#the post specifically states many times: legal consenting relationships

[iwaasfairy]

You’re right about how people should mind their own business. I would like to add that sometimes it is necessary to inject into a relationship, especially toxic relationships. Because some ends in murder, or trauma, or a baby. Plus a teen ends up with a high school teacher is nasty (that’s the only part I disagree with you/unless if the teacher is in their 20s, but it’s weird) If two adults are happy in a relationship, then people should let them be.

Ok, I don't know why people try to read between the lines of things I said, even tho I know you're just commenting on the post- I'm not talking about relationships where a crime is being committed. I'm not talking about abusive relationships. I'm not talking about minors with adults. I'm not talking about people who are being forced, or being assaulted, or where a crime is taking place. I specified that in the post.

Two consenting adults. Two consenting adults making a choice to be together, and existing online. That's what I'm talking about.

The teacher thing I was referring to was a story of a hs gym coach in his early twenties who never had contact with his future wife in school. He happened to meet her after she was already out of high school. No grooming happened. No illegal shit. Just a consenting adult and a consenting adult, but people felt the need to start calling them out for being happily married years after the fact, when they weren't even so much as talking about their relationship. They're both in their thirties now. They were just a couple existing online.

And like I said, you're allowed to think it's weird. I also think it's a little weird if someone in their mid twenties wants to date a 19yo. But that's exactly the thing I was saying, ok. People infantilize young women, and then deny they're doing it.

You want to tell me a 21yo is old enough to vote, work, drink, drive, fuck whoever they want, go into sex work, have a baby, adopt a child, get their entire body covered in tattoos, get tossed into big adult jail, buy a whole house and get criPPLING debt

but not to date another consenting adult?

Really. Really? And you don't think that's sort of insulting to the young woman in question? All that, but you think it's ok to harass her because she's dating a 29 year old? If you think that's a little silly, then you agree with the point I was making.

And if you genuinely think "yea that's how it should be", then I just don't. agree with you. People only do this to young women. They only do this to women, not to men. It's degrading and gross and anti-woman.

[autisticsociologymajor]

“No Means No” Is Not Enough

CW: Entire post may be distressing. Talking about consent. 

It’s a good principle, but it’s not enough by itself with no other supporting principle. 

Why? 

There are so many ways people say “no” or “I’m uncomfortable,” without actually SAYING those exact words. 

Think about these things: Coercion, body language, subliminal cues, intoxication, unconsciousness.....

This is going to get triggering because I struggle to sugar coat topics like this. Here we go -- 

What stops somebody from emotionally, psychologically, or verbally coercing someone into doing something they don't want to do? Nothing. What stops someone from asking the same exact question SO many times that the subject of the questions just gives in and gives them what they want so they can be left alone? N O T H I N G. 

Someone can say “no” in any and every way imaginable, yet all that’s needed is ONE “yes.” Nothing stops people from pressuring (coercing) another person into giving just that one “yes” in order to justify obtaining “consent,” regardless of if they have received 50 “no’s” in the past. 

Coercion is not consent. 

Few states have laws in place that include coercion in their legal definition of s3xual assault. 

Moving on. Body Language.

Body language can say “no” in many ways. If someone tenses up, does not reciprocate the same body language, moves or shifts their body away from someone, moves another person’s hands off of them or to a different area, if they turn their head away to dodge a kiss, if they keep a good distance between themselves and others.... 

Those are a few examples of a non-verbal “no” or “I’m uncomfortable.” Of course, situation varies. I know many neurospicy people like myself might do some of these things without meaning to indicate discomfort. Body language can indicate many things and can vary between individuals, which is why only body language by itself is also not enough in consent conversations. There are symbols in society that most people understand as “no.” For example, waving your hand in front of your throat to say “cut it out,” (aka, stop) holding a finger or hand up to say “wait,” or “stop, slow down, etc.” Shaking your head “no,” creating distance between yourself and others... 

All of these are examples of “no,” yet they aren't talked about nearly enough. You do not need a verbal “no” in order to know that you do not have consent. But also, it’s important to have conversations with partners. For example, if you struggle with body language or have unconscious non-verbal reactions to certain things like touch... It’s good to make partners aware of them so they know what you’re communicating (or not purposely trying to communicate)

Nothing stops someone from saying “well they didn't SAY no,” and that is exactly why we need to shift the conversation of consent away from or perhaps deeper into “no means no.”

Subliminal Cues

In real life, people have anxiety, struggle socially, struggle with self-assertion, and many many things that can affect someone’s ability to straight up say “no.” 

People pleasers like myself might try “letting someone down easy” without saying “no” specifically. OR, someone might actually be mean but still not say the word “no.” 

For example, in movies we’ll hear “I’d rather die,” “aha, ew.” or “In your dreams,” do these mean no? Yes. If someone says they’d rather die than hookup, it’s undoubtably a no. 

In real life, though... “No thanks,” “not right now,” “I’m in a relationship,” “I’m not interested,” THOSE ARE ALL A NO WITHOUT A STRAIGHT UP “NO”

I don’t care how nice somebody is about saying no. If they say “no thanks,” or “not right now,” or “not interested...” They are still saying no. They’re just catering to someone’s feelings and trying not to be rude. Also, none of those things mean “maybe if you try to convince me,” either. 

Politeness does not = convince me or maybe later

Intoxication and Unconsciousness

Nothing stops people from saying “they didn't say no,” to justify non-consent against an intoxicated or unconscious person if we continue to ONLY focus on “no means no” and even “yes means yes.”

Has nobody heard those nasty a$$ “jokes” some “men” tell? That pretty much say that if someone doesn't have the ability to say no then it’s free reign?

I think that should say enough about why there needs to be a shift in the conversation. 

A few things I have to add...

If you’re touching someone and they move your hand to a different part of their body, do not move your hand back to where they removed it from. They said no.

Consent to kiss someone does not give you consent to do ANYTHING you want. Consent to have s3x with someone also does not indicate that you have free reign to do whatever you want without asking. 

If somebody dodges a kiss, don’t keep trying. Don’t throw a pity party to make them feel guilty for saying no either. 

!!!!!!!!!!YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE A BITCH TO ASSERT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!

YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO A PRIMAL LEVEL OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WON’T STOP

Do noooot ASSUME what somebody is into. Do not assume someone’s kinks. Absolutely do not assume everybody enjoys having their hair pulled, face or a$$ slapped, being choked. Assume nothing. Expect nothing. 

To Recap... 

Pressuring someone into giving consent is not consent. 

A non-verbal “no” is still a no. 

People can subliminally say no or yes.

If someone doesn't have the ability to say or indicate “no,” it’s always a no. 

[carlsdarling]

u shouldnt like minors u know

Ok. I've been thinking for a while now about whether or not to respond to this message. But because it's not the only message of this kind I got, and I'm not the only author who writes about Carl and receives messages like this, I've decided to address this once and for all.

1. As I have already made clear: I am NOT writing about minor! Carl. Carl is aged up in all of my fics to at least(!) 18. In some fics he has a specific age, in other fics, it is just stated he is over 18 and his exact age is left to the imagination of the reader. If anyone still imagines minor! Carl as they read my fics, it's not my fault. (I would write for minor! Carl if it is requested and is just fluff or adventure, but that has never been requested until now).

2. I'm the same age as Chandler and already had a crush on Carl when I was 12. That didn't change as the series progressed and Carl/Chandler and I both got older. I still have a crush on Chandler, who is exactly my age. But I also still somehow "like" Carl, my younger self does, so to speak. It's difficult to explain. Liking Carl has been a big part of my childhood/teens, many memories are linked to it yk, and making edits/posting pics of Carl reminds me of this time and makes me happy. Yeah, I am childish and immature on my tumblr. Nowhere else can I be.

3. That being said, just remember that these are fictional stories about fictional people (I refuse to write about real people because I think it's invasive) and it may be hard for some people to imagine, but fanfiction means, among other things, altering the canon and making the story go differently for yourself (and others, a.k.a. the readers). In my case, this means that Carl didn't die in season 9, but lived through the later seasons. Of course, he gets older in the process. For dramaturgical reasons, I also sometimes used scenes from earlier seasons, but made Carl older. It's called creative freedom.

4. Personally, I'm not sexually attracted to people who are much younger than me, also, I am not fantasizing about sex with minor!Carl. Just for the sake of clarity, however, it should be mentioned that in my country the age of consent is 16. This is without any restriction, unlike other countries. These sort of relationships are not socially accepted, but they are legal. But again - you will find no smut on my dash featuring anyone under the age of 18. Also I refuse to write about some other things, out of different reasons.

That being said, I won't react to this kind of "questions" anymore, because from my point of view, everything has now been said.

[cupcraft]

I think why it's important to support victims too is the reality of being a victim is that not everyone is going to have collected the evidence that ppl always ask for (and even then people always say the evidence is fake/not good enough).

Like I wont get too personal on details bc im not comfortable with that, but I want to use myself as example for my point because I don't want to speak for other people's experiences.

I was a victim of emotional abuse from a friend group for years that i only very recently went no contact with 1 year ago just about (2 ppl in the group specifically the most). And I didn't collect screenshots. I didn't collect video/recording (and even if i planned to thats illegal in my state without their consent). And for a lot of that relationship though I suffered and was in a bad place I never really quite realized it was abuse until I got out and had someone some else give me a wakeup call. And I currently still have no plans to report it or go through legal trouble with it personally (for reasons not important to this post's point.

And why I say this is because when I share my story with people I'm close to all I have is my word. My word of the things they did to me. My word on how the abuse was subtle, how I knew from a tone of voice if I'd get in trouble with them. How they'd belittle me under the guise of jokes and "game lobby culture". Etc.

And so when you think all victims need to come with you with a mountain of evidence you're really saying you won't believe people at their word which is my reality and many other people's realities for any type of abuse and harm. At the end of the day you're going to trust me or not if you're someone I'm comfortable enough telling my story to. At the end of the day you're going to see the post and decide if I'm making shit up or not.

Of course I wish I had scs of things for many reasons, but even then a lot of my experiences were verbally related with no recording (some of which is subtle anyway ill get into that in a second) The angry comments on Instagram I got were quickly changed while I was too panicked to sc them at the time. A lot of my texts were over kik of which never saved the history.

Sometimes people's words are going to have to be enough for people because that's all you're going to have. Because when you say evidence is important you're really saying that I expect every person in a situation to: know they're a victim, and once knowing theyre a victim collect evidence (even if that evidence collection could harm the victim/or isnt possible) and to somehow make sure that evidence is enough for people, plus be able to have evidence for abuse that is publicly subtle.

