choose him.

AG: have you considered touching grass?

Me: This is such an intelligent rebuttal. Brava! So insightful and useful to a debate. Have you considered maybe listening to others without belitting them because you can't have a friendly discussion?

AG: 1) all of my friends are auDHD and so am i. you're an ableist joke. 😘 2) now you're gale-splaining his sexism 😂 3) i'm not interested in continuing with someone as clearly unwell as you are, bye!

Me: I AM autistic, friend. 2) It's not sexism if he's literally explaining his special interest to EVERYONE regardless of sex. 3) Again, quite mature. Thank you. 👏👏👏

I am just. How??? can anyone be so ??? I do not even have a word for it. It baffles me.

Astarion has canonically done terrible things, would canonically do many even more terrible if not swayed from it, and yet Gale??? is the one with whom they have a problem??? And they can't even logic their own argument???

As someone who is autistic and has been a victim of continued mental and emotional abuse from someone who always wanted to play the victim card and as someone who was always given the excuse "well they're not well and you know it, so you just have to deal with it and don't argue" when they're going out of their way to make your life hell and trying to frame you as their own personal villain, up to and including gaslighting you to the point of nearly two decades of depression, making you feel like you were broken and the worst human being in the world, and having you contemplating things you shouldn't, and them lying to others about things that happened or things that were said to get you in trouble, I get very, very tired of the mentality I see so much around the crazed Astarion Girlies of excusing everything he has ever done and being unable to even acknowledge a single flaw and attacking anyone who does say anything.

I have and continue to live that, have been and continue to be on the other side of it having to suffer because someone else wasn't held accountable, and I am Tired. [ At least now, thanks to my best friend in the entire world, I can see it for what it is and I'm in at least a better place now mentally, 98% of the time. ]

[ NOTE: This is NOT against the Astarion writers I have seen on here. Please do not misunderstand. The Astarion writers I follow on here are the only reason I can still even marginally like the character at this point. He is fascinating. He is multi-faceted. It's one of the things I love to see explored by those who I follow. It is always interesting to see people write complex and even morally difficult characters because that, too, is a form of understanding humanity. It's one of the things I love exploring with my anti-heroes and villains. In Baldur's Gate, that would include characters like Raphael, Gortash, Dirge, etc. So please know I am not hating on any Astarion writers! Everyone I follow is amazing! ]

But when you bring up those character flaws and morally difficult things that does make the character so complex and multi-faceted, these are the responses you get:

Astarion is a victim!

Yes, that is true. But Gortash who, let's be honest, at least doesn't fully know what he's doing is wrong [ you pass the insight checks and what not/narration tells you/the VA tells you that he thinks he's doing the right thing for himself and for the city, etc. and with the way he was raised, what example did he have to the contrary but I've already gone on that rant HERE ] is to the smallest degree even less culpable in my mind than Astarion, and he doesn't get a pass the way Astarion does? And he certainly shouldn't. He isn't absolved. He is doing terrible things whether he can fully rationalize it or not with his understanding of life.

Astarion though, acknowledges on multiple occasions, gives excuses, justifies his actions at every turn while still knowing that what he's doing and planning to do is wrong. And it's heavily implied that he really wasn't all that great of a person BEFORE Cazador either [ that is not to say that he deserved what happened either, just to clarify ]. But the point is Astarion did, at one point, having come from what seems an affluent family, have a knowledge of right and wrong and still made decisions that he made, even before Cazador and after once he was free.

Cazador made him do those things! Yes, he did, but that excuse stopped the moment Cazador's control was no longer an issue. He had free will and a knowledge of right and wrong, and he made the decisions he made.

But it was a habit by then! It was what he learned to survive!

And that coupled with the knowledge of right and wrong goes only so far as the moment you choose to knowingly make your trauma someone else's. Cazador wasn't going to force him to do the Ascension ritual and pay 7,000 souls for his own betterment. "Because after 200 years of SHIT, PURE SHIT, I think I deserve better." A paraphrase, but I think I caught the most important parts. He knew it was wrong, he acknowledges it and immediately tries to justify himself, and is still quite willing to do it. Literally, if he kills you by draining your blood, he acts like nothing ever happened and then tries to sweep it under the rug with Tav if they continue to be upset about it by telling them there's no reason to be.

And yet, we have a problem with Gale, who can be or come across as condescending at times, but I think you can hardly call a man sexist who made his girlfriend his entire personality--since she was the goddess of his SPECIAL INTEREST--and continues to put her word above even his own life, prioritize her forgiveness over his continued existence and who takes such great interest in literally everything Lae'zel has to say about the Astral Plane and her people. We have a problem with a man who is honest about his comfort zone? Who loves your PC even if you become a mindflayer? Who only takes issue with you when you do something morally bad? Who literally gives you approval points for anything even remotely resembling a good choice? Who feels like he doesn't even deserve a place in the world and would gladly give himself up for any one of his companions?

He's always harassing me for items!!!! AND HE GOT MAD WHEN I WOULDN'T GIVE THEM TO HIM!!!

The count is THREE and you can give the man the most trash items you have and he still thanks you and tells you that he will repay your kindness because he knows what such sacrifice means. He is thanking you--just as he gets mad at you if you don't--because he literally has a ticking bomb in his chest that would kill not only HIM if it de-stabilized and exploded, but also anyone within the vicinity.

Well he betrayed Mystra!!!

He tried to get on equal footing with someone he loved, to share in something he loved with the person who embodied it. Was he overly ambitious? Absolutely. [ And honestly, tell me it's not Gifted Kid Syndrome -coded to assume that he could do this impossible thing. ] Did it cost him? Yes. And then Mystra, who could have fixed it and didn't cast him off. And he still prayed to her. And took all of the blame on himself, despite the fact that Mystra shares more than a little responsibility for what transpired. [ I.E. all of the Origin PCs have been victims in this game, in some way or another, and some if not all of them to power imbalances in relationships. Why does anyone think Gale is the one exception? ]

HE'S MANSPLAINING TO ME!!!

He is literally telling you all about his special interest and probably assuming that you don't know much about it, or at least not as much as him, because he was literally a Chosen of Mystra and an Archmage. Again, can he be condescending and huffy at times? Yes. He absolutely can. Call it a character flaw. Everyone has them, but you know what? His doesn't condemn anyone to death, so why are we up at arms?

