#think beyond therapyspeak

[infinitysisters]

“My case is not that the nation state is the only answer to the problems of modern government, but that it is the only answer that has proved itself.

We may feel tempted to experiment with other forms of political order. But experiments on this scale are dangerous, since nobody knows how to predict or to reverse their results.

The French, Russian, and Nazi Revolutions were bold experiments; but in each case they led to the collapse of legal order, to mass murder at home, and to belligerence abroad.

The wise policy is to accept the arrangements, however imperfect, that have evolved through custom and inheritance, to improve them by small adjustments, but not to jeopardize them by large-scale alterations the consequences of which nobody can really envisage.

The case for this approach was unanswerably set before us by Burke in his Reflections on the French Revolution, and subsequent history has repeatedly confirmed his view of things.

The lesson that we should draw, therefore, is that since the nation state has proved to be a stable foundation of democratic government and a secular jurisdiction, we ought to improve it, to adjust it, even to dilute it, but not to throw it away."

— Roger Scruton

[system-of-a-feather]

Honestly, I think a thing worth noting - at least for us - is that sometimes therapyspeak isn't "therapyspeak" in the sense of it being used intentionally or as an alternative to expressing emotion / discussing emotion and feelings and thoughts directly / organically, as much as it is the only way some people - like us - have ever been able to express or had it modeled / been taught how to express emotions.

This isn't relating to the anon that mentioned it as much as it is a coincidence that it came up in my personal life around the same time and all, but like.... I talk about my feelings chronically sounding like a therapist sometimes to the point of frustrating those around me, but I honestly don't have any other means of expressing it and I find a lot of people struggle to fathom and understand that because I think a lot of people go to therapy and learn the gargon as a means of regulating their maladaptive ways of expressing emotions

But may it be autism, schizoid, or general trauma stuff, (yes, its all three) I don't and never really have expressed emotion other than annoyance, surprise, and excitement in an authentic and raw way UNTIL I went to therapy and found ways to put words to how I feel; but to express it outside of in written or verbal words?? It's still extremely hard for me to fathom how to do. How is one supposed to cry when they're sad? Yell when they're mad? Smile and be gleeful when excited? How is one supposed to externalize their feelings without contriving it?

Emotional expression for me - beyond the written / verbal presentation of it - has always been a performance. I'm an "extremely expressive" person at work and in certain environments because I Enjoy That Performance, but its still and always had been a performance.

Therapyspeak is not really a choice or an alternative other than to having zero expression, especially when I am dysregulated and its just... something I've been thinking about lately.

I guess it does make me an excellent communicator in less-intimate and personal relationships and with people who have a less personal / more uneven relationship dynamic (boss - employee, blogger - follower) so it isn't all bad, but honestly I still really don't know how to "feel" and express my feelings in a way that people perceive and feel as "authentic" unless I'm like.... XIV honestly, but even XIV is limited to just annoyance, contempt, etc

If anyone wants to add on or comment feel free ^^

[actually-eldritch]

She's holding him on a leash in public, the leash is attached to a collar around his neck but the scene isn't sexual. Whether or not they are getting gratification from this is simply not visible; they don't appear to be revelling in attention—the morality of such aside—they are visibly doing their own thing.

In the comments of a post someone pipes up a highly anticipated response. “People in public didn't consent to your scene! ...” and continues with its inane repetition of puritan propaganda translated in to therapyspeak.

“Nobody consented to seeing your comment, and yet here you are.” says another.

I want to answer, but the comment is years old; at this point it's better to fall on nebulous ears rather than to be shot at any particular target.

So I'd say,

Do you also believe people wearing cat ears and tails are preforming public sex acts because they (people wearing tails and ears) are akin to furries and—god forbid—some of them get off to it? Choose carefully now; children of their own accord and volition wear these things, and mascots are widely deemed family friendly.

Did you know suit fetishes are a thing? Well they are, and I know many people that have them. Does this fact make suits sexual too now? Is a professional conference a sex act to you because of this? And, if it's not, why is this different to you?

Can you not comprehend the idea that something can be inherently neutral and it's our approach and our feelings that paint the tone of their usage in any given circumstance? Is it totally beyond you that people can fill their glass with a variety of feelings and reactions for a variety of reasons and that they don't owe it to you to beam it in your head instantly and telepathically nor to hide from society all because Joe Random might get a bit squicked and call—however ineffectively—to summon a mob?

