#the idea that there's an association between being a victim and being righteous that is

[simonalkenmayer]

False virtue and victim signaling as a means of controlling behavior online

To even discuss this I have to first give you an idea of what signaling is. Sociology and psychology refer to social cues as being signals, and those signals are sent out by senders, and received by receivers! That is simple. Defining “victimhood” and “virtue” are more difficult, but loosely done, victimhood is seen as any status that has been systemically oppressed, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual preference, sex, and so forth. “Virtue” is more loosely defined as something in line with prevailing ethical and moral ideas, worthy of protection or support.

In the context of a group—society or otherwise—virtue is a highly sought after trait, as people naturally presume that a virtuous person is also a good one, trustworthy. Victimhood is regrettable, but in societies that champion egalitarian causes or ideals, it can actually be very advantageous to claim victimhood. Not only because it allows the expression and healing to take place, but also because it can cause resources to be diverted to the victim to assist them in recovery. These resources can be anything from money, to time, to protection. It’s an unfortunate fact, that study after study demonstrates that people are more likely to give resources to a victim that is also seen as virtuous.

To personality types that are most interested in controlling groups of people, so called “Dark Triad” personalities—Machiavellian, psychopaths, and narcissists—it has been shown time and time again, that there is a robust and quantifiable relationship between false claims of virtuous victimhood, in an effort to not only gain resources, but also sway behavior.

But you may ask yourself, why not do one or the other? Either claim virtue or victimhood. Why both? The simple fact is that victimhood can have negative associations as well, from which, virtue protects. It also changes the signaler’s position in line for care, or resources. Being virtuous alone only ensures trust, not access to sympathy or attention. And so the combination of both is integral.

In terms of a group dynamic, claiming virtuous victimhood is a sound strategy to sway public opinion, and also to alleviate any responsibility one might feel they have for the consequences of their actions. Let’s take anti-masking for example. Most sensible people know that masks work, and that a scrap of fabric is a very small inconvenience to bear to protect others, but in their group, the prevailing opinion is that being asked to wear a mask is an infringement of their rights. They are righteous, virtuous victims. This makes them feel secure in the rising covid numbers in regions without mask mandates, and certain other social dynamics alleviate any guilt they may have. In the case of a private individual, particularly narcissists—who inflate their self-importance in order to compensate for their cripplingly low self-esteem—will often claim to be a virtuous victim so as to get merely the resource of attention, and to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Onlookers are hesitant to declare a virtuous victim signal to be false, because of the presumed risk to themselves in the eyes of fellow group members, so even if there is a suspicion that the person is falsely signaling, they will say nothing. It’s also true that additional group factors like tenure or expertise compound the false signaling and make onlookers even more hesitant, due to the fact that they might suffer repercussions for saying anything, such as shunning, abuse, and permanent expulsion. False virtuous victim signaling shifts the dynamic into that false consensus, in which the group appears to have a uniform opinion to outsiders, when in fact there are doubts. However, time and again, it has been shown that members of a group facing such doubts will even subvert their own reasoning, senses, and habits in order to be accepted by the group.

In an online forum, as I’ve explained before, a person’s concept of weak or strong actors (weak actors are people least likely to influence your actual behavior, strong are the opposite) may be inverted. Internet spaces like Tumblr tend to be catch-all spaces for people who feel ostracized in their offline lives. This means, essentially, that their family and friends may have no influence on their behavior, while internet friends have incredible influence. The fear of being bullied online in these spaces, or ostracized from a friend group online, is incredibly acute for some people. This makes them even less likely to call out a false virtue or victim signal. It’s also true that the ability to disengage from the drama allows them to convince themselves that any negative consequences from the false signal itself are mitigated or distant. There is also the added component that false claims are difficult to prove or disprove in anonymous spaces provided by the internet.

TL:DR Machiavellian, psychopathic, and Narcissistic personality types are more likely to use false virtue, false victimhood, or both, in an attempt to sway online peer groups into behavioral patterns that benefit them or provide them with resources like attention, time, and money.

[somethingvaguetodo]

Program: Outreach

For @into-september who requested “value me” from this prompt list. Read on AO3 here.

~~~

“Adrien A-Agreste?”

Adrien winced at the stutter that preceded his last name, but stood, straightening his jacket before turning to the woman with what he hoped was a sincere smile.

“That’s me.”

She bit her lip before smiling tentatively back. “I’m Lena LaRoe.” Adrien held out his hand to shake hers and she stared at it, as if he had offered her a snake's head instead of a regular hand. Self-conscious, he let his fingers ball into a fist and dropped his arm to hang uselessly by his side. “You can come with me.”

She spun on her patent black heel and walked toward a door past the reception area. Adrien hurried to follow her, nodding politely at the receptionist who quickly tried to pretend she wasn’t just staring at him in shock.

Adrien breathed a sigh of relief once the door closed behind him, and the hall was wonderfully absent of any inquisitive eyes.

Adrien absolutely loved the Miraculous Center for Emotional Support. The non-profit was established by Paris’s heroes and funded by the government and generous donors, with the intention of serving the emotional needs of Paris’s citizens, especially those who had been akumatized, targeted by akumas, or generally traumatized by the terror that had gripped Paris for years. And normally, everyone at the Center loved him too. But that’s when he was here as Chat Noir.

Right now he was Adrien Agreste, son of the infamous Hawkmoth.

He could see the difference in everyone he had encountered already. Gus, the security guard, had given him a dirty look while he checked in. Carlie at the reception desk didn’t attempt to hide her slack-jawed expression. Lena, who was normally professional but friendly to Chat Noir, couldn’t meet his eye, and stumbled over his last name like she was uttering the most offensive curse.

It was nothing new, but it didn’t hurt any less.

Lena stepped aside and let Adrien pass into her office. She followed him inside, almost closing the door. She stopped before it clicked closed, swinging it open again and leaving it a few inches open. It was almost as if she was afraid of being closed into the room with him - like he was going to akumatize her just by being near.

Adrien swallowed back a scream of frustration and sat down.

“Well, M. Agreste,” Lena said, managing not to choke on his name this time, which Adrien hoped was a good sign. “Thank you for coming in to talk with me today.”

“Thank you for offering me an interview,” Adrien countered. As upset as he was at the reaction he had gotten so far at the Center, it was nowhere near as bad as all of the other places where he had applied for jobs. It seemed like, no matter what industry, and no matter what qualifications he had, no one wanted to hire a terrorist’s son.

It was a little crazy of him, applying for a job at the Center when he was often here as Chat Noir. But it was work he loved, a place he was happy, and… well… his dwindling trust fund could only last him for so long.

He wondered, briefly, what Ladybug would think if she knew.

“I...well…” Lena looked uncomfortable, like she didn't really want to offer him an interview but wasn’t given a choice. “Of course.” She took a deep breath before pasting on something of a smile. “Why don’t you tell me about what makes you interested in this position?”

“Of course. I have my degree in…” He trailed off, realizing that reciting his resumé wasn't going to get him anywhere. It never did. He went for some form of honesty. “Listen, you’ve got my resumé, you don’t want to hear that from me. I’m here because I think this is the most worthwhile work I could do. I want to help people. I know what it’s like to feel overwhelmed by your emotions, and to feel like you have no support and no one to turn to. I’d like to do anything I can do to help people who are struggling in that way.”

Lena gave an uncomfortable sigh. “That’s a wonderful sentiment, Adrien. I just… can I be honest with you?”

“I would appreciate that.”

She leaned both elbows on the desk, resting her chin on her folded hands. “Do you really think that it would bring people comfort to come here and see…?”

“The son of Hawkmoth,” he bitterly finished her sentence.

Lena winced, but didn’t back down. “I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but it’s reality.”

Adrien felt his carefully crafted professional façade start to crack. Maybe he should have thought this through before coming here. Now, he would never be able to think about Lena, or anyone else here, the same.

“Right,” he said, before he could let something more frustrated slip out. “Well, I guess I’ve taken up enough of your time.” He started to stand, but Lena gestured him back down.

“Not quite yet. The boss wants to speak with you.”

Adrien was confused - Lena was the head of human resources, she really didn’t have a boss - but made sure he didn’t show it. She pressed a button on the intercom, and they sat together in tense silence. A moment later there was a light knock on the door, and it was nudged open.

Ladybug walked into the room.

That was unexpected. Adrien was worried - did his presence in the building really warrant calling in the big guns? But at the same time, he felt a million times calmer. How could he not; after all, his best friend just came in.

“Hello,” Ladybug said, her voice and her eyes soft. She took a seat in the empty chair next to him.

Lena looked between them, clearly waiting for Ladybug to start talking. Ladybug looked back, annoyed, but if he didn’t know her so well, he never would have detected it. “Your application created quite the stir here, Adrien.”

“I didn’t mean to…”

“I don’t really understand why I was called in, though,” Ladybug steamrollered over him. “I’ve never made hiring decisions before.”

“It’s not that,” Lena finally spoke. “We just thought that it would be helpful to have you on hand in this instance -”

“What?” Ladybug cut her off. “In case he akumatized someone?” Ladybug’s eyes were hard, and her tone was sharp. She was radiating righteous fury. “Might I remind you, Mlle. LaRoe, that Adrien was never accused of association with his father? That he was a minor at the time when Hawkmoth was active and apprehended, and by all means was just as much a victim of his father’s cruelty as the rest of Paris, if not more so? This entire organization was founded on the basis of understanding and respect, and I’m extremely disappointed to learn that this is the approach you had to Adrien’s desire to work here.”

“By showing a desire to come here, Adrien is demonstrating compassion, kindness, and empathy. The desire to help others and do something bigger than himself. By coming here, meeting with you, walking through the halls of this building while people looked out of the corners of their eyes and whispered and gossiped, Adrien is showing that he has the mental fortitude to overcome any adversity. Why, I think he’s the bravest, strongest, and most admirable person I’ve ever met. And if you don’t believe that that is the kind of person that I would want to work alongside, then you have no idea what true bravery and heroism really is.”

Ladybug was staring down Lena, who at least had the decency to look ashamed. Adrien couldn’t take his eyes off his partner, who had defended him with such ferocity, even though she didn’t know him. If possible, he fell a little deeper in love with her.

“I’m sorry,” Lena said, properly chastised.

Ladybug blinked, as if just realizing what had happened. Her cheeks pinkened slightly. “Well… I think that covers it.” She looked down, clearly embarrassed and scraped her toe along the edge of Lena’s desk.

“Of course.” Lena turned toward Adrien. “I think you would make a wonderful addition to the team, Adrien. We’ll do some research into which department would be the best fit for your skills.”

Adrien could barely believe his ears. Ladybug’s fierce exclamation on his character had earned him a job offer on the spot? “I… wow… thank you.”

“Actually,” Ladybug spoke up again, the coloring in her face now back to normal. “I was thinking of having him work with Mlle. Dupain-Cheng.” She turned her body toward him. “Marinette works in program outreach. I think you two will work well together.”

Adrien held her gaze, feeling like something was passing between them. He wondered what it meant that she had come in with an idea of what department she wanted him in, and with someone in mind to work with.

“I’ll be in touch with an offer letter,” Lena said, standing. Adrien rose to meet her. This time, she was the one to reach out a hand for him to shake. He took it, feeling a million times better than when he first came in.

“I’ll walk you out,” Ladybug said, leaving no room for argument. He followed her in silence out of the office, down the hall, and past the reception desk. Carlie still didn’t hide the fact that she was staring, but her gaze meant nothing to him now.

Adrien didn’t speak until they reached the front doors. “Thank you, Ladybug, for what you said about me in there.”

Ladybug waved him aside. “I was just speaking the truth.”

“Not many people feel that way about me.”

Her eyes softened, and she reached out to touch his arm. “It's the truth that I see. I guess I never realized just how prejudiced people are about you until it hit home here.”

Adrien smiled at her. “So that’s why you went to bat for me like that?”

“Can I make a confession?” Ladybug bit her lip and waited for him to nod before continuing. “I was standing outside the office the whole time, and I heard what you said to Lena about feeling overwhelmed, and unsupported. That’s exactly why this company was started, and that’s exactly the type of people Chat and I envisioned staffing it.” Ladybug’s eyes gleamed suddenly, like they were sharing a private joke. “Speaking of Chat… you reminded me of him.”

He felt the old panic of his secret identity rising. “Chat? Chat Noir? Really?”

Ladybug’s smile was sheepish. “In a way. He… don’t tell him I said this, but he puts on a show. His big personality is there to hide just how vulnerable he can be sometimes. I know him pretty well and... let’s just say he didn't have the best upbringing either. So, you reminded me of him.”

As his heart rate settled back down, Adrien thought about it. Would it really be so bad if she knew he was Chat Noir? He knew that she cared for Chat, but after everything that happened with his father, he always feared that she would shy away from him if she learned that he was Adrien Agreste. But maybe today, he learned that he really didn’t have anything to worry about.

“That’s quite a compliment.”

Ladybug shrugged. “It's the highest compliment I can think of.” It looked like she wanted to say more, but couldn’t find the words.

He decided to let her off the hook. “I should get going.”

“Of course,” she agreed, reaching out to shake his hand. He let his fingers envelope hers, the smooth texture of her suit sliding against his skin. “I’m glad you’ll be joining us.”

“You think I’ll be good in program outreach?”

She smiled again, this time full of warmth. Their hands were still connected. “I think it’s the perfect place for you. And I know Marinette will be eager to work with you.”

There was something there, a secret wrapped in her words and her smile and the glint in her eyes, but Adrien figured that he could start figuring that out once his job started. For now, he let himself bask in the warmth of Ladybug’s approval, and the knowledge that no matter what people did and said, she would always be in his corner.

[youreacowgirllikeme]

Time Will Tell: Part Two

note: alright, here is part two of @peppermintschnappss request (if you haven’t yet, you can read part one HERE) this one’s a bit smuttier and fluffier, I hope you like it

words: 4.1 k

warnings: swearing, smut (fingering, unprotected sex)

enjoy :)

 

(New York City, six years later)

 “Alright, here we are, welcome to your new office, Ms. Y/L/N.”

 “Wow, its bigger than I imagined. Nice change from the cubicle back at my old firm.” You joked, looking around the room. It was modest, but it was your own, a fact that filled you with immense pride.

 “Well, you’re a senior associate now.” Your new boss replied, “Get used to it.”

 +++

After your boss had left, you used the short moment of quiet to set up some personal items on your desk before the real work started.

 There was one framed picture of you and your best friends, taken when you all graduated from Georgetown Law, arms around each other, smiling at the camera. The next one showed you and your parents, you had just passed the bar exam and your mum was looking like she had been crying just moments before the photo was taken. The last one was a collage the colleagues from your old law firm in DC had given to you as a good-bye-gift.

You had worked there for over two years and had loved it, but when you got the opportunity to work for one of the countries most renowned law firms, you had packed your bags and moved to New York City without a second thought.

The city was still a bit overwhelming, but this job was the career launch pad you had waited for, and you were excited to finally get started.

 There was a knock on the door of your office, pulling you out of your thoughts. A friendly looking young man appeared, quickly introducing himself as one of the firms’ paralegals.

 “We all gather for the morning meeting in the conference room in five minutes. The boss will introduce you and maybe already set you up with your first tasks.” he told you, “Just follow me, I’ll show you the way.”

The meeting room was already packed with people, and of course everyone was looking at you, the newcomer. You tried to appear confident, smiling at the new faces even though your heart was almost jumping out of your chest.

The boss introduced you to the other employees and started to go through the current cases. There was a lot of financial law, mergers and stuff, but the firm had a very broad operation field, and you hoped to be assigned to an environmental or human rights case sooner or later.

When the meeting was over, the boss asked you to stay behind.

 “You’re new here, Ms. Y/N, so I’m going to assign you a pro-bono case first. This is how we operate at our firm.”

You nodded in agreement, this was standard practice.

 “One of our other senior associates has already been assigned to this one, but its more work than we expected, so I figured he could use some help. That way you can familiarize yourself with how we work here, and your next case will be your own. Understood?”

 “Yes Sir.” You replied, trying not to be disappointed. You were eager to work with your own client, but getting some help from a colleague maybe wasn’t the worst idea. Also you could use a friend at this new place, and nothing was better for that than working on tough case together.

“So, who will I be working with?”

 Your boss looked around the people still filtering out of the conference room with a scowl on his face.

“Technically, he should be around here somewhere. I bet he’s late again, always the same shit. If he wasn’t so good at his job, I would have fired him ages ago.”

“Apologies, boss, I wish I could say that it won’t happen again.” A loud voice called out from behind you.

You felt like someone had slapped you in the face. You would recognize this arrogant tone everywhere.

 You whirled around and came face to face with Chris Cuomo.

 +++

“You?” The both of you said simultaneously, voices full of disbelief.

He looked different, the boyish features were gone, his jawline was sharper and his hair shorter. What was still there was his damn arrogant stance, the way he had strutted in here almost an hour to late and got away with a cocky reply told you everything you needed to know. This was still the same insolent guy who, for some reason, still got admired by everyone. How could fate screw you over like that?

“Oh, you already know each other, splendid.” Your boss exclaimed, “Christopher, Ms. Y/L/N is our newest senior associate. I assigned her to help you with your current case, show her how we work around here, would you?”

You had to give it to Chris, he didn’t even flinch. “Absolutely, Sir. Follow me.” He said, directed at you. He left so fast, you had to hurry to keep up with his big strides.

“Could you maybe wait a second.” You called after him, but he totally ignored you, walking towards a door at the end of the hallway.

 You followed him into what you supposed was his office. It was a bit larger than yours, with a view over the skyline instead of the alley behind the building.

Once you were inside the room, Chris slammed the door shut behind you.

 “What the hell are you doing here?” he hissed, looking incredibly annoyed now.

“What do you mean? I’m working here, Cuomo, I started today.”

 Chris ran his hand over his face and fell into the chair behind his desk.

 “Look, this won’t work. I’ve been on this case for weeks now, and I won’t let you interfere with it.”

 You stopped for a moment. Chris Cuomo, working on a pro bono case for weeks?

 “Why are you being so difficult about this? It’s a pro bono. Why don’t trust you with a real client anyway?” you asked, and were surprised how superficial and mean that sounded even to your own ears. How did he still bring out the worst side of you, even after you hadn’t seen him for years?

 “Not that it’s any of your concern, but they want to make me a junior partner soon. I’ve been here for four years, they hired me right out of law school. I’m one of the best attorneys employed here and I specifically asked for this case because I care about the people involved. So you can either help me and give those clients the attention and energy they deserve or I’ll have your ass out of here in less than a week.” he was almost yelling by now, fists clenched on his desk and you took a step back in face of his anger.

“Alright, I am sorry, no need to be so hostile.” You murmured. “Give me an overview and we can get started.”

 +++

The case was about two young men from Queens who were accused of robbing a drugstore. Chris insisted that they were victims of racial profiling and weren’t guilty of the charges, they had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 “They are telling the truth, I just know it.” Chris replied when you asked him how he could be so sure, and the tone of his voice made you refrain from questioning him any further.

He had given you a short, clipped outline of the case and now there were tons of files you had to read to get up to date.

 After about two hours of working next to each other in tense silence, you decided to extend an olive branch to Chris.

 “So, how have you been, Cuomo? Never heard from you again after Yale.”

 Chris looked up from the file he was reading, shooting you a wary glance across the table.

 “I went to Fordham, got my JD, passed the bar and started working here. I didn’t think you’d ever want to hear from me again. I’m not sure if you remember, but we didn’t exactly get along.” He replied, his voice was hard and his posture rigid, as if it made him extremely uncomfortable to even talk to you.

You sighted, debating what to say next.

“We didn’t, I hated you, in fact.”