HE DOESN'T WANT ME TO SEE OTHER PEOPLE!!!

And that is his prerogative and he's straightforward and honest with you about it. He tells you--if you already started flirting with or seeing someone--that he wishes you had the courtesy to tell him first [ which, IS IN FACT the healthy way to go about a relationship of that nature, just as shown with Halsin insisting you ask your partner first ]--but if you choose the other person, he wishes you both well, usually gives some compliment to the other person, and then continues to treat you well as long as you weren't rude and demeaning to him during or after the fact.

So why???? Is so much of the fanbase SO AGGRESSIVELY against Gale? But Astarion is uwu Babygirl and can do no wrong? What about defending Gale makes me "so unwell", but how DARE anyone rightfully criticize even the smallest thing about Astarion because [ insert extensive list of reasons why none of that should matter ].

That he is a victim, that he's pretty, that his VA has a great voice and personality, et cetera, does not excuse that Astarion has knowingly done terrible things both against and within his will and will do so again without hesitation if he helps him, particularly if your Durge or Tav doesn't try or manage to sway him.

Make this make sense to me, because I certainly cannot seem to make it do so.

I've said it before with that Gortash post I linked above and I said it on a similar post for Zevlor and somewhere that I was talking about Minthara and Nere, but the double standards within a loud portion of this fanbase--even within the game itself and among the people who worked on it--is not one of its better qualities.

[antimony-medusa]

once again thank you for putting into words some of the worst problems i've seen/found in mcyt fandom that i just could not put my finger on. ever since i was first getting into dsmp & especially sbi, it always felt so baffling to try and talk about fanfic in the fandom because it was like people (vague hand wavey reference to twt fandom) were just picking and choosing at random which things were and weren't okay with NO basis. but like yeah oh my god its because of kink things. it's because they don't realize it's all kink things, but they'll latch onto and condemn the ones that "stick out" as objectively horny and make call out posts for it. without realizing they're writing the same exact things and just not realizing it's kink. like I'm remembering when sbi twt went to war about petnames and if using them in fic was okay or if it was creepy and it genuinely just boiled down to "it's okay when /I/ do it because I know I'm writing it in an affectionate/platonic way but when YOU do it it's weird because it reads as creepy/sexual!!" meanwhile the fics in question were written in the exact same manner and using the exact same words. LIKE ??

Yeah and like, I'm taking a bit of a different stance than Twitter, because I do think a lot of stuff being written in the SBI tags is kinky, but most of the time the authors are also trying to keep it legitimately platonic, and yeah, the streamers shouldn't see that, but my stance on stuff that the streamers shouldn't see is that we should keep it away from streamers, not that we should harass the people writing it off the internet. Just keep it on Ao3 and tag it and you're fine.

Like, my intent with all of this is not to shame people for having kinks. Almost everybody has at least one kink of some kind or another, and that's fine, whether you get especially into mind control or you find the idea of someone powerful being condescending and mean to you being compelling, or again, you just want someone in a parental role to take care of you and tell you you're good. That's fine. I can't overemphasize how fine that is. Lots of people have that. You can be super ace and also super kinky, even.

I do sometimes feel bad when I see writers who have obvious kinks who are very afraid of exploring any element of sex with that— like I am sorry but vore is not normally a platonic kink, omegaverse being fun for you is fine but it's not normally platonic, but they're desperately toeing that line and attacking anyone who comes close to implying that they've crossed it.

Cause most of what I've read, I don't think the authors are conciously shipping it. You do get the rare person in the tag where I'm like "if kissing wasn't illegal, would this scene have ended in this specific way, huh 🤨", but most of the time I think people intend to be keeping it platonic. But uhhhhhh the fandom tropes that we're all working with now go along with ship and sex in any other fandom, even if everybody's pants stay on in this one. So the people who wrote it know that THEY very intentionally kept it platonic, so THEY are in the clear, but YOU are obviously using a shipping trope so YOU have to be called out— and then the twitter cancellation mill grinds through another cycle, which is not helpful to anyone. What are you gonna do, shrug emoji.

[queenie-says-free-palestine]

Hi! I came across your blog and wanted to offload some feelings, I hope you don't mind.

I've been kinda aware of the situation in Palestine for a few years now (However I am sure that there is A LOT more I don't know) I'm from Western Europe, I'm sure you're aware of how little concern there was and is for Palestinian here. My stomach just dropped when I turned on the news this past weekend. The first thing I saw was the Israeli president proclaiming war. I felt horrified, I knew that whatever Hamas had done, the Palestinian people would be punished for it. It's terrible what happened to the Israeli people, of course, but the entire western world doesn't seem to acknowledge, accept or even care about the fact that those in Palestine are living in an 'Apartheid system'

I've seen videos of kids being 'roughed up' by Israeli military, old people forced from homes they've lived in for generations. They have been suffering for decades like this. Why is it okay for them to be treated like this? Because they're brown? Muslim? I'm sorry if that's a controversial thing to say, but I can't think of any other reason for it. It is both heartbreaking and infuriating.

I wish the western world just cared, if only a little bit. We have been bombarded with 'Israel the victim' narrative, there is some reporting about what they are doing to Gaza (cutting aid etc) and it's generating a little sympathy but not enough to change the overall narrative. Those who publicly support 'Free Palestine' are painted as antisemitic at best, a terrorist sympathizer at worst.

I'm sick of it!

Forgive me if I've got anything wrong here, but this is the opinion I've come to from what I've seen/read. Feel free to correct me.