And on another point this expectation doesn't really cover how abuse can sometimes be so fucking subtle. You know? How can you explain to people how a tone of voice is a part of the abuse? How can you explain something that could be a joke between friends wasnt a joke in that situation and a part of the torment? How canyou explain to someone when they say something normal its the smile that tells you its belittling/anger? Like even if I had a believable recording of the interaction for the smile example, like it may not be noticeable to you because thats the pt in why its so fucking subtle! you're just gonna have to trust ppl when they know something is sinister or not idk how to explain this. How do we collect evidence for the things that are so subtle and innocuous and meant to fly under the radar in public?

So when people tell you to check your victim blaming rhetoric this is part of the reason why.

You may reblog this btw and you free to rb with additions of your own too this is an important and open conversation. And before it's said this is not specifically about any one situation it's something I've wanted to write about for a while based on both fandom experiences, irl experiences, and just witnessing how abuse victims are treated in various situations. So it's not a vague.

[batbeato]

Sometimes I feel bad for Kinzo. He was forced into a marriage he didn’t want, a position he didn’t want. He might have been upper class - not rich rich like the main family, but upper class - before the quake, but then he was dropped into the headship and being pressured to renew the family’s wealth …that can screw with your mental health. Even if those things ultimately led him to meeting Bice, it still…sucked?

Then I remember he abused his children by his wife, raped his own other daughter who he kept in a cage designed like a mansion - and I want to punch him. Hard. Regardless of his mental state, it’s not an excuse for what he did.

Sometimes I wonder if he was legitimately going insane, his capability to control himself impaired - though it would be even worse for Kinzo to be sane, as many abusers are for the most part, and simply be hiding behind his own delusions.

He really probably did begin to loose it with Lion’s death, though.

We don’t even know if his relationship with Bice was fully consensual, because they both communicated through their secondary languages, she didn’t know japanese - or maybe only picked up bits and pieces of it - and she had no place or family to go. For Bice’s sake and some minor sympathy for Kinzo, I hope it was - but canonically…we don’t know.

It’s jarring to know that he was capable of brutally beating his legitimate children with his bare hands and wooden swords, but treat the two Beatrice he loved - even if it was an possessive love, even back when Bice was alive - so gently, giving them all the luxuries in the world he could afford.

Anyway, the entire reason behind my rambling is - do you think Kinzo would have treated his grandchildren more gently post-lion’s death? Or be harsher? I’m not going to exactly say kindly because Battler mentions being unable to breathe when he was in the room and everyone being frightened of him, but gentler? In a way.

That's the thing with Kinzo: he actually went through a lot. He was forced into becoming head, used as a puppet by the elders, forced into a marriage with a woman he didn't love, had children with her that he didn't care about, and all the while he was really depressed/suicidal to the point of signing up for the military in the hopes of dying. But that doesn't excuse his actions, just explains how the cycle of abuse includes him, too. An endless chain stretching back unbroken.

The point about languages for Bice's consent is interesting - I always felt it was more in doubt due to the implication of Kinzo machinating the Italian-Japanese conflict so that he could have Bice and the gold to himself. Very extreme form of isolation that he intentionally brought about. Hell, even if she was consenting the relationship still had a very lopsided power dynamic (she didn't speak the language or have a legal right to be in the country or have any allies besides him) and from their dialogue (if taken at face value) it seems like they grew to be codependent on each other. "I will die without you" is romantic but also. Get therapy.

A lot of abusers are like that, where they have specific targets of the abuse but also treat outsiders or a specific person kindly. For example, golden child/scapegoat dynamic (is often terrible for both but on the surface the golden child is treated far better and granted a lot of privilege).

As for Kinzo being kinder to his grandchildren... Maybe? If we take EP8, we see Battler talking about Kinzo doing stuff like having a Halloween party or giving presents to his grandchildren. EP8 is definitely a flanderized version of Kinzo but it does seem like he might have been capable of some kindness towards his grandchildren in light of Lion's death? There's a grain of truth in every illusion after all. But it does seem like he was still very strict given how the cousins talk about him at other times, so he probably didn't soften that much. One idea is that his self in EP8 is him after he really began to try to atone for what he did post-death and came to start to care about his other family besides his obsession with Bice/Beatrice/Sayo. ...Still probably flanderized a bit though.

[hunn1e-bunn1e]

These Be The Rules!

Please read the rules listed below before requesting any content from me, thank you.

🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.

❁ When you submit a request please put in details of what you want written, with which characters all in the same post. If the ask is vague, I'll interpret it in a way that I believe would suit the scenario the most or I just won't write it at all.

❁ You are now only allowed up to SIX characters of your choice in each ask. Each character can be all from the same franchise or all from a different franchise; it doesn't matter. So long as the maximum is SIX there won't be an issue.

❁ You may request anonymously and become an emoji'd anon if you wish to, but you must put it in the same post as your request. That, or submit another ask or message me to inform me which ask you previously made and which emoji you want.

❁ Please keep in mind that I may have other things going on in my life and may not get to your request in a timely manner. It may take me days, weeks, or even a month to acknowledge your ask let alone write it. It's best to be patient and just wait it out.

❁ Do remember that as a person with free will, I very much have the right to ignore a request and if I choose to do so it is not a slight against you personally. Sometimes I just don't feel like writing or posting and sometimes I'm just not feeling the scenario or prompt that you submitted. That's all there is to it.

❁ If you want to send me an ask make sure to check if my asks are open to begin with. If they're not and you send me one anyway it will be ignored and depending on how many asks are received during the time my asks are closed; I will remove your ability to send them at all. I don't want to have to resort to this, but I will if I need to.

                                                                                                   

Do NOT Request the Following:

                                                  

▪︎Incest; I believe this one should be self explanatory, if it's not, you need to evaluate your moral compass. It's a hard no, to say the least. This is a crime and I won't contribute to something that I view as wrong and harmful.

▪︎Yandere; a yandere is the romanticization of toxic and abusive relationships and mental disorders, if you want to ask me for this, please leave my blog. I'm not one to look down on others for what they like, but as a person who has been in more than few toxic and abusive relationships, I don't really want to see that in my inbox.

▪︎Female/Fem Identifying Reader or Characters; this one is simple, I'm not female identifying and I don't make content for female identifying people. I don't want to even see the words female, fem, she, or her in your ask at all. I do however write male, gender neutral and non gender specific (no pronouns at all) readers.

▪︎Trans Identifying Readers or Characters; whether it be ftm or mtf, I won't write it. Reason being, I'm not trans and have no experience nor any knowledge about what it's like to be trans. I don't want to misrepresent or devalue anyone because I'm not well informed.

▪︎Character × Character or Character × Franchise; This is just something that I don't want to write on this blog; there are plenty of fics like that that you can find elsewhere. Whether it be on Tumblr, Quotev, Wattpad or Ao3 is up to you.

▪︎Pedophilia; another one that's self explanatory. Let me be clear a child is Everything below 18. Period. I don't care about the legal age of adulthood in any other country but the United States because that's where I live and those are the laws that I abide by.

▪︎Sexual Relationships Between Minors; again, self explanatory. Both parties are children and children should never be sexualized in any sense; fictional or otherwise.

▪︎Rape, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Non-Con; I will not be writing any sexual or suggestive content that implies that there was no consent, period. It's just something that makes me very uncomfortable due to past events that have happened in my life.

▪︎Any Type of Abuse; I don't feel comfortable with writing about topics like this. I understand that it's a thing that can happen to anyone, but due to my own personal experiences, I refuse to write about it even in a fictional sense.

▪︎Kinks That Include: excessive Violence and injury like anything that draws blood or breaks skin, torture porn and as well as bodily waste like feces and urine. If you want to read this type of content, there are many dark content blogs that will have what you're looking for.

▪︎Mental Illnesses, Aflictions and Disorders; as a person who hasn't experienced it, I will not speak or write about it out of respect of those that have. Even though I have my own disorders that I have to deal with, it doesn't make me qualified to speak on other ones.

▪︎Real people; Such as Actors, Idols, Singers, etc. because it's a little creepy to fantasize about a stranger if I'm being honest. Imagine if you were just trying to do your job and you stumble upon a stranger sexualizing you online and sharing it with hundreds of other people.

▪︎Explicate or Intense Gore; my content is aimed toward everyone, so I like to avoid potentially triggering topics. That, and there's already too much violence written about in the world, I'd rather not contribute.

                                                                                                   

Before You Ask...

                                                  

🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.•°•.🐇.

[girls-and-honey]

I saw your tags on the post about marriage of convenience. I need your thoughts right now!

asdlkfj alright re: this post, I have so many thoughts about marriage and I'll try to keep this at least coherent if not somewhat reasonable in length if you get to the end I'm sorry I failed to keep it short

it probably helps to have a little background on what I think of marriage in general then I'll focus on marriage of convenience. bullet points for this part so I don't get carried away:

you don't need to be married to someone in order to love them, or to 'prove' that you love them also there are many types of love but we're not going to get into that

you don't need to love someone to be married to them

in school we learned the whole 'separation of church and state' thing right (maybe this is a us-specific thing?) and that phrase bothers me so much. the way I was raised framed marriage very much as the religious 'sacrament of marriage' but how is that separation of church and state if there are legal effects of marriage as well??

my own view of marriage is much more based on its legal implications rather than its religious ones, in fact I don't usually think about the religious aspect at all unless it's specifically referenced

interpersonal implications for me lie somewhere between legal and religious (closer to legal, and primarily just how myself and my partner feel about being married, friends/family might have secondary opinions but it's not their relationship)

okay and onto marriage of convenience thoughts. examples cited in the post are excellent reasons: tax benefits, tuition reduction, and yes pet-friendly housing as well! other reasons could include residency rights (especially for someone seeking refuge from a country that is not safe for them), alleviate family pressure (it's your life but look some families feel very strongly about this), more financial reasons including social security breaks, inheritance rights, no gift/estate tax for exchanges between spouses, cheaper health insurance for policy holder + spouse or family coverage, etc..