Chris face gave the tiniest flinch and you mentally slapped yourself. Why had you just said that?

“Sorry, that was totally insensitive. I don’t hate you, not anymore. We were almost kids back then, and I was self-righteous so many times. I’m sorry for that, I just hope we can act like professionals now and try to get along, for the sake of the clients.”

 “I can manage that if you do.” Chris mumbled, and got back to reading the files, effectively ending the conversation.

 +++

 Working alongside Chris went better than expected, even if it often was hard work to engage him in conversation. You had always assumed that he was one of the most self-centered people ever, but he spent most of his time at the office, pouring all of his energy into a pro bono case, so maybe that wasn’t true after all.

A paralegal had revealed to you that the two men you were defending were from the neighborhood Chris was raised in and knowing that made you more sympathetic towards him.

 You had thought about him from time to time during the past years, but always pictured him as one of those attorneys without morals who would walk over dead bodies to win a case. But he wasn’t. He was relentless, yes, but for the right reasons, and you started to admire him for his dedication to the cause.

 +++

In the following weeks, the initial icy atmosphere between the two of you had thawed and Chris became more approachable.

He was still arrogant and insufferable, but had matured in a way that really surprised you. By now you were even having private conversations during your short lunch breaks, bantering back and forth, but in a friendly way.

Right now, he was ranting about the current season of the Mets. You had no clue about baseball, but the way his eyes lit up when he was explaining something he was passionate about was mesmerizing.

 “You look like a fish, Y/N, don’t pretend you know anything about baseball, I can see right through you.” Chris chuckled, yanking you out of your daydreams. You blushed a bit, he had caught you staring at him.

 “I was actually thinking about the case, Cuomo, we can’t all do sports talk the entire day.”

 “I see.” He winked at you, and you tried your best to ignore how handsome he was. “Back to work then, let’s get after it.”

 +++

 It was another late night at the office, you and Chris had been hunched over case files for hours after a whole day of running around and taking statements from various people associated with the case. You were incredibly tired, but the court date was approaching and there was still a lot of work to be done.

 Across from you, Chris yawned, stretching his arms over his head. He had discarded his suit jacket, and his white dress shirt was tight enough for you to ogle his muscled arms.

You had given up on trying not to stare some time ago, he was good looking, and there was no hurt in admiring what was right in front of you.

Lately though, you had started to develop some more confusing feelings about the man. But those were carefully bottled up and you intended to keep them that way.

“Do you want another coffee?” you asked, getting up from your chair.

“Please, I’m dying here. Bring me the biggest cup we have.”

You made your way back from the kitchen, balancing two steaming mugs of coffee in your hand. You stopped next to Chris chair and put down his coffee in front of him. Your arm softly brushed against his, and he turned his head to face you. Suddenly, your faces were only inches apart from each other, he was so close that you could feel his breath on your skin as he spoke.

 “You have a lash, right there. Stay still.” he reached out to pick the small hair up from right under your eye. The touch of his finger left a burning feeling on your skin.

 “Thank you.” You whispered, and for a moment, no one was speaking, you were just staring into each other’s eyes. You felt your face starting to tingle, but you couldn’t look away, not when Chris eyes were open and warm in a way you had never seen them before.

You noticed a small scar on his jaw, and you carefully reached out to trace it with a finger.

“Where is this from?”

 Chris tensed under your touch but didn’t move or slap your hand away.

“College, Senior year. I got into a nasty brawl with someone after that last party before graduation. I was wasted and angry, it was my fault, no biggie.” He murmured, and you quickly moved your hand away, worried that you were making him uncomfortable.

Your mind rushed back to that night, and the row you had with Chris. Even after all these years, the encounter was still very present and the thought that he had gotten into a fight because you had riled him up made you feel incredibly guilty.

 “I’m so sorry.” You replied in a stained voice. “Were you angry because of me?”

 Chris eyes hardened.

“That was years ago, Y/N, how about we let stuff from the past stay there.” he replied brusquely and got up from his chair. “I need to get some more files.”

 When he didn’t return after an hour, you just went home.

 +++

 After that night, things between you went back to being tense and awkward. You weren’t sure if he was mad at you and were too afraid to bring it up. You had actually enjoyed the tentative friendship that had formed between you and missed the easy banter during lunch breaks or brooding over case files in comfortable silence. Why was the man so fucking stubborn when you had been nothing but civil to him since your first day?

After a week of little to no conversation, you were close to freaking out. It was another late-night work session, and you were tired and fed up with the situation.

 “Alright, enough with that shit.” You snapped, slamming down the file you were working on onto the desk. Chris glanced up from his papers and shot you a dirty look.

 “What’s your problem, huh?” he snarled back.

 “You are my problem, Cuomo. I thought we were making progress and could at least be friendly with each other. But since last week, you’re totally shutting me out. You don’t talk to me, not even when its necessary for the case. I don’t know what I did to offend you, but you either tell me now or suck it up, because the silent treatment is bullshit.” you were getting louder with each sentence and had started pacing around the small office, the familiar flush creeping up your neck.

The sound of Chris’ laughing made you stop in your tracks.

 “Oh my God, you look just like during one of those discussions back in college.” He chuckled before he got serious again.

 “Look, I’m sorry. I was confronted with a lot of uncomfortable memories last week. Yes, back then I was angry because of the fight we had, and yes I got drunk and punched this guy because of it.” He paused for a moment, running his hand through his hair before speaking again. “He reported me to the police, you know. I had to do a whole summer of community service, and almost lost my Law School spot. I blamed you for a long time, even if it wasn’t your fault at all.”

You were shocked by that admission.

“Chris, I had no idea. I am so sorry, that was never my intention.”

He just stared back at you with an unreadable expression on his face.

“That right now was the first time you ever called me Chris.” He said, sounding oddly emotional. He got up from his chair and walked around the small table to where you stood.

 Your heart started racing in your chest like crazy as he approached you.

“You just…Jesus, Y/N, you just unsettle me, you did back at Yale, and you still do.”

“What are you even talking about?” you whispered, “You used to hate me.”

“You really have no idea, don’t you?” he replied. He was standing right in front of you now, and the only thing you could focus on was how big and strong his body looked, and how good his cologne smelled. Your brain couldn’t handle having him in such close proximity, and when his hand reached out to cup your jaw, you could barely suppress a gasp.

 “I never hated you.” He murmured, before pressing his lips to yours.

After a moment, your brain caught up with your body. You were just kissing Chris Cuomo, the plague of your college years, the most cocky, arrogant, intriguing person you had ever met, and it was fucking perfect.

 You melted against him, his body was solid and warm and you never wanted to stop kissing him. Your hands flew around his neck, pulling him down to deepen the kiss. He tangled his hand into your hair, tilting your head back, and when he softly bit your bottom lip, you groaned against his mouth and pressed your body even closer to his.

 With a deep breath, Chris broke the kiss and looked down at you, his pupils were blown and there was a slight blush on his cheeks.

“Do you know how often I wanted to shut you up like this?”

 “Took you long enough, Cuomo.” You chuckled, and kissed him again, it felt too good to just stop now. His huge hands were on your back now, wandering lower until they landed on your ass, squeezing the soft flesh. By now, you could barely think straight anymore.

You had fantasized about this moment before, but no fantasy could compare to the feeling of his hands all over your body, dipping under your shirt to slide over the soft, bare skin of your back.

 With your last shred of restraint, you broke the kiss again.

 “We can’t do this here, Chris.” You mumbled, suddenly feeling a bit shy.

 “There is no one else here, Y/N, its after midnight. We can do whatever the hell we want.” He replied, using the hand that was still on your back to pull you to his chest, there was a noticeable bulge pressing against you and your mind went blank again.

Your last resolve crumbled when Chris whispered a deep “I need to have you, now.” right against your ear. You succumbed to his touches as he picked you up and placed you on the edge of the desk, right on top of the important case files, but you didn’t give a damn.

 Everything you cared about right now was the feeling of Chris palms sliding up your bare legs, hitching up your skirt and softly skimming over your panty-covered core. You inhaled through clenched teeth as his hand found its way inside your underwear, you were already slick with need and grinded your pussy against his fingers.

 “You have no idea how often I thought about this.” Chris groaned. “Just you, squirming and wet under me. God, you are soaked.”

 “Stop talking and do something, Cuomo.” You whimpered, his light touches were nowhere near enough.

 “You asked for this, sweetheart.” Chris growled and plunged two of his thick fingers inside you without warning. The moan spilling out of you was so loud that he slapped his other palm over your mouth to muffle your needy sounds.

“Shh, we might be alone, but we don’t want to alarm the whole building.” He chuckled darkly as he started to move his hand, curling his digits inside you until you saw stars.

 You groaned his name against his palm as he started to circle your clit with his thumb, applying more and more pressure until you came against his hand with a strangled cry.

 Chris removed his hands and looked down at where you were lying on the desk, breathing heavily.

“Say it, Y/N. What do you want me to do?”

 You could see the way his erection was tenting the fabric of his suit trousers and unconsciously licked your lips.

“Get rid of those trousers and fuck me.” You whispered, your voice still a bit breathy from your climax moments ago.

 Without hesitation, Chris undid the buckle of his belt and pulled down his pants along with his underwear. When his cock spring free, you let out an audible gasp.

Chris snorted our a small, smug laugh, a flicker of his familiar arrogance showing. Usually, this would’ve annoyed you to no ends, but right now your only concern was getting him inside of you as fast as possible.

 When he finally stepped between your legs, his strong hands grabbed the hem of your panties and just tore the thin lace apart. He grabbed your thighs and spread them, leaving you exposed to his hungry gaze. The feeling of his cock teasing your entrance almost made you lose patience.

 “Stop the fucking teasing, Chris”

 Without a warning, he grabbed your hips and slammed into you with one harsh thrust. You had to cover your mouth with your own hand again to silence your cry, the feeling of his thick length was almost too much.

“Shit, Y/N.” he hissed as he bottomed out. “You’re so tight.”

You couldn’t do anything more than grab the edges of the desk as he started to fuck you with a relentless pace, the slap of his skin against yours sounding through the empty office.

 Your let your head roll to the side and closed your eyes, completely overwhelmed by the burning arousal spreading through your whole body.

 Suddenly, a hand grabbed your hair and yanked your head around so you were staring directly into Chris dark, burning eyes.

 “I want you to look at me while I fuck you.” He snarled. “Want you to see who makes you feel like this.”
His voice was slightly breathless, and there was a thin layer of sweat covering his forehead as he continued to slam into you, hitting a spot deep inside you and sending you closer to your climax with each hard stroke.

His words were like a drug and you couldn’t tear your eyes away from his face anymore. When he delivered his next sharp thrust, you could feel yourself tumbling over the edge, your orgasm washing over you and making you trash and squirm under Chris, your walls clenching around his cock.

His grasp on your hips tightened to an almost painful degree, pulling your pelvis flush against his as he spilled inside you with a growl.

As you laid on the desk, your brain was trying to come to terms with what just happened through the haze of your climax.

Chris carefully pulled out and readjusted his trousers before slumping back into an office chair.

 “Well, that was a surprise.” You said awkwardly, getting up and pulling down your shirt to restore some sense of dignity. In an attempt to ease some of the tension that had suddenly settled over the room, you added “Next time we should try it without all the clothes, and maybe on a bed instead of a desk filled with super important case files.”

Instead of making a dirty joke, Chris looked surprised.

“There is going to be a next time?” He asked, sounding almost hopeful.

 With a soft chuckle, you approached him and sat down onto his lap.

 “You can’t screw me like this and not expect me to come back for seconds.” You pressed a kiss to his lips. “If you’re up to it, I’d maybe even agree to a third, fourth and fifth time.”

 Chris puffed out his chest a little bit. “Sweetheart, I’m always up to it.”

 +++

 With a slam, the doors of the courtroom closed behind you. Chris turned around to face you, and the smile on his face was bright enough to light up the entire hallway.

 “We won, Y/N, we really did it.” he cheered, picking you up to spin you around. You just giggled, full of joy and relief that you were able to win this important case and keep your clients out of jail.

When Chris sat you down again, you reached up to put his face between your hands.“I am so incredibly proud of you.” You said, your voice heavy with emotion. “You were on fire in there.”

It was true, seeing Chris in court had been like a revelation to you. He had been relentless, tough and razor sharp in his defense, all while wielding his charm and charisma to win the jury over. Everything you had held against him for all those years, his audacity, his stubbornness, they had been invaluable strengths during the trial.

But when Chris leaned down to press a kiss to your mouth, all thoughts stopped. It still was so fresh and every touch of him brought you out of balance. The fact that he had just kissed you in public made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. You hadn’t made your relationship public yet, or even talked about if you were an item, but this made you hope.

Chris broke the kiss, still beaming at you.

“I could have never done this without your help. This is our success. And now we have to celebrate. Please, let me take you to dinner.” Chris said, wrapping his arms around your hips to pull you against him. By now, you couldn’t care less about all the people looking at you.

“Took you long enough to properly ask me out.” you joked, “And of course, I’d love to.”

Immediately, Chris started rambling about how he knew the perfect restaurant that would blow your mind and how they were always booked out several weeks in advance, but he could get you a table anyway, and you just smiled to yourself.

He was still a cocky, smug idiot, but he was your idiot now.

[rena-rain]

UPDATED Reverse Crush Origins!

There were a couple problems with how I posted this originally, so after some character analysis I changed some stuff and I like it better now. I hope you guys do too!.

-----

“So, you’re friends with Chloe, huh?” The boy sitting next to him gave Adrien a bored, disapproving look. He was taken aback; was being Chloe’s friend a bad thing around here? He’d always assumed she must be popular at school. He looked around to see her and her friend Sabrina sticking a wad of chewing gum onto the seat across the aisle from his.

He stood up. “Hey! What’s that all about?” Adrien hated getting on her bad side, but this just seemed…gross.

“The brats that sat here yesterday need a little attitude adjustment. I’m just commanding a little bit of respect, that’s all.”

“Respect? Are you kidding me?” The demand came from a high, feminine voice behind Adrien. He turned and instinctively sank back into his seat. Two girls stood fuming in the doorway. The one with red and brown hair sent a murderous glare in Chloe’s direction, and her friend, an Asian girl with iridescent blue eyes and pigtails the color of midnight, stalked forward. “You know what, Chloe? Your attitude is the one that needs adjusting. I’m not putting up with your bullying anymore, whether it’s at me or Ivan or anybody else around here!”

“Ugh.” Chloe leaned dramatically toward Adrien. “You see, Adrikins, what I have to put up with in this place?”

Adrien couldn’t believe his ears.

The girl crossed her arms defiantly. “Don't you dare try to play the victim here. You're not going to scare me anymore, Chloe, so next time you try to pick on anyone in this school again - Ivan or Juleka or Mylene or anybody else - remember that from now on, you'll have to go through me first."

For a second Adrien swore he saw fear in Chloe's eyes. Then that nasty sneer was back. "Oh, please, who do you think you are, Duapin-Cheng? Nobody can grow a spine overnight, least of all you."

"You know what I think?” The girl took her friend by the hand and they parked themselves at the desk behind him. “Your gum, your seat. I’m taking my desk back.”

“WHAT? You can’t do that!”

“Actually, we can,” The other girl said. ��After all, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil – ”

“ – is that good people do nothing.” They fist-bumped and the rest of the class laughed and cheered. Chloe sat down on the right side of the abandoned desk, leaving Sabrina to scoot as far away from the gum as she could.

Adrien blinked in wide-eyed amazement. He wasn't sure what exactly just happened, but he'd never seen anyone stand up for themself like that. Stand up for other people like that. This school was blessed with its own guardian angel. He would gladly go blind just to see her on a righteous warpath.

“Whoa,” Adrien’s desk mate said. “I’ve never seen Marinette shut her down like that.”

Marinette. That was her name. It made electricity arc through his fingertips and his heart pound. “She’s amazing,” he mused.

“You cannot be friends with both Chloe and Marinette, dude. They’re like, mortal enemies.”

Adrien sagged. “It’s just… Chloe’s the only friend I’ve ever had. I’ve known her since we were little kids. She’s abrasive, but…” He glanced at the guy, who gave him a single raised eyebrow. He sighed. “I had no idea she was this awful with other people.”

Several beats of silence passed where Adrien just stared forlornly at the wood in front of him. The next words he heard surprised him.

“I’m Nino, and it’s time for you to make some new friends, dude.” Nino offered Adrien a hand. Smiling, he shook it.

-

“Leave it to the professionals, you already failed once.”

Marinette’s breath hitched. She turned around to look at Stoneheart still holding Mylene in his fist. “He’s right, you know. If I’d captured his akuma in the first place, none of this would’ve happened! I knew I wasn’t the right person for this job.”

“No.” Marinette looked up at Chat Noir. “He’s wrong, because without you, she’d no longer be here. And without us, none of these people stand a chance. We’ll prove that to them.”

She didn't know what to say. "I - "

He placed two gentle hands on her shoulders and bored into her with his bright green cat eyes. “I know how you feel, Ladybug. I'm scared of messing up too - I wasted my power yesterday and nearly blew the fight. But you and I are a team and I know we can do this together. Trust me, okay?”

Mari – Ladybug felt her face heat up. Chat Noir’s gaze was so sharp but so soft at the same time, like he could see into her soul without hurting her at all. She finally understood what the poets meant by 'the eyes are the windows to the soul;' Chat's exposed, gentle sincerity could have drowned her. She felt his support and his confidence flow into her body, making her feel like she could take on the entire world. When she spoke her voice cracked. “Oka – okay.”

She would have completely zoned out in his adorable jade eyes if it weren’t for Stoneheart’s grumbling roar from the Eiffel Tower.

Ladybug felt all gooey inside when Mylene gave Ivan a huge hug. “Aw, they’re so made for each other.”

“And they’re together now. All thanks to you, LB.” Chat Noir smiled that cute, playful little smile of his, and Ladybug kind of wanted to kiss it off his face. The thought surprised her and sent her heart thumping. She squeaked a little when he gently shoulder-bumped her. "That was an awesome speech. You've made everyone in Paris feel safe again after getting attacked by a freaking supervillain. I told you you could do it."

At his praise, Ladybug blushed so hard she felt sure her face now matched her suit. She was saved by Chat Noir's Miraculous beeping.

“Whoops, looks like we gotta split, see you next time, kitty!” She didn’t wait for his reaction to her word vomit before she swung away from him and over the rooftops. If this new fluttery feeling in her stomach was a crush it was going to be an unbearable one. She didn’t even know who Chat Noir was!

Marinette wished she could call Alya about this.

-

Adrien walked into class the next day. He paused at his seat, about to say hi to Marinette. She wasn’t looking at him, and he chickened out and sat down without a word. Nino looked between them and nudged him with his elbow.

“You should go talk to her.”

Adrien blushed. “What?”

Nino lowered his voice. “Marinette. If you like her, you should go for it.”

“But what do I say?”

“Just be yourself, man. She’s super easy to talk to, literally everyone likes her.”

Everyone? He glanced back behind him, where Marinette and Alya were laughing over something on her phone. She held herself with such genuine ease it made him jealous; she probably didn’t have to pretend a day in her life. Remembering the way she’d smirked at Chloe from behind that same desk made his heart flutter and he turned away before she could catch him staring.

Adrien was used to being pushed around by Chloe. Like with his father and tutors and photographers, he just learned to bite his tongue and ride it out. But yesterday, watching Marinette put her foot down and tell her no, you will not treat me or my friends like this - it was like getting struck by lightning.

Marinette probably had tons of friends already. But…it was worth a try.

By the time school ended it was raining outside. Marinette was in the doorway, looking dismayed, when he approached her. “Hey. Marinette, right?”