Thanks for letting me vent.

sorry, i meant to reply to this when you sent it but ive been so busy 😭😭

im glad you feel that my blog is a safe space to vent :) and no worries, im fine w you feeling the need to spill all this. if anything im somewhat honored you chose my blog !

i will be expanding on some notes you said, but trigger warning for graphic depictions of violence. also notable that if people will get triggered at the very ideas of these things, at seeing them as words or on screens, then imagine those who face this in their every day lives, who have faced this every day for decades. you can choose not to read and not get triggered and move on. they dont have a choice.

the first thing id mention is that you mention how the condemnation is "why is it okay for them to be treated like this? because theyre brown? muslim?" and as a brown muslim, yes this is exactly why its okay for them to be treated like this. the west has made it clear for decades that muslims are terrorists or plane hijackers or bombers and they should be disciplined and indoctrinated, and arabs are either oil money bilionaires or robbers or sex objects who live in tents and dont use cars because they have camels. thats why white ukrainians are defending themselves but brown palestinians are terrorists

but also keep in mind that minorities such as arab christians are just as threatened, especially due to a lack of awareness about the fact that theres actually a large number of christians in arabia, and the christian communities in the middle east are some of the oldest in the world, with the ones in palestine able to date back to the birth of the church. in fact, arab christians are almost condemned more than arab muslims because people tend to blow them off because theyre arab christian and somewhat alien to other people.

not to mention that people have the nerve to say palestinians should die bc the majority are muslims and want to kill infidels and queers. what of the queer palestinians? im friends with palestinians irl and two of them are queer. are they excused from the massacre but their families should die? and its sad that this next sentence might be controversial, but even homophobes dont deserve to be slaughtered. yes, i said it.

next, this is smth that angers me, not what you said, but the fact that its so unknown. youve seen videos of "kids being 'roughed up' by israeli military, old people forced from homes theyve lived in for generations". i promise you, anon, this is the tip of the iceberg. scroll far enough, esp on twitter under the hashtag #freepalestine. the things ive seen will stay with me forever. the things youll see if you look far enough, i promise, you wont be able to comprehend how people who witness this every day can still have the will to live.

if you scroll far enough, youll see videos of women screaming in pain as they watch their homes getting bulldozed. youll see a video of a hearing impaired palestinian girl running, only to get hit in the face w a stun grenade. shes only eleven years old. youll see videos of a boy, only about six, eyes wide and staring off, silent as the person holding the camera urges him to speak and shakes him. youll see a father crying over his sons body after finding it among the dead. youll see a boy running through a crowd, screaming and crying for his dad, only to find his fathers corpse being held up by the people in front. youll find people being pulled out from rubble. youll find a boy pointing at his little sister and saying "look at the blood on her feet." youll see videos of people being held hostage in al aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in islam, by the idf. they did nothing but pray. youll see a man holding a dead fetus, saying that its mother was killed. youll see a father vlogging what life is like in gaza, he buys gifts for his daughters for eid but they keep hiding under pillows thinking that theyre going to get bombed and he has to reassure them and hug them. he died a few days later. youll see two children being held by an idf soldier as they cry and swear they havent done anything. youll see a palestinian girl gesturing towards destroyed buildings behind her and saying "you see all of this. what do you expect me to do, fix it? im only ten." youll see a woman talking about how her two and a half year old son, who was shot by israeli soldiers, was loved by everyone and he loved everyone. youll see a group of men in the middle of prayer, refusing to stop even when they hear israeli missiles hitting. they flinch but they dont stop praying. 

and what of the incidents that didnt get recorded? these are just from the last decade or so. what of the sixty five years before that? this is what i call terrorism. the hijabi on your flight is not a terrorist. the zionists who tells people to leave the land they grew up in, the land their ancestors grew up in? THATS who the the terrorist here.

and even those who dont get killed are terrorized. there are people who have to sign in with checkpoints any time they enter or leave their own home. theyre arrested by the idf for no reason and interrogated for hours.

i would also like to add a point. palestinians arent punished for hamas's crimes. palestinians are punished for being palestinians. people could argue that "oh, israels trying to attack hamas, the civilians are collateral damage, thats inevitable in war!!!"

bull. shit.

okay fine, lets assume that, ethically speaking, its morally just to level all of gaza with the aim of exterminating hamas. lets assume that its not morally questionable to do so, and lets assume that it doesnt violate international law. let me steal the argument of bassem youssef from when he debated w piers morgan:

lets assume hamas doesnt exist. lets assume theres a world where hamas doesnt exist in palestine, and lets call this world the west bank. ... whats the excuse for killing palestinians in the west bank?

(he said smth of the sort, im not sure these were his exact words)

why would you kill palestinians in the west bank, where there isnt hamas, and say that its "collateral damage" from a war w hamas? its thinly veiled racism, i promise you

the slightly more fortunate news is that the world seems to be waking up. there are protests, even in the west, in support of palestine. al jazeera news has an article abt places that have held protests in solidarity w palestine (the link is here) and a lot of them are in western/european countries. even jews are protesting, i remember seeing a video (its kinda old tho maybe two years old ??) of a jewish guy saying "we are embarassed of whats happening in the state of israel, in the jewish name" and that palestinians "shouldnt give up the struggle" (the video is here)

unfortunately, where i live, no protests can be held, but maybe if theres any near you, anon, you can show some love by attending :) and if there arent then you can simply donate (only if you can, obviously)

sorry this ramble is so long hahaha its just that your ask allowed me to let out some bottled up feelings of my own

[hamliet]

Crows With A Side of Bone, Please

Hamliet finally wrote that review.

I'll start off by saying that everyone is a very good actor. Jessie Mei Li has essentially nothing to work with, but she does her best to sell it anyways and still makes me care about her. Ben Barnes is delightfully evil while still affording the character sympathy the narrative doesn't give him.

The Crows--oh lord, the Crows. All of them have chemistry as a group and as couples. Wylan's actor is fantastic here and feels like a natural fit with the other 5, and Nina's actress also fits perfectly with the crew. They do have a lot to work with, and they manage to fully flesh out their already 3D characters and make them alive.

Kanej, Wesper, Nina/Matthias, Genya/David

The good ships, because this season I revoke my like of Malina that season 1 introduced me to.

I wrote this about Kanej. But also more about Kanej, because OTP OTP OTP.

I loved the final scene with them in the finale, where he grabs her, and she holds his hand and tells him, bluntly, that she does not want him with armor on. The line is one of my favorites in the book, and the show did an excellent job of showing the totality of it, the wholistic nature of what Inej is asking for. Yes, she's asking for him without his cold persona, without his bravado. She's asking for his vulnerabilities.

But she's also asking for his body. For him not to see her as broken. For him not to settle for less than all of her. She is thirsty, and I honestly think this was a beautiful portrayal of someone who has been hurt and is wary, but still wants and believes in the potential for good in sex. The show made this aspect so much more forefront than I remember it being in the books, and I honestly love it.