this probably counts more as a benefit instead of a sole reason since you can make an advance directive but it's one that I think about quite often: medical and legal consent. in the event you're unable to provide consent, the order of priority (again, at least for the us) follows this list until one applies: advance directive, legal representative, married / civil union spouse, close relative, close friend. there are definitely decisions I do NOT want to leave up to my family. also if you're a spouse I believe you have emergency services rights like riding in the ambulance or visiting in the ED that are not given to family/friends

plus if there's marriage of convenience it stands to reason there would be divorce of convenience? I'm joking but yeah you can get divorced if you no longer want to be in your marriage whether it was for convenience or not. definitely think this falls under a cost/benefit consideration on a case by case basis, and there are probably some situations where both parties plan to be married for x amount of time for their specific benefits, but honestly I think it's realistic too for people to just. stay married until it doesn't make sense anymore, financially or otherwise

also I feel like this needs to be said, a marriage of convenience doesn't mean you just pick a complete stranger and marry them. I guess it might, but probably shouldn't for most cases. it's not that you're getting married just for the sake of being married, there's still a benefit for one or both parties it's just that the benefit doesn't include the whole romantic love commitment piece

asldfk was about to post but I want to say one more thing actually. I feel like the two biggest reasons people have to oppose marriages of convenience are 1) it's 'cheating the system' which okay?? the system is broken anyway. marriage is a legal institution, if you can use it to your advantage go for it or 2) it somehow diminishes the sanctity of marriage for everyone who marries for love which like, again. separation of church and state is where??? not anywhere near marriage. I'll state it more clearly: marriage is not an exclusively religious act. there's absolutely nothing wrong with marrying for love btw but it doesn't mean these other reasons are invalid or make a marriage somehow less real

anyway I'm very pro marriage of convenience, I'm not a professional (what would that even be, marriage counselor maybe? lawyer? idk but I'm not it) these are literally just my thoughts

[cariboodreams]

Real estate agent with authorization

A real estate agent or specialist is an individual who addresses merchants or purchasers of land or genuine property. While a merchant might work freely, a specialist ordinarily works under an authorized intermediary to address clients. Dealers and specialists are authorized by the state to arrange deal arrangements and deal with the documentation expected for shutting land exchanges. Purchasers and merchants are by and large encouraged to counsel an authorized real state agent for a composed meaning of a singular state's laws of organization. Many states require composed revelations to be endorsed by all gatherings framing the obligations and commitments.

For the most part, land merchants/specialists fall into four classes of portrayal:

Merchant's representatives, normally called "posting dealers" or "posting specialists", are shrunk by proprietors to help with promoting property available to be purchased or rent.

Purchaser's representatives are merchants or salespersons who help purchasers by assisting them with buying property.

Double specialists help both the purchaser and the vendor in a similar exchange. To safeguard their permit to rehearse, a land dealer owes the two players fair and legitimate management and should demand that the two players (vendor and purchaser) consent to a double organization arrangement. Extraordinary regulations/runs frequently apply to double specialists, particularly in arranging the cost. In double-organization circumstances, an irreconcilable situation is bound to happen, regularly bringing about the deficiency of promotion for the two players. Individual state regulations fluctuate and decipher double office rather in an unexpected way, with some no more permitting it. In certain states, a double office can be drilled in circumstances where a similar financier (yet not a specialist) addresses both the purchaser and the vendor. Assuming one specialist from the business has a home-recorded and one more specialist from that financier has a purchaser financier concurrence with a purchaser who wishes to purchase the recorded property, double organization happens by permitting every specialist to be assigned as an "intra-organization" specialist. Just the specialist is the double specialist.

Exchange specialists furnish the purchaser and merchant with a restricted type of portrayal yet with practically no trustee commitments. Having something like a facilitator relationship, exchange specialists help purchasers, merchants, or both during the exchange without addressing the interests of either party who may then be viewed as clients. The help given is the authoritative reports to an understanding between the purchaser and dealer on how a specific exchange of property will occur.

Land authorizing and training

To become authorized in the Canada, land agents and salespersons are authorized by each state, not by the central government. Each state has a land commission (overseeing body) that screens and licenses land merchants and specialists. For instance, a few states just permit legal counselors to make the documentation to move genuine property, while different states likewise permit the authorized real estate agent to do as such. Most states expect that a candidate should go to a pre-permit course with a base number of homeroom hours to concentrate on land regulation before taking the state permitting test. Such instruction is many times given by land firms or by schooling organizations, both of which are regularly authorized to show such courses inside their states. The courses are intended to set up the new licensee essentially for the legitimate parts of the act of moving land and to finish the state authorizing test. A few states, similar to Canada, expect just study hall time to get authorized. Many states permit contenders to take the pre-authorizing class. Up-and-comers should in this manner finish the state test for a real state agent's permit.

Level Expense real state agents

Level expense real state agents charge a vendor of a property a level charge, for example, rather than a customary or full-administration real state agent who charges a level of the deal cost. In return, the dealer's property will show up in the Multi Posting Administration (MLS), however, the vender will address himself while showing the property and arranging a deal's price. The outcome is the merchant pays less commission generally speaking (generally half) when the property sells. This is because a dealer will follow through on a level of the business cost to a purchaser's representative yet not need to pay a rate to a dealer's representative (since there isn't one - the merchant is addressing himself).

For more info :-

Cariboo Real Estate Agent

[atpaftmoom-bily]

Thoughts about Erik, why Wilhelm wasn't allowed to come out, and more.

Be warned, this is long, confusing, and I'm not even sure if I made any valid points. But I had thoughts on Young Royals, with no one to talk to, so here you go.

I've seen various different takes on Erik and what people thought his reaction would have been if Willie had come out to him, most of them being positive, and some as well saying how sad it was that Willie never got to come out to his brother. I have a different take, but bear with me it's gonna take a second to get there.

Something that I found interesting in the first place was that when August found out it was Simon and not a girl, he just seemed shocked, but not in a homophobic way that I had kind of been expecting.

Additionally, let's take a look at the comments on the video, I've split them up into three different groups. General comments (disbelief, surprise, pity, etc.), comments sexualizing them, and negative comments. (I've translated these as well as I could as they were not all captioned, but if I've made a mistake feel free to let me know!)

General Comments "OMG Have you seen this?? The Prince is gay!!!!" "Who's the other guy?" "I'm dead" "Finally some news to put Sweden on the map!" "Poor boys, I feel sorry for them" "So clumsy to get caught on film" "I know where he lives!" "I think the video is fake" "Love for the boys"

Sexualizing Comments "Royal porn" "Sexy" "Love" "Sexiest video ever"

Negative Comments "How will the monarchy survive this?" "The end of the royal family, time for Sweden to become a republic!" "Never been ashamed about being Swedish until now" "Class traitor! Your mother cries for your sins"

Now, there are quite a few things I want to point out about Sweden that I feel should be taken into account here. Of course, we don't know the exact dates that the show took place, but we do know it is modern-day, and though it is a work of fiction, I am going to assume that anything that is currently true in Sweden at the moment, give or take a few years, would also be true in the Young Royals universe.

The first point I would like to make is that Sweden is one of the most LGBT-friendly countries, even being named the most friendly country in 2019. Looking back in history, 1944 was when Sweden decriminalized sexual relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, though it was still thought to be an illness. However, in 1979 it was no longer considered an illness. Fun unrelated fact, but Sweden was the first country to legalize gender change in 1979. (If you'd like to read more on LGBT rights in Sweden here are some resources. One. Two.) If Sweden is that progressive and is that LGBT-friendly, then I wondered what the problem was with Willie coming out, so I dug some more.

I'm American, so my understanding of many parts of the world is unfortunately skewed or incomplete, but I'm working on changing that. However, because of this, one thing that surprised me in my research was that the monarchy in Sweden is more of a unifying symbol than anything else. They have no political affinity or formal powers, but rather "the King’s duties are mainly of a ceremonial and representative nature." Of course in the case of Young Royals, the Queen inherited the throne, and Wilhelm would after her.

Something else I found interesting about the monarchy in Sweden is that the current Queen, Queen Silvia, did not come from a line of nobility, so when Queen Silvia and King Carl Gustaf married in 1976, it was highly unusual. (See more on the Swedish monarchy here.)

There is one last thing I want to point out about the current King and Queen. "In summer 2000, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden made history when they ate under the rainbow flag at Djurgårdsterrassen, a Stockholm restaurant owned by gay owner Arto Winter. At that time, the decision was seen as controversial, and played a valuable role in moving conversations forward – while making the royals’ position abundantly clear." (Source)

Now, of course, I understand the difference between a fictional work and real-life situations, but at least in my opinion, these same ideals should carry through to the show that we see. If the King and Queen in real life have been openly supportive of the LGBT community since at least 2000, then although specifics might not be the same, some of those ideals should carry through to Young Royals, so what is the problem, right?

I'm not trying to erase the reality of homophobia altogether, because of course, that exists. We even see in the show through comments that there are some people who are worried about the state of the monarchy, are disgusted, or downright still think that not being straight is a sin, but we also see other comments as well. If Wilhelm were to come out, what would happen? Would there be some backlash? 100%. Would there be people who would support him? Also 100%. Would it make his life harder? Probably, but would he be happier? In my opinion, yes, but I guess that's a question that Wilhelm would have to gauge on his own.

Now I want to look deeper at the conversation that Wille has with his mother, the Queen, in the car on the way home so he can give a statement to the media. Below is an excerpt from their dialogue.

---

Wilhelm: Why can't I just have a relationship with him? And not say anything. Just live a normal life.

Queen: You're the crown prince. And that's a privilege, not a punishment.

Wilhelm: Yes, but I didn't ask for this!

Queen: Well, nobody has ever, ever asked for this! You are the only one who can take over the throne after Erik. Don't you understand that? You are so young. When you're young, love feels like the most important thing in the whole world. When I was your age, I too had an unfortunate romance. That was before I met your father. What I mean is, is it worth it? If you feel that the attention you've been getting so far is unacceptable, it's nothing compared to what you will endure for the rest of your life. We have a chance to cover this up, I urge you to take that chance. You may not get another."

---

Something I find interesting is how much Willie just wants to live a normal life, which I get. He is under so much pressure, from being a role model, his brother's death that he hasn't even had time to process, preparing to be king someday, and (kind of) being outed to the entire world, but at least his school. It's enough to make anyone want to live normally. I think the biggest thing we have to think about here is the Queen's question as well. Is it worth it? She is right of course, the attention he will get will always be there, but I do think that Willie would be able to find a way to be happy along with being King. It shouldn't have to be a case of either-or, and ultimately I don't think it is.

Now I'm going to move back to Erik, and really, this ties everything back to the start where I mentioned I had a different take on Erik's reaction to Willie being not straight. I think that Erik already knew. It would make sense for a variety of reasons. In the show, it is obvious that the two of them have a good relationship. We also hear Erik tell Willie, "you can trust him, he's like a brother," in episode one when speaking about August, showing that trust is something strong between them as brothers. I'm not exactly sure how old Wilhelm is meant to be in the show, but I estimate somewhere around sixteen. I would like to assume that sometime before attending Hillerska, he may have had a crush or felt some attraction to a guy. We also can see from their phone call in episode three, that they're not afraid to joke around with each other about such things, meaning that Erik would most likely be the first person that Willie would go to about such things.