She raised her chin and side-eyed him, one eyebrow quirking upward. “Aren’t you Chloe’s boyfriend?”

The question actually made him choke. His cheeks burned. “Wha – no, no, god no, she’s just a friend.”

“Why are you friends with her? You don’t seem like a bad guy.”

“She’s…” Adrien got caught up in Marinette’s skeptical expression. She looked guarded. He wondered how long Chloe had been picking on her that his mere association was a major strike against him. “We grew up together. I’ve never been to school before. I’ve hardly been around kids my own age, so it was be friends with Chloe or be alone.”

He sighed and opened his umbrella, gesturing for her to walk with him. Sharing the meager shelter while they walked down the steps meant he could feel the warmth from her body right next to his. “So you’ve never had any other friends?” she asked.

“Not really.”

They stopped when they reached his car. She faced him, and that put her captivating eyes about a foot away from him. Adrien resigned himself to having permanently red cheeks from here on out.

“I think you need better friends. Adrien, right?”

“Right.”

She held out her hand between them. “Well, then. It’s very nice to meet you, Adrien.”

He took her hand and, on an out-of-nowhere impulse, kissed it. “Lovely to meet you as well, Marinette.”

Marinette giggled at the gesture.

Flustered, he asked, “Do you need a ride home?”

“Don’t worry about it; I live at the bakery next door. It’s not even a block away.”

He hesitated. “Well, if you’re sure. Here.” He handed his umbrella to her. “It’s still not fun to walk in the rain. You can borrow it if you’d like.”

Marinette graced him with the most beautiful smile he’d ever seen. “Thanks, Adrien. I promise I’ll give it back to you tomorrow.”

“Sounds good. Um, see you tomorrow?”

“See you tomorrow.” She turned away and Adrien leapt into the car before he got soaked. The Gorilla blessedly ignored whatever just happened, but Plagg decided to stick his head out of Adrien’s shirt to smirk coyly at him. He shoved the kwami back into his hiding place.

[silversavant2021]

The Least Protected Group...Single Fathers!

There are several laws that protect various groups in our society, and in various areas...employment, wages, education, etc. According to the U.S Federal Law website, “these laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity”. However, although they protect according to gender, there is another group within gender which needs protecting in another specific area. That area is fatherhood, and when it comes to their rights to their children after separation, and/or divorce.

If we look through the articles online, and in booklets on custody we will see a great deal of information on what is called conservatorship and in all of these documents the deciding factor is a term called, “the best interest of the child”. In looking at that statement, we would think it would be both parents but it is not.

In Texas, the Family Code gives the father the same rights as the mother as far as custody of the children however that is rarely carried out. The mother is usually granted the position of custodial parent, even if the father is in a better position of stability in order to have the child(ren).

The imbalance has gotten so great until various states are beginning to take action on behalf of the fathers. In Massachusetts, a ballot initiative was created, and approved 85 to 15 percent on protecting the rights of the father. The ballot was an initiative to approve equal legal and physical custody of the children in the case of divorce. This ballot was requesting that “the courts uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children”. And that state is not the only one requesting this by proposition on behalf of fathers. The Washington Post had an article by Michael Allison Chandler entitled “More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce.”

One would have to ask; why is this necessary since most custody paperwork state that either parent has the right to conservatorship, or custody? It is because Family Courts use the concept called “best interest of the child” to decide who will hold this position, and that term is wholly subjective. Over the years, this term has been used to give custody, in most cases, to the mother.

Ms. Chandler also states that, “we are led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and “deadbeat dads” when one of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands”. She claims that the “feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek “liberation” by walking out of their marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e. their children and his money.”

In considering the background elements of this controversial topic I interviewed Baba Richard and Sri Namaste Moore, who are “The Infinite Couple” and have a combination of 30+ years of experience, (and success), in dealing with men, women, and couples regarding relationships.

Sri Namaste stated that this basically started with “Women’s Rights” movement, and explained how this played into this situation of mothers being given more rights than fathers in the case of custody.

She elaborated on what two legal rights, which were attached to this movement, brought about:

• Women’s Reproductive Rights:

• Reproductive Rights — claims having the ability to decide whether, and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction.

• AbortionRights:

• AccesstoAbortion-IntheUnitedStates,the1973SupremeCourtcaseRoev.Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods. In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state, and no federal funds.

Sri Namaste stated, “Initially, women were supposed to be given Reproductive Rights/Freedoms however a woman had that already, and had already exercised her right when she chose to have unprotected sex. That was/is her exercising her “right to reproduce” by allowing herself to get pregnant. She had a choice to prevent that from happening by several different means.

“Then giving her the sole right to decide to keep the baby, or not, is giving her sovereignty as well. Now she has the right to decide “life or death” with impunity in the case of this child. Even though the child was created by the woman and the man; the father has no rights and even if he wants the baby, (which belongs to him as well), he has no right to it.”

Also, that baby is not “her body”, it is a whole separate entity.

Sri Namaste also stated, “The “double standard” is amazing! If the pregnancy is wanted then, even at the earliest stages, the woman celebrates the pregnancy. She will call the baby “hers”, buys clothes, has a celebration, names the baby, etc. And if she should “miscarry”, (lose the baby), she mourns, has a funeral, etc. HOWEVER, if the pregnancy is unwanted...suddenly it is NOT a baby, it is a fetus – a non-thing.”

I asked her how did all that plays into child custody?

She stated, “Because the woman has already been given “sovereignty” over the baby/fetus before birth so it just carries over when the child is born...she still has those rights. However, everyone should be sovereign over their own life, and when one has a child, that is a “separate” life which belongs to the mother AND the father who made it.”

“Also, because that child is a combination of the mother and the father, she shouldn't be able to make that decision alone, and definitely not on the behalf of the father. The state should be the entity who is stepping in to ensure decisions would be neutral, but they are not.”

I was surprised at how all of this fit together.

In order to get a perspective from a man, from a father’s point of view, and from one who had gone through a divorce and custody within in the court system, I then spoke to Baba Richard, who stated:

“I think fundamentally there is something that is happening here. Once you are a parent then being a good parent is based on time passing and you being engaged in that. In talking about the role of the father, what is happening and is implicit in the whole system is that fatherhood is irrelevant. The “state” is functioning as the “father surrogate” and making decisions as to what the state and the woman are going to do about the child(ren).”

“The father is looked at as an economic contributor at maximum, or somebody that if you refuse, or are not meeting whatever standard they say, economically, then you are punished. The system is already in place that you, father, are here to provide economics so the state and the mother can decide what they are going to do with your resources in order to decide what the future of your child is going to be.”

“Once one starts from a “faulty premise” all decisions after that...none of them can be, “well this is great”, because it is a “domino effect”. Look at fatherhood and motherhood as two parallel lines...train tracks, if you will...equal parallel lines and they must be because they both have equal responsibility for the welfare of what they created. Once we say the only “line” that matters is the motherhood line when going forward, then the fatherhood line veers off...we don’t need that, don’t want that line. So, once you engage with the state those two lines are no longer parallel, and never brought back into parallel. Fatherhood gets a “dotted line” which says “you can pay money but we will decide how often you see the child.”

“Visitation is something you do for someone who is “incarcerated”. You don’t visit your “prodigy”, you don’t “visit” your children, children don’t “visit” you. What are they talking about? Either we ALL visit, or nobody visits. Shared custody by default, NOT an arrangement the father has to negotiate his way into. The presumption should be that BOTH parents will share equal responsibility for raising the child(ren) that they have created between the two of them.”

“When you go into that equation with the idea that “woman create children”, and men- we don’t know what they do...but they are engaged in some level of “malfeasance” or irresponsibility because a child has come forward so now the state needs to come in to make things fair...better...more equitable, for the women. One has to wonder, “how is the state the arbiter between these two people?”

“There is a default belief/assumption that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of the man...the scales are inherently imbalanced and “justice”, the state, is stepping in to balance this inequity. The woman has been victimized by this man through the act of pregnancy and now the state is here to make things right again.”

“You, the woman, being right, and righteous, should be supported in whatever you decide to do. It is impossible for you to not to visit your children because the presumption is that the child is at home, and home is always with YOU.”

However, in the case of the man, let’s bullet point the situation and think like this... “Imagine a world where”:

-You are guilty before the proceedings even start.

-All you will get is a decision as to what level of punishment you will endure.

-You will never be found “not guilty” because this is the nature of things.

-You will incur penalties that are overwhelming in most cases.

There is no court of appeals, the only thing, the most you can get is a lessening of the penalty/sentence but you will have it until the courts decide that you don’t.

“Now where is this? In a foreign country? Or some weird dystopian future where everything has “gone to hell in a handcart”? No, this is what a person live with every day if that person is a MAN, and happen to get divorced from a woman, and there are children involved. Or weren’t married and there are children involved.”

I said, “I don’t understand, why doesn’t the courts give joint custody”? He said...

“It is inherently unfair, and I think that there is a presumption of “guilt” with respect to men who are in court...for whatever reason. When I went for my divorce, the judge, his attitude toward me was hostile for no reason. I am not a criminal, and was not there for an assumption of any criminal activity.”

“While waiting for other people to handle their business I saw many different types of cases. There were people who came through who had committed crimes. I had committed no crime, was only there due to processing a divorce. Me, and this woman, had decided we did not want to go forward in life anymore. I couldn’t understand how I warranted all of this “ire” from the judge? I didn’t know him, personally. We both, (my spouse and I), were there at the same time, and when he talked to her, he was nice, and soft spoken...and then when he talked to me it was, “well, what's this!!!” spoken in anger.

I asked him, “But there are documented “rules” that apply to everybody, even mothers; why aren’t they enforced? He said...

“Because there is another issue as to why things go the way they go. Men are not prepared. Actually, it is almost the opposite of being prepared. They are intentionally unprepared because number one, one of the things that I saw in the four or five guys that I know, including myself when I got divorced, is that they are emotionally exhausted...there is a great deal of stress, strain, etc....and a man has to still keep up everything while all of this going on.”

“One of the things about the linear nature of men is that we, we don't do well with this kind of “stress”. We don’t maintain hatred in “perpetuity”. Even if you look at a man whose been trained as a military soldier...yes, they may be upset about the enemy...but the actual pulling of the trigger, or launching the missile is very dispassionate. This is just a job that he is doing...combatants over there...we got them all right, cool. Let's go home, you know, but they don't usually keep that “emotional charge” every day.

“But it's one of the things about the feminine, and I've seen it, they can hold a grudge. Oh my God...even if the two people haven't been together for decades, kids are grown, and gone on and whatever. And it's like, you want to set her off, mention his name in her presence, and it's just like the day that they got divorced.”

“The point being is that when they go into this court situation, number one, most people don’t have any experience with this...it’s not like buying a car, one gets to do this many times so they know what to expect. When they go into this situation, it's the first time, and they don't know what to think or how it's going to go. Also, all they want is for the pain to stop, and they think that after this, we can be “okay”, it’s official.”

“Most men are at the point where they think, “You know what, I'll start over, whatever car, house, whatever things. I don't care. I don't care about any of that because being able to sleep at night”, even if they have to sleep on a pallet. However, here’s the hinge that door swings on...the men go into this thinking that what she wants is stuff, right? What they find out is what she wants is for him to suffer, and no amount of money, no amount of stuff, all the things that he gave, the “quid to the pro quo” that he thinks is going to happen... doesn’t!” 

And so that's a double whammy because then they're shocked because they're like, wait a minute, I gave you what you said you wanted...all the stuff. I let you have whatever it is that you want up to, and including what I considered the most precious...the care of the children. But now he finds that the woman, the court, and the state are thinking, “how much worse can we make this? What else can we do?” Whatever he thought he was going to give, that's not enough, and he is thinking, “Wait a minute, I gave everything so how can that not be enough? There isn’t anything more to give.” And the courts state, “you better come up with something because now we have rules in place that where we're going from present into the future. And now as a state, we can enforce those rules and say, not only have you given all of your material possessions presently, now we are going to look into the future and you will give all your possessions in perpetuity, or until the child(ren) are 18-21 years old.”

“Suddenly, he comes into this realization that the rules that are imposed upon men in that situation are only for men. There are no equivalent rules for women. So, if he doesn't do whatever the court says, then there are penalties and it is NOT that she can’t do what the court says and “be penalized”, it is because she has no rules!”

Personally, I was shocked, and had nothing else to say.

As I began to research further for the solution(s) to this challenge for “fathers”, I decided to do some research on this topic with “Father’s Rights” organizations. I found three agencies, and interviewed the three men who had started, and/or participated in them. What I found was confirming.

The first person interviewed in this arena was Joshua Banks, who is the Founder/Facilitator of IDADS, (Involved Dads of Action Developing and Succeeding), and he is the Program Coordinator. His agency has been in operation since 2015, and his motivation was dealing with families for 7 years as a Pastor. He assisted 300+ people through online summits, and approximately 80 fathers on a weekly basis.

He states, “It is always better for the child when there is joint custody however the system seems to be in opposition to this. It seems that “best interest of the child” always translate to the Mom. A majority of the fathers I deals with want to be involved in their children’s lives, and the few who are reluctant is due to the “toxicity” of the relationship with the mothers.”

His advice to fathers seeking joint custody to:

Engage the Mom, try to get her “onboard”.

As soon as the child is born, go to child support court, (whether you live together or not), so there will be no risk of “arrears”, (even if you only put payment as $100).  This is because even if you take care of your child, pay bills in the household, etc. the “child support system” does NOT acknowledge/recognize support paid OUTSIDE of their courts. This will make it easier when you go to Family Court regarding custody.

Build Credibility - Employment, shelter, and a proper environment for his child.

Effort - It won’t be easy, and he will have to “fight”.

Involvement - No matter how difficult it is made, stay involved!

Attorney - If at all possible, get an attorney.

His agency is currently involved with the Attorney General’s Father’s Rights Division; Child Protection Services - Father’s Rights Coalition; and the University of Texas - Child and Family Research Partnership under Dr, Osborn. His agency also receives referrals from Child Protective Services.

The second person I interviewed in this area was Isaac Rowe, who is the Founder of “The Man In Me”, and he is the CEO. His agency has been in operation since 2012, and his motivation was seeing the “fatherless sons” in his arena. He was also troubled by what he saw a friend go through not being able to be with his father...saw it from a “child’s” standpoint. He decided to tell fathers to fight for their rights, and more time with their children. He assists 300+ men through conferences, and speaking engagements, and approximately 80-120 men weekly/bi-weekly.

He states, “Joint custody is always best for the child because everyone is doing their part for the sake of that child. A father’s participation beyond “court appointed visitation” is very important, and valuable to the child. The biggest hinderance I have seen is that the judges will rule against fathers, and there is definitely a double standard.”

He doesn’t have much dealings with the agencies in the area however they have helped fathers to come to his meetings. His advice to fathers seeking joint custody is to:

• Try to co-bond with child,(easier when mom is onboard). • Take care of himself,(spiritually, mentally, physically, financially). • Get in programs to better themselves • Don’t give up,or sign over rights, [you will still have to pay child support]. • Show responsibility; employment, housing, etc. • Don’t get behind in child support payment; no child support arrears.

The last person I interviewed in this area was Marcus Griggs, who is the Director of Fatherhood Services at “The Man In Me”. His motivation was having a well-adjusted dad, and see what not having one had done to youth, and men. He transitioned from working with youth to working with men. Also, he saw the “system” was not set-up for “families”, (which included fathers). He assists 30-40 men on an average.

He said, “All the men I deals with want to “father” their children. I feel that it is better for the children to have both parents, and even research has proven that there is damage to children due to a lack of fathers.”

He states the biggest hinderance to fathers is: • They are not a consideration • They have to“jump thru hoops” to qualify which is not done with mothers. 

• Laws are not enforced with mothers.

His advice to fathers seeking custody is to: • Be prepared for an“intake”,which is required of fathers, only. • Get information - know what the requirements are before you go to one. 

• Be employed, have a residence, etc. • Have a willingness to fight for their child(ren).

He also said there is a program called “NCP-Choices” which assist fathers with “back child support” however there may be a qualification that the fathers have a “good” relationship with the mother. He also receives referrals from Child Support Services.

I must say that I did note that each person stated some sort of “appeasing of the mother” as a prerequisite to any possibility of getting joint custody, and even a service. This speaks directly to the bias-ness of that system.

In my research I noted several situations, these included the:

Bias-ness of Judicial Systems in Texas, [and in most states]:

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get visitation.

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get joint custody, even when he is qualified.

There are NO rules, requirements, regulations, or qualifications for mothers

Unfairness of the “System”:

• If a woman births a baby, and is unable to take care of it, she gets free

 “Government assistance/subsidies” in the form of:

• Medical Care • Food Stamps • Finances Aid

• Housing – Section 8 vouchers/certificate • Free, or Subsidized Daycare • Earned Income Credit on tax returns

However, if a father creates a baby, and he is unable to support it he gets:

• Excessive child support payments, and if he is unable to pay then:  

-He loses his driver’s license -He is put in jail. -His income tax is garnisheed.

-He is stigmatized, and alienated from his child.

My question is, “Shouldn’t the one chosen to be the CUSTODIAL PARENT be the ONE who is most capable of, and the most responsible in caring for the child with the LEAST amount of assistance from the government”?

Then there is the case(s) of:

There are REQUIREMENTS which the fathers have to achieve, and which have to be PROVEN in order to have visitation, and/or to be “custodial” parent, when the mothers do not.

If mothers do not allow the fathers to see their child on the appointed days, the courts do not enforce his rights, or penalize her behavior.  The father’s are sent to a different court for that.

Fathers are required to take “fathering classes/counseling” and to pay for them, while this is never required of the mother.

In my reviewing the “Standard Possession Order and Parenting Time” on the TXACCESS. ORG website I found the “visitation schedule” that is given to fathers, (yearly time given to spend with their child(ren)):

The schedule of time assigned to fathers in order to see their children are “every first and third weekend, every fifth weekend, 2 hours on Weds. or Thurs. each week”, every other holiday week, and 30 days in the summer. This amount to, (yearly-2020):

Regular Weekends = 48 days

Fifth Weekends = 8 days

Thursdays - 2 hours = 4.3 days

Alternate Hours

• Sub-Total is: 60.3 days a year

Holidays Weeks - alternate between odd/even years (additional 7 days when it is his year).

Summer Vacation - 30 days • Total of 90.3 to 97.3 days a year! That is not even 1/3 of the year!!!

As I began to look at the negative impact on fathers when the mothers are the “custodial parent” I realized something. As a mother of 4 adult children, and 18 grandchildren I realize that women learn how to be “good mothers” by being with their child(ren) on consistent, daily, hands-on basis. When fathers only have “visitation rights” that is minimal access. They do not get the opportunity to properly develop “fathering abilities”, to learn and grow with their child(ren), and/or to actually experience being a “father”. Also, if they aren’t as good at it as mom, then they are penalized for not being “good” at something they were not allowed to do by the court systems, and the mothers, who didn’t allow it.

Finally, there is another challenge to this...according to the US Department of Human Services/Child Protection Resources Online, mothers were more likely to abuse their children than fathers at a percentage of 70.6% vs 29.4%.

According to Allie Morris, of the San Antonio Express-News, it is reported that in 2018, 211 children had died from child abuse in Texas. It is also noted that in half of those deaths, CPS- Child Protection Services had been investigating the cases. If the statistics are true, (from CPS), then in most of those cases the mothers had custody. I have to wonder how many of those cases were because the children were allowed to remain with the mothers, instead of being given to the fathers.

Also, why are courts, and CPS, ignoring this information instead of making it a consideration when determining who would be in the “best interest of the child”?