I also liked the choice to get Wylan and Jesper together early on. The piano scene emphasizes both of their respective gifts, and Wylan's fear over what Kaz might do to Alby clearly projects Wylan's own fears about being condemned for his father. (Wylan is actually one of my favorites in the books because his disability is, imo, good representation.)

Nina and Matthias didn't get nearly as much screentime this season (together anyways), but they made the most of every moment anyways. Even when they are apart we see the potential in how they are still affecting each other. We see Nina's determination. We see Matthias's hurt. We see the pride and humility they both carry, and how both can inhibit and also free them. There's so much potential there.

The motif of prisons, of hiding, is very strong in the Crows' arcs. Matthias uses his masculinity as a prison and chooses to fight over be free because he's scared. Wylan hides his family and disability. Jesper hides his gift. But if you want to have a complete life, you have to step out into the light. Which is a perfect way to segway into Alina, but...

Let's save the salt for later.

Also, not a ship, but I quite liked Nikolai. His character is one of the standouts in the original trilogy (because complexity). His volcra issue being rearranged timewise to be a cliffhanger I don't mind either.

David's death was, just like it is in Rule of Wolves, cruel and pointless. Just like Matthias's in Crooked Kingdom. Give Genya happiness. She earned it. So did David. Love seeing a woman who's been sexually abused and maimed find hope and healing with an autistic man who is almost NEVER a love interest in stories and then he dies for The Sads. Real inspiring. Real thoughtful. There is no narrative nor character reason for it to happen at all, and so early only made it worse honestly.

Show, Don't Tell

Mal tells Alina he has so many friends in the army that he's worried about, but we saw exactly 0 of these in the previous season. In fact, we saw Mal pulling away from the army to pursue Alina.

It was ridiculous that Alina's response to Kirigan in the climax saying people would come for her was "I will save myself," and then literally ONE SECOND LATER Inej saves her. Alina has never saved herself this entire dang series. Not in either season. The Crows save her each and every time! And that's not a bad thing--it could offer something about the power of relying on others, but to blatantly lie to your audience when you've shown us something else... bad writing yo.

I also wish they'd given us a reason to care about Ravka. They keep saying it's worth saving, worth protecting, but... why? We aren't even given the easiest narrative techniques to make us care about the common people (see, Alby making us care about Pekka even though we hate him=a good way of making us care. Give us a child who needs saving, a connection to the people, something, anything. If people deserve saving just because they are people well, that demonstrably flies in the face of what happens to Kirigan, so....)

Imprinting

It still baffles me that Alina again preaches about choice and yet even fate determined Mal's finding Alina. It was literally imprinting. That's what imprinting is. And for some reason Malina is held up as... healthy? When it's clearly extremely codependent?

It's not a huge problem that it's codependent, though, on principle. It's fiction. What does bother me is the hypocrisy of trying to tear apart every bad thing "bad boys" do while portraying Malina as healthy when it's demonstrably not. Malina would be far, far more interesting, frankly compelling, if they actually delved into this. The cliffhanger hinted they might do just this, but given other aspects, I'm not sure I quite trust them to follow up and follow though.

If you're gonna condemn what some people like and hold up what you like in comparison, at least make sure you're honest about its flaws.

Abuse is Bad Except Not if a Woman Does It. Then It's Girl Power!

Again, the themes of the Crows almost, at times, contradict Shadow & Bones' purported themes. But that's not hard, because Shadow & Bones' purported themes contradict themselves.

I've said this before, but I'll say again that there is a difference between complexity and paradoxes and portrayal the oft-contradictory reality of our world and contradicting your theme. A contradiction is much more common in a simplistic story, which S&B is.

Why is it wrong and seen as a sign of evil beyond comprehension for the Darkling to hurt his mother, who is acknowledged even by the show to have abused him, but not inherently wrong for Alina or Inej or Kaz to hurt their abusers?

Literally Bhagra said "know that i loved you and it wasn't enough." We are NEVER shown her loving him; we are shown abuse, which the show does kind of acknowledge, while also trying to vindicate Bhagra while holding the Darkling to standards it doesn't hold any other character.

Yes, there's some complexity here insofar as Inej and Kaz's relationships with abuse and revenge go. They aren't black and white, and the characters waffle in the gray. But Alina and the Darkling literally are light and darkness, and the gray is explicitly rejected. And there is actually a way to make this work!

You have to frame it as a tragedy.

Kaz, Inej, Genya et al mess up and do terrible things in revenge; they even at times (especially Kaz) walk the line between utterly losing themselves to it. But they have people around them to pull them back, to reach for them. The Darkling does not. This could be portrayed as something sad, as someone trying to reach the hurting child inside him and him continuously rejecting them (for example, Adam and Blake in RWBY), with his death framed as something to mourn rather than viewed as a moment of triumph, but no. The show doesn't offer him this (to be fair. Neither did the books.)

And to people who say Alina's not obligated to do so! Yes, yes, sure, but also Alina's inherent goodness is just assumed, when she's demonstrably kind of callous at best. I talked about this more in my review of Season 1, but yeah. Nothing's changed on that front.

The point is also that... what has the Darkling actually done to Alina? There were ways to emphasize him as an abuser, which he is clearly coded as, but the show (and the books tbh) doesn't do that. Alina supposedly mourns her parents, but we're given a handful of lines and nothing to actually show us the impact of losing them. (Again, Alina's self-centered focus is actually very much a trauma response to this... or could be, but the story doesn't want to explore it.) The impact of his lies is just not really explored on a deep level like it should be if you want to go for the "abuser" angle. See again, Blake Belladonna for how you do that.

Alina's "there is no redemption" line was baffling to me. It was framed like some sort of powerful "I. Am. Iron Man" moment, except okay, if that's your power girl, I don't think it's a good one.

Power Fantasies

This is my issue with Shadow & Bone the books as well: they aim to deconstruct "Beauty and the Beast" but fail to understand the appeal of the story in the first place is not "oh i have a dangerous boyfriend" but instead a healing power fantasy the same way fight-punch-kick can be a power fantasy. Shadow & Bone also directly tries to deconstruct Jungian symbolism of the shadow, but also doesn't like, understand what Jungian symbolism stands for. Until the ending, that is, when the writers were clearly like "Bardugo doesn't get it but we do and we're keeping it."