Another thing that makes me believe Erik already knew has to do with people assuming that Simon is the first guy that Willie has liked. Now, I know things are not the same for everyone, but if we consider what happens when the video is posted, and Willie had to deny it is him, we can conclude that being anything other than straight in their family is not okay, simply because they are royals, and the media attention will be too much. Imagine you've known your whole life, you can't be something, the first instance you encounter that, you're probably not going to give in right away. I'm talking at least some minor internalized homophobia here or something.

So put that into the context of Simon and Willie's first kiss in episode two. Simon kisses Willie twice before Willie says "Well, I'm not... I'm not... Stop! Wait, wait, wait!" and immediately pulls Simon back towards him. Let's reflect back to episode one where Willie says "I’m not… I’m not allowed to speak about political issues." I'm not allowed. Of course, there are TONS of restrictions on what he can and can not do, kissing guys, probably being one of them. But if he was going to say I'm not gay or I'm not like that, why would he instantly pull him back in, contrasting what he was just going to say. In episode three, Willie does say, "I'm not like that," which makes sense. He's had time to think and isn't in the heat of the moment. What other explanation can he give? Sure, he could say he's not allowed to be like that but saying that would admit that he is. It's a circle, a very messy circle, but it is a... loop.

Going back to what I'm supposed to be talking about here, Erik. This isn't Willie's first rodeo, but Erik was there for the first. One last thing I want to talk about is the phone call that Erik and Willie have in episode three. Below is an excerpt from their dialogue.

---

Erik: You've met someone.

Wilhelm: I, uh... Yes, okay, but I... I don't think we're a couple or anything. I don't know what it is but can we just...

Erik: I get it. I get it. You don't have to tell me any... I don't wanna hear any details. Hey. Willie, enjoy yourself. Soon enough people will start having opinions and-

Wilhelm: They don't care about me. 'Cause you're the Crown Prince that they have opinions.

Erik: I don't get it. Why are you sitting in your room sulking when you have a crush to hang out with?

---

Firstly, Erik refers to Willie's crush as completely gender-neutral. "You've met someone" could very easily be "you've met a girl". The same goes for "you have a crush to hang out with". Very well could have been "you have a girl to hang out with". Sure, it could be completely coincidental, but we live in such a heteronormative society that it would just make sense for Erik to use female-gendered words. Unless, of course, he knew.

Secondly, "Hey. Willie, enjoy yourself. Soon enough people will start having opinions". This sounds very much to me like, enjoy your time while you can be yourself without backlash because soon you won't have that privacy. While I feel that, yes, the same may happen with anyone Willie was to date, him having a same-sex partner multiplies that, by a lot.

In conclusion, Erik knew Willie was not straight, Willie should come out, but when he is ready, and August is a really deep character that people don't give enough credit to. Gosh, I hope I covered everything, I probably forgot so much, but it's fine. Please let me know your thoughts if you've made it this far into the post.

One last thing. I hope you'll notice how in this post, I never referred specifically to Wilhelm's sexuality, and I did that for a reason. I often see gay used to label him, and though I am unsure if that's being used as an umbrella term or specifically as in he only likes men, I think it's really important to realize that they're specifically making him unlabeled. In this youtube video Edvin Ryding, the actor who plays Wilhelm, says "What we're trying to do... We're not labeling Wilhelm's sexuality. I think that's good because it's like, it portrays that it's okay that way too. You don't have to. You shouldn't have to come out. It should be allowed to be a bit fluid, a bit out there." I just think that it is important as it's another type of representation that is not seen often.

[elamarth-calmagol]

What actually is LACE? (an informal essay)

What’s LACE?

Laws and Customs among the Eldar, or LACE, is the most popular section of the History of Middle Earth books.  It's available online as a PDF here: http://faculty.smu.edu/bwheeler/tolkien/online_reader/T-LawsandCustoms.pdf .  There’s a lot of LACE analysis in the fandom, Silmarillion smut fics are usually labeled “LACE compliant” or “not LACE compliant”, and I’ve been seeing the document itself show up in actual fics, meaning that the characters themselves are discussing it.

LACE is an unfinished, non-canonical essay split into several parts.  It covers the sexuality of elves, which is mostly what people talk about.  It also covers elvish naming (which I want to make a whole different post about), the speed at which elves grow up, changes that happen throughout their lives, their death and rebirth, and finally the legal and moral issues of Finwe remarrying after Miriel’s death.  The discussion about rebirth conflicts with Tolkien’s later writings about Glorfindel’s re-embodiment, but to the best of my knowledge, LACE is the best or only source for most of the topics it covers.

However, LACE is not canon since it doesn’t show up in the Silmarillion.  Counting all of the History of Middle Earth as canon is literally impossible, considering Tolkien contradicts himself all over the place.  It is only useful because it has so much information that is never discussed in the actual canon.  Many people consider it canon out of convenience.

Another important thing to remember is that, other than presumably the discussion of the growth of elvish children, the information is only supposed to apply to the Eldar (meaning the Vanyar, Noldor, Teleri, and Sindar) and not the dark-elves such as the Silvan elves and Avari.

The rest is behind the cut to avoid clogging your feeds.

Problems with LACE interpretations

But because it’s hidden in the History of Middle Earth (volume 10, Morgoth’s Ring), barely anyone actually gets the opportunity to read it.  I don’t think most people are aware that you can get it online, so it doesn't get read much.

I feel like this leads to a handful of people saying something about LACE and everyone else going along with it.  I definitely did this.  I was amazed by all the things that were in the actual essay that nobody had ever told me about, or had told me incorrectly.  For example, most people seem to believe that elves become married at the completion of sexual intercourse (whatever that means to the fic author).  In fact, LACE explicitly says that elves must take an oath using the name of Eru in order to be legally married.  Specifically: 

It was the act of bodily union that achieved marriage, and after which the indissoluble bond was complete… [I]t was at all times lawful for any of the Eldar, being both unwed, to marry thus of free consent one to another without ceremony or witness (save blessings exchanged and the naming of the Name); and the union so joined was alike indissoluble.

I’ve seen a marriage oath being included in a few stories recently, but most writers leave out the oath entirely and just have sex be automatically equivalent to marriage.  What would happen if elves had sex without swearing an oath?  I don’t know, but I’d love to see it explored.

Then there’s a footnote that might explicitly deny the existence of transgender elves... or not, but I’ve literally only seen it mentioned once or twice.  Overall, I feel like all of LACE is filtered through the handful of people who read it, and we’re missing out on a lot of metanalysis and interpretations that we could have because most fans never see the actual document.

Who wrote LACE?

I mean within the mythology of Middle Earth, of course.  Since LACE appears in the History of Middle Earth and not the Silmarillion, we can be pretty sure that J.R.R. Tolkien himself wrote it and it wasn’t added to by Christopher Tolkien.  But that’s not the question here.  Remember that Tolkien’s frame narrative for all of his Middle Earth work is that he is a scholar of ancient times and is translating documents from Westron and Sindarin for modern audiences to read and understand.  The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings come from the Red Book of Westmarch, and I believe The Silmarillion is meant to be Tolkien’s own writings based on his research (though it might also be an adaption of Bilbo’s “Translations from the Elvish”, but I haven't looked into that).  So what does LACE come from?

Christopher Tolkien admits in his notes that he doesn’t know.  He says, “It is clear in any case that this is presented as the work, not of one of the Eldar, but of a Man,” and I agree, because of the way it seems to be written as an ethnographic study rather than by someone who lives in the culture.  Honestly, it talks too much about how elves are seen by Men (e.g. speculating that elf-children might look like the children of Men) to be written by an elf.  This changes once it gets to the Doom of Finwe and Miriel, but that could be, and probably is, a story told to the writer by an elf who was there at the time.

Tolkien actually references Aelfwine in the second version of the text.  The original story behind The Lost Tales, which was the abandoned first version of the Silmarillion, was that a man from the Viking period named Aelfwine/Eriol stumbled onto the Straight Road and found himself on Tol Eressea.  He spoke to the elves and brought back their stories to England with him.  So it makes a lot of sense that Aelfwine would also write about the lives and customs of the elves for an audience of his own people.

Does LACE exist in Middle Earth?

I keep finding fics where first age elves discuss “the Laws and Customs” openly, as if it’s a text in their own world.  I usually get the impression that it was brought by the Noldor from Valinor.  But did the document actually exist in that time period?  For me, the answer is definitely not.

First of all, LACE was probably written by a Man, meaning it could not have dated back to Valinor in the years of the Trees, because Men hadn’t awaked yet.  In fact, the closest thing to an established frame narrative for it is that it was written by Aelfwine, who comes from the time period around 1000 CE (though Tolkien doesn’t seem to have pinned him down).  This is at least the fifth age, if not later.

But what if you don’t believe that it was written by a Man?  It still couldn’t have been written in the First Age, because it discusses the way the relationship between elves’ bodies and souls changes as ages go by.  For example:

As ages passed the dominance of their fear ever increased, ‘consuming’ their bodies... The end of this process is their ‘fading’, as Men have called it.

A lot of time has to go by in order for elves to get to the point of fading.  As a bonus, here’s another reference to the perspective of Men. LACE also discusses the dangers that “houseless feas”, which are souls of elves who do not go to Mandos after their bodies died, pose to Men.  How would they have known about that in the First Age?  It further says that “more than one rebirth is seldom recorded” (which isn’t contradicted anywhere I know of), and that’s not something you would know during your life of joy in Valinor, where almost nobody dies.  That’s something you learn after millennia of war.  This has to be a document written well after the Silmarillion ends.

So what about the sex part?  That’s all we care about, right?  Well, it is entirely possible that this was written down by the elves and Aelfwine translated it (though my impression is that he mostly recorded stories told orally to him and that elves were not very much into writing, at least in Valinor where you could get stories directly from someone who experienced them).  However, why would the elves write this down?  They know how quickly their children grow up.  They’ve seen actual marriages.  They don’t need that described to them.  And if they did have a specific document or story explaining the expectations of them when it comes to sex and marriage, why would they call it “Laws and Customs”?  That’s a very strange name for a set of rules for conduct.  I’m sure they had a list of laws written out somewhere in great detail, like our own state or national laws (that seems very in character for the Noldor, at least).  But I seriously doubt that those laws are what we’ve been given to read. LACE is not an elvish or Valinoran document.

