#trigger warning for animal abuse and deaths

[slushyseals]

All videos showing people removing barnacles from sea turtles are not rescue videos, they're animal abuse- even if the video is "real".

Please report these videos as abuse and stop letting these people profit off rescue videos

There are many videos where the "rescuer" is actually the one who attached the barnacles in the first place (some you can even see the hot glue underneath as they pull off the pieces). Unless you see the animal in a rescue center with a vet tech treating it, that animal is being abused. How so?

The reason those growths are there is likely something far more dangerous that needs to be addressed. Healthy turtles do not get this level of growth on their shells. So if you see something like this, it’s a sign that this turtle is unwell and has been sick for a while. Scraping off the growths doesn’t solve the underlying issue. Also, doing so without any tools or pain medication can be extremely painful and stressful for the turtle. Often with this level of growth, barnacles will have borrowed through the turtle’s shell into live tissue. And just ripping them off like this without the expertise of a medical professional can do more harm than good. Not to mention that it is WAY stressful and not what the turtle needs most. Imagine if you had a the stomach flu or food poisoning and someone decided to “help” you by first detangling your hair, popping pimples, and exfoliating you when what you really need is fluids and someone to handle you very gently. It’s focusing on the wrong problem first and can worsen the underlying condition.

If you see an animal "rescue" video, always think- how did they find this animal? (Is it likely they just found an animal- or did they put an animal in danger to play hero for clout and ad profits? How did this animal get into this terrible situation in the first place? (The number of giant snakes found wrapped around a dog is pretty unbelievable- usually it's a person abusing two animals they own.) How is this person running into so many animals in dangerous situations? (Especially when you look at their other videos and they reuse the same animals to "save".) I am outside daily and I don't come across anywhere near as many animals needing help like these content farm channels.

Even when videos are real, if they are not a trained rescue worker they are often doing more harm than good! The people kidnapping tortoises and "saving" them by throwing them out into lakes and rivers might have just killed that animal. Many tortoises are land animals and aren't built for swimming like sea turtles, they can easily drown! A surprising number of people don't understand seals need to rest on shore, and end up killing babies and harassing adults by chasing them into the water. Baby seals can't swim for long distances, and chasing them into the water means their mom won't be able to find the baby after she's done hunting fish- the baby will slowly starve to death if actual rescue workers do not intervene!

Heck, some people have found perfectly healthy and happy baby seals waiting for their moms on the beach, but because the person doesn't understand that the mom isn't there 100% of the time think the baby has been abandoned; a man kidnapped a pup when the rescue wouldn't send someone out to get the animal which not only hurt that pup whom he caused to be an orphan, but now that pup is taking up resources that could have been given to babies that actually needed it. Rescues don't have infinite resources and I don't want to put to words what can happen when they reach maximum capacity. (The guy was also very lucky he didn't get bit- seal bite infections are much worse than regular bites!) So many others people mistreat because they don't know better, like the baby seal that had people dumping water and ice on it like it was Free Willy. Or trying to feed them sandwiches. Both of these actions make life worse for the animal.

That video of a dog as a service animal rehabilitating a baby seal? That was made by a couple idiots who likely scared the mother off and caused the baby to starve to death just so they could make their intentionally misinformative video knowing full well they were lieing! Dogs should be leashed and kept far away from any seal as they are a reason many seals are horrifically mauled to death each year! Videos like this are absolutely vile as they misinform the public who own dogs and may see a seal on the beach and think, "Oh! My dog is a good boy and can go play with the water puppy! They enjoy that!" Please do not do this! Seals shouldn't be encouraged to associate with or like dogs, that puts puts in danger not only of cross contamination with things that can make them very sick, but you don't know the temperament of any and every dog that seal will see in its lifetime. All it takes is one- and there are plenty of dogs who act fine around human children and vicious around a random seal they find. The babies don't even have a chance against a full grown dog! Their ONLY chance is that situation never happens; keep your dog leashed, because it will see that seal and shoot off before you can stop it. As well behaved as your dog is on the best day, it has free will and at the end of the day is a dog and will be an animal.

Let's face it, most of us don't know the proper care of any and every wild animal we could run into and can only guess when faced with a genuinely unexpected situation. Any legitimate rescue video should start with the person contacting the local rescue to ask the experienced and knowledgeable staff what should be done if they themselves are not a trained rescuer. Often times the animal is perfectly fine, humans just see something they don't expect and misread what's going on causing a situation that didn't previously exist. Other times if there is an issue, the rescue will instruct the person what to do- which may be to keep an eye on the animal until trained rescuers can arrive. And lastly, please be aware of fake animal rescue channels and report any videos you see and inform others about this so these channels stop being praised and profiting from animal abuse.