As you can see, there is a need for legislation to be put in place not only to “protect” fathers from the bias-ness of what is already in place, but children as well. There needs to be a revision of the Judicial System on the behalf of fathers and their children for the future.

[margridarnauds]

Rip idk if I accidentally sent my last ask too early or it it got deleted before I sent it but anywho,, if you’re still bored and wanting to talk about Celtic lore, I’d love to here about grainne ni mhaille or Brigid of tuatha de danann? Alternately, what’s one of your fav stories?

I was in the middle of typing up a response and apparently SOMETHING happened to it because it totally disappeared on me. 

ANYWAY, 

I can talk about both of them, to different degrees. 

Gráinne was one of my first Irish research interests (Thank you The Pirate Queen, you…..interesting piece of media). That being said, I am VERY rusty when it comes to her, the main takeaway that I have being a very visceral reaction to the words “Anne Chambers” because…..suffice it to say….I have Things to say about her scholarship and the occasional sloppiness thereof, but I don’t think I brought my copy of her book on Gráinne with me, the school library is closed, and I generally don’t like to utterly eviscerate something without having it on hand. But I can say that her treatment of Donal O’Flaherty was bad, based purely off of wish fulfillment and her own attachment to Richard Burke, and that my personal reading of their marriage, which I will admit is just a READING, is that Donal and Gráinne actually had a fairly egalitarian marriage. 

Think of it. 

Gráinne, if we believe the legends, and the legends of her early life are very in keeping with what we know of her adult life, was truculent enough that she cut her hair short just to get on a ship. She was defiant, spirited, and ruthless to the core. (The woobification and victimization of Gráinne is something that is ANOTHER post, given that I feel like it does her a MASSIVE DISSERVICE). Donal….would have HAD to have known what he was getting into. And Donal was TÁNAISTE OF THE O’FLAHERTY SEPT. And, as I’ve discussed….that was not necessarily something he got just because his daddy was chieftain. That was something that was AGREED on. He was not a weak man, he was not a coward, and his cognomen was Donal AN CHOGAIDH, Donal OF THE BATTLES. But he seems to have fought his wars on land, Gráinne on sea. Together, they would have been one badass pair. In terms of NAMING, look at the names of their children. Owen - Same name as Gráinne’s father. Murrough - A common O’Flaherty name. And Margaret - Said by some sources to be the same name as Gráinne’s mother. And what was the name of Owen’s son? Donal. Now, there could be a NUMBER of reasons for this naming pattern, it could be nothing. But, what I believe at least is that it shows a certain level of cooperation between the two of them. I am NOT claiming it was a great love story, but I am claiming that what little evidence there is (and there can only be so much), indicates a certain level of respect, especially given that Gráinne, in general, was not the sort to tolerate fools. 

Chambers also claimed, incorrectly, that Donal killed his nephew, but a quick reading of the sources would have shown that it was his cousin, ALSO named Donal who did it. The patrynomics don’t lie on that one; it was Donal mac Ruari, “Donal of the Boats”, not Donal an Chogaidh who did it. 

But. Gráinne. I love talking Donal, but this is about Gráinne. 

Something that I feel really does get underplayed, probably in service of making her a Perfect Feminist Heroine™ (I am a feminist, don’t get me wrong! But my idea of feminism centers around the idea that women can be as fundamentally flawed as men, they can have the same quirks, the same corruption, and they do not have to be perfect, long suffering, soft, or forever victimized) IS that ruthlessness and pragmatism that really underlines her character. People play up her attacking her son Murrough as some kind of righteous fury against him for talking to the English while conveniently forgetting that Gráinne herself spent most of her life alternatively appeasing and attacking the English. She was not a Nationalist, she wasn’t a patriot. She was, however, a survivor, as were MANY of the Irish nobility at this time. Another example of a survivor from this period was Iníon Dubh, probably one of my favorite women in Irish history (though she herself was Scottish by birth), who did try to bargain with the English for the life of her son Hugh Roe by giving over some Spanish survivors of the Armada to English authorities. People (CHAMBERS) try to pin Murrough with the worst faults of his father, but I honestly think that, at his heart, he was more his mother’s son than perhaps even she would be willing to admit. 

(Also like. The entire thing with Risdeárd an Iarainn? I have read the marriage tracts, I have a friend who does law stuff. None of us can think of ANYTHING in the Brehon laws that would allow for a “Marriage” like the one described. Only thing I can think of that’s SIMILAR is the Teltown marriages. Acting like it’s a common Brehon law thing gives it a veneer of legitimacy that I strongly doubt. The oral tradition COULD be lying to us, I’m willing to say that there might be gaps in our understanding of a law, or Gráinne could have actually done it without….how shall we put this…..the usual degree of sanctity and security that we tend to assume, given that what the law said on marriage could be very different to marriage in reality. Tl;dr: She MIGHT have catfished him. Or. The 16th century Irish equivalent. But like. Catfished where you’re actually married and have a kid with one another. Or the story could be a complete fabrication, like I FIRMLY believe Hugh de Lacy’s story was. Who knows?) 

Anyway, as payment for listening to that rant, have some of Sir Richard Bingham Whining, right from the horse’s as-mouth. I of course meant. Mouth. 

I could read this all day. Cry, Bingham, cry harder. 

Don’t think too hard about the fact that one day I might actually be in charge of a classroom, please. 

Brigid I can hopefully talk about less, to some extent, given that we know comparatively little about her. Throughout this, I’m generally going to be calling her Bríg, since I’m talking about her in a mythological context and that is what she is called in Cath Maige Tuired (which is my all time favorite, baby text, answering the third part of your question), though she is called Brigit in Cormac’s Glossary. 

So…what do we know about Bríg? Very little. But she is also an endlessly discussed figure, with the evidence being pored over again. And again. And again. A lot of the arguments have been discussed by Mark Williams in Ireland’s Immortals, the curious fact that, she is described in UNUSUALLY specific terms in Cormac’s Glossary, being described as a patroness of smiths, doctors, and poets, and there being three sisters named Brigit, one for each function. 

At the same time, however, she only really appears in one saga, the aforementioned Cath Maige Tuired, where her role is purely to keen over her son, Ruadan, that she had via her relationship (past or present, it’s kind of left ambiguous) with the former king of the Tuatha dé, Bres. It is a genuinely poignant, heartwrenching scene, a kind of rare moment of pure humanity in a text often saturated with descriptions of blood and gore and sex of literal superhuman proportions. And in all of this, a woman grieves for her son, inventing keening and giving us a reminder of the HUMAN element of war, the mothers, the wives, the women who are left to grieve in the middle of the fighting. Which, in a text that tends to be fairly misogynistic and skeptical of women’s voices, is actually intriguing. (Bríg is also associated with a lot of DARK SHIT in this section as well, such as night whistling, which is absolutely fascinating to me given that we tend to think of her as this kind of healing, sunshine and rainbows figure and this shows a distinctively different look at her.) There is also a Dinshenchas story, Loch N-Oirbsen that mentions her inventing keening for the loss of Mac Gréine, which COULD (underline COULD) indicate that the story might have pre-dated CMT, replacing the figure of her brother with her son. Or possibly vice versa; CMT influenced quite a bit of the mythological literature. 

I believe that it was Elizabeth Gray in her “Cath Maige Tuired: Myth and Structure” who pointed out that Bríg’s situation in-text is reminiscent of what many women would have dealt with during the period, their hearts torn between their fathers and, perhaps, more to the point, their fathers’ peoples, and the husbands and sons they had with the Norsemen. (Though I have…..certain doubts as to whether we should take it for granted that Bríg was WITH Bres at the time of Ruadan’s death, and all things considered, I do also question whether the entire episode was an afterthought, given that Ruadan doesn’t appear in ANY of the other lists of Bres’ children, nor is the story of his death represented in the Dindshenchas, indicating a certain lack of popularity. Nor do I believe it turns up in the early modern redaction of CMT).

This episode is one that I don’t really talk about all that much, mainly because people tend to treat it as a way of slamming Bres, or using Bríg’s grief as a battering ram against Bres, and that is something that, as the unofficial president of the Bres Fan Club….obviously rankles me. Just a bit, and is honestly one of the key reasons why I generally don’t discuss Bríg. Suffice it to say, like with Gráinne and Donal, I don’t really believe that that relationship was quite as unbalanced as people might interpret it, not the least because, in Cath Maige Tuired, a key trait of Bres’ is his dependence on the women of his life, especially his mother. Which….could create an AWKWARD situation, yes, but definitely doesn’t lend itself to the image of Bres being a tyrant at home as well as politically. 

 If they did split apart, it would be more because of Bres’ actions as king, such as his attempt at executing her father or the general treatment of poets under his reign, which, as a patroness of the poets (IF we assume that there is continuity between her appearance in Cormac and CMT, which is not inherently a given; assuming continuity in Irish Mythology is always a tricky subject because individual scribes often went their own way with this sort of thing) she would presumably be opposed to. But, of course. This isn’t really expanded on, Bríg is MASSIVELY underused in this text, and all that I really have are speculation (on an academic level) and headcanons (on a non-academic level.) 

In terms of the connection with the Catholic saint of the same name………..many people have come up with ideas, I don’t believe it’s something that will ever get resolved. I do think that many things we TEND to label as definitively part of the goddess’ traits tend to be overstated, however, with some of them being found in other Saint’s Lives, or having a similar event in the Bible, which, to an ecclesiastical audience, would be familiar. I feel like it can be very easy to get overzealous in that, because of course it’s a very, very natural thing to want something solid for someone who we KNOW was very important, yet have very little real info on. In some redactions of Lebor Gabála Érenn, Bríg is described as the mother of the Trí Dé Dána, “The Three Gods of Skill,” Tuirill, Brian, and Cet, with Bres as the father. These three are notoriously elusive and difficult to pin down, not the least because they tend to be merged with Brian, Iuachar, and Iucharba, the Sons of Tuireann, but John Carey, in his article “Myth and Mythography in Cath Maige Turied” has suggested that, given Bríg’s identification as a patron of poets, her mothering of these three “Gods of Skill,” and the close connection she has to Bres and, through him, to figures like Ogma that the whole lot of them + The Dagda, Elatha, etc. are part of a “Pantheon of Skill,” which is essentially a cluster of gods renowned by the literary elite. So, there is that. She was definitely an important figure, given……Brigantia. 

While I do not like drawing straight lines between Gaulish figures - Welsh figures - Irish figures, I will say that it seems like, at the very least, they share a common linguistic root. It does seem, judging from Caesar’s description of the Gaulish “Minerva” as being a patron of crafts, and given Bríg’s penchant for multiple crafts, that that is the figure being described, or at least someone who followed similar lines (This was argued by Proinsias Mac Cana in Celtic Mythology, pg. 34), since doubtless things would be different across geographical boundaries. (Welsh and Irish Mythology, despite having certain similarities, are distinct, I can’t imagine how much different Gaulish Mythology would be, if any of it had survived.) Something I do find interesting is that, while Mac Cana notes the Gaulish Minerva as a figure beloved by the lower class in particular, the Bríg we see in the Irish tradition is very associated with the upper class, the men of skill. But, then again, all of these written works would have been commissioned and written by and for that same elite, so it might not be that surprising at all. The oral tradition might have been very different, and perhaps the saint reflects that more. Or perhaps not. 

In terms of the connection with the Catholic saint of the same name………..many people have come up with ideas, I don’t believe it’s something that will ever get resolved. If you can get your hands on Mark Williams’ Ireland’s Immortals, I think you’ll find that most of what I say re: this topic (and….a lot of topics in general) will be echoed in there. I do think that many things we TEND to label as definitively part of the goddess’ traits tend to be overstated, however, with some of them being found in other Saint’s Lives, or having a similar event in the Bible, which, to an ecclesiastical audience, would be familiar. I feel like it can be very easy to get overzealous in that, because of course it’s a very, very natural thing to want something solid for someone who we KNOW was very important, yet have very little real info on. 

In terms of what I believe her function was….as hesitant as I am to apply a function to ANY member of the Tuatha dé, given how tenuous the evidence is and how it can kind of miss the forest for the trees in terms of literary analysis, I believe the bulk of the evidence, such as it is, rests on her association with the crafts, specifically as found in Cormac’s Glossary, with all the limitations thereof. I won’t say “No, you can’t worship her like that” to a modern pagan, I wouldn’t WANT to, because my relationship with these figures is not the same as a religious relationship. That is NOT my place. And that, if we are to take them as religious instead of literary figures, they might very well appear to different people in different ways. That being said, on an academic level, I do believe, at present, with the understanding that my views can definitely change and I am not infallible, that there is little to no evidence to suggest that she was a fire goddess, a goddess of spring, a fertility goddess, or a sovereignty goddess. The association with keening, outcry, etc., seems to also be more solid, so there COULD have been some association in there. Generally speaking, my main focus isn’t so much what a figure WAS so much as what was done with them afterwards. 

…For what was meant to be a quick note, that was very long. And tragically, I had no memes pre-prepared for this one, so I went back a month on a friend in the department’s Facebook and found this.

 I am willing to talk CMT if anyone WANTS to hear me talk about it, since it is my all time favorite myth, as well as….ANYTHING else, both the stuff I’ve discussed in this and anything else relating to the field, but I think that for this particular post, I’ll cut you free, with the hope if not the confidence that at least 1/3 of what I’ve written is vaguely coherent. 

[starkatana]

Both Sides of the Story - B

Summary:

Dabi’s been working with the League, keeping his distance from you so they wouldn’t get suspicious. It was only going to be a matter of time until things went back to normal. Until you wanted to break up. 

Dabi’s POV (sorry if OOC)

Dabi x Reader

Spoilers for Villain Quirks if you aren’t there yet! (Shigaraki, Toga, and Kurogiri)

Damn.

Dabi sighed looking at the time on his phone, you’d just be getting home from work. Right now he’d be at your apartment reading or thinking of what to eat for dinner tonight. Instead, he was sitting around with the League doing nothing.

“DABI!” Toga got in his face. “Would you say you’re in love?”

Dabi kept a straight face and rolled his eyes, shaking his head no. He casually slipped his phone back into his pocket. The less they knew about you, the better. The League didn’t need to know about you, his only weakness and soba.

“You ever been?” Toga didn’t have any idea about you, she was just a crazed ‘in love’ high schooler.

“Never.”

“It’s so nice being in love!” Toga squealed kicking her feet. “Can I tell you about it?”

“Please, enthuse me.”

You didn’t know about the League, it was just recently that Dabi had joined them. Most of his attention was on the League, not to say that you weren’t on his mind as well, because you were. He just needed to get them to trust him and once they did, he’d come back to you. It was just getting to that point that sucked.

He only got to see you at night when you were already asleep so you two couldn’t talk. Then you were at work during the day and he was doing ‘errands’ for the League. Couldn’t talk then either.

When nighttime rolled around, Shigaraki expected everyone to show up and give him a detailed report on how the day went. During the day, Dabi was mainly going out roasting petty criminals and recruiting others for their mission. So, he didn’t have much time to send texts while he was out. Doing that, he had to keep a low profile and since he pretty much stands out in a crowd, he had to be extra cautious.

That’s why he stopped going out with you and your friends. Not only because he couldn’t see you, but because if anyone recognized him, he wanted to make sure they wouldn’t associate you with him.

Then you asked, “about us.” He honestly believed there was nothing wrong between you guys. He reassured that he still loves you and that there was nothing to talk about. He had just picked up an overnight job and was just trying to get adjusted, that’s why the hours were so odd and he was distant. He was just tired, which wasn’t a lie. He knows you’re smart, but at the time that was all he could come up with, and it seemed to relax you for at least a little bit.

But he remembers the skeptical look on your face.

His phone buzzed in his pocket. He pulls it out, it’s a text from you. Toga pushes his phone down and gets in his face, “Will you tell me if you ever feel love?”

“You’ll be the first person, Toga.”

Her eyes glow as she holds her cheeks. “I’m going to hold you to it, Dabi!” she squeals and moves onto her next victim.

He looks back at your text:

You: can you come over tonight? We need to talk.

Dabi raises an eyebrow and replies: ‘sure, I’ll be over soon.’

Texts:

You: thanks

Dabi: want me to bring dinner?

You: no thanks I made dinner

Dabi: nice. What’d you make?

You: spaghetti

Dabi: can’t wait

“I’m leaving,” Dabi said getting up from the bar.

“What?! Where do you think you’re going?” Shigaraki hissed.

“Out.”

He did everything the League asked him to, to ‘prove’ his loyalty. It was a cakewalk for him and from the looks of it, the League needed him more than he needed them. Dabi didn’t care about anything except for his own goals and you. He was done playing their game. He was going to see you tonight and his mind was set on that.

“Hey."  He greeted walking into the apartment.

"Hey.”

Dabi takes in the way you look. It had been so long since he had actually been able to see you awake. He admits the past few weeks have been rough, being involved with the League, but he was happy seeing you now.

He walks towards you instinctively reaching for your side, pulling you close giving you a kiss on your cheek. He feels you shrug out of his arms and leaning closer to the counter. You weren’t looking at him and he noticed you make yourself smaller as if not to touch him.

He cocks an eyebrow at you, “What’s up?” He asked trying to get your attention. Something was wrong. It wasn’t like you not to say anything or to distance yourself.

“I want to break up.” He heard you say, your words piercing through him. Where had this come from? He didn’t assure you as well as he thought.

“What?” was all he could muster. You weren’t serious, were you? This had to have been a joke.

“I feel like this isn’t working out between us and I want to break up.”

You were serious and he didn’t know what to say to you. His mind raced, what does he say next to keep you around? How can he show you that he needs you more than he can truly explain? Your eyes seemed to dart all over his face, shit. How did he look to you?

“Y/n.” He grabbed your waist gently and leaned his head onto your shoulder, “Please, don’t do this.” his voice shaking, “I need you.”

Dabi’s heart felt heavy. He felt you put your arms around him, but he couldn’t relax. It felt like his chest could explode at any moment. He felt anxious and desperate, holding onto your waist. He didn’t know what he could do or say to keep you around.

“Let’s talk. About this.”

He doesn’t move. Just tell her everything. Everything.

Where to even begin? There’s Shigaraki, his quirk is decay, anything he touches disintegrates. It’s super cool, except he has the temper of a toddler and I make him mad, a lot. So, if he knew about you he’d threaten me by using you. Oh, and he’s the boss.

“What’s going on?”

He pursed his lips. God dammit. There’s this girl.

Ah, that sounds bad.

So, there’s this psychopath that likes to stab things. Her quirk requires blood, so that’s why she likes. . . stabbing things? Using other people’s blood she can turn into other people. Yeah, she could kill you, if someone asks her nicely enough to, and then pretend to be you. See why I don’t want her to know about you?

“Why have you been avoiding me?”

There is one person who’s decent. Kurogiri. He can basically warp people anywhere, but he’s the toddler’s right-hand man. I don’t know enough about him to trust him, but he’s the decent one.

He stands up and looks at you behind tear-soaked eyes. “I-I can’t say.” He was at a loss.

“Dabi,” you begin.

He leans into the hand you place on his cheek. Dabi getting lost in y/e/c. He just wanted to kiss you and push this aside like it wasn’t really happening, but he had pushed this off long enough. That’s why you two are here right now.

“Are you in trouble?” You ask, “Cause if you are, tell me and whatever it is you owe or need, I can help you.”

He shook his head, “It’s not that, Doll Face.” He managed a small short smile. You were too precious. Even though you didn’t want to admit it, you were too kind always ready and willing to help your friends.

He takes your hand into his, “Y/n, I am trouble.”

He watched you roll your eyes. Any farther and you could possibly see the inside of your skull. He rolls his eyes back at you. What a cheesy line, but it was true.

“I’m serious.” He was stern, “and the things I’m getting involved in…I’m scared to rope you into.” He let out a sigh remembering the members of the League.