Is LACE prescriptive or descriptive?

Here’s the other big question I’m interested in.  Prescriptive means that the document describes the way people should behave.  Descriptive means that it describes how people do behave.  And the more I worldbuild for Middle Earth and the culture of elves, the more I want to say that LACE is prescriptive in its discussion of sex, marriage, and gender roles.

But wait.  I’ve been saying for paragraphs that I think LACE is Aelfwine or another Man’s ethnographic study of elvish culture.  Then it has to be descriptive, right?

Does it?  How long do we think Aelfwine stayed with the elves?  Did he wait fifty years to see a child grow up?  Did he get to witness a wedding ceremony?  Did he meet houseless fea?  I don’t think he could have done all of that.  Maybe a different Man who spent his entire life with the elves could, but then when was this written?  When the elves were still marrying and having children in Middle Earth or when so much time had gone by that they had begun to fade already?

Whoever wrote this was told a lot of information by elves instead of experiencing it firsthand, the same way he heard the stories from the First Age from the elves instead of being there.  Maybe it was one elf who talked to him, maybe several different ones.  But did those elves accurately describe their society the way it was, give him the easiest description, or explain the way it was supposed to be?  If I was describing modern-day America, would I discuss premarital sex or just our dating and marriage customs?  Maybe people would come away from a talk with me thinking that moving in together equated to marriage for Americans in the early 21st century.  And I don’t even have an agenda to show America in a certain way, I'm just bad at explaining.  Did the elves talking to what may have been the first Man they had seen in millennia have an agenda in the way they presented themselves?

Or did the writer himself have an agenda?  Imagine going to see these beautiful, mythical, perfect beings, and you find out that they behave in the same immoral ways Men do.  Do you want to share the truth back home?  Or do you leave out things that don't match your worldview? Did Aelfwine come back wanting to tell people what elves were really like?  Or did he want to say “this is how you can be holy and perfect like an elf”?

Anyone studying the Age of Exploration will tell you that Europeans neber wrote about new cultures objectively, and often things were made up to fit the writer’s idea of what savages looked like. For example, my Native American history teacher in college told a story of how explorers described one tribe who (sensibly) didn't wear clothes as cannibals, because cannibalism and going around naked went together in their minds and not because of any actual incident.  Unbiased scholarship barely existed yet. Even Tolkien was extremely biased and tended to be imperialistic, as we all know.  There’s absolutely no reason to think that Aelfwine wasn’t biased in his own way.  (Of course, now we have to consider what biases a Danish or English man from the centuries around 1000 would have when it comes to things like gender roles. I assume he would have been more into divorce and female warriors than the elves are said to be.)

But is that what Tolkien intended? Probably not. He probably wanted LACE to be descriptive. But he also never got much of a chance to analyse the essay after the fact, which might have led to him discussing its accuracy and even the exact issues I just pointed out about explorers. Anyway, we know he's biased, and honestly, what he intended has never slowed down the fandom before.

Conclusion

In short, I take LACE to be a prescriptive document describing the way elvish culture is supposed to be, not a blueprint I have to stick to in order to correctly portray elves.  I also don’t believe the document that’s available for us to read existed even in the early Fourth Age, where The Lord of the Rings leaves off.  There maybe have been some document outlining the moral behavior of elves, as a set of laws, but thats not the Laws and Customs we have.

Of course, canon is up to you to interpret.  If you want Feanor discussing LACE with someone back in Valinor, go ahead.  If you want to throw out LACE entirely, go ahead.  It’s not even a canonical essay.  All of this analysis is honestly useless when you consider the fact that no part of LACE exists in any canonical book.

But that’s Tolkien analysis for you.

[kirain]

Hazbin Hotel and VivziePop Drama

I've been hearing/seeing a lot of drama concerning Hazbin Hotel and it's creator VivziePop, and while I don't know her personally or really care what people think, I do hate slander and the spread of misinformation. Truly nothing in this world upsets me more than when people believe rumours while making no effort to fact check, and that's exactly what's happening right now. That said, I wanted to try and clear up some of the rumours going around about Vivzie and the show, because I think some of them are absolutely outrageous and need to be addressed.

1. Vivzie hired an abuser onto the show.

Now, I’m not here to burn anyone at the stake, especially since I don’t know anything about Chris Niosi (the alleged abuser), who I believe openly admitted to the allegations? Regardless, this is a moot point. He’s not credited anywhere at the end of the episode. So either he was booted before production wrapped up or he had nothing to do with the show in the first place.

2. Vivzie supports bestiality.

Admittedly I thought this one might be true, since she draws so many anthropomorphic animals. In the very least, I figured she was probably a furry, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting this accusation either. Near as I can tell, this rumour started for two reasons. One, because of her famous Zoophobia comic, which revolves around a therapist named Cameron who gets assigned to work with human-like animals. Ironically, poor Cameron suffers from crippling zoophobia, which makes for some pretty decent comedy. I didn't read the whole comic because, quite frankly, it’s not my cup of tea and I just don’t have the time. But from what I saw there are no examples of bestiality anywhere in its contents.

Two, this message, which blew up all over social media:

To me, this just proves that people are more interested in virtue signalling than checking to see if their claims are actually true. Everything about this message is 100% false, which I’ll touch on in my next point.

3. Vivzie is a pedophile and she’s drawn child porn.

This is hands down the worst allegation and holy shit, I really wish people would stop using it to defame someone when they don't have any proof. This is a life-ruining accusation and you're disgusting if you believe it based solely on hearsay. This rumour began to spread when Vivzie allegedly shipped the two underage characters in the above photo and drew them NSFW-style. At the time, one character was 19 while the other was 14, and the relationship was a very illegal student-teacher relationship.

This is WRONG! The characters were not 14 and 19, they were actually 18 and 19, the legal age of consent! Additionally, the relationship wasn't student-teacher. One character is a student and the other is Alumni (a student teacher). This one pisses me off the most because it’s obvious the person who sent that message didn’t even bother to conduct any research. They said, “He’s a teacher, she’s a child.” Both characters are MALE!

Since then, Vivzie has apologised for any NSFW art she drew in the past and stated that it's not a reflection of her art today, and I'm inclined to believe her. Almost every artist has drawn NSFW content at some point in their career, and hers wasn't even distasteful. Other than this one example, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests she’s drawn “child porn”. In fact, she’s never even drawn explicit NSFW.

Please stop spreading this rumour. It’s dangerous and completely incorrect.

4. Vivzie said the "N" word!

No, she didn’t. It was a fabricated tweet. That is all.

5. Vivzie is copyright striking every video that criticises her!

No she isn't. YouTube’s DMCA is automatically striking people who are using full clips without permission. Vivzie has gone public several times, telling people exactly how to avoid getting a copy strike from the algorithm, which is something she absolutely does not have to do. At this point, she doesn't owe you anything. In my opinion, she should just sit back and watch these channels burn.

6. Vivzie copies and traces other artists’ work.

This is another one I’ve seen going around, but I looked into it as thoroughly as I could and failed to find any concrete evidence to support the allegations. As of right now, there are only two examples of Vivzie “copying” or “tracing” other artists’ work, and both of them can be explained. The first is a gif she made with a character from her Zoophobia comic, which looked a lot like the girl from ME!ME!ME!:

Damn, that’s pretty incriminating. She obviously stole-- oh, wait. This gif was part of a ME!ME!ME! MEP (multi editor’s project) and Vivzie didn’t take full credit, despite the fact that it’s not even a direct trace. It’s supposed to look like the original, which she fully cited. The second example comes from a short dance sequence from her Timber video, which seems to have been inspired by several Disney movies. As Vivzie herself stated, that was an homage to the original animations. Lots of artists and shows do this, including the beloved Stephen Universe series.

Regardless, this doesn’t count as stealing character designs or plagiarising someone’s work. It’s meant to be respectful, an admiration of other projects. Other than these two instances, however, there is no evidence of her tracing or stealing other people’s art. From what I’ve discovered, all other designs she’s been accused of “stealing” are characters she bought and paid for. They’re quite literally HER characters.

7. Vivzie supports problematic creators.

I’m getting really tired of guilt by association. Vivzie follows and enjoys some controversial figures, but who cares? We can argue all day about whether or not the accusations against them are true, but it ultimately has nothing to do with the show or Vivzie as a person. I do the exact same thing, to be honest-- follow and listen to people on all sides so I can learn, understand, and form my own opinions. The fact that some people think this is bad, to me, is absolutely mesmerising. Vivzie doesn’t control what the people she follows post, and if they do something overly questionable she publicly criticises and denounces it.

From Vivzie:

Now that that’s been dealt with, I’d like to address some complaints/claims about the actual show.

8. Vaggie is an angry Latina stereotype and a lesbian stereotype. Vivzie is appropriating Hispanic culture and misrepresenting the gay for profit.

First off, I see a lot of people passing around yet more misinformation regarding Vivzie's race. So many people seem to think she's white? Well, I'm here to tell you they're wrong. Very incorrect. Vivzie is in fact Latina, and Vaggie is meant to mirror some of her own personality traits.

Second, who is Vaggie mad at? Context matters, and if we take a look at the episode, we see that Vaggie is literally only mad at two specific people: Angel Dust and Alastor. Why? Well, for starters, it's her girlfriend's dream to run a rehab hotel for sinners, and Angel Dust nearly demolishes that dream single-handedly. Vaggie has every right to be over-the-top vitriolic. Then there's Alastor, a known sadist, narcissist, and murderer who loves trapping people in his nefarious schemes. He invites himself in, effectively takes over the hotel, and pushes both her and Charlie aside. At one point he even sexually assaults her by slapping her butt during his musical number. So yeah, I think her seething ire is totally justified. Keep in mind, however, that when she's around Charlie she's calm, collected, and happy. I wouldn't call that a stereotype.

Thirdly, the lesbian stereotypes. I keep hearing this argument but I really don't see it. Both Vaggie and Charlie have so much personality and trust for each other. Maybe I'm wrong, but the stereotype I know always totes a more butch, tomboyish woman with a ditsy, innocent, naive woman. Charlie is optimistic, but she isn't stupid. She refuses to shake Alastor’s hand because she knows he’s likely trying to screw her over. She’s also not entirely innocent herself and uses words like “fuck” and “shit”. I also wouldn’t call Vaggie butch or tomboyish. She has a cute, girly presentation, complete with a pink ribbon in her hair, lace stockings, and a dress. She's protective of her girlfriend, as I think we all are with our partners, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're flawed characters, as every character is meant to be. This isn't a problem.