Again, I'll contrast this with Blake in RWBY, whose portrayal I have criticized before, but which is much better than the portrayal here. Blake is herself both beauty and beast, which emphasizes the traditional fairy tale's emphasis on accepting the worst of ourselves and recognizing both the beautiful aspects of ourselves at the same time. We tend to see ourselves as either Good or Bad, but only when we see ourselves as both do we mature and truly live. Even though Adam is ultimately "put down" in RWBY, Blake still acknowledges her flaws and doesn't see Adam as inherently bad, but he leaves her absolutely no choice. Alina facing down the Darkling offers her zero introspection and growth.

Sigh. It's a 2.5/5 for me. The Crows are everything. I want their spin off. I need it. I will take Zoya and Nikolai too.

[wordsbymae]

(I will probably complete this later because I started to think of an answer but lost my mind)

I'll start by talking about bitter reader because I was already thinking about more things about her and you had exactly the same line of thought as mine regarding Alwyn

I also like the concept of persephone and hades and honestly it's one of my favorite promps mainly because I find it very realistic, I think a depressed reaction on the part of the reader is very logical and expected because she only married for money and even though Alwyn already has her loved it she didn't know him well.

The reader's breach of expectation is probably one of the main reasons for your reactions, remember when you mentioned that the reader imagined Alwyn as a blond and handsome guy like a charming prince, not talking about appearance but about personality I see what the reader wanted a charming prince (a gentleman) ++ the romance that accompanies the stories, much of her attitude comes from the sadness of having to see all the girls being courted and acclaimed while she is ""auctioned"," grabbed and thrown on top of a horse for a stranger.

But still the reader feels the need to at least make an effort to love Alwyn because it was """he""" (among many quotes because it could have been anyone) who saved her people from poverty and hence the lack of attitude against Alwyn.

I feel like I just rambled too much so a summary: reader is sad that she couldn't have a traditional romance, that she didn't go through this experience but still lives with Alwyn out of obligation

What else could have helped her sad attitude: her sisters who would probably condemn her for marrying a thug, watching her father fall apart, the fact that Alwyn is a no-nonsense person (I imagine she gets even sadder when Alwyn mentions any sexual relationships past and worse compare her with the prostitutes), and also the change of environment because even if there are other women in the gang most are probably made up of men who laugh whenever her new husband talks about her breasts

Communication between the two is extremely complicated as in this AU there was not all that conversation that led Alwyn to show a more sentimental side so he just took her to bed and took what he wanted and later on while Alwyn has a death grip around her reader and mutters nonsense reader can feel tears running down her cheeks.

Alwyn realizes something is wrong when the other day he asks reader what she would like to eat/do she mutters a "You choose I don't care"

He takes you around the place and introduces you to the members and the whole time you keep a polite smile and he realizes why when he saw these nobles at events they had the same kind of smile

And from there the flattery begins, the dresses, rings and necklaces never stop arriving and the reader is just suffocated

The reader's attempt to stop the flattery is to try to initiate more affection with Alwyn just leaning her head on his shoulder while you sit together hug his arm as you walk reader is just trying to live one of those novels she always read in the library books but this one dumb man thinks that everything is an initiative for sex and tries to have sex in totally random places and the reader gets uncomfortable which makes her start to look at him with disgust and try her best to not start some kind of contact which only makes the situation worse

There comes a point where the reader is just depressed around the corners and seems like she doesn't even listen anymore when alwyn asks which of the dresses you want him to steal for you and Alwyn is on the verge of insanity

I don't remember what I was going to say

I'm sorry if it's hard to understand or the punctuation/grammar is wrong because I use google translator and it doesn't always understand what I mean

Also I'm sorry if it's a bit ooc for Alwyn because I talked so much about the reader that I forgot to talk about Alwyn

*For anyone else reading, the following is all discussing an Alternative Universe where the reader is a lot more miserable marrying Alwyn and thus it does not affect my 'canon' unless explicitly said. I hope you guys still enjoy it! I love the thoughts anon^^^ has and how realistic, in-depth and multidimensional they are :D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anon you just get me. You understand everything going through my mind before I can even make sense of it all. To be honest, if I hadn't been in such a (needy/insecure) mood when I wrote the original fic (and I actually thought everything out rather than winging it as I wrote), I would have done something very similar. Cause it was a vent fic I did base the reader off of me in certain ways and I made it have a happy ending cause I wanted a 'resolution' as such that I could control. But if I was to be completely honest I love the idea of the reader being so depressed and sad at the prospect of her fairy tale romance being ripped from her.

I almost don't want to say this but hell why not, I can relate to it a lot in the sense that the reader has watched as her sisters have fallen in love and have gained true romance. Their husbands actually fell 'in love' with them (i did quotations cause they got married in like a week) and they got everything the reader has prayed for and she has just had to sit and watch it happening in front of her. I think I said something in the original fic where the reader's hope was shattered of ever finding love when some men took steps back when her name was called by her father. It was at that moment everything fell apart and she realised that she really might never fall in love. She was forced to finally face the prospect that she really was undesirable or unattractive to men (You do not need to be attractive to anyone to be deemed worthy of a happy life!!) In her eyes that last chance has passed, cause now her father is seeing it as a business transaction rather than ensuring his daughters' happiness. I mean think about it, if he really wanted to he could have married them all off to the highest bidder first thing, but he gave them a chance at love, and seeing that his youngest daughter failed to ensure a match changes his attitude towards her. He still loves her don't get me wrong but now he is forced to act like a Lord rather than a doting father. So yeah, the reader feels like she has lost her chance and will never get to fall in love or do all the romantic stuff that comes with it. Like shy hand-holding or secret notes or long walks in the gardens or outrunning their chaperones to sneak sweet kisses in dark corners. She'll never get that.