“What are you talking about?” your eyes are narrow and dangerous. Dabi wasn’t afraid of much and as much as he made fun of how small you are (he’s 5’10-5’7 ((someone plz tell me how tall our boi is)) and you’re 5’2-5’3) he was scared of you. You are the only person able to leave him speechless, your smart mouth always putting him back into his place.

Dabi took in a deep breath to regain his composure. Looking at you, he still felt small. How did you do this to him? And how did he look to you?

“Remember on the news about the League of Villains attack on the USJ?”

“Sure.” You seemed to shrug it off.

“And then the news about the capture of the Hero Killer, Stain?”

You nod slowly.

“Well, I joined the League so I can help turn this damned hero glorified society into a righteous society based on Stain’s values to show people the true meaning of the word hero.” he meant every single word. He was going to, one way or another, fulfill Stain’s ideology for a better world.

There was a pause in your conversation. He searched your eyes, trying to get a read on your emotions and your potential reaction. You were always able to keep your emotions hidden. Sometimes he could read your face, but most of the time you were calm. It was one of the things that Dabi loved about you. You were a fierce soul, but at the same time, you had a sense of level-headedness that helped make him a better person.

“So?”

He deflates, you were too good for him. “This is my fault.”

You deserve so much better.

“I’m not going to beg for you to forgive me or to even keep me.” What happened next felt like word vomit to him. He honestly hadn't felt his way in a long time, the last time words just spilled out of his mouth, was when he was a child trying to protect Shoto. “I’ve been trying to keep a low profile, the boss is a man baby and is keeping tabs on us, and I grew distant because I didn’t want the others to know about you. I thought I was keeping you safe but I was pushing you away and that’s my fault.” He shook his head coming to terms with his actions.

This is inevitable.

“I just wanted to keep you a secret. If anyone knew, they’d come after you, to could get to me and I didn’t want you getting hurt or used against me. I’d do anything to keep you safe. I just thought it’d be easier if you didn’t know and I’m so sorry y/n. This is all my fault.”

Dabi wasn’t like himself. He was always so sure and so confident. He always knew what he needed to do, except for this, he wasn’t sure if he should’ve told you or not. So, he didn’t tell you. He kept the burden all for himself, it wasn’t fair for you to bear it too. All the time he spent keeping this a secret from you finally took a toll on him. He had broken down now. His head hung low.

He feels your arms wrap around him. You and your healing quirk. It made you a really touchy person, with those you cared about. You’ve taken away his aches and pains more times than he could count. Sometimes you’d just use it when you two hugged. Dabi was naturally warm because of his fire quirk, but it was nothing compared to the warmth your healing quirk brought him.

"Come here you big dumdum. Let’s just forget about what I said and be better.”

Something in Dabi snapped. This is exactly what he wanted. He wanted to be with you and this should’ve been the end of it. Kiss you and move on with it. But as much as he wanted to be with you, he wanted you safe more than anything. And you couldn’t be safe when you are with him.

“No!” he saw you jump. “Break up with me, y/n!” he cried, “Please! So, I don’t have to think about you! So, I don’t have to worry about you!” he grabs your hips and cries into your neck, “Please. Please, break up with me. So I don’t have to do it.” His heart broke as he said those words.

“Ah, so we are dating.”

Dabi’s body was shaking with frustration, but your comeback stopped him. He felt defeated when it came to your comebacks. They always came without any hesitation, as if you knew what he was going to say. You made him mad, in an endearing kind of way. He cocks an eyebrow at you. You always managed to keep him on his toes.

“We never really did put a label on it.” You shrug, giving him a light smile to lighten the mood.

He closed his eyes and put some distance between the two of you. He shook his head, “What the fuck?” he laughed at you.

“I’m sorry.” You began, “I didn’t know the whole story, I only knew half of it and now that I know everything. I understand and I don’t want to break up with you anymore.“

He didn’t know what to even think of you. One moment you wanted to break up and the next, you wanted to be together? Women. But you are right and admitted you were wrong in jumping to conclusions with only knowing one half of the story. He knew how hard it was for you to admit you were wrong. He couldn’t believe what he was hearing

"I want to keep dating you, Stitches.”

"Doll Face.” A smile of disbelief manifested on his lips, “You’re not listening to me.”

“I am and I’m saying, I take it back. I don’t want to break up. I want to stay together and to go through this with you.”

He shakes his head in disbelief. He loved you too much, “You’re fucking ridiculous.” He shook his head, followed by his pretty boy head tilt, “You want to stay with me after learning that your life could be in danger and that you could potentially get in trouble being associated with me?”

“Babe,” you began, walking your fingers up his chest, “you are trouble and I don’t think anything bad can happen to me as long as you’re around.” You flick your fingers in his face, “I’ve seen you swoop in out of nowhere when someone even checks out my ass.” You give him a smirk, “Plus I’m a big strong girl, I pick fights with you all the time.” You winked at him and he immediately shakes his head at you.

“I fucking hate you.” He growled pulling you into him.

“I know.” You give him a kiss on the cheek and he gives you a passionate kiss on the lips, you two then rest into a hug.

“I promise I’ll be better.” He sighed into your neck. It wasn’t easy, but he did feel warmer now. As if a weight of lies lifted off his mind and heart. “It’s such a relief, getting that off my chest.”

“Yeah…” you pause.

He pursed his lips and rolled his eyes, “You’re using your quirk aren’t you?”

“Yeah…” you laughed and continued to rub his back, “I figured you could use it after the heartache I just put you through.”

He nuzzled deeper into the crook of your neck, “Never change, Doll Face.”

“I won’t.”

@the-temple-pythoness

Hello! Thanks for commenting for part 2/B! I hope you enjoyed it! <3

[claudinei-de-jesus]

Satan

Some claim that there is no such being, the devil; but after observing the evil that exists in the world, it is logical to ask: "Who continues to do the work of Satan during his absence, if he does not exist? The scriptures reveal to us:

1. Its origin.

Read Isa. 14: 12-15; Ezeq. 28: 12-19. The popular conception of a horned, crowbar, and horrible-looking devil had its origins in pagan mythology and not in the Bible. According to Scripture, Satan was originally Lucifer (literally, "the one who brings light"), the most glorious of angels. But he proudly aspired to be "like the Most High" and fell into "the condemnation of the devil" (1 Tim. 3: 6). Note the historical background in chapters 14 of Isaiah and 28 of Ezekiel. Many have asked, "Why are the kings of Babylon and Tyreus mentioned first, before the fall of Satan is reported?" The answer is: the prophet described Satan's fall for a practical purpose. Some of the kings of Babylon and Tire claimed worship as divine beings, which is blasphemy (See Dan. 3: 1-12; Rev. 13:15; Ezek. 28: 2; Acts 12: 20-23), and did of his subjects the game of his cruel ambition. In order to admonish those, the inspired prophets of God removed the veil from the dark past and described the fall of the rebellious angel, who said: "I will be like God." This is the practical lesson: If God punished the blasphemous pride of this high-ranking angel, how can he stop judging any king who dares to usurp his place? Notice how Satan sought to infect our first parents with his pride. (See Ge 3: 5; Isa. 14:14). Let us note how frustrated pride and ambition still consume him, to the point of wanting to be worshiped (Matt. 4: 9) as "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4: 4), an ambition that will be temporarily satisfied when he incarnates the antichrist. . (Rev. 13: 4.) As a punishment for his wickedness, Satan was cast out of heaven, along with a group of angels that he had enlisted in his rebellion. (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12: 7; Ephesians 2: 2; Matt. 12:24.) He sought to win Eve as his ally; however, God thwarted the plan and said, "I will put enmity between you and the woman" (Gen. 3:15).

2. Your character.

The qualifications of Satan's character are indicated by the following titles and names by which he is known:

(a) Satan literally means "adversary" and describes his malicious and persistent attempts to obstruct God's purposes. This opposition was manifested especially in his attempts to thwart God's plan by seeking to destroy the chosen lineage, from which the Messiah would come - an activity predicted in Gen. 3:15. And from the beginning he has persisted in this struggle. Cain, Eve's first son, "was of the evil one and killed his brother" (1 John 3:12).

God gave Eve another son, Sete, who became the chosen seed from which the Deliverer of the world would proceed. But the venom of the serpent was still having an effect on the human race, and, over time, the lineage of Sete gave in to bad influences and deteriorated. The result was the universal wickedness that resulted in the Flood. God's plan, however, was not frustrated because there was at least one righteous person, Noah, whose family became the origin of a new race. In this way Satan's purpose of destroying the human race and impeding God's plan failed.

From Shem, son of Noah, Abraham, the progenitor of a chosen people, descended through which God would save the world. Naturally the enemy's efforts were directed against this particular family. One writer traces Satan's cunning opposition in the following incidents: Ishmael's opposition to Isaac, Esau's intention to kill Jacob; and Pharaoh's oppression of the Israelites. Satan is described as seeking to destroy the church in two ways: inwardly, by introducing false teachings (1 Tim. 4: 1; see Matt. 13: 38,39), and outwardly by persecution (Rev. 2:10).

This was the case with Israel, the Old Testament church of God. The worship of the golden calf at the beginning of its national life is a typical case that has constantly occurred throughout its history; and in the book of Esther we have an example of an effort made to destroy the chosen people. But God's chosen people have survived both the corruption of idolatry and the fury of the persecutor, and this is because of the divine grace that has always preserved a faithful remnant. When the time was up, the Redeemer came into the world, and the evil Herod planned to kill him; however, once again God prevailed and Satan's plan failed.

In the desert, Satan sought to oppose the Anointed One of God and divert him from his saving mission, but he was defeated; and his Conqueror "went about doing good, and healing all the oppressed of the devil." This secular conflict will reach its climax when Satan incarnates in the antichrist and is destroyed at the time of Christ's coming.

(b) Devil literally means "slanderer". Satan is called that because he slanders both God (Gen. 3: 2,4,5) and man (Rev. 12:10; John 1: 9; Zac. 3: 1, 2; Luc. 22:31) .

(c) Destroyer is the meaning of the word "Apollyon" (Greek), "Abaddon" (Hebrew) (Rev. 9:11). Filled with hatred against the Creator and his works, the devil wanted to establish himself as the god of destruction.

(d) Snake. "That ancient serpent, called the devil" (Rev. 12: 9) reminds us of the one who, in antiquity, used a serpent as his agent to bring about the fall of man.

(it's tempting. (Matt. 4: 3.) "Trying" literally means to prove or test, and the term is also used in connection with God's dealings (Gen. 22: 1). But, while God tests men for their own good - to purify and develop their character - Satan tempts them with the malicious purpose of destroying them.

(f) Prince and god of this world. (John 12:31; 2 Cor. 4: 4.) These titles suggest their influence on organized society outside or apart from the influence of God's will. "The whole world is in the evil one" (in the power of the evil one) (1 John 5:19) and is influenced by him. (1 John 2:16.) The Scriptures describe the world as a vast set of human activities, the trilogy of which is summed up in these words: fame, pleasure and goods.

To these three objectives everything is subordinate. Skillful arguments in defense of them create the illusion of being truly worthy. These objectives also enjoy the advantage of a vast literary, commercial and governmental apparatus, which constantly demands from the citizens of the world the cult of these objectives, which, in their minds, are associated with the highest values. The applause of the people is dedicated to those who succeed. The judgment of things is by the apparent aspect and success, based on false postulates of honor and by false ideas of pleasure, values ​​and the dignity of wealth. Furthermore, there is a strong appeal to the lower instincts of our nature, a call that pretends to be in language (?)

3. Your activities.

(a) The nature of the activities. Satan disturbs the work of God (1 Thess. 2:18); opposes the Gospel (Matt. 13:19; 2 Cor. 4: 4); dominates, blinds, deceives and snares the wicked (Luke 22: 3; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Rev. 20: 7, 8; 1 Tim. 3: 7). He afflicts (John 1:12) and tries (1 Thess. 3: 5) the saints of God. He is described as presumptuous (Matt. 4: 4, 5); proud (1 Tim. 3: 6); powerful (Eph. 2: 2); evil (John 2: 4); cunning (Gen. 3: 1 and 2 Cor. 11: 3); deceiver (Eph. 6:11); fierce and cruel (1 Pet. 5: 8).

(b) The sphere of activities. The devil does not limit his operations to the wicked and the depraved. He often acts in the higher circles as "an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14). Indeed, he even attends religious meetings, which is indicated by his presence in the gathering of angels (John chapter 1), and by the use of the terms: "doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4: 1) and "the synagogue of Satan "(Rev. 2: 9). Often his agents pose as "ministers of justice" (2 Cor. 11:15). The reason that he attends religious meetings is his malicious attempt to destroy the church, because he knows that once the salt of the earth loses its flavor, man becomes a victim in his unscrupulous hands.

(c) the reason for the activities. Why is Satan so interested in our ruin? José Hussiein replies: "He hates the image of God in us. He hates even the human nature that we possess, with which the Son of God was clothed. He hates the external glory of God, for the promotion of which we have been created and for which we will achieve our own eternal happiness. He hates his own happiness, for which we are destined, because he himself has lost it forever. He hates us for a thousand reasons and he envies us. " Thus said an ancient Jewish scribe: "Out of the devil's envy death came into the world: and those who follow him are beside him."

(d) Activity restrictions. While recognizing that Satan is strong, we must be careful not to exaggerate his power. For those who believe in Christ, he is already a defeated enemy (John 12:31), and he is strong only for those who give in to temptation. Despite his roaring fury he is a coward, for James said, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Aunt. 4: 7). It has power, but limited. he cannot try (Matt. 4: 1), afflict (John 1:16), kill (John 2: 6; Heb. 2:14), or touch the believer without God's permission.

4. Your destiny.

From the beginning God predicted and decreed the defeat of that power that had caused man to fall (Gen. 3:15), and the serpent's punishment to the dust of the earth was a prophetic glimpse of the degradation and final defeat of this "old serpent, the devil". Satan's career is always on the decline. In the beginning he was expelled from heaven; during the Tribulation he will be thrown from the heavenly sphere to the earth (Rev. 12: 9); during the Millennium he will be imprisoned in the abyss, and after a thousand years, he will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). In this way, the Word of God assures us of the final defeat of evil. ... Satanãs

Alguns afirmam que não existe tal ser, o diabo; mas depois de observar-se o mal que existe no mundo, é lógico que se pergunte: "Quem continua a fazer a obra de Satanás durante a sua ausência, se é que ele não existe? As escrituras nos revelam:

1. Sua origem.

Leia Isa. 14: 12-15; Ezeq. 28: 12-19. A concepção popular de um diabo com chifres, pés de cabra, e de aparência horrível teve sua origem na mitologia pagã e não na Bíblia. De acordo com as Escrituras, Satanás era certo Lúcifer (literalmente, "o que leva luz"), o mais glorioso dos anjos. Mas ele, orgulhosamente, aspirou a ser "como o Altíssimo" e caiu na "condenação do diabo" (1 Tim. 3: 6). Notemos os antecedentes históricos nos capítulos 14 de Isaias e 28 de Ezequiel. Muitos têm perguntado: "Por que os reis da Babilônia e de Tiro são importantes, antes de relatar-se a queda de Satanás?" A resposta é: o profeta enunciadosu a queda de Satanás tendo em vista um propósito prático. Alguns dos reis de Babilônia e Tiro reivindicaram adoração como seres divinos, o que é uma blasfêmia (Vide Dan. 3: 1-12; Apoc. 13:15; Ezeq. 28: 2; Atos 12: 20-23), e faziam de seus súditos o jogo de sua ambição cruel. Para poder admoestar os tais, os inspirados profetas de Deus afastaram o véu do obscuro passado e descreveram a queda do anjo rebelde, que disse: "Eu ser igual a Deus." Esta é uma lição prática: Se Deus castigou o blasfemo orgulho desse anjo de tão alta categoria, como deixar de julgar a qualquer rei que se atreva a usurpar o seu lugar? Notemos como Satanás preparo contagiar nossos primeiros pais com o seu orgulho. (Vide Gên 3: 5; Isa. 14:14). Notemos como o frustrado orgulho e ambição ainda o consomem, um ponto de desejar ser adorado (Mat. 4: 9) como "deus deste mundo" (2 Cor. 4: 4), uma ambição que temporariamente será satisfeita quando ele encarnar o anticristo . (Apo. 13: 4.) Como castigo por sua maldade, Satanás foi lançado fora do céu, juntamente com um grupo de anjos que ele havia alistado em sua rebelião. (Mat. 25:41; Apoc. 12: 7; Efés. 2: 2; Mat. 12:24.) Ele espera ganhar Eva como sua aliada; porém, Deus frustrou o plano e disse: "Porei inimizade entre ti e a mulher" (Gên. 3:15).

2. Seu caráter.

As qualificações do caráter de Satanás são indicadas pelos seguintes nomes e nomes pelos quais é conhecido:

(a) Satanás significa literalmente "adversário" e ensaios seus intentos maliciosos e persistentes de obstruir os propósitos de Deus. Essa distinção se manifesta especialmente nas suas restrições ao plano de Deus ao procurar destruir uma linhagem escolhida, da qual viria o Messias - atividade predita em Gên. 3:15. E desde o princípio ele tem persistido nesta luta. Caim, o primeiro filho de Eva, "era do maligno e matou a seu irmão" (1 João 3:12).

Deus deu a Eva outro filho, Sete, que veio a ser a semente escolhida da qual procederia o Libertador do mundo. Mas o veneno da serpente ainda estava surtindo efeito na raça humana, e, no transcurso do tempo a linhagem de Sete cedeu às más influências e se deteriorou. O resultado foi uma impiedade universal da qual resultou o Dilúvio. O plano de Deus, não obstante, não foi frustrado porque havia pelo menos uma pessoa justa, Noé, cuja família se tornou origem de uma nova raça. Dessa maneira fracassou o propósito de Satanás de destruir a raça humana e impedir o plano de Deus.

De Sem, filho de Noé, descendeu Abraão, o progenitor de um povo escolhido, por meio do qual Deus salvaria o mundo. Naturalmente os esforços do inimigo se dirigem contra esta família em particular. Certo escritor traça a astuta indicada de Satanás nos seguintes incidentes: A nomeação de Ismael a Isaque, a intenção de Esaú de matar Jacó; e a opressão de Faraó aos israelitas. Satanás é descrito como procurar destruir a igreja, de duas maneiras: interiormente, pela introdução de falsos ensinos (1 Tim. 4: 1; vide Mat. 13: 38,39), e exteriormente pela perseguição (Apoc. 2:10).

Foi o que se verificou com Israel, a igreja de Deus do Antigo Testamento. A adoração do abaixo de ouro no princípio de sua vida nacional é um caso típico de ocorrências ocorridas de toda a sua história; e no livro de Ester temos o exemplo de um esforço feito para destruir o povo escolhido. Mas o povo escolhido de Deus tem sobrevivido tanto à corrupção da idolatria, quanto à fúria do perseguidor, e isso por causa da graça divina que sempre tem preservado um restante fiel. Quando se cumpriu o tempo, o Redentor veio ao mundo, e o malvado Herodes planejou matá-lo; porém, mais uma vez Deus prevaleceu and the plan of Satanás fracassou.

No deserto, Satanás espera opor-se ao Ungido de Deus e desviá-lo de sua missão salvadora, porém foi derrotado; e seu Conquistador "andou fazendo o bem, e curando a todos os oprimidos do diabo". Este conflito secular chegará ao seu clímax quando Satanás se encarnar no anticristo e for destruído na ocasião da vinda de Cristo.

(b) Diabo significa literalmente "caluniador". Satanás é chamado assim porque calunia tanto a Deus (Gên. 3: 2,4,5) como ao homem (Apoc. 12:10; Jo 1: 9; Zac. 3: 1, 2; Luc. 22:31).