[deadrayg2mf]

Wed to the Lich (Arranged Monster Mates #8) by Layla Fae

Okay, I went into this knowing this was not the first book in the series but it didn't seem that the series may be required to be read in order as it is a collab series between Layla Fae, Eden Ember, and Cara Wylde and it wasn't recommended to be read in order - however, now having finished this I realize I may need to start from book 1 to assuage some issues I had regarding world building info. Also... that lich is just so hot... I needed to know more about him when he was what drew me to this. Which brings me to the covers!! The entire series has amazing cover art, it ranks right up there with SJ Sander's cover art that I love.

This is currently a series of 16 novellas between the above-mentioned authors, Wed to the Lich being dead in the middle at #8. It was a total of 208 pages and I read it within a quick day at work. It was a simple story which does involve triggers involving anorexia nervosa, past abuse, and animal death.

Basically, this is a world in which an event called The Shift has occurred, and from what was explained in this book alone it sounds like that was basically the... dimensional overlap of the human world and monster world where parts of the monster world ended up being transplanted into the world we know? Hopefully that is some semblance of correct as it's how I understood it. In this world, monsters rule over humans in most areas and if a human is wanting to get some cash for their family or, if you're our FL May, trying to get out of a bad situation you can sign up at the Temple and get married off to a monster.

This is exactly what May commits to as she decides to escape the abusive orphanage director who haunts her thoughts when it comes to beauty and its relation to her size and food consumption. How well this goes about depicting the troubles that come with experiencing an eating disorder I could not say, so I will leave that up to your interpretation if you choose to read. May gets married to Virgil, the all fearing Lich who can suck out your life force with just a look.

The following story revolves around May's struggle with food, her inner demons, and being beautiful for Virgil who is also struggling with how May views him and fearing that one day she may come to fear him and try to leave. In the end, they end up working out their troubles with each other's help and are a lovely couple, no matter what those town villagers think. I liked both May and Virgil's characters, he was really checking the marks for me as both loving and caring but strict and forceful when he felt necessary. By the end, May had come into who she was as a person when she wasn't tormented by her past.

My main issue comes from how I felt finishing the book. I had read 208 pages of what essentially felt like it had amounted to nothing. Unfortunately, for all that happened, there wasn't enough deep diving into characters, relationships, or true plot that it felt worthwhile. It was one of those where I was shocked it was so long for how much I got from it. I think it's a really cool story, I love a Lich, and I love a FL battling her inner demons and unafraid to seek help from another in order to do so. The way May was willing to just be blunt about what was going on versus other characters who might hide things that lead to a (beloved but sometimes overdone) miscommunication was rather refreshing.

I think I would have really enjoyed this story had it been more fleshed out. The writing was good, but the content felt unsubstantial. For all of that, I'll give it a 5/10. Mid but enjoyable and full of potential.

Would I read again? No, but not because it was bad. Just because there wouldn't feel like a point.

Would I recommend? Yeah, I am gonna go and try out the series from the first book - Wed to the Ice Giant also by Layla Fae - and then pry check out at least on book by each of the other authors. If I don't like it - you'll hear about it :)

[ninadove]

Someone take my phone away from me

[alttheloco]

I’m gonna be bitchy.

I fuckin hate it when people post things about cute little animals dying without any sort of cw. Like catch me crying over cats that I’ve never seen before just bc I was caught off guard by a sudden rlly sad death

[aveline-shepard]

I’m seeing a lot of posts about Laika, the dog launched into orbit on Sputnik 2, and frankly find the romanticization of her orbital flight to be crass and ill-informed at best. She was a street dog who had no idea what was happening, went through inhumane preparatory training, is documented to have been extraordinarily stressed during her entire journey, and died a horrific death due to panic and overheating. She and the other animals selected as candidates and/or sent to space were never able to consent to their training or journeys, and while their contributions may have been important, to sanitize these narratives is to do a great disservice to them and to ourselves. Laika and the other dogs who were chosen as potential candidates for orbit were subject to inhumane conditions that terrified them.