9. The show is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, blah, blah, blah.

I’m amazed this is even an argument. The show is supposed to be a dark comedy that takes place in HELL. You know, the place the worst of the worst end up after they die? What were you expecting? Everyone gets a shot or two fired at them, but that doesn't make them bad characters nor does it make the show itself horrible. Take, for example, Katie Killjoy, the news reporter so many people are up in arms about. She says she doesn’t “touch the gays” because she has “standards”. Well, here’s a newsflash of my own: we’re not supposed to like her! She’s an antagonist. Not to mention ten seconds later Charlie insults her and isn’t the least bit slighted by her pretentious attitude. The characters are strong and don’t take shit from anyone, because to some degree they’re all terrible people who can throw down when it’s called for.

Obviously if you don’t like the show or think it’s offensive, I’m probably not going to change your mind. That’s perfectly fine. You’re entitled to your opinions and you don’t have to watch the show. Just stop lying and stop trying to take it away from everybody else. Stop attacking Vivzie and spreading misinformation without checking the facts. I realise a lot of people probably aren’t trying to be vindictive and only want to do something good, but just remember this: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

I saw a post recently about how people don’t realise how recently rights for lgbt+ people were won, and the very recent discrimination people faced, and arguably how far we’ve come in the last 20-30 years or so, but it was pretty US centric and I wanted to talk about stuff in the UK. This is a non-exhaustive list of legal protections and things that have happened during my lifetime (mostly since I started secondary school) which might explain why older people in the community might sometimes see things a bit differently.

2001- Equalisation of the age of consent to 16 for men having sex with other men. This was also the first time an age of consent was introduced for sexual acts between two women because the law liked to pretend those didn’t happen, before.

2002- Children and adoption act allows gay and lesbian couples (and single people) to adopt for the first time. Worth bearing in mind that the Tories ran a 3 line whip against this. In 2002.

2003- The first anti-discrimination laws for lgb people. Trans people had some limited protection in law from 1999, but only if they were undergoing gender-reassignment surgery. This only applied in the workplace, not elsewhere.

2003- Section 28 was repealed. If you don’t know what section 28 is, honestly google it, but I could write a whole post about this. Section 28 was introduced by Thatcher and banned local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” and specifically banned state schools from “teaching the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” (whatever the fuck that means). This was introduced by Thatcher in the 80s, because of course it was, and meant a lot of teachers were really unsure about talking about same-sex couples in schools and led to many schools and colleges not allowing LGBT support groups and similar. And honestly, even when it was repealed, I think it took schools/teachers a long time to recover from this.

2004- The gender recognition act allowed people to change their legal gender BUT at the time anyone married had to apply for their marriage to be annulled as same-sex marriage wasn’t legal.

2004- Civil partnerships, the first legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the UK. The reason this wasn’t same sex marriage was because Labour weren’t up for the fight with the church that would require, and civil partnerships had some cross party support, whereas same sex marriage didn’t.

2010- Protection for LGBT people in all areas of public life under the equality act.

2014- Same sex marriage in GB (it didn’t happen in NI until 2020- that’s right, this year, folks).

2017- Law passed allowing people with convictions for homosexuality to apply to have their conviction erased.  Over half those who have applied for a pardon have not had their convictions overturned, so make of that what you will.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that although homosexuality was decriminalised in England and Wales in 1967, this didn’t mean that everything was just fine. The act that allowed decriminalisation put a condition of “privacy” on sexual acts between men. This was interpreted by the courts to mean between two people only, in a private house only, where no other people were present. People were literally prosecuted for having sex in hotels, for having threesomes, for having sex in a house where another person was present (in another room), for doing something vaguely sexual in a public place- Gay bars were effectively still illegal.

[ingek73]

Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

Exclusive: Documents also shed light on Queen’s ongoing exemption from race and sex discrimination laws

by David Pegg and Rob Evans

Published: 15:00 Wednesday, 02 June 2021

The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race.

The documents also shed light on how Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination.

The papers were discovered at the National Archives as part of the Guardian’s ongoing investigation into the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen’s consent, to secretly influence the content of British laws.

They reveal how in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

It is unclear when the practice ended. Buckingham Palace refused to answer questions about the ban and when it was revoked. It said its records showed people from ethnic minority backgrounds being employed in the 1990s. It added that before that decade, it did not keep records on the racial backgrounds of employees.

Exemptions from the law

In the 1960s government ministers sought to introduce laws that would make it illegal to refuse to employ an individual on the grounds of their race or ethnicity.

The Queen has remained personally exempted from those equality laws for more than four decades. The exemption has made it impossible for women or people from ethnic minorities working for her household to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.

In a statement, Buckingham Palace did not dispute that the Queen had been exempted from the laws, adding that it had a separate process for hearing complaints related to discrimination. The palace did not respond when asked what this process consists of.

The exemption from the law was brought into force in the 1970s, when politicians implemented a series of racial and sexual equality laws to eradicate discrimination.

More than 50,000 people call for inquiry into use of Queen's consent

The official documents reveal how government officials in the 1970s coordinated with Elizabeth Windsor’s advisers on the wording of the laws.

The documents are likely to refocus attention on the royal family’s historical and current relationship with race.

Much of the family’s history is inextricably linked with the British empire, which subjugated people around the world. Some members of the royal family have also been criticised for their racist comments.

In March the Duchess of Sussex, the family’s first mixed-race member, said she had had suicidal thoughts during her time in the royal family, and alleged that a member of the family had expressed concern about her child’s skin colour.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in a horse-drawn carriage after attending the Queen’s Birthday Parade in 2018.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex after attending the Queen’s birthday parade in 2018. Photograph: Niklas Halle’n/AFP/Getty Images

The allegation compelled her brother-in-law, Prince William, to declare that the royal family was “very much not” racist.

Queen’s consent

Some of the documents uncovered by the Guardian relate to the use of Queen’s consent, an obscure parliamentary mechanism through which the monarch grants parliament permission to debate laws that affect her and her private interests.

Buckingham Palace says the process is a mere formality, despite compelling evidence that the Queen has repeatedly used the power to secretly lobby ministers to amend legislation she does not like.

The newly discovered documents reveal how the Queen’s consent procedure was used to secretly influence the formation of the draft race relations legislation.

In 1968, the then home secretary, James Callaghan, and civil servants at the Home Office appear to have believed that they should not request Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the race relations bill until her advisers were satisfied it could not be enforced against her in the courts.

At the time, Callaghan wanted to expand the UK’s racial discrimination laws, which only prohibited discrimination in public places, so that they also prevented racism in employment or services such as housing.

James Callaghan pictured with the Queen in 1977, welcoming the then French president, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to Windsor Castle.

James Callaghan pictured with the Queen in 1977, welcoming the then French president, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to Windsor Castle. Photograph: PA

A key proposal of the bill was the Race Relations Board, which would act as an ombudsman for discrimination complaints and could bring court proceedings against individuals or companies that maintained racist practices.

‘Not the practice to appoint coloured immigrants’

In February 1968, a Home Office civil servant, TG Weiler, summarised the progress of discussions with Lord Tryon, the keeper of the privy purse, who was responsible for managing the Queen’s private finances, and other courtiers.

Tryon, he wrote, had informed them Buckingham Palace was prepared to comply with the proposed law, but only if it enjoyed similar exemptions to those provided to the diplomatic service, which could reject job applicants who had been resident in the UK for less than five years.

According to Weiler, Tryon considered staff in the Queen’s household to fall into one of three types of roles: “(a) senior posts, which were not filled by advertising or by any overt system of appointment and which would presumably be accepted as outside the scope of the bill; (b) clerical and other office posts, to which it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners; and (c) ordinary domestic posts for which coloured applicants were freely considered, but which would in any event be covered by the proposed general exemption for domestic employment.”

“They were particularly concerned,” Weiler wrote, “that if the proposed legislation applied to the Queen’s household it would for the first time make it legally possible to criticise the household. Many people do so already, but this has to be accepted and is on a different footing from a statutory provision.”

By March, Buckingham Palace was satisfied with the proposed law. A Home Office official noted that the courtiers “agreed that the way was now open for the secretary of state to seek the Queen’s consent to place her interest at the disposal of parliament for the purpose of the bill.”

The phrasing of the documents is highly significant, because it suggests that Callaghan and the Home Office officials believed it might not be possible to obtain the Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the racial equality law unless the monarch was assured of her exemption.

As a result of this exemption, the Race Relations Board that was given the task of investigating racial discrimination would send any complaints from the Queen’s staff to the home secretary rather than the courts.

In the 1970s, the government brought in three laws to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. Complainants in general were empowered to take their cases directly to the courts.

But staff in the royal household were specifically prevented from doing so, although the wording of the ban was sufficiently vague that the public might not have realised the monarch’s staff had been exempted.

A civil servant noted that the exemption in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act had been “acceptable to the palace, largely because it did not explicitly single out persons employed by Her Majesty in her personal capacity for special exception” while still removing them from its scope.

The exemption was extended to the present day when in 2010 the Equality Act replaced the 1976 Race Relations Act, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and the 1970 Equal Pay Act. For many years, critics have regularly pointed out that the royal household employed few black, Asian or minority-ethnic people.

In 1990 the journalist Andrew Morton reported in the Sunday Times that “a black face has never graced the executive echelons of royal service – the household and officials” and “even among clerical and domestic staff, there is only a handful of recruits from ethnic minorities”.

The following year, the royal researcher Philip Hall published a book, Royal Fortune, in which he cited a source close to the Queen confirming that there were no non-white courtiers in the palace’s most senior ranks.

In 1997 the Palace admitted to the Independent that it was not carrying out an officially recommended policy of monitoring staff numbers to ensure equal opportunities.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “The royal household and the sovereign comply with the provisions of the Equality Act, in principle and in practice. This is reflected in the diversity, inclusion and dignity at work policies, procedures and practices within the royal household.

“Any complaints that might be raised under the act follow a formal process that provides a means of hearing and remedying any complaint.” The palace did not respond when asked if the monarch was subject to this act in law.

[savnofilter]

Official Callout Post (5 - Q&A)

TW: mentions of suicide, ephebophilia, grooming, pseudo racism (microaggression). toxic friendships, harassment towards minors, mental health, fandom discourse.

*DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF MY AGE OR SOCIAL MEDIA. THIS IS BECAUSE TOXICITY/TREATMENT. This post is not just minors. This is for the people from different ages 16-22 who feel like they did not have a voice by fellow BNHA writers.*

Important Topics:

Clearing last statements

Addressing my callouts

Alienated mental health

Fic stealing

BNHarem server regulation

Where is the proof that there are people not speaking up?