I think she still would have held out hope though (no matter how small) for her future husband to be (like you said) a charming prince, a person who would be romantic with her. But when she got told Alwyn was to be her husband that illusion shattered. All the stories of him were of a bloodthirsty, rough, vile man, so she really just was heartbroken at the thought of it all. To her there was to be no romance between them, instead of gentle touches, he would grab and grip and pull, instead of sweet words, he would shout vulgar and horrid things. And he didn't help himself at the wedding threatening the priest and saying he wanted to be balls deep in her by sundown, it really just reinforced her thoughts and feelings of him. In this verse I see her crying walking to the altar and her father getting quite mad with her. Telling her this is all her fault and that if she had just submitted to his wishes she would have married an old rich man who would have died within the year at best and at worst in 5. She doesn't stop crying and just stands there silent with tears slowly dripping down her cheeks. Alwyn was honestly expecting this reaction but he's got the rest of his life to make her love him so he doesn't really care (at this stage, he is impatient though and snaps in like 4 days).

And yeah Alwyn is not a romantic guy, he very bluntly stated that he was expecting sex at the end of all this in front of dozens and then slaps her arse as he has her thrown over his shoulder. To this reader it makes her feel like a very expensive prostitute, like you said she doesn't know he actually loves her (more like obsessed) so she views this whole thing like him just wanting to brag about fucking a Lady or having her around like an accessory or to be frank like prized livestock.

This was not the wedding she dreamed about at night. There was no sweet kiss or loving vows, there were no butterflies at the sight of him or an intense love between them. I don't know if you know the show Vikings but there is a scene where a princess is forced to marry a Viking and it is very much like that. I have linked it here so hopefully it works! The reader is coming to terms with the fact she will be bonded to this man for life and it terrifies her. And when there is no carriage?? And he begins to rip at her dress? when she is forced to 'pleasure' him while riding (Him making her grind against him doesn't really go anywhere, he was just teasing her, but to her, he might have well slapped her, it's humiliating).

And yes!!!!!!!!!!! it really could have been anyone!!!!!! It was just fate (and my writing) that had Alwyn being the first man to walk in to ask for her hand (he demanded it) and the reader would have been willing to try and be a doting and 'loving' wife to anyone who wanted her (its medieval times so feminism doesn't exist, my bad). She doesn't speak out of turn, she doesn't get mad when riding he says all those vulgar things about her, and she does what he says and submits to him. And Alwyn being an idiot sees this submission as almost an act of love (at least at first)

I LOVE THIS THOUGHT!!!!! In my verse, all of her sisters have left the castle except her eldest, but let's say they came for her wedding. I think those three would be so disgusted with her. Why did she have to have such high standards for men, why not marry some old man or whoever else father wanted you to marry. To them you dragged out your people's suffering, to them you were selfish and shallow, and now you have ruined your father. He will forever be known as the lord who married his daughter to a criminal. and let's not forget he fell to his knees in sorrow at the sight of you leaving him with Alwyn, to him you are ruined (not a nice thought but he is a medieval man so he really just sees you now as corrupted).

And I also really like the thought of him comparing her to past women (in a creative way, it would not be nice to the reader), she was obviously a virgin when they first were together and in this verse I see him getting frustrated with how unresponsive she is. She has been told by her sisters to just lay there and be quiet and to not fight him (they may be mean but her sisters still love her and they were worried he may hurt her) and to think of somewhere nice. But he is getting frustrated that she doesn't make a sound or won't touch him so he says something nasty about how he wished you at least faked it like a prostitute or showed excitement like all the other women he's taken to bed, don't you know how lucky you are? don't you know how many women wish to be in your position?

and yes! The casual mentioning of them having sex or him going into detail about how her body to his men makes her really uncomfortable. In canon, he stops telling his men all that when she is listening (he does it now behind her back) but that is because she had such a physical reaction to it, this reader is trying to be a good wife so she holds that all in which makes him think it's ok to talk about all that to his men when she is sitting right there.

Yes yes yes!!

" Communication between the two is extremely complicated as in this AU there was not all that conversation that led Alwyn to show a more sentimental side so he just took her to bed and took what he wanted and later on while Alwyn has a death grip around her reader and mutters nonsense reader can feel tears running down her cheeks."

exactly right!! He just takes what he wants and then holds her in a death grip afterwards maybe this is when he compares her to past women before going on to tell her what would happen if she tried to leave him.

"he’ll whisper to you in the middle of the night when he doesn’t think you’re awake that he doesn’t think he’s good enough for you, the bastard so of a lowly knight married to a lady. he talks of how he is terrified some lord is going to catch a glimpse of you and steal you away from him or worse you’ll freely go. he whispers how he will never ever let you go and if you try to leave he will butcher your father’s people before stringing your family along the castle walls, then he’ll find whoever you runaway with, watch as he disembowels them and then how he’ll fuck you next to their corpse. he says all this before kissing your head and going back to sleep."

(I didn't want to write it again so I just copied it from his alphabet and cut the bit where it says she loves him. )

But yeah after all that you just lay there crying.

Exactly right! when he figures something is wrong (wow what an emotionally intelligent person figuring out the wife he practically kidnapped might be having a hard time adjusting) he is going to try everything to get you to show affection.

"The whole time you keep a polite smile and he realizes why when he saw these nobles at events they had the same kind of smile"

I love that^^^^^^^ remember he is a master liar so he can see it from a mile away. he can tell you hate it here, that you almost hate him. But he thinks it's because you're a lady and you're not getting what you're used to. So yeah he'll steal all these expensive things and the reader is there drowning in gifts and jewels, while all she has ever wanted is gentle affection.

I love the idea of the reader trying to stop it, she's not silly she knows hes' trying to buy her love like he already bought her body. so she gives it to him in small doses, almost replicating the falling in love she's always wanted, shy hand holding and sweet notes left in his pockets about how she hopes he comes home safely (he's off burning a village down). and I ADORE the idea of the reader reading romance. as someone who only started reading romance start of this year but absolutely loves it, I love the idea of her trying to escape into romance books (giving him a small list of books she would like asking him to please get them for her, he's a dumb man so he doesn't realise what they are about but he sees it as a step in the right direction because he can prove he can provide for you and that you're starting to rely on him) and trying to replicate all that love into her life. Maybe with time, she would grow to love him.

and yes he would see everything as a yes to sex and the reader gets soooo uncomfortable and upset cause all she wanted was a nice picnic under a beautiful oak tree where they might finally get to know each other and now she is on her hands and knees while he ruts into her from behind, and her hand is smushing the cake she baked for him.