You might think me obtuse but sincerely, where do you draw the line. Perhaps he needs domineering to be alright; any sexual association if present could have come after that need, to deal with the vicious self-loathing that came with being a grown ass man with socially unacceptable needs. Or maybe it started as a sexual thing because his subconscious couldn't convince him to allow himself what he needed if he didn't feel like he simply wanted it. Or maybe it's totally nonsexual. Or maybe it's more complicated.

Or maybe it doesn't matter and you should mind your godamned business, if only because what you have been taught or lead to believe or otherwise convinced yourself was an inherently sexual act does not actually involve any of the direct acts that constitute sex inherently.

And in allowing yourself to believe otherwise you justify to yourself adding your power to the reinforcement of the censorship of human beings existing as they are.

And in doing so you forget yourself, you forget the rainbow flag in your icon and it's history. You forget the fight queers have fought and continue to fight to not have our existence viewed as inherently sexual as a means to scrub us out of public spaces.

We're QUEER because we're WEIRD. To say “We're HERE and we're QUEER” is to say our existence is WEIRD TO YOU but YOU'VE JUST GOTTA DEAL WITH IT.

You cannot simply sweep away “degenerates of society”, and you sound no different to me than the guy that openly states that and, if anything, you're less self-aware—and that's more dangerous because you'll share your beliefs with people as though your words come from a place of concern rather than reactive disgust you're failing to control.

So I'll humble you with a reminder that if you feel comfortable assigning non-sexual things as sexual purely because you know that sometimes or even usually it is involved in sex, that this will arguably be true of your interests too no matter how ""clean"" they seem to you. Someonelse could argue that you're a public sex freak for simply being who you are, and you contribute to this issue by helping spread this ideology.

Because it's also not that different from the arguements that make me feel violently uncomfortable being crippled in public either; I see how people react. Do you think they should be able to remove me too, just because I make them a little uncomfortable?

Try thinking for yourself for a change; start by asking yourself why these words are really leaving your mouth and where they came from. Is this really who you want to be?

[fromthemouthofkings]

And I think the other thing that keeps this from feeling flat–or from straying into the saccharine realm of, say, therapyspeak or morality plays or Victorian children's literature–is that in Tolkien's work, there are always sacrifices, even if you do everything right. You can be good and decent and kind and destroy the ring, and Sauron is defeated, but the elves still have to flee. Frodo saves the Shire, but he still fades. Finrod kills the wolf and Luthien saves her love and Beren steals the jewel from Morgoth's crown, but Finrod is mauled and Luthien gives up her immortal life and Beren returns only for a short while, before passing beyond the world for that permanent and final time.

They don't get a happily ever after–that isn't promised, not to anyone–but they still get that bittersweet joy mingled with sadness, a triumph over the darkness, however temporary it may be. And that feels more honest to me than the promise that everything will be alright in the end. As a world, Arda is actually quite grim and pessimistic–a philosphical position no doubt influenced by Tolkien's positionality related to his class and national identity, to Modernist thought, to his Catholic faith, to living through two world wars. The world is marred. All shall fade–but what we do here still matters, and how we do it still matters. This spot of light in the darkness is important and worth fighting for.

A thing about LOTR that I actually find quite charming and endearing is that a lot of our protagonists are so good, wise, thoughtful, articulate, poetic, kind and emotionally astute, they are constantly asking those wiser than them for council, discussing what weighs upon their hearts, supporting each other, reciting songs, making Very Serious Plans and listening to each other–they are so Good and emotionally literate that it almost, at an uncharitable reading, starts to feel a little bit like Ye Olde therapyspeak.

Except it never hits, for me at least, that threshold of "he would not fucking say that" such that it breaks my suspension of disbelief, which is what makes therapyspeak so annoying to me personally in writing. Partly I think it's that there are plenty of other characters who inhabit this world that clearly don't talk and behave this way, so our protagonists stand out, but it feels intentional–but also I think it's just because it feels true to the characters that they would fucking say that. They would make these choices. And it's just very interesting and comforting to read a story that is actually full of very kind, decent people. Our protagonists are not always perfect, not always in agreement with each other–but they are allowed by the narrative to struggle really really hard against impossible odds while remaining good, kind, honorable people, and they aren't forced to sacrifice that for the sake of doing the right thing. Tolkien is, in general, very very leery of the idea that you can put in bad means and get out a good end result–he emphatically does not believe in using the devil's own power against him. To a one, everyone who tries to do that fails because their choices end up biting them in their own ass.