*1

*2

*3

*4

*5

*6

*7

*8

*9

*10

*11

*12

*13

What’s wrong with aging up?

@mci-writing: There isn’t a problem with aging up in specific, but rather how you go about aging up the characters, especially in NSFW pieces. If you’re going to age the characters up, make it apparent that the characters are aged up rather than just slapping the 18+ label, whether it be in an offhand mention of living in a house of their own or maybe something small about being in college if dorms are such an integral part to the work in question.

“If the minors knew it was an 18+ space, why did they join?”

@mci-writing: Their server is a 16+ server, so they were invited and welcomed once they proved their ages. Many minors that joined their server saw it as an opportunity to meet new people and make friends, all while being able to interact with their favorite writers in the fandom.

If the discord discussion wasn't about harassing Lady-bakuhoe, why did it happen?

@mci-writing: The first discussion quite literally was a couple of people active in the fandom, mainly writers, venting about how hard it is to currently get your works out there and just how hard it is to properly get involved in the fandom without some form of help from a clique. No one in specific was named that time. The other discussion was Sav venting about how she was treated after a whack ass callout post was made and simply because a writer was mad that Sav ran her server the way Sav wanted to, which led to her elaborating on the situation (it then prompted other people’s responses, whose responses are fairly similar to how many of you reacted to Jo’s small “callout”).

What legal offences have they done if charged?

@savnofilter: Well since you guys like supporting people you think should be in jail, considering Lady-Bakuhoe has shared a minor’s face and age, the offense would be up to the parents in question. It's stated in laws that even if the minor is a felon, you do not have the rights to share such information without law/parent consent. Although I cannot find anything about age, sharing a minor's face comes with consequences. 

- UK source: 1 

- US source: 1

Charges will be:

Lawsuit: exposing minor information without parental consent.

*****

To put in perspective, the U.S and UK are basically flip flopped. In the U.S it is not against the law to groom, but in the UK it is. It is illegal to have relationships with minors in the U.S, while in the UK it is not. 

For knowingly engaging sexually with a minor (DMs), you can also be trialed for having depictions of any picture/video of minors. (ex: students in school uniforms) or minors in sexual situations. Although having a sexual relationship with a 16 year-olds is permitted, consuming child pornography is not. Grooming is also outside of sexual abuse, you can groom anyone for any reason.

- UK source: 1 

- US source: 1 

Charges will be:

Misdemeanor: for knowingly engaging NSFW with minors, causing mental anguish.

Felony: for knowingly engaging NSFW with minors, causing mental anguish.

2 Years Prison: sexting any sort of NSFW content to a minor.

Registered Sex Offender: engaging sexually with minors (U.S).

*****

For the acts of gaslighting, you can be sentenced if proven with evidence.

- UK source: 1, 2 

- U.S source: 1, 2, 3 

Charges will be: 

Misdemeanor: causing mental anguish, this is categorized as mental abuse.

Felony: causing mental anguish, this is categorized as mental abuse.

*****

Sharing false and hurtful posts about someone with intention to hurt someone's image constitutes cyberbullying. This includes false posts to make someone look bad and sending hate (whether you directed it or not). 

For perspective, once again it is flip-flopped. The U.S has many states so there are not any direct laws against cyberbullying (in my state and my friends it is illegal), but you can categorize abusive behaviors exhibited online as a form of abuse. In the U.K it is illegal, grooming is considered being one of the offenses. 

LBH and or any adult who participated in posting, sending hate, or anything that repeatedly tore our image down would be classified as a Verbal Adult Bully. 

UK source: link

U.S source: link

Charges will be:

Lawsuit: defamation of character, harassment.

Misdemeanor: harassment, abuse.

1-2 years jail or fine: harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

12 months jail or fine: classified as stalking.

*****

You can categorize abusive behaviors exhibited online as a form of abuse. In the U.K it is illegal, grooming is considered being one of the offenses. 

- UK source: link

- U.S source: link

Charges will be:

Lawsuit: defamation of character, harassment.

Misdemeanor: harassment, abuse.

1-2 years jail or fine: harassment, intimidation, or bullying.

12 months jail or fine: classified as stalking.

*****

Since you only promote 18+ blogs in your 16+ server, the people who run/host the server will be trialed for exposing minors to NSFW

UK source: link 

U.S source: link 

Charges will be: 

Misdemeanor: exposing a minor to pornographic content.

Third degree felony: exposing a minor to pornographic content.

1-15 years jail: exposing a minor to pornographic content.

Fine: $1,000 - $10,000

Don't you (minors) know it's illegal to consume and produce erotica? 

@savnofilter​: As long as we (minors) don't go as far to engage (message privately) sexually with people who are 18+, it’s not illegal. Reblogging or commenting on a work both ways isn't illegal either 1, 2. It’s only illegal if you approach minors and send it to them personally. If it was illegal, porn websites wouldn’t even exist. If you’re concerned about minors reading your stuff, don’t put them in main tags.

Can't the person producing the content get arrested?

@savnofilter​: To put it simply: No. You will not go to jail if a minor reads your smut. With the other way around, you won't go to jail reading a minor's smut either. The laws state that you can only go to jail if you send porn (video, art, pictures) to a minor or produce depictions of a minor in sexual acts.

Therefore if you do not approach a minor with such contents, you will not be trialed. If this was the case, there wouldn't be platforms such as PornHub and etc would not be able to run.

Do you have a problem with them writing the content that they do?

@savnofilter​: No. If we did it would be hypocritical. It’s more of the personal jabs to alienate teens feel in the writing community. This means having to go out your way saying stuff like “fuck minors” “minors are stupid”. People like to shove down our throats that we want to go into “adult spaces”. Tumblr is an open site for 13+, the anime being a Shounen anime. Again, if you don’t want minors interacting with your stuff, keep it out of main tags.

What do we want from this post?

The main reason why I even decided to speak up is because I was tired of always talking about how toxic it is here and always being accused of starting drama to shut me up. Sure, call it “bitching” and “whining” but why should I take bullying because I have less followers and half someone’s age? 

The double-standard that I’ve touched upon in CCC or even how small blogs are treated. Fandom is supposed to be fun, and it’s not okay to let things slide just to keep things “happy”. Stop intimidating and shutting down people who finally have a choice to talk about the things they have been through just because your favorite says so. Don’t campaign about listening to hurt peoples voices, then proceed to ignore and ridicule people who do it in your own environment. 

I’ve had people come into my inbox and mock me for admitting to being mentally ill and say I’m doing this because I’m sick in the head, or call me a liar only because I spoke up. The BNHA fandom needs to stop the popularity mob mentality. Before you blindly someone, think to yourself: why? Stop giving toxic people passes because there is always a high chance in them not even caring about you. Don’t be a sheep, think for yourself. That’s what I want from this post. Even if people don’t believe me now, you can’t say I didn’t warn you. 

Here is what a few of our members have had to say: 

Continuation here: main post, one, two, three, four, ▸five◂.

[rpbetter]

Hey there, check out this pinned post first!

Thanks for visiting Roleplay Better, where I believe that you can fucking do better! That kind of language, however, is why it is important for you to read this post before proceeding.

This blog and its posts are meant for an adult RPing audience; be over legal, adult age in the USA, 18+. Do not interact by submitting, asking, reblogging, commenting, or liking unless you are over eighteen years of age. By interacting with RPB or me, Vespertine, you are assumed to be following this rule. If you are breaking this rule, you will be blocked.

I have that rule because this blog can/will/does address topics inappropriate for a younger audience. Those can include, but are not limited to:

not safe for work - violence, injury, sexual language, smut, substance use

“dark topics” and themes like violence, unhealthy relationships, mental illness, trauma, graphic injury, dubious consent, substance use, and so forth addressed realistically

foul, sexual, and otherwise “Adult” language

 unpopular opinions and approaches about writing, RP, fandoms

“negativity” since literally anything can be, and my whole point here isn’t about holding back; it is likely that, at some point, in some post or another, a shoe will fit you-you need to be mature enough to handle that without taking it as a personal attack on you

images and links that may contain things inappropriate for a younger audience

this blog is founded upon the idea that fiction has reflections in reality, but that fiction does not utterly equate to reality. You should write with realism, your characters should be people in their own right, and you should absolutely be addressing many popular topics responsibly, which is to say realistically. I do not support or otherwise condone purity culture, so while realism is a big deal here, fiction = reality arguments are a no

seriously, you have no idea how fucking salty I am! I try to be fair, reasonable, and mellow with everyone, but it can and does come out.

This blog tags for common, major triggers, but it is not for those easily triggered or particularly sensitive. By proceeding, you take responsibility for yourself...like a mature adult. I expect you to utilize blacklist, unfollow, and block. Tag format is simple, it is literally just the word in most cases, with “cw” and “tw” added to particularly common things. Example, a post containing a breakdown of forms of dubcon will be tagged #dubcon #dubious consent. If that was specifically of a sexual nature, since tumblr is unfriendly to using Not Safe For Work now, I will be using #notsafe for sexual topics. In the event that this needs to change, it will be posted about, the previous tag left intact, so that you may update your blacklist.

You are always welcome to send me an ask or private message requesting a particular trigger be tagged for you. I try to check blogs I see following, especially if I follow back, so that I can tag what you require. However, I’m a person, I’m an ND, ill, busy person though, I do make mistakes!

If you find yourself desirous of telling me to tag in a hateful way, don’t. You will not be responded to with an apology and kindness. Do not be rude, it’s uncalled for when informing someone of a problem or making a request.

I will run the blog largely on a queue, and will not be following many people back. This is not personal! I just like to try to provide content at many different times, have a life elsewhere, and I am so happy that you love your fandom, but it might not be something I’ve enough interest in to have on my dash.

Don’t tumblr message me. Use the inbox or submit.

Due to recent events, I am changing this rule. It’s hard for me to receive messages unexpectedly, and I hate to imply that I’ll be able to get to these quicker because it isn’t the truth. Quicker, better responses come from the inbox. However, there have been too many incidents lately in which people needed to speak privately and had to make that a request. If you’re having a problem and need to vent, request sensitive advice, etc.? It’s alright, go ahead and drop me a PM, y’all. I’ll get back to you as soon as I am able. Please, do not be angry with me if I respond to inbox things or my queue is running! You’re important to me, I just might not have the requisite social cognition and energy you deserve at that time.