Oh yeah, she looks at him with disgust. she tried to fall in love with him but he makes it impossible, he is always calling her a heifer, always trying to have sex with her in the most uncomfortable of places, always discussing her body with anyone who would listen and he makes fun of her romance books when he finally figures out what they are.

I really like the idea of reader just falling apart mentally while he makes a list of all the colours and fabrics he thinks would look good on you and what dress styles he likes on you and which ones you like as he plans for a new heist while you just sit there, stewing in all this frustration and depression (not the mental illness just the extreme sadness) and he can see that and just snaps and like I mentioned in the last one he grabs whichever man he dislikes the most and forces you to tell him you love him while holding a knife to the poor man's throat. No matter how many times you say it he doesn't believe you.

Hope you liked it!!!!

Also no need to apologise!!! English is my native language and yet I still can't spell very well and kinda suck at grammar, so don't apologise for the mistakes google translator makes! Also if I put too much slang or abbreviations in please tell me and I can fix them up for you! And I love the thoughts you have for him! They are very much like the ones I have as well when I think of what could have happened if I made the canon a lot darker than what I have planned.

Thank you for your thoughts and all the best!!

Lots of love mae xx

[nerdygaymormon]

I guess my biggest concern is the fact that those anti-queer scriptures seem to be so direct… However, I do see steps being taken to combat homophobia even if it’s something like treating someone who are queer with equal respect as you would treat anyone else.

I think the scriptures which are used to say homosexuality is wrong are largely used incorrectly. Here's a quick run down of the "clobber verses" (and I included links to a longer write up about each one):

Genesis 19:1-11 - The men of the city of Sodom want to harm two strangers in a way that they go forth and say how horrible the city is so that it keeps other strangers from coming to the city. Their plan to do this was to rape the two visitors. The Bible is clear about what the sins are of Sodom--pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy, hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests, arrogance, evil doing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan, adultery, and lying (gay sex is not on the list)

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 - this is part of the purity code which includes things like kill disobedient children, don't eat or touch pork, don't touch a woman who is menstruating, and on and on. This code was meant to make Israel distinct from the other people who lived in Canaan. Modern Christians ignore almost the entire code, except for these verses about a male-male sex act.

Romans 1:26-28 - The passage these verses are taken from also condemns people who gossip, who disobey their parents, people who have sex with someone they’re not married to, people who boast, murderers, deceivers, and the list keeps going on. These specific verses are saying not to behave in a way that is against the nature of who God created you to be. Gay people are gay, so how is it that these verses are used to say gay people should act against the way God created them?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 - I put these 2 verses together because the meaning of both of them depends on the translation of a word created by Paul and its meaning isn't clear. Putting aside translation issues and possible meanings, let's think about what if Paul really was condemning sex between 2 men, why do we take this seriously but ignore his other teachings about sex? Paul says everyone should be celibate, only the weakest who can't hack celibacy should get married and that their sex should be passionless.

Out of the whole Bible, these 6 scriptures are said to be anti-gay sex, and they are a part of lists of forbidden things which are otherwise largely ignored by modern Christians. The Bible says so much against greed and being rich, yet in America, where a majority are Christian, greed & wealth are considered good. We pick and choose which things of the Bible to follow and which to ignore, and for some reason Christians have decided to focus on any verses that seem to be anti-gay

As a Latter-day Saint, isn't it interesting the scriptures meant for our day (Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants) are entirely silent about forbidding gay people to have relationships?

[ladymorghul]

Aegon was drunk when he raped Dyana and considering the "except sometimes when he's drunk" part from Helaena I really think the writers tried to make the point, that he's truly uncontrollable when drinking too much and yes, forces himself on women (and no, being drunk does NOT excuse his sexual crimes at all), including Helaena when he's in their chambers and not out there in Flea Bottom or with some unfortunate maid in the castle. Although I think he does the same to other women when he's sober, but in that case he mostly ignores Helaena considering his comments about her before the marriage. I doubt he had a change of heart about her in the meantime and is now having romantic feelings about his wife.

Back to that line, honestly what woman would want to have sex with their drunk husband? To allow allow a drunk husband to force himself on them? No one and I don't get the people who think the toast was the way she tried to express her disappointment in him ignoring her or similar interpretations. The subtext is way too obvious IMHO: he neglects her when sober and has sex with her (or rather, forces himself) when drunk, but maybe it's like you said and nothing bad happens. Other than that I don't think there's been any other indication of potential abuse in their relationship, like physical abuse. And by the way, Viserys wasn't physically abusive towards Alicent either but this doesn't change the fact it was marital rape (judging by our standards since marital rape is not a thing in Westeros) which we should call out and condemn, that Alicent was obviously unwilling to sleep and have children with him so from this point of view I think some Greens are intentionally pretending not to see the fact Helaena and Aegon's marriage is pretty much the same like most arranged marriages in Westeros and not some loving thing where both spouses love each other and want to make love with each other: no, they both have to do their duty and have sex against their will to produce heirs and have no choice but to do so and accept it (well obv Aegon, unlike her, has the privilege of being a male and is choosing to cheat with several other women but this is different matter).

hmmm

viserys and aegon are not in the same position considering that viserys consciously chose alicent hightower, his daughter's 14 year old best friend whom he knew since she was a child (and who was still a child at that time), to wed and bed her vs aegon who was betrothed to helaena when he was 13.

like yes aegon sleeping with an unwilling helaena is marital rape but ultimately, like you said, this is probably like at least half of the forced marriages.

and while we don't have helaena's pov on aegon pre feast, i too don't think the writers' goal were to imply helaena wants aegon's attention. i could be wrong tho.

but yeah, aegon, as a man, does have privilage over her and they are judged differently by their society.

i'm trying to keep some hope alive that what transpired or hasn't between them goes as far as aegon attempting in his drunken state to sleep with helaena and helaena being like fuck off.

in any case im currently beating aegon behind a denny's just for good measure. whether my hope ir real or not. im just thinking that it would be horrible for helaena to endure this on top of everything headed her way. and i want her magically safe from it. but im not denying that aegon is a pos w women especially.

to me the reaction in the room was a little weird ngl. no shot directly on otto or aemond or even hell, rhaenyra, for some negative reaction. daemon giggles. alicent looks confused, otto cheers on helaena at the end, viserys is like myeah whatever, music please?