And Tolkien is realistic about the fact that those who choose to hold true might be dooming themselves to death or failure by doing so. He's honest about the fact that it's fucking hard. I don't think anyone could read Frodo's journey in particular and come away with the idea that choosing to do the kind, decent thing is easy, or glamorous, or destined to automatically succeed. But these characters are allowed to keep faith anyway, to hold out hope, to do the kind, decent thing trusting that, even if they don't succeed, it matters that they tried.

And yeah, it's oversimplified. In the hands of a lesser writer, I think this world could end up feeling very flat. Like oh, we have our heroes who are good people, and the bad guys who are ontologically evil and a lot of boring sometimes-misguided ordinary folk in the middle. And there are major criticisms to be made for sure–like how the orcs are handled, for instance.

But still, it's comforting, it's aspirational. It's escapist in a hopeful kind of way, a gentle kind of way–self-aware, I mean, that this goodness isn't destined to win, but–wouldn't it be nice? What if we tried–what if we hoped–what if we charged out and did our best, to whatever end? What if that was enough?

I don't know that I believe it, exactly, but something something about how humans need the little lies to help them believe the big ones. Show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. Maybe it's a lie–but it's a good one.

[genericpuff]

same anon as last ask. I also have to note: i dont think there are any good reasons for domestic abuse. there are none. you said hades didnt deserve to get slapped but then had previously said "as if the victim of the slap wasn’t a guy who was just as if not more abusive than she was in that relationship in his own fucked up way". reading that it does feel like you are saying he deserved to be slap or trying to justify it. maybe you arent tho? btw i dont give a shit about that man lmao

No, and you're right! But that's always the assumption people make whenever defenses for Minthe are made - that by empathizing with Minthe, or by pointing out that Hades was just as shitty in the relationship as she was, you're excusing domestic violence and abuse - and they're very... strawmen assumptions, IMO.

(TW: abuse)

The issue with the Minthe debate is that a lot of people fail to hold every other abusive character in the comic to the same standards they hold Minthe, and they fail to recognize everything that led up to the slap.

Like, when Hecate slapped the shit out of Hades for being into Persephone, where were people then? It was played off for laughs.

But then Minthe slaps Hades once during an emotional breakdown and all of a sudden she's an irredeemable villain.

No one deserves to be physically or verbally assaulted whether or not mental health is involved. But when mental health is a factor in cases like Minthe - which it is because she was initially designed with BPD until Rachel retconned it on Discord - it's one of those "it's a reason, not an excuse" sort of deals. If LO Minthe was being written by someone who actually cared about mental health representation, she would have been given the same opportunity to grow and learn from her mistakes and past transgressions just as Hades and Persephone have been given.

Instead, Minthe is a villain for having a moment of cruelty during a breakdown, and Hades and Persephone never seem to have to own up to the shit they do. Abuse is never okay, but LO is essentially saying "abuse is okay if you're cute and rich and if you make funny meme faces while you do it."

Characters like Minthe are WAY more interesting than Hades and Persephone BECAUSE of their flaws, she isn't peddled as perfect, she's real. Minthe and characters like her are raw and genuine, they don't feel like they're putting on some act of "niceness", they feel like people, people who make mistakes and fuck up and suffer consequences for their decisions and their action. I've seen a lot of people empathize with and enjoy Minthe's character simply because they do see themselves in her, they see her vulnerabilities and her flaws and her fears and recognize that she's not perfect. Some people truly are irredeemable beyond repair, but Minthe... Minthe still had a fighting chance. We had that chance when she first dumped Thetis, it was so cathartic to see her take control of her own situation and healing... but then RS backtracked on it immediately because she accidentally made the character who she knew she wanted Persephone to turn into a plant way too empathetic. So instead she opted to dial up Minthe's shittiness to 1584923108 in order to get her audience to hate her - and to ensure anyone who did still empathize with her look abusive by extension.

She didn't need or deserve 'another chance' from Hades, or Hecate, or the other people who she had already hurt countless times. But she does deserve to give herself the chance to grow and learn and move forward to something better. We all do. It's why forgiveness is one of the most essential first steps in growth.

I'm tired of reading about H x P "forgiving" themselves for what they do with false platitudes of TherapySpeak. Because they never learn, they keep acting like shitheads and much of their behavior comes across as fake and disingenuous, like they're just putting on a show. And that's when they actually acknowledge their behavior, more often than not their bullshit is celebrated.

I don't want to celebrate abuse. I want to see character development. You can't develop or grow if you're deluded into thinking you're not doing anything wrong. Persephone and Hades have nowhere to go. Minthe had an entire life ahead of her away from Hades and Thetis... and we were robbed of the chance to witness it.

But that's just my two cents.