(c) Destruidor é o sentido da palavra "Apollyon" (grego), "Abaddon" (hebraico) (Apoc. 9:11). Cheio de ódio contra o Criador e suas obras, ou diabo desejava estabelecer-se como o deus da destruição.

(d) Serpente. "Essa antiga serpente, chamada o diabo" (Apoc. 12: 9) nos faz lembrar aquele, na antiguidade, como uma serpente como seu agente para ocasionar uma queda do homem.

(e) Tentador. (Mat. 4: 3.) "Tentar" significa literalmente provar ou testar, e o termo é usado também em relação aos tratos de Deus (Gên. 22: 1). Mas, enquanto Deus põe à prova os homens para seu próprio bem - para purificar e desenvolver o seu caráter - Satanás tenta-os com o propósito malicioso de destruir.

(f) Príncipe e deus deste mundo. (João 12:31; 2 Cor. 4: 4.) Esses graus de pontuação sua prioridade sobre a sociedade organizada fora ou à parte da influência da vontade de Deus. "Todo o mundo está no maligno" (no poder do maligno) (1 João 5:19) e está influenciado por ele. (1 João 2:16.) As Escrituras descrevem o mundo como sendo qual vasto conjunto de atividades humanas, cuja trilogia se resume a essas palavras: fama, prazer e bens.

A esses três objetivos tudo está subordinado. Hábeis argumentos em defesa dos mesmos criam a ilusão de serem realmente dignos. Esses objetivos gozam ainda da vantagem de vastíssimo aparato literário, comercial e governamental, o qualifica constantemente reclamações dos cidadãos do mundo o culto a esses objetivos, que, na mente, se associam aos mais elevados valores. Os aplausos do povo se dedicam àqueles que os conseguem. O juízes das coisas é pelo aspecto e o êxito aparentes, fundado sobre falsos postulados de honra e mediante falsas idéias de prazer, de valores e da dignidade da riqueza. Ademais, faz-se veemente apelo aos instintos inferiores da nossa natureza, apelo que se reveste da linguagem pretensamente (?)

3. Suas atividades.

(a) A natureza das atividades. Satanás perturba a obra de Deus (1 Tess. 2:18); opõe-se ao Evangelho (Mat. 13:19; 2 Cor. 4: 4); domina, cega, engana e laça os ímpios (Luc. 22: 3; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Apoc. 20: 7, 8; 1 Tim. 3: 7). Ele aflige (Jo 1:12) e tenta (1 Tess. 3: 5) os santos de Deus. Ele é descrito como presunçoso (Mat. 4: 4, 5); orgulhoso (1Tm 3: 6); poderoso (Efés. 2: 2); maligno (Jo 2: 4); astuto (Gên. 3: 1 e 2 Cor. 11: 3); enganador (Efés. 6:11); feroz e cruel (1 Ped. 5: 8).

(b) A esfera das atividades. O diabo não limita as suas operações aos ímpios e depravados. Muitas vezes idade nos círculos mais elevados como "um anjo de luz" (2 Cor. 11:14). Deveras, até assiste às reuniões religiosas, o que é indicado pela sua presença no ajuntamento dos anjos (Jo capítulo 1), e pelo uso dos termos: "doutrinas de demônios" (1 Tim. 4: 1) e "a sinagoga de Satanás "(Apoc. 2: 9). Freqüentemente seus agentes se fazem passar como "ministros de justiça" (2 Cor. 11:15). A razão que o leva a freqüentar as reuniões religiosas é o seu malicioso intento de destruir uma igreja, porque ele sabe que uma vez perdendo o sal da terra o seu sabor, o homem torna-se vitima nas suas mãos inescrupulosas.

(c) O motivo das atividades. Por que está tão interessado em nossa ruína? Responde José Hussiein: "Ele aborrece a imagem de Deus em nós. Odeia até mesmo a natureza humana que possuímos, com a qual se revestiu o Filho de Deus. Odeia a glória externa de Deus, para a promoção da qual temos sido criados e pela qual alcançaremos a nossa própria felicidade eterna. Ele odeia a própria felicidade, para a qual estamos prestando, porque ele mesmo a perdeu para sempre. Ele tem ódio de nós por mil razões e de nós tem inveja. " Assim disse um antigo escriba judeu: "Pela inveja do diabo veio a morte ao mundo: e os que seguem estão a seu lado."

(d) As restrições das atividades. Ao mesmo tempo que reconhecemos que Satanás é forte, devemos ter cuidado de não exagerar o seu poder. Para aqueles que crêem em Cristo, ele já é um inimigo derrotado (João 12:31), e é forte somente para aqueles que cedem à tentação. Apesar de sua fúria rugidora ele é um covarde, pois Tiago disse: "Resisti ao diabo e ele fugirá de vós" (Tia. 4: 7). Ele tem poder, porém limitado. não pode tentar (Mat. 4: 1), afligir (Jo 1:16), matar (Jo 2: 6; Hb 2:14), nem tocar no crente sem a permissão de Deus.

4. Seu destino.

Desde o princípio Deus predisse e decretou a derrota daquele poder que ocorreram a queda do homem (Gên. 3:15), e o castigo da serpente até o pó da terra foi um vislumbre profético da degradação e derrota final dessa "velha serpente, o diabo ". A carreira de Satanás está em descensão sempre. No princípio foi expulso do céu; durante a Tribulação será lançada da esfera celeste à terra (Apoc. 12: 9); durante o Milênio será aprisionado no abismo, e depois de mil anos, será lançado ao lago de fogo (Apoc. 20:10). Dessa maneira a Palavra de Deus nos locais a derrota final do mal.

[the-rageaholic]

In your video about The (SJW) Shadow in Razor vs Comics, you talked about The Shadow being probably the 1st objectivist hero in the comics with and how Rorschach and The Question are in the same vein in Objectivism. My question is what makes an objectivist hero?

In strictly academic terms, this means ‘a hero who enacts or employs the philosophy of objectivism in achieving justice.’ If a mere Objectivist is someone who believes in the philosophy and observes it, at least until it would infract upon the province of the Law…? An Objectivist vigilante is one who holds their own personal definition of justice and is willing to break the law to attain it. 

Their victories are more than merely physical, but moral as well. In this sense, The Shadow was the first of his kind. I think Steve Ditko’s creation ‘Mr. A’ (who was, unsurprisingly, inspired by The Shadow) is instructive in this regard:

“I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.”“You must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.”

“A is A.”

The villain’s pleas fall on deaf ears for the Objectivist hero. He only has ears for the victims. Such is The Shadow. 

Objectivism, more than a mere repudiation of Subjectivism, is the idea that there is right and wrong, good and evil. That antiheroes and sympathetic villains corrupt heroism and the moral composition of humanity’s collective ideals in general. 

That’s The Shadow to a T. He isn’t an antihero. I’ve seen him described as such, often by appalling comic writers actively attempting to dismantle his legacy and import for the sake of ‘modernization’. The hilarious part is: The Shadow - in our present, morally conflicted and confusing sociopolitical climate - is more contemporary than ever. It’s no accident The Shadow was born during the Prohibition Era. A time where the government’s moral certitude was in doubt and the public (and press) were tacitly rooting for the villains, even as Capone ordered mass shootings in the public square. There was a prevailing sentiment that police were ineffectual and had to play by the rules… while the baddies could flout the Law with impunity, protected by the Courts. 

Enter The Shadow. Clad in black. The garb of evil. Employing the skills of subterfuge, stealth, and guile more commonly associated with villainy… but utterly binary in his morality. Good is good. Evil is evil. And the Shadow knows exactly what evil lurks in the hearts of men. Because he’s utterly rejected it, and exterminates it, in all its myriad manifestations. An excerpt from ‘The Shadow: In The Coils of Leviathan’ (Dark Horse, 1993) written from The Shadow’s perspective, illustrates my point:

This was the secret to The Shadow’s success in the ‘30s. He was panacea to a powerless public, witnessing the erosion of law, order, and the moral good. 

Which is, further, why The Shadow’s victories are moral ones. He punishes a corrupt banker by robbing him of any and all possessions, leaving him destitute, to ultimately commit suicide. He defeats a multi-headed criminal organization called ‘The Hydra’ by creating a personal ‘Hydra’ organization of his own, using his agents to gun them all down in unison. (In a further fulfillment of the Hydra myth, he decapitates one of their agents with a guillotine)

The Shadow doesn’t serve the Law. He serves Justice. And on occasions when the Law has run afoul of it, he’s been unafraid to turn his twin .45s on them as well. He serves a binary morality. And while he will make an effort to redeem the legitimately reformed? (He even has an agent devoted to the reformation of former criminals) Once someone has shown themselves beyond redemption, their fate has been assured. It isn’t always destruction (in many cases, he leaves enemies to the police, or leaves them in an even more elaborate personal Hell) but it’s always just, and invariably of philosophical importance. 

More than anything else, that’s what Si Spurrier’s atrocious Shadow comic lacks. In today’s age of gray morality? All he’s done is add touches of gray to a character who, today, would be far more interesting… the LESS ambiguous he is. These flourishes of pseudo-complexity come across as stilted and forced, because that’s precisely what they are. 

Imagine the controversy, the outrage, and the SALES… if The Shadow was in a modern comic… willing to execute a corrupt or racist police officer… and… a BLM/New Black Panther activist who crosses the line to murder, as the Dallas shooter did? If he did so without personal conflict, asserting his moral prerogative, and giddily cackled of the evil in their self-righteous hearts all the while? This is a character who could have a profound relevance today, but instead, Spurrier’s dated attempt to ‘update’ the character… have left The Shadow somewhere around the year 2006. 

The Shadow gets more contemporary, the closer he is to his original incarnation.

Godspeed!-RazörFist

[aion-rsa]

American Murder: The Family Next Door: How Far is Too Far for True Crime?

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

The latest buzzy Netflix documentary tells the story of Chris Watts who murdered his pregnant wife Shanann and their two daughters Celeste and Bella. In this doc we hear the 911 call from Shanann’s friend Nickole Atkinson the morning of her death and the police footage of the moments they arrived at the house to find a frantic Nickole and later a very cagey Chris Watts. We see the last text messages Shanann sent and the last moments her daughters were alive. And we see Chris Watts lying about Shanann and their kids’ disappearance mere hours after he had killed them all. It is tough.

Streaming services are packed to the rafters with murder documentaries, while true crime seems to be an ever increasing preoccupation. From the internet sleuths of Don’t F**k With Cats, questions about the American legal system in Making A Murderer to the shocking self-incrimination of Robert Durst in The Jinx, true crime docs have to rely on ever more sensational stories, or formats, to stand out.

American Murder: The Family Next Door takes another new approach. The whole thing is pieced together from police and media footage, videos and posts on social media as well as text messages between the main players. This means there is no narration, no after-the-fact interviews, no commentary or analysis. It means the film is not subject to unreliable opinion or flawed memories, 20-20 hindsight or retrofitting the truth. There’s no bias and no sides but also there’s no explanation – or at least none that feels bearable or plausible.

In a way it’s an incredible documentary, a look at the days and weeks before Shanann, Celeste and Bella went missing, and what happened immediately after including police footage of Chris just hours after he had dumped his three-year-old and four-year-old daughters’ bodies in oil tanks and buried his 15-weeks-pregnant wife in a shallow grave. We see him talking to the press, pleading for the family’s safe return and his strange behavior as identified by a neighbor who has CCTV of Chris leaving in his car in the early hours.

We also see multiple videos of Shanann talking about how much she loves Chris and of the moment Chris found out she was expecting their third child. We read the text messages they exchanged when she was on her way home from a business trip just hours before he murdered her, and the text exchanges with her friends about Chris. And we also see extensive footage of their two daughters playing with their dad and singing him a song about how he is their hero.

It is, to say the least, extremely upsetting. 

It also poses a question: if we are going to watch these things, where do we draw the line? Fans of true crime often talk about reasons, beyond morbid fascination, that they are interested in the genre. True crime fans are predominantly female, and some talk about their fascination in relation to avoiding being a victim of crime themselves (the ‘stay sexy, don’t get murdered’ factor, to quote popular podcast My Favourite Murder). Miscarriages of justice hold a strong draw too – most of us can’t imagine ourselves as a murderer but we could just about imagine ourselves being wrongly convicted, as was the case with Amanda Knox, making that documentary particularly compelling.

Neither is the case here though. The Watts case is so utterly terrifying because it shows us a bloke who looks incredibly normal, with a wife and kids who clearly love him. There are problems in the relationship – turns out Chris was having an affair though Shanann didn’t know that, or certainly not until the end – but to all intents and purposes this was an ordinary man who did something utterly unspeakable and the only reason seems to have been so he could go off with his new girlfriend. That it utterly defies logic makes it impossible to learn anything from. This crime, the doc gently hints, was very likely premeditated. Not a crime of passion, not something done in the heat of the moment – and the way Chris describes driving his daughters in the car with the body of their mother out to the field whether he would kill them is frankly harrowing.

The Watts murders would come under the category of ‘family annihilation’ – multiple murders where a whole family is wiped out. These crimes tend to be committed by white males in their 30s and often in August (before school starts back so detection is delayed) – both of which match with Chris Watts, but a study by British criminologists identified four main types of motives for family annihilation: self-righteous (blames the mother for family breakdown), anomic (associates family with economic success, destroys them when he loses this), disappointed (family doesn’t live up to expectations – honor killings come under this banner), and paranoid (thinks he protecting family from something worse). 

Chris doesn’t seem to match any of these. His motivation genuinely seems to be that he got fit, bagged a hot new girlfriend and somehow decided it would be easier just to kill everyone than to get a divorce. But psychologically that doesn’t really make sense. He called the girls’ school to say they weren’t coming in and an estate agent to discuss selling the house, as well as his girlfriend just after the killings. How can he possibly have though he’d get away with it? 

What American Murder: The Family Next Door is showing us is a horrific tragedy exactly as it played out but with no conclusions other than that some people are terrible and we don’t even know why. In many ways it’s a depressing and nihilistic doc, particularly when we learn of the outrageous victim blaming of Shanann going on online and the harassment of the family after the killings. People are awful, American Murder shows us. Why? How? No idea.

And it raises the question: as true crime fans how far are we willing to stare into that abyss before the abyss stares back? What if there was footage of Chris carrying out the actual murders – is that too far or is it still fair game? Maybe then we would know why he did such an awful thing. Don’t F**k With Cats showed horrific animal cruelty and glimpses of a video made of a murder, while Evil Genius included footage of a man being killed by a bomb exploding around his neck. 

We are fascinated by these stories of darkness but we should also ask ourselves, personally, where do we draw the line? When is it no longer ok to view tragedy as entertainment and at what point does a window into the life of someone like Chris Watts not benefit us to look through? Because it’s important to remember that it is a window and not just a television screen, both in relation to responsibility to the victims but also our own mental wellbeing. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

After all, life is tough enough without worrying about your normal-seeming husband randomly murdering you.

The post American Murder: The Family Next Door: How Far is Too Far for True Crime? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/36zYzSL

[skewl4kewl]

TASK 4 : What Do I believe in? 

Are School Dress Codes a good idea ? 

There is a lot of back and forth going on about the reality of whether or not dress codes should be enforced in schools, so much so that this topic has garnered some controversy. Why you may ask? Well let’s look into why one would want a dress code, why the question get’s asked, and what potential benefits may present themselves if a school enforced this policy. The main driving argument that supports dress codes is that it simplifies a students life, they don’t have to worry about what they are going to put on tomorrow or for the rest of the week. That social anxiety that drives this fear is a constant worry of  being harshly judged by their peers for not “wearing the right clothes “ in order to be accepted by them, and therefore not accepted into their desired social circle , the fear and anxiety associated with trying to conform to a norm and not being able to achieve and measure up to that norm. While this main argument allows us to empathize with all the children and students who are subject to these negative social experiences, it fails to acknowledge the fact that when we take away a students freedom to dress, we “the establishment” are reinforcing the most totalitarian of social norms to be strictly adhered to. Every argument that supports dress code policies in theory looks righteous and like it’s seeking to help out the students, but when actually implemented in reality, ends up perpetuating the very problem it set out to dismantle and alleviate. Allowing students the freedom to dress enables them to have the freedom to explore, express themselves with what feels the most comfortable in how they present themselves. This is a deeply unique and intimate experience for the coming of age student, as each individual reveals to themselves via this presentation experimentation with clothing , what garb reflects who they are on the inside/ what they are feeling/ how they want to be perceived that day, week, month or year.  This is of vital importance for children and teenage students, as the assertion of one owns autonomous independence can be expressed via how they choose to present themselves, it is an avenue to create and assert their burgeoning autonomy and to better understand as they look back at photos from their youth, what they were going through and how they chose to inadvertently express that to the world via how they chose to present themselves with what they chose to wear. Stealing this rite from flourishing students can create unsafe environments which can unwittingly be used as the breeding ground for sexist , demeaning and misogynistic rhetoric to be left unchecked and therefore will negate an equitable academic experience for all students, male and female.

 As warmer months approach in Canadian school systems, particularly in Secondary Schools, every young girl is incessantly reminded by faculty to make sure that she dresses appropriately and to make a conscious effort to not wear “spaghetti strap” tank tops, to ensure your shorts were the length of you arms going to the furthest point of the tip of your finger, and to keep your midriff covered, as that garb was deemed “inappropriate for the classroom, and if the girl did not comply, she would suffer a consequence and be punished for her behaviour. But why is putting on “summer clothes” deemed such an offence for ONLY young teenage girls? Why must young teenage girls be punished for not adhering to such an archaic policy? What is the implicit message here, the moral understanding being stated in-between words, in-between the lines of this policy. This policy is only put into place to ensure the academic performance of male students, as it based on the notion that “boys will be distracted” if girls show up in weather appropriate clothing to school. This messaging, wither said explicitly or implicitly with polite decorated language, reinforces sexist and misogynistic ideals, which create an an unsafe environment for girls, because they are being subjugated  as the temptresses who possess this unseen power of manipulation and must be controlled to establish peace and order, painting them as the villains, when in fact they are the victims of systemic sexism within the school system. This sentiment also perpetuates the myth that boys cannot control themselves, and a girl is responsible for a boys behaviour, he cannot be held accountable for his own behaviour, which consequentially preserves and promotes rape culture (rape culture is the terms coined by feminists used to expose how society blames the victims of sexual assault and normalizes sexual violence). Scapegoating young malleable teenage girls into taking accountability for the damaging and sexist behaviour of over-privileged boys, not only reinforces rape culture, but also undermines the intelligence, critical thinking and judgement of young teenage girls and how they chose to carry themselves. By removing the freedom for girls to experiment with how they chose to dress in certain settings and environments, we remove the opportunity for girls to develop the capacity to discern when certain garb is fitting given the context of the environment they are going to be in (you would not wear workout clothes to a wedding, you wouldn’t wear a fancy dress with an extravagant tail and high heels to your  homeroom at 8 am). Canadian school systems  make young girls co-dependent on the school and faculty to make those calls and decisions for her, thus stifling her ability to develop those foundational life skills ultimately rendering them less autonomous and functional, which in effect is the opposite of the intention of the school system (they claim to be there to prepare you to enter the next stage and life arena).

 In final summation, schools across the country, private, public and everything in between, should not be swayed by the superficial arguments for implementing dress codes, as this enforces harmful notions that further marginalize oppressed societal groups and reinforce a rape culture that inoculates boys from taking accountability for their behaviours and actions. Telling girls how to dress and then shaming and punishing them when they don’t fall in line with your policy perpetuates the self-objectification of young teen girls as they try and try to fit into a stifling norm which even if they do  and adhere to, only upholds the sexist belief that boys cannot control themselves and that the young girl herself does not have the capacity to discern what kind of clothing is appropriate given the context and circumstances of her environment. Giving the space and freedom to young girls, to allow them to experiment with how they present & express themselves, will undoubtedly permit young girls to make that distinction , to accept and recognize that truth and reality on their own terms, thus alleviating those feelings of resentment, victimization, anger and despair a she would internalize as a result of enforcing archaic dress code policies that undermine her as a capable & intelligent human being.