[liskantope]

As one of what will likely be several minor afterthoughts to the Big Thread that's been going on with me, here's something else I want to say regarding the way people argue about what counts or doesn't count as love.

This may surprise some people, since I've been known to deride simplistic-sounding slogans as meaningless, annoying, or misleading, but I'm actually really fond of the slogan "love is love". If you knew me in real life, there's a chance you might have run across a photo of my real-life self at a rally carrying my own homemade sign saying "LOVE IS LOVE".

Now I guess what some people have been trying to suggest to me is that "love is love" was part of an effort to get homophobes to believe that when two people of the same sex said they were in love, they actually were feeling genuine love. I think I always interpreted it differently: as an abbreviation of "Love is love, and that's all that should matter in this issue." More generally in our language, we say "X is X" with an implied follow-up of "...and that's the only salient thing right now" (compare to the common saying "Rules are rules.") Or to put it another way, "I think same-sex relationships should be respected and celebrated in our society -- after all, love is love." It was never, to me, about a dispute as to what actually counted as love; otherwise I suppose it would be somewhere between a simple direct claim and a silly-sounding tautology.

That said, I'm aware of a longstanding characterization of gay people (I think particularly gay men) as operating on lust only, and I've occasionally run into more extreme types (always very religious) who insist that there is no real love outside of the parameters they believe in. During college I spent an inordinate amount of time in one of the main plazas which was frequented by extremist preachers spewing all kinds of garbage (at the time part of it was morbid fascination with how outrageous their purported beliefs were, although with maturity I've come to suspect that at least half of it was performance). Among all the horrible things they said, condemning me and all of my friends to hell and so on, the only time I recall feeling real, deep anger was when a preacher asserted that no two people can actually love each other without believing in his god. I don't know if I found the voice to argue with him, but I remember literally shaking. And I clearly reacted this way because I was feeling very much in love at the time with my then-girlfriend, and we were both staunch nonbelievers, and how dare he look down and insult us by saying our feelings weren't genuine. (Another time, I recall a preacher -- I don't remember if it was the same guy or someone else -- said how sorry he was for atheists because atheists are incapable of feeling true joy, which didn't make me angry in the same way but which struck me as even more bemusingly deluded than usual.)

The thing, though, is (and please don't jump on this, I'm no longer trying to use my memories as justification for some point like in the Big Thread, I'm just expanding on some interesting recollections) that the preacher saying those who didn't believe as he did couldn't feel love wasn't discussing this in the context of homosexuality or even "fornication" (one of their favorite words), although his type did often harp on such views. He was simply insisting that in the absence of God in the relationship, genuine feelings of love couldn't exist. It was just another way, as with the way they condemned homosexuality and pre/extramarital sex, that God was constantly being treated as a black box that simply changed the meaning and validity of everything while being (to someone like me) a complete abstraction that I could choose to embrace or not.

[rosiewitchescottage]

Hi, just read your bio and curious what being anti-gender ideology means to you? I’ve never heard that in connection with being pro LGBT, and the internet has a lot of mixed information.

Hiya laneans. Polite questions that make me think are always good to see.

Pro LGBT means I'm for gay rights. To be specific, I'm right behind consenting adults of the same sex being able to have romantic relationships, free from discrimination.

And yes. I do include the T. It's still only recently that being transgender meant something both specific and objective (listen to the experiences of an elder like Buck Angel, for example.)

Being trans was linked inextricably with biological reality and the diagnosis of a mental illness.

I support the right of people with gender dysphoria to live as members of the opposite sex, for the relief of their symptoms. And free from discrimination.

Anti Gender Ideology. You may have gathered. I respect biology and sex based rights.

Gender Ideology probably isn't a technical term. But it does describe the people who treat womanhood and manhood simply as something that one can choose to be. In other words Self ID, gender above sex.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against gender non conformity. In fact being for that is a big part of this.

I don't understand how anyone (outside of the symptoms of gender dysphoria) can say that they don't 'feel like' a man or a woman.

A female woman can be feminine, masculine or androgynous, however feels best to her.

A man can be masculine, feminine or androgynous, however feels best to him.

Absolutely some people are bona fide transgender/transsexual and need to live as the opposite sex. I want them free to do this in safety.

But I look at how many detransition stories are coming out. And something is going wrong.

Apparently body dismorphia can come with other reasons than gender dysphoria. And it seems as though too many people are being pushed to transition, when they don't need to do so.

I will treat a trans woman as a fellow woman. But is she female? Will she ever be female? No! And if she has gender dysphoria, then her being male is at the very heart of it. (I've listened to both trans women and trans men explaining these things.)

A trans woman is a trans woman. And I don't see that as her being 'lesser than'. But she isn't exactly the same as I am. And I won't pretend otherwise. She's male, I'm female.

A trans man is a trans man. He's female, so he's not exactly the same as a male man. I won't say that 'men get periods too'. Because they don't! Trans men can do, because they're female.

I won't condemn a lesbian who won't have sex with a trans woman. Because she is same SEX attracted, not simply same gender.

If a lesbian is happy to be with a trans woman because they're the same gender. Well that's up to her. But Same Sex Attraction is something that people are still fighting for in some parts of the world. And I won't take that lightly.

Then there are single sex spaces. No. I'm not a TERF. I don't say that no trans woman should be in women's spaces.

Because that would be unfair. But we need to have gatekeeping.

We can't just let a male person say 'I'm a woman ' and let that be enough.

Gender dysphoria is a solid, objective reason for a male to be living as a woman. And I'm OK with that.

But we're back to Self ID and it's not a matter of saying that trans women are dangerous. I disagree with that whole heartedly.

The vast majority won't be. BUT without gatekeeping, what do we do to stop violent criminals (and it has been happening) from simply saying 'I'm a woman', in order to access women only spaces, with some deeply vulnerable potential victims?

I don't just think it's bad for women. But I also think it spits in the eye of genuine trans women and trans men too.

Wow! I rather went on a bit there, didn't I? But you asked a great question and I wanted to do it justice.

Love and Hugs to you.