An excerpt from the Smithsonian Magazine (emphasis mine):

The Soviet canine recruiters began their quest with a herd of female stray dogs because females were smaller and apparently more docile. Initial tests determined obedience and passivity. Eventually, canine finalists lived in tiny pressurized capsules for days and then weeks at a time. The doctors also checked their reactions to changes in air pressure and to loud noises that would accompany liftoff. Testers fitted candidates with a sanitation device connected to the pelvic area. The dogs did not like the devices, and to avoid using them, some retained bodily waste, even after consuming laxatives. However, some adapted…Three days before the scheduled liftoff, Laika entered her constricted travel space that allowed for only a few inches of movement. Newly cleaned, armed with sensors, and fitted with a sanitation device, she wore a spacesuit with metal restraints built-in. On November 3 at 5:30 a.m., the ship lifted off with G-forces reaching five times normal gravity levels…The noises and pressures of flight terrified Laika: Her heartbeat rocketed to triple the normal rate, and her breath rate quadrupled.

Per the New Yorker:

In 2002, forty-five years after the fact, Russian scientists revealed that she had died, probably in agony, after only a few hours in orbit. In the rush to put another satellite into space, the Soviet engineers had not had time to test Sputnik 2’s cooling system properly; the capsule had overheated. It remained in orbit for five months with Laika inside, then plunged into the atmosphere and burned up over the Caribbean, a space coffin turned shooting star. Turkina quotes one of the scientists assigned to Laika’s program: “The more time passes, the more I’m sorry about it. We shouldn’t have done it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog.”

Whether or not her death was justified is up for debate; there are certainly very scientifically valid arguments for testing dangerous chemical levels, procedures, products, and experimental technology on non-humans before graduating to human test subjects built on the foundational assumption that it is most important to preserve human life above animal life, and that the ends justify the means. However, my point is not to argue whether or not animal testing is justified in any or all circumstances, it is merely to say: please learn and remember the full, unflinching, factual story. It adds insult to injury to frame her as an excitable explorer who bravely made an enormous sacrifice, rather than a dog selected for her sweet, docile temperament who was functionally tortured and horrifically killed and never knew why.

[meret118]

Both sides are NOT the same.

[little-lights-in-the-sky]

Not really seeing it anywhere, so I figured I'd put the warning out there:

Guardians of the Galaxy vol 3 trigger warning for body horror, animal abuse, especially a creepy combination of the two, and animal character death. There are multiple animals on screen that are characterized, speak, are portrayed sympathically, and have disturbing body modifications that were not done with consent.

Trying to to include spoilers, but be prepared going in. I wasn't, and it almost ruined the movie for me. This movie was more intense in this aspect than I expected.

[thebeeshaveknees]

Shigeo stared at the test. The math test he took two days ago. His test he got 100% on.

Mob could count on one hand the amount of math tests he'd scored perfectly on - and ironically enough, they were all back when every problem could be solved with counting on one hand.

The success made him nauseous, he felt his powers writhe a little harder under his skin.

He watched his math teacher walk back up to the front of the room, his eyes alight and with a proud smile on his face. "This past test had a class average of 84%, eight percent more than the average of last test!" He cheered, and his eyes met Mob's for a split second before darting away. He felt his stomach churn. "You all did so well, Congratulations!" He clapped his hands as he said it, and Mob flinched at the sound.

The teacher kept talking, moving on with the lesson while everyone tucked their tests in their bags. Mob stared at the 100% in bright red marker for another few moments before moving to do the same.

When class let out, Shigeo went straight to Spirits and Such. The building was like a lifeline for the past half week, not that he'd admit that because of the stupid reason.

He went up the stairs two at a time and then opened the door without knocking. Reigen was sitting at his desk, and his eyes met Mob's when he entered. "Right on time!" He said, the same as he had yesterday, and the day before, and almost every other day. "There aren't any appointments today, but since sixty percent of our business comes from walk-ins, there's still hope!" He declared, before going back to what was probably a photo exorcism from the consistent dragging and clicking of his mouse.

Shigeo dropped his backpack on the floor beside his desk before he sat down and pulled out his test.

"Shishou?"

"Yes?" Reigen immediately turned his full attention to Mob, and he swallowed.

"I got a math test back today…"

Reigen's smile shrunk, his eyebrows scrunching in pity. "Oh." His expression picked back up. "Well, bad marks aren't the end of the world - math can be tough, but not understanding it doesn't mean you can't still--"

"It's not that." Mob interrupted, because he knew Reigen was never upset by it. "I got a hundred on it."