[thecornerofthemoon]

Here’s my theory for why students were sorted into their houses in Harry Potter - the student’s deepest motivations were what the Sorting Hat pinged.

I narrowed down the four motivations between the houses as these: Gryffindor is for justice, Ravenclaw for truth, Hufflepuff for love, and Slytherin for power.

-

Gryffindor: Justice

Gryffindor is commonly known as the ‘courage’ house. Basically any quote associated with it on HP blogs has the word ‘courage’ or ‘fear’ in it. But courage isn’t a goal or motivation, courage is a reaction to a circumstance. My theory is that Gryffindors are motivated to pursue justice despite difficulties. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Gryffindor character would be the grizzled cop. Righteous and spiteful.

While fighting against injustice is usually good, it can also go too far. Whether it’s against perceived injustice that is taken out of context, or simply punishment for wrongdoings taken to extreme violence, it can become twisted into revenge or cruelty. 

Harry, for example, is elated when Sirius Black is rescued from an unjust fate in PoA. He’s practically gleeful when Aunt Marge is blown up like a balloon. He’s beyond irate when questioned in the Wizenmagot for saving himself and Dudley from dementors in a farce of a trial. He’s also beyond pissed when he unfairly doesn’t get to go to Hogsmeade because his uncle wouldn’t sign his stupid form. But... Harry also gets so angry at Bellatrix Lestrange for killing Sirius that he successfully Crucios her with cruelty on his mind. He wants to hurt her - punish her - for what she’d done.

Hermione campaigns for house elves to be freed in her S.P.E.W. program for years after she learns about them being mistreated and oppressed. She also starts up the resistance group Dumbledore’s Army. But... she gets so angry at Marietta Edgecombe for snitching on the group - betraying them to a corrupted authority - that she permanently scars Marietta’s face with a nasty hex.

Ron is the most laid back in the Golden Trio, but even he gets Fred and George to help him break Harry out of Privet Drive in CoS with the Ford Anglia. He yells at Snape for calling Hermione a know-it-all after he’d done it to her a thousand times as a friend. But... He also gets so mad he doesn’t talk to to Harry after Harry gets picked in the Triwizard Tournament, because he thinks Harry went behind his back to get in.

-

Ravenclaw: Truth

Ravenclaw is known for being the scholarly house, all about books and learning. But I think the motivation underlying is for the student to find truth. Not all truth is in books, after all. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Ravenclaw would be the nosy reporter. Uncovers the truth, but can be unfeeling or callous towards victims or people they deem stupid.

Luna Lovegood is the perfect example of this. Even though she is in Ravenclaw, she doesn’t ascribe to the by-the-book way of looking at things. She explores the world around her without preconceptions. She reads her Quibbler upside-down, which seems mad to other people until they know that the Quibbler’s articles are printed upside down. She believes in magical creatures like nargles that nobody can see, she loves thinking about complex riddles, she believes Harry when nobody else does... Luna searches for truth in the world around her, even if she doesn’t fit the stereotype of the put-together scholar. She’s the dreamy philosopher your mother warned you about. It makes sense that her father runs a newspaper the way he does, as he was also in Ravenclaw.

-

Hufflepuff: Love

Hufflepuff is known for hard work and loyalty. I think the underlying motivation here is love. If you love something, you work hard at it, whether it’s an art piece or a sport or a musical instrument. You want it to succeed. Loyalty is love, of a sort; steadfastness, absolute devotion, unquestioned support. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Hufflepuff would be the consoling, sympathetic profiler. Caring, but sometimes too fragile for the realities of life.

Newt Scamander, for example, rolls up his sleeves and gets messy in the dirt to take care of his magical creatures. He travels all over the world to find them or transport them, gets into incredibly dangerous situations to help them, and spends all his time taking care of them. He wholeheartedly cares for and toils for them, to the point of sacrifice. He’s also unfailingly loyal to magical creatures in general - even though many of them are dangerous, he argues to anyone that will listen that humans are the problem. He writes a book to help people understand the creatures a little better, so as to stop hurting them. He equally loyal to his human friends, like when he gifts the silver shells to Jacob at the end of Fantastic Beasts. Everything he does, Newt does out of love for someone. Even if it hurts him, in the end.

-

Slytherin: Power

Slytherin is known as the ‘ambitious’ house that strives for ‘greatness.’ I take this to mean power is the main motivation. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Slytherin would be the police chief, or possibly a lawyer, someone influential in the goings-on of the plot’s conclusion. Whether the character is positive or negative depends on the characterization and which side they’re on. Power is not inherently bad - it is only as bad as the people that wield it.

Individual agency, for example, is a good thing. I can easily imagine an abused child coming to Hogwarts such as Snape, wanting to assert their newfound agency. Someone wanting to protect the vulnerable with the authority they earn, someone wanting to use their platforms or successes to let silenced people be heard, someone just wanting to protect themselves from any more suffering; these are worthy ambitions.

On the other hand, power is easy to abuse once it’s been acquired. The climb to power can also be corrupt. Using people as stepping stones, throwing loyalties aside for a promotion, feeding lies about the opponent... you get the idea. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.

So yes, Voldemort was a prime example of power abuse. And manipulation. And warmongering. And racism. Etc. So is Lucius Malfoy, on a lesser scale, with all his politicking in the Ministry and constant one-up-manship games against Arthur Weasley, not to mention his additional Death Eater status.

But Merlin was also in Slytherin, as in the King Arthur’s court Merlin. A great wizard, who made amazing discoveries and advancements in magic while advising the king at the time. He had influence, both in his own time and down the line. His name is known even now. Merlin wasn’t evil, but he was unquestionably powerful.

-

In the end, there are pros and cons for every house. Everyone wants at least a little bit of every four of these motivations; what determines the house is the leading motivation for you.

Hope this helps when you’re trying to find out your house and you hit a wall! It definitely does for me. Tag yourself I’m the grizzled cop :P

[ikkinthekitsune]

One of the strangest and most fascinating things about the Old Testament, to me, is that it’s perfectly happy to offer the spotlight to opposing viewpoints, often in adjacent or near-adjacent books.

Take the seven books considered to be part of the wisdom literature genre, for instance -- Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, and Sirach. 

To start with, they don’t even agree about what it means to be wisdom literature.  Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Sirach all offer what’s probably best described as worldly wisdom, offering suggestions as to how to get ahead in life that are so pragmatic and rooted in the culture of their time that some of them (particularly with regards to women and the discipline of children) are repugnant to modern sensibilities.  Ecclesiastes in particular is incredibly cynical, almost to the point of nihilism.  “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity” isn’t just its most well-known phrase -- it’s perfectly representative of a worldview in which we’re all going to the same place, and while you might be able to live longer if you’re righteous, you can’t even count on that much.

Job addresses the problem of evil as well, but its structure and content are entirely different.  It’s an incredibly poetic take on an argument between a man who suffers unjustly and his “friends” who insist that he must be guilty of some hidden wrongdoing because they refuse to believe that the righteous would be allowed to suffer.  And, in the end, it doesn’t pretend that it can offer a satisfying answer to the problem of evil (God’s response is to ask questions of Job that no human being could answer), other than that a good person should acknowledge that there is a problem instead of accusing those who suffer of having done something to deserve their suffering in order to let God off the hook.

Interestingly enough, Job himself kind of seems to have been looking for something rather New Testament-like -- he notes that God “is not a mortal, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together. There is no umpire between us, who might lay his hand on us both” and says that, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another."  There also seems to be something of an implication that the nature of God, as it was understood at the time, was so far removed from the nature of man that no meaningful answer to the problem of evil could be provided within the contemporary framework.  God’s answer addresses the question only tangentially, taking full responsibility for nature red in tooth and claw while justifying nothing.  (Incidentally, the position taken by God in the Book of Job is probably one of the most effective arguments against the idea that Darwinian evolution is contrary to the revealed character of God that I can think of.)

And then there’s Wisdom, which starts with what almost seems like a deliberate shot over the bow at the worldview presented in Ecclesiastes (”For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves, ‘Short and sorrowful is our life, and there is no remedy when a life comes to its end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. For we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been, for the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts; when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air.Our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will remember our works; our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun and overcome by its heat. For our allotted time is the passing of a shadow, and there is no return from our death, because it is sealed up and no one turns back.’”).

Even more intriguingly, the Book of Wisdom has very little interest in offering worldly wisdom of its own.  Instead, it does three rather extraordinary things for a book written in the 1st century BC:

It claims that a cynically anti-resurrection worldview inevitably leads to what sounds an awful lot like the death of Jesus -- ”Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”)

It presents wisdom as what might be most appropriately described as a Rule 63 version of Jesus and offers a prototype for the doctrine of the Trinity.  No, seriously: “The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction, and concern for instruction is love of her, and love of her is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality, and immortality brings one near to God; so the desire for wisdom leads to a kingdom.” “There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle. For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. Although she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.” “With you is wisdom, she who knows your works and was present when you made the world; she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what is right according to your commandments.” “For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory.” “Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by wisdom.”  To wit, that’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, serving as both an image of God and a guarantee of immortality, and existence prior to the world’s creation -- the only way to posit such a figure in the Judeo-Christian framework without falling into polytheism is the Trinitarian solution. And, depending on how one interprets “unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high,” it might have actually spoken of three divine persons.

It associates wisdom with a swiftly-approaching judgment on heathen idols, “because, though part of what God created, they became an abomination, snares for human souls and a trap for the feet of the foolish,” which is quite prophetic if one holds to a Girardian interpretation of the Crucifixion (namely, that by taking upon himself the role of victim but refusing to be silenced, Jesus undercut the mechanism by which all sacrificial religions and other such idolatrous social dynamics operated).  There’s even a line introducing this prophecy of judgment that could be passed off as a direct reference to the Crucifixion -- “For blessed is the wood by which righteousness comes.”  And, once you add the concept of the scapegoat mechanism into the mix, claiming that “the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil“ changes from something naive and anachronistic to an insightful and lasting truth about humanity, and claiming that “though living in great strife due to ignorance, [idolators] call such great evils peace“ makes perfect sense (peace gained through the sacrifice of scapegoats is obviously a great evil).

To make the Biblical canon of wisdom literature even more complicated, Psalms and the Song of Solomon often seem not to have anything to do with wisdom at all.  Psalms is a collection of lyrics for songs used at worship services (many of which are, like, 3,000 years old and still entirely relevant, which is kind of amazing in and of itself), so it’s to be expected that its content varies significantly, but I’m not sure how the Song of Solomon was assumed to deal with wisdom except insofar as King Solomon himself was famously wise -- it’s an incredibly sensual piece of love poetry.

But, yeah.  For seven books in the same genre included in the same canon, it’s hard to imagine a more disparate set.

[kamorth]

I need to rant

I’m not expecting this to be read let alone get notes but I need to put it out there so it stops doing whirling dervishes in my head. Don’t feel bad for not clicking on the “keep reading” thing and if you’re not up for a lot of swearing and angry noises about abuse and bigotry and bullshit please avoid this post because I’m not holding back.

TL;DR: ( added in about halfway through because apparently I feel like writing a full dissertation on this) BLACK AND WHITE THINKING IS BAD FUCKING STOP IT ALREADY.

FUCKING BLACK AND WHITE THINKING. I’M SO FUCKING SICK OF IT.

I’m not talking about racism (although black and white thinking is basically the root cause of all racism), I’m talking about bullshit “if not this then that” attitudes. Something isn’t perfectly good therefore it’s completely evil with NO regard for any of the shades of grey in between.

Fuck it, let’s use racism as an example. “This person is not [insert race] therefore they must be useless/stupid/corrupt/trouble/violent/greedy/[insert other negative attribute as necessary] therefore I don’t want to associate with them”. This then becomes, from the other side of the table, “That person IS [insert opposing race] therefore they must think that because of my race I am [insert laundry list of negative attributes] and are definitely going to treat me unfairly at best and like an actual farm animal at worst (and if you don’t think that’s a bad enough example, remember that we kill farm animals when they’re no longer useful to us because keeping a chicken who doesn’t lay eggs anymore alive is too expensive despite the fact that she probably costs a few cents a week worth of feed that would be bought anyway to feed the rest of the flock so I think it’s a pretty apt description) so I must defend myself IMMEDIATELY” because THAT’S A FUCKING LOGICAL REACTION AND BASIC SURVIVAL INSTINCTS.

“This post is about Ace Discourse and I don’t think aces are real therefore this abuse mention is wrong because aces CANNOT BE ABUSED” without having the foggiest idea what the post was in response to is another example. How the fuck do you know that the original post wasn’t abusive? You can’t see it, you are just basing your OPINION on a preconceived BLACK AND WHITE THINKING notion without looking for further information because somewhere deep inside you you know that looking for more information might *shock horror and mortification* actually challenge your current beliefs that justify your past shitty behaviour. Now obviously THAT can’t be allowed to happen because THINKING AND EMPATHY ARE FUCKING HARD.

(Bashful please stop being cute you’re distracting me from my righteous fury)

Black and white thinking is what leads to bullshit ideas like “ALL Personality disorders are inherently abusive” and “Any religion that’s not the same as mine is evil and trying to persecute me” and “Disabled people just don’t try hard enough” and “Prostitutes are all just drug addicted sluts” and “Gay men are paedophiles” and basically every other bigoted anything-phobic piece of bullshit rhetoric you’ve ever heard or read or been the victim of.

There’s another one actually, “Victims just like the attention and need to move on”. That’s fun because it can be applied to literally anyone who ever stands up to bigoted bullshit.

Let’s take a step back and look at a case study to see this really in action.

In a long ass fucking time ago in a country called New Zealand there was a gay man who was working in a day care centre. He was not out, this was far too long ago for that to have been safe and there’s no way he would have gotten a job ANYWHERE outside of a brothel or drag club if he’d been out. Some children at the day care centre started showing signs of sexual abuse. One of the other staff (who this man had trusted) told the investigators that he was gay. Despite a complete lack of evidence that he was the abuser (in fact the children specifically said it WAS NOT him), he was fired, charged, tried, found guilty, imprisoned, and spent YEARS appealing before he was taken seriously and released. HOWEVER even with a full pardon, he never got to work in education again, he was run out of his home town and disowned by his family and his life was destroyed. The woman who outed him was accused by several of the children when they were adults but nothing was ever done about her.

THIS ENTIRE BULLSHIT SCENARIO COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF PEOPLE HADN’T BEEN BLINDED BY BLACK AND WHITE THINKING. In this case, the problem idea was “All gay people are paedophiles” which is categorically untrue. Follow the very simple train of thought. “Paedophiles are sexual deviants and evil” is the first premise. “I am not attracted to my own gender therefore gay people are sexual deviants” is the second (completely bullshit and incorrect) premise and has a whole lot more to unpack that I don’t actually need for this point - the fact that people think this is all I need right now. Black and white thinking goes HEY THESE TWO PREMISES SHARE SOME WORDS SO THOSE CANCEL OUT. This leads to the conclusion that gay people are all evil paedophiles. In this shitty little town in the arse end of the world, that was apparently all the mental gymnastics needed to destroy the life of an innocent man while letting an actual active paedophile continue to work in a fucking child care centre. 

I mean you can also take the stance that “Mothers are women” (I know that’s a transphobic statement but I’m not saying I believe it, that’s kind of the point I’m trying to make) and “Mothers care for children” and “Paedophiles want to harm children” therefore “Women cannot be paedophiles” as the justification for the actions rather the the blatant homophobia that it actually was, but that’s STILL BLACK AND WHITE THINKING AND CATEGORICALLY INCORRECT.

Okay let’s talk about another example in which I will show that black and white thinking is bad for you even when it’s not directed at a specific person. Again this example is about paedophilia because I’m white and not American and was sexually abused as a child and this is what I know. If I experienced systemic racism I’d probably be mostly using that as examples but I didn’t so you know, “write what you know”.

My grandfather was a multi-generational paedophile. He abused me, my mother, my grandmother (they got married when she was 16 and he was 32), my aunt, my (male) cousins, my and my cousins’ friends, one of my father’s brothers, and I don’t know how many other people. He died in prison after a severe beating that he received on my mother’s birthday. My mother mourned by having champagne and chocolate covered strawberries for breakfast. The attendees at his funeral were my grandmother (she’s a whole other monstrous issue but I’m not going into that here, maybe later), his 18 year old prison boyfriend and his supervising police officer, and a girl whose life was saved by my grandfather when he pulled her out of a burning building as a baby when he was working as a volunteer firefighter.

Read that last one again, I’ll wait.

Now put yourself in that girl’s shoes. The man to whom she owed her life had destroyed basically every other life he touched. What was she supposed to do? Walk out of the funeral? The dude saved her fucking life. He destroyed mine (we’re about the same age). Was he a good person or a bad person? She chose to honour his good deeds, I chose to snub him. Which one of us was wrong? Should I hate her for going? She didn’t know about his convictions until she was AT the funeral.

I mean the obvious answer is no I shouldn’t. Neither of us was wrong. NO ONE is inherently evil (except maybe my grandmother). EVERYONE is capable of both good and bad decisions, choices, and actions. She only saw his good side, I saw a bit more than that (which makes sense, I was his granddaughter, she was a job). If anything I felt sorry for her for being put into that situation.

A couple of years later she contacted me. She had gone into a counselling programme to deal with the sudden revelation that the man she had idolised as a hero her entire life had turned out to be apparently a complete monster. She had developed massive trust issues and a guilt complex as a result of things that were COMPLETELY out of her control and not remotely her fault. I guess her therapist had suggested contacting me as a way to kind of put that guilt to rest (and we happened to be seeing the same therapist who had put two and two together and figured out she was dealing with two victims of the same bullshit). She apologised to me for honouring the memory of my abuser. She then went on to attempt to justify her actions. I never replied because I was 19 and deep into trying to learn to deal with all the mental health problems I have because of his actions and I couldn’t handle trying to deal with someone else’s at the time. I changed therapists because that was the LAST thing I needed at the time and she didn’t need to pass the letter on to me for it to be therapeutic for the other girl BUT I’M GETTING SIDETRACKED.

The point is, this girl who did NOTHING other than going to a funeral for the man who saved her life, which is a totally reasonable thing to do, ended up with mental health issues because she couldn’t rationalise one good action, which was the only one that affected her life, with many bad actions that hadn’t touched her at all. He abused children, therefore he was a monster, but he saved her so he was a hero. How can ONE person be a monster AND a hero at the same time? HELLO FUCKING BLACK AND FUCKING WHITE FUCKING THINKING.

The fact of the matter is my grandfather wasn’t a monster. This bit turned out a bit graphic so don’t read it if you might get triggered. After he died we found and read his journals, which he had been keeping religiously since he was in his late teens, for almost 60 years. He was abused as a child by a priest (and priests can’t be child molesters because they’re men of god and god is apparently good by default because the priests said so, another example of black and white thinking wrapped in cyclical justification). No that doesn’t excuse what he did, reasons aren’t necessarily justifications. Society didn’t frown on older men marrying younger women in the 1950s, so his interest in younger “women” like my grandmother wasn’t seen as problematic then. It wasn’t until she was in her early 20s and their children were old enough to run around naked in the sprinklers in Summer that he realised that he was having what he called “terrifying unhealthy urges” and asked his very controlling wife to help him find a psychiatrist so that he could fix himself and to not let the kids run around naked in the meantime. She told him he was full of shit and just needed to go to confession. Every subsequent cry for help that he made was met with escalating versions of that result, culminating in him completely giving up when she handed him their 4 year old daughter and told him to just masturbate over the baby since she wouldn’t remember and it would “release the urges”. After that it seems he lost his mind a little bit, not completely but just enough to be able to convince himself that children wouldn’t be traumatised by his actions (even if he had full on penetrative sex with his 20 month old baby granddaughter and destroyed her uterus in the process) because they wouldn’t remember. Throughout all of this he lavished expensive gifts on his children and grandchildren, supported his wife in becoming the family breadwinner and was a stay at home husband in the 1960s, and was a volunteer firefighter for decades. My point is at one point in his life, you would have felt pity towards the guy. Personally, I hate him for not being stronger and standing up for himself because that would have given him the strength to not destroy my life as well.