Aggressive inbox messages will be responded to in kind. I don’t care if you are on anon or not, if you haven’t an ounce of polite communication skills, I won’t have them either. This is not a “we don’t publish anon hate” blog.

I highly encourage asks and submissions on any and all RP topics, and it’s perfectly alright to be salty as fuck in them, you can totally vent here, but don’t take out your frustration on me or be demanding of me. I am always happy to help with information, advice, or just a response to your venting-it’s important to know someone is listening. However, it may take me a few days to a week to get to you, be patient. 

If you are going to vent, leave out usernames. This isn’t a callout or burnbook blog. It’s fine to state characters and fandoms, but if this becomes a problem, it’ll have to change. I don’t want this becoming a salt blog for one or two fandoms I very likely can’t even stand. Practice the fine art of alluding to things, its good experience for your writing! Besides, RPC problems are RPC problems, I promise. It might feel like it’s just your fandom, but there is something relatable in all corners.

I will not overly police comments. Keep the slurs and shit out of it, though. If there is an issue going on pertaining to a serious instance of hate speech, or behavior I, personally, deem as too inappropriate and/or immature to be taking place on my post, I will step in. Otherwise, I expect everyone to be adults in the comments and reblogs too. If you want to argue with each other, that’s your business. If you want to argue with me, I’m not sorry in advance.

Addition to the above: this is not a blog in which it will be tolerated that commentators or those submitting with the URLS are targeted for callouts, shaming, or other instances of bullying. No, I cannot make those people stop bothering you by blocking them, but the least I can do is address that by shutting down their access to this blog and it’s posts by blocking on the URLs I have for them. And I will. Fuck that “we can’t be responsible for” shit. It’s my blog, it’s my content I’m putting out there, I’m not going to just ignore shit like what went down over on COAR, thanks. Not. Cool.

This is definitely not a place for:

people who think giving muses labels, including top/bottom “dynamics,” is a good substitute for character traits, personality, and development

those with no reading comprehension skills

folks dependent upon aesthetics and aesthetics-based purple prose as filler for actual writing

anti-original character/just wants to fuck a FC or canon character club, get the fuck out immediately

y’all who see writing as an obstacle to getting down to action, be that smut, drama, or fight scenes...it’s literally a writing hobby

politics, any manner of phobe or ism, violent/non-inclusive feminists, purity/rpc/fandom/content police of any manner, and exactly any manner of racism, sexism, or religious intolerance - I give not a shit if it’s popular to hate the straights, for example, I neither believe in nor tolerate reactionary classifying of any group as blanket-statement evil

people who are going to tack onto my posts shit like, “it’s okay, OP, you can say x character.” Trust me, if I were talking about one character, I fucking would name drop them, don’t bring me into your fandom drama, I doubt I know or want to know who that anime guy is who looks like 12 other anime guys to me.

About Vespertine

You can call me that, Vespertine. I’d rather you didn’t go with Vesper, but as it is unfortunately so likely to happen, I won’t feed you to the dogs over it either. RPB Mun is also acceptable.

I’m alright with either she/her or he/him, they/them is also fine. Apparently, that was big enough clue-in for the poor reading comp crowd, so while I feel it is not of importance, I’m nonbinary, yes.

Late 30′s, chronically ill but still working adult with neurodivergence. I’m both busy and Busy, and always sick. This limits my brain power and ability to be here. I have an active RP blog that I won’t be sharing to keep responsible distance. That is always going to be my priority, it is my primary hobby.

Please, don’t tumblr message me totally random things if we don’t have that kind of relationship! I’m too ill and busy, and it really fucks my nerves to have a bunch of messages/have to suddenly interact socially with people. Don’t do it. Use my inbox, use the submit, comment on posts. I cannot do random messages of “hey” and so forth.

I only do written RP, don’t expect me to understand much of anything from tabletop. I’ve RPed for the last 23 years consistently, on every platform from AOL chats to forums to messengers and here. I also don’t do RP in discord, so I’m sorry, but I can’t advise you much on anything with a word count, except to stop it for serious RP. Other than that, I promise you that I’ve seen the trends, the drama, the fandoms. I can give a lot of advice and perspective on a wide range of topics, situations, and characters! When I don’t have a clue at all, I’ll try to do enough research to give you an answer.

Do I come off as a horrible, strict asshole? I do! I’m not going to say that I am just a shy bean who is more scared of you than you are me. I’m not. I’m honestly feral, but have common decency, compassion, and sense. All of which are lacking in the general RPC. So, if you can inbox/common/otherwise interact with anyone else on this site, you can totally handle me!

Honesty and openness are policies.

And in the spirit of that, I repeat; you can fucking do better, tumblr RPC!

[msclaritea]

"The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race.

The documents also shed light on how Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination.

The papers were discovered at the National Archives as part of the Guardian’s ongoing investigation into the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen’s consent, to secretly influence the content of British laws.

They reveal how in 1968, the Queen’s chief financial manager informed civil servants that “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners” to clerical roles in the royal household, although they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

It is unclear when the practice ended. Buckingham Palace refused to answer questions about the ban and when it was revoked. It said its records showed people from ethnic minority backgrounds being employed in the 1990s. It added that before that decade, it did not keep records on the racial backgrounds of employees.

Exemptions from the law

In the 1960s government ministers sought to introduce laws that would make it illegal to refuse to employ an individual on the grounds of their race or ethnicity.

The Queen has remained personally exempted from those equality laws for more than four decades. The exemption has made it impossible for women or people from ethnic minorities working for her household to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.

In a statement, Buckingham Palace did not dispute that the Queen had been exempted from the laws, adding that it had a separate process for hearing complaints related to discrimination. The palace did not respond when asked what this process consists of.

The exemption from the law was brought into force in the 1970s, when politicians implemented a series of racial and sexual equality laws to eradicate discrimination.

The official documents reveal how government officials in the 1970s coordinated with Elizabeth Windsor’s advisers on the wording of the laws.

The documents are likely to refocus attention on the royal family’s historical and current relationship with race.

Much of the family’s history is inextricably linked with the British empire, which subjugated people around the world. Some members of the royal family have also been criticised for their racist comments.

In March the Duchess of Sussex, the family’s first mixed-race member, said she had had suicidal thoughts during her time in the royal family, and alleged that a member of the family had expressed concern about her child’s skin colour.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex after attending the Queen’s birthday parade in 2018. Photograph: Niklas Halle’n/AFP/Getty Images

The allegation compelled her brother-in-law, Prince William, to declare that the royal family was “very much not” racist.

Queen’s consent

Some of the documents uncovered by the Guardian relate to the use of Queen’s consent, an obscure parliamentary mechanism through which the monarch grants parliament permission to debate laws that affect her and her private interests.

Buckingham Palace says the process is a mere formality, despite compelling evidence that the Queen has repeatedly used the power to secretly lobby ministers to amend legislation she does not like.

The newly discovered documents reveal how the Queen’s consent procedure was used to secretly influence the formation of the draft race relations legislation.

In 1968, the then home secretary, James Callaghan, and civil servants at the Home Office appear to have believed that they should not request Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the race relations bill until her advisers were satisfied it could not be enforced against her in the courts.

At the time, Callaghan wanted to expand the UK’s racial discrimination laws, which only prohibited discrimination in public places, so that they also prevented racism in employment or services such as housing.

A key proposal of the bill was the Race Relations Board, which would act as an ombudsman for discrimination complaints and could bring court proceedings against individuals or companies that maintained racist practices.

‘Not the practice to appoint coloured immigrants’

In February 1968, a Home Office civil servant, TG Weiler, summarised the progress of discussions with Lord Tryon, the keeper of the privy purse, who was responsible for managing the Queen’s finances, and other courtiers.

Tryon, he wrote, had informed them Buckingham Palace was prepared to comply with the proposed law, but only if it enjoyed similar exemptions to those provided to the diplomatic service, which could reject job applicants who had been resident in the UK for less than five years.

According to Weiler, Tryon considered staff in the Queen’s household to fall into one of three types of roles: “(a) senior posts, which were not filled by advertising or by any overt system of appointment and which would presumably be accepted as outside the scope of the bill; (b) clerical and other office posts, to which it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners; and (c) ordinary domestic posts for which coloured applicants were freely considered, but which would in any event be covered by the proposed general exemption for domestic employment.”

“They were particularly concerned,” Weiler wrote, “that if the proposed legislation applied to the Queen’s household it would for the first time make it legally possible to criticise the household. Many people do so already, but this has to be accepted and is on a different footing from a statutory provision.”

By March, Buckingham Palace was satisfied with the proposed law. A Home Office official noted that the courtiers “agreed that the way was now open for the secretary of state to seek the Queen’s consent to place her interest at the disposal of parliament for the purpose of the bill.”

The phrasing of the documents is highly significant, because it suggests that Callaghan and the Home Office officials believed it might not be possible to obtain the Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the racial equality law unless the monarch was assured of her exemption.

As a result of this exemption, the Race Relations Board that was given the task of investigating racial discrimination would send any complaints from the Queen’s staff to the home secretary rather than the courts.

In the 1970s, the government brought in three laws to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. Complainants in general were empowered to take their cases directly to the courts.

But staff in the royal household were specifically prevented from doing so, although the wording of the ban was sufficiently vague that the public might not have realised the monarch’s staff had been exempted.

A civil servant noted that the exemption in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act had been “acceptable to the palace, largely because it did not explicitly single out persons employed by Her Majesty in her personal capacity for special exception” while still removing them from its scope.

The exemption was extended to the present day when in 2010 the Equality Act replaced the 1976 Race Relations Act, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and the 1970 Equal Pay Act. For many years, critics have regularly pointed out that the royal household employed few black, Asian or minority-ethnic people.

In 1990 the journalist Andrew Morton reported in the Sunday Times that “a black face has never graced the executive echelons of royal service – the household and officials” and “even among clerical and domestic staff, there is only a handful of recruits from ethnic minorities”.

The following year, the royal researcher Philip Hall published a book, Royal Fortune, in which he cited a source close to the Queen confirming that there were no non-white courtiers in the palace’s most senior ranks.

In 1997 the Palace admitted to the Independent that it was not carrying out an officially recommended policy of monitoring staff numbers to ensure equal opportunities.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “The royal household and the sovereign comply with the provisions of the Equality Act, in principle and in practice. This is reflected in the diversity, inclusion and dignity at work policies, procedures and practices within the royal household.

“Any complaints that might be raised under the act follow a formal process that provides a means of hearing and remedying any complaint.” The palace did not respond when asked if the monarch was subject to this act in law."