The world exists in shades of grey. It’s possible for someone to say that they’re the same gender as a video game character because they’re seeking attention and see the trans rights movement as a bandwagon to jump onto. It’s also possible for someone else to claim the same thing because they’re actively trying to discredit the trans rights movement. Another possibility is that they’re a genuinely trans 12 year old who is struggling to figure themselves out and can’t understand the difference between a gender and identifying with someone yet. All of those scenarios have other underlying possibilities, like the first person might ALSO be depressed, bullied, and/or neglected and just looking for a sense of community that they can’t find anywhere else. The second person might actually be trans but grew up in a highly religious and abusive household and may have had self-hate indoctrinated and beaten into them instead of getting support. The third person might also be a horrendously violent bully towards the Muslim and Jewish kids in their class

PEOPLE DON’T FIT IN BOXES. GOOD AND EVIL ARE MYTHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS.

Seriously, make a proper genuine attempt to figure out the black and white thinking behind ANY negative situation and I bet you can do it. 

Okay I’m out of steam thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[caleb-1193]

With Trump's inauguration tomorrow, the irony being the theme "unity," there's one thing I want to bring up. One of the most aggravating things I hear when I become visibly annoyed or frustrated with the Trump supporters in my life is when they turn it all around and ask me where my "love" is, and there is this expectation even among leftists that we must come together in unity for the sake of the country as if bipartisanship isn't responsible for facilitating the same neoliberal bullshit that got us in this mess in the first place. And to a degree they are right. We should love. But love is not always a feel good reconciliation with our enemies. Love is also love for the oppressed and is thus expressed as loud and ceaseless opposition to their oppressors. Christ's revolutionary ideology involves love, but not always a love that reconciles but one which also demands justice, one that flips over tables in frustration, one that walks around calling out the privileged and elite, one that steam rolls over the traditions and teachings of men that seek to nullify the love and grace of God. Love is not just empathizing with the oppressed. Love is joining the oppressed and suffering in solidarity with them. And that's when things get messy. When people begin moving beyond unity or charity and towards justice and solidarity with the suffering, as Christ did, they get in trouble. Once we become intimate with folks in struggle, or even when we find ourselves to be in positions of disadvantage or marginalization, we start to ask why, which is never as popular as unity. A Catholic bishop once said, "when I fed the hungry, they called me a saint. When I asked why people are hungry, they called me a Communist." I know I'm showing my colors as a liberation theologian, but I'm convinced God has a preferential option for those in suffering. When we draw lines between the oppressed and the oppressors (I believe these are the only two categories that exist), God always stands firmly on the side of the oppressed, the poor, the out group, the excluded, the group on the margins, no matter who they are. We know who Christ associated with in his lifetime two thousand years ago and I believe this predilection of his hasn't changed in that span of time. He still is here, not for the righteous, but for those drowning, not for the rich but for those struggling through poverty, not for those at the top of the social ladder, but for those trodden down by systemic injustice. When any person was oppressed, abused, dehumanized, Christ was there with them, affirming their humanity, suffering and enduring what they suffered and endured. God does take sides and it's not always in the safe, proper, orderly churches or the well-ventilated suburban homes. For as soon as we start pushing people, any people, to the margins, we push God right out with them. Neutrality, or "unity," has never been an option for the ones who strive to follow Christ. Unity wins awards and applause. Unity wins popularity, but joining the suffering gets you killed. People are not crucified for helping the suffering. People are not crucified for unity. People are crucified for solidarity with the oppressed. So it isn't that I don't love the Trump supporters in my life, but I have lost respect for them. Not because I am mad that Clinton lost, or that they voted one way and I another, or even because they have different politics (even though I believe right-wing politics inherently has a sense of immortality to it). I have lost respect for them because they watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still support him. I think less of them becasue they watched a man advocate for war crimes and still think he should run this country. I have less respect for them becasue they saw a man spouting racism and islamophobia and still support him. I think less of Trump supporters because they watched a man equate a woman's worth to her appearance and got on board. I find their politics repulsive, but it's their personal willingness to support Trump in particular that truly repulses me more. By virtue of voting for Trump, they have granted onto themselves the title of oppressor. They have sided with a bully and it seems they will always side with a bully when it matters most. You cannot possibly expect to vote for someone like Trump and believe there should be no social consequence for it. I keep hearing calls for empathy and healing, civility, polite discourse, and unity as if supporting a man who would fill his administration with white nationalists and misogynists is something to simply agree to disagree on. You don't get to vote for a man who brags about sexually assaulting women and expect the women in your life to shrug their shoulders. You don't get to vote for a man who appoints a literal white supremacist as a senior adviser and expect the people of color in your life to sit and be comfortable around you. And you certainly don't get to vote for a man who appoints an attorney general with perhaps the worst record on LGBT issues and expect me to believe you have even an ounce of genuine good will towards me and people like me. You don't get to play the victim when people disassociate themselves from you, as if being disliked for supporting a bigot is somehow worse than the suffering that marginalized people will endure under Trump. Absolutely not. I will not "get over it." I will not be coming together in unity to move forward. I hope this presidency not only brings a revival of real leftist politics, but I hope it also calls forth some of the brightest (and youngest) minds, minds full of new ideas and innovation. I do not yet know my role in Trump's America. But as for me and my house, I will serve God in loud opposition. I will exemplify the gospels in these days by promoting community over the individual. You will see me at protests, and demonstrations, and Prides. You will find me in streets singing my heart out and holding hands unafraid. From this point on I am reminded of how I was meant to live my life: in complete and obstinate defiance. So whether it's that classmate, or that by-stander, or that relative at the table, there are people in this country, right now, who should be made to feel uncomfortable. Do I love the Trump supporters in my life? Sure. But it is the fact they he doesn't disgust them that will stick with me long after this presidency. And in a time where there is so much to protest, so much work to do, the uncomfortableness is necessary and shame on us if we ever stop.

[aliceviceroy]

“I am 30 years old and I am struggling to find sanity. Between the Christian schools, homeschooling, the Christian group home (indoctrinating work camp) and different churches in different cities, I am a psychological, emotional and spiritual mess.”   –A former Evangelical

If a former believer says that Christianity made her depressed, obsessive, or post-traumatic, she is likely to be dismissed as an exaggerator. She might describe panic attacks about the rapture; moods that swung from ecstasy about God’s overwhelming love to suicidal self-loathing about repeated sins; or an obsession with sexual purity.

A symptom like one of these clearly has a religious component, yet many people instinctively blame the victim. They will say that the wounded former believer was prone to anxiety or depression or obsession in the first place—that his Christianity somehow got corrupted by his predisposition to psychological problems. Or they will say that he wasn’t a real Christian. If only he had prayed in faith believing or loved God with all his heart, soul and mind, if only he had really been saved—then he would have experienced the peace that passes all understanding.

But the reality is far more complex. It is true that symptoms like depression or panic attacks most often strike those of us who are vulnerable, perhaps because of genetics or perhaps because situational stressors have worn us down. But certain aspects of Christian beliefs and Christian living also can create those stressors, even setting up multigenerational patterns of abuse, trauma, and self-abuse. Also, over time some religious beliefs can create habitual thought patterns that actually alter brain function, making it difficult for people to heal or grow.

The purveyors of religion insist that their product is so powerful it can transform a life, but somehow, magically, it has no risks. In reality, when a medicine is powerful, it usually has the potential to be toxic, especially in the wrong combination or at the wrong dose. And religion is powerful medicine!

In this discussion, we focus on the variants of Christianity that are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. These include Evangelical and fundamentalist churches, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and other conservative sects. These groups share the characteristics of requiring conformity for membership, a view that humans need salvation, and a focus on the spiritual world as superior to the natural world. These views are in contrast to liberal, progressive Christian churches with a humanistic viewpoint, a focus on the present, and social justice.

Religion Exploits Normal Human Mental Processes.

To understand the power of religion, it is helpful to understand a bit about the structure of the human mind. Much of our mental activity has little to do with rationality and is utterly inaccessible to the conscious mind. The preferences, intentions and decisions that shape our lives are in turn shaped by memories and associations that can get laid down before we even develop the capacity for rational analysis.

Aspects of cognition like these determine how we go through life, what causes us distress, which goals we pursue and which we abandon, how we respond to failure, how we respond when other people hurt us—and how we respond when we hurt them. Religion derives its power in large part because it shapes these unconscious processes: the frames, metaphors, intuitions and emotions that operate before we even have a chance at conscious thought.

Some Religious Beliefs and Practices are More Harmful Than Others.

When it comes to psychological damage, certain religious beliefs and practices are reliably more toxic than others.

Janet Heimlich is an investigative journalist who has explored religious child maltreatment, which describes abuse and neglect in the service of religious belief. In her book, Breaking their Will, Heimlich identifies three characteristics of religious groups that are particularly prone to harming children. Clinical work with reclaimers, that is, people who are reclaiming their lives and in recovery from toxic religion, suggests that these same qualities put adults at risk, along with a particular set of manipulations found in fundamentalist Christian churches and biblical literalism.

1) Authoritarianism, creates a rigid power hierarchy and demands unquestioning obedience. In major theistic religions, this hierarchy has a god or gods at the top, represented by powerful church leaders who have power over male believers, who in turn have power over females and children. Authoritarian Christian sects often teach that “male headship” is God’s will. Parents may go so far as beating or starving their children on the authority of godly leaders. A book titled, To Train Up a Child, by minister Michael Pearl and his wife Debi, has been found in the homes of three Christian adoptive families who have punished their children to death.

2) Isolation or separatism, is promoted as a means of maintaining spiritual purity. Evangelical Christians warn against being “unequally yoked” with nonbelievers in marriages and even friendships. New converts often are encouraged to pull away from extended family members and old friends, except when there may be opportunities to convert them. Some churches encourage older members to take in young single adults and house them within a godly context until they find spiritually compatible partners, a process known by cult analysts as “shepherding.” Home schoolers and the Christian equivalent of madrassas cut off children from outside sources of information, often teaching rote learning and unquestioning obedience rather than broad curiosity.

3) Fear of sin, hell, a looming “end-times” apocalypse, or amoral heathens binds people to the group, which then provides the only safe escape from the horrifying dangers on the outside. In Evangelical Hell Houses, Halloween is used as an occasion to terrify children and teens about the tortures that await the damned. In the Left Behind book series and movie, the world degenerates into a bloodbath without the stabilizing presence of believers. Since the religious group is the only alternative to these horrors, anything that threatens the group itself—like criticism, taxation, scientific findings, or civil rights regulations—also becomes a target of fear.

Bible Belief Creates an Authoritarian, Isolative, Threat-based Model of Reality

In Bible-believing Christianity, psychological mind-control mechanisms are coupled with beliefs from the Iron Age, including the belief that women and children are possessions of men, that children who are not hit become spoiled, that each of us is born “utterly depraved”, and that a supernatural being demands unquestioning obedience. In this view, the salvation and righteousness of believers is constantly under threat from outsiders and dark spiritual forces. Consequently, Christians need to separate themselves emotionally, spiritually, and socially from the world.These beliefs are fundamental to their overarching mental framework or “deep frame” as linguist George Lakoff would call it. Small wonder then, that many Christians emerge wounded.

It is important to remember that this mindset permeates to a deep subconscious level. This is a realm of imagery, symbols, metaphor, emotion, instinct, and primary needs. Nature and nurture merge into a template for viewing the world which then filters every experience. The template selectively allows only the information that confirms their model of reality, creating a subjective sense of its veracity.

On the societal scale, humanity has been going through a massive shift for centuries, transitioning from a supernatural view of a world dominated by forces of good and evil to a natural understanding of the universe. The Bible-based Christian population however, might be considered a subset of the general population that is still within the old framework, that is, supernaturalism.

Children are Targeted for Indoctrination Because the Child Mind is Uniquely Vulnerable.

“Here I am, a fifty-one year old college professor, still smarting from the wounds inflicted by the righteous when I was a child. It is a slow, festering wound, one that smarts every day—in some way or another…. I thought I would leave all of that “God loves… God hates…” stuff behind, but not so. Such deep and confusing fear is not easily forgotten. It pops up in my perfectionism, my melancholy mood, the years of being obsessed with finding the assurance of personal salvation.”

Nowhere is the contrast of viewpoints more stark than in the secular and religious understandings of childhood. In the biblical view, a child is not a being that is born with amazing capabilities that will emerge with the right conditions like a beautiful flower in a well-attended garden. Rather, a child is born in sin, weak, ignorant, and rebellious, needing discipline to learn obedience. Independent thinking is seen as dangerous pride.

Because the child’s mind is uniquely susceptible to religious ideas, religious indoctrination particularly targets vulnerable young children. Cognitive development before age seven lacks abstract reasoning. Thinking is magical and primitive, black and white. Also, young humans are wired to obey authority because they are dependent on their caregivers just for survival. Much of their brain growth and development has to happen after birth, which means that children are extremely vulnerable to environmental influences in the first few years when neuronal pathways are formed.

By age five a child’s brain can understand primitive cause-and-effect logic and picture situations that are not present. Children at this have a tenuous grip on reality. They often have imaginary friends; dreams are quite real; and fantasy blurs with the mundane. To a child this age, it is eminently possible that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and delivers presents if you are good and that 2000 years ago a man died a horrible death because you are naughty. Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Rapture, and hell, all can be quite real. The problem is that many of these teachings are terrifying.

For many years, one conversion technique targeting children and adolescents has been the use of movies about the “End Times.” This means a “Rapture” event, when real Christians are taken up to heaven leaving the earth to “Tribulation,” a terrifying time when an evil Antichrist will reign and the world will descend into anarchy.

When assaulted with such images and ideas at a young age, a child has no chance of emotional self-defense. Christian teachings that sound true when they are embedded in the child’s mind at this tender age can feel true for a lifetime. Even decades later former believers who intellectually reject these ideas can feel intense fear or shame when their unconscious mind is triggered.

Harms Range From Mild to Catastrophic.

One requirement for success as a sincere Christian is to find a way to believe that which would be unbelievable under normal rules of evidence and inquiry. Christianity contains concepts that help to safeguard belief, such as limiting outside information, practicing thought control, and self-denigration; but for some people the emotional numbing and intellectual suicide just isn’t enough. In other words, for a significant number of children in Christian families, the religion just doesn’t “take.” This can trigger guilt, conflict, and ultimately rejection or abandonment.

Others experience the threats and fear too keenly. For them, childhood can be torturous, and they may carry injuries into adulthood.

Still others are able to sincerely devote themselves to the faith as children but confront problems when they mature. They wrestle with factual and moral contradictions in the Bible and the church, or discover surprising alternatives. This can feel confusing and terrifying – like the whole world is falling apart.

Delayed Development and Life Skills. Many Christian parents seek to insulate their children from “worldly” influences. In the extreme, this can mean not only home schooling, but cutting off media, not allowing non-Christian friends, avoiding secular activities like plays or clubs, and spending time at church instead. Children miss out on crucial information– science, culture, history, reproductive health and more. When they grow older and leave such a sheltered environment, adjusting to the secular world can be like immigrating to a new culture. One of the biggest areas of challenge is delayed social development.

Religious Trauma Syndrome.  Today, in the field of mental health, the only religious diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is “Religious or Spiritual Problem.” This is merely a supplemental code (V Code) to assist in describing an underlying pathology. Unofficially, “scrupulosity,” is the term for obsessive-compulsive symptoms centered around religious themes such as blasphemy, unforgivable sin, and damnation. While each of these diagnoses has a place, neither covers the wide range of harms induced by religion.

Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) is a new term, coined by Marlene Winell to name a recognizable set of symptoms experienced as a result of prolonged exposure to a toxic religious environment and/or the trauma of leaving the religion. It is akin to Complex PTSD, which is defined as ‘a psychological injury that results from protracted exposure to prolonged social and/or interpersonal trauma with lack or loss of control, disempowerment, and in the context of either captivity or entrapment, i.e. the lack of a viable escape route for the victim’.

Though related to other kinds of chronic trauma, religious trauma is uniquely mind-twisting. The logic of the religion is circular and blames the victim for problems; the system demands deference to spiritual authorities no matter what they do; and the larger society may not identify a problem or intervene as in cases of physical or sexual abuse, even though the same symptoms of depression and anxiety and panic attacks can occur.

RTS, as a diagnosis, is in early stages of investigation, but appears to be a useful descriptor beyond the labels used for various symptoms – depression, anxiety, grief, anger, relationship issues, and others. It is our hope that it will lead to more knowledge, training, and treatment. Like the naming of other disorders such as anorexia or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), the RTS label can help sufferers feel less alone, confused, and self-blaming.

Leaving the Fold. Breaking out of a restrictive, mind-controlling religion can be liberating: Certain problems end(!), such as trying to twist one’s thinking to believe irrational doctrines, and conforming to repressive codes of behavior. However, for many reclaimers making the break is the most disruptive, difficult upheaval they have ever experienced. Individuals who were most sincere, devout, and dedicated often are the ones most traumatized when their religious world crumbles.

Rejecting a religious model of reality that has been passed on through generations is a major cognitive and emotional disruption. For many reclaimers, it is like a death or divorce. Their ‘relationship’ with God was a central assumption of their lives, and giving it up feels like an enormous loss to be grieved. It can be like losing a lover, a parent, or best friend.

On top of shattered assumptions comes the loss of family and friends. Churches vary with official doctrine about rejection. The Mormon Church, for all the intense focus on “family forever,” is devastating to leave, and the Jehovah Witnesses require families to shun members who are “disfellowshiped.”

The rupture can destroy homes, splitting spouses and alienating parents from children.

For Women, Psychological Costs of Belief Include Subjugation and Self-loathing.

Christianity poses a special set of psychological risks for people who, according to the Iron Age hierarchy found in the Bible are unclean or property, including women. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the combination of denigration and subservience takes a psychological toll on women in Christianity as it does in Islam. Not only do women submit to marital abuse and undesired sexual contact, some tolerate the same toward their children, and men of God sometimes exploit this vulnerability, as in the case of Catholic and Protestant child sexual abuse. But most of the damage is far more subtle: lower self-esteem, less independence and confidence; abandoned dreams and goals.

Why Harm Goes Unrecognized.  What is the sum cost of having millions of people holding to a misogynist, authoritarian, fear-based supernatural view of the universe? The consequences far-reaching, even global, but many are hidden, for two reasons.

One is the nature of the trauma itself. Unlike other harm, such as physical beating or sexual abuse, the injury is far from obvious to the victim, who has been taught to self-blame. It’s as if a person black and blue from a caning were to think it was self-inflicted.

The second reason that religious harm goes unrecognized is that Christianity is still the cultural backdrop for the indoctrination. While the larger society may not be fundamentalist, references to God and faith abound. The Bible gets used to swear in witnesses and even the U.S. president. Common phrases are “God willing,” “God bless,” “God helps those that help themselves,” “In God we trust,” and so forth. These lend credence to theistic authority.

Religious trauma is difficult to see because it is camouflaged by the respectability of religion in culture. To date, parents are afforded the right to teach their own children whatever doctrines they like, no matter how heinous, degrading, or mentally unhealthy. Even helping professionals largely perceive Christianity as benign. This will need to change for treatment methods to be developed and people to get help that allows them to truly reclaim their lives.

This article was adapted from “The Crazy Making in Christianity” Chapter 19 in Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails, edited by John Loftus, Prometheus Books, October 2014.

______________________________________________________________________

Dr. Marlene Winell is a human development consultant in the San Francisco Area. Winell is the author of Leaving the Fold – A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.