Reigen nearly fell out of his chair, the old plastic making a concerning creak as he righted himself. "A hundred?!" He was out of his desk and looking over the paper on Mob's with all the disbelief and wonder of someone who was just told that God existed and he worked at the local MobDonalds. "As in One Hundred percent?!" Flipping through the three stapled pages of the test, a smile growing wider and wider on his face.

Mob wanted to smile too - he didn't, but he wanted to. He looked up at his master, waiting for his final comments.

"A hundred percent - even if you cheated, this is amazing, Mob." Reigen said, and he looked so happy for him. "Whatever you did, keep doing it." His posture straightened, and with a firm hand on his shoulder. "The trick about school is, it isn't to teach you how to read fast or multiply and divide negative and theoretical numbers or all that nonsense - it's to teach you to learn. Nowadays with the internet, you can get information anywhere, but once you learn how to understand and retain that information, the world is yours." He said wisely, ruffling his hair at the end. "It seems like you've figured out how you learn, Mob."

How Mob learns. How he learns.

His math teacher slapping him across the face every time he got a question wrong, telling him he was a waste of effort.

He got 100% on his math test, for the first time in years.

Making him apologize on his knees to the tree out the window for providing him oxygen.

He finally got a good mark on a test.

"It seems like you've figured out how you learn, Mob."

Oh.

Everyone laughing as he shakily did long division on the chalkboard.

So he needed them to be…

"In this world, you are worth less than trash."

So he deserved it.

Milk on his head, blood on his hands, creek water in his shoes.

So he's worth more there.

"Mob?"

He looked up at his teacher, who still had a warm hand on his shoulder.

Red blood on his white shirt, red ink on his white paper.

"You're right, master."

[suncaptor]

I watched In Bruge by the same director and loved it, but I'm apprehensive about Banshees because it looks like one of those films that ends giving you that terrible emptiness in your gut. Watch, or Pass?

I would say that the latter is true. It is a good movie and it has a lot of beauty and humour to it but it is also like. Full of despair and apprehension and self destruction. I do not regret watching it and I enjoy it a lot! But it is a difficult watch in some aspects & not a feel good movie.

[raviniaraven]

(Employee blocked out bc I don't wanna harass these people)

Hey if you're at Minneapolis Pride today or tomorrow and see this booth, I'm not gonna flat out say "don't watch the video", but I'm gonna do what they're not and warn you that the video in question is graphic gore clips of animal abuse. If you can watch that without it affecting any existing trauma responses, a dollar is a dollar I guess. But a lot of people have traumatic responses to seeing unexpected real violence and deserve the warning.

This isn't to say anything negative to vegans or vegetarians, this is to warn folks about being shown horrible violent clips of animal death, because that is a shitty ploy for any group to do, regardless of intent.

[firedragon1321]

I'm Surviving My College Class by Making a Madame Bovary Pokemon AU

Amongst other things.

For people who have never taken a college literature class, Madame Bovary is a novel about a woman who marries the stupidest doctor in all the land, has two different affairs, never finds fulfillment, buys a bunch of shit to make herself feel richer, drags her family into debt, and then commits suicide to escape it. Her husband never figures out even half of it until the last chapter.

I'm going under the assumption that- in this AU- most people only have enough money to care for one Pokemon. Exception being the Bovary family- as Emma's Pokemon came with her into the marriage- and a character I believe could afford to feed two.

Emma Bovary- F Eevee -> Leafeon. She popped up on the farm fairly recently, eating whatever she could find. Emma hoped she would become a Sylveon or Espeon- perhaps an Umbreon under the full moon. None of these things happen because she moves to Yonville (that's the town's actual canonical name). It is known for its agriculture, so Eevee- influenced by this environment- evolves into a Leafeon. She becomes yet another symbol of the life Emma hates, and she eventually disowns the Pokemon. Brokenhearted, Leafeon's leaves slowly turn orange. Unlike her mistress, she survives (because I am not that evil) but is a broken-hearted- if rare- autumn variant. However...

Bethe Bovary- F Leafeon (autumn variant). This is the same one mentioned above, who returns and protects her mistress's daughter. Bethe is a baby in the actual book, but in this AU, I wanted to go a little further in time to her childhood. She appreciates Leafeon more than her mother did. While her leaves never heal, her heart does.

Charles Bovary- M Slowpoke -> Slowbro. All you need to know about this man is he is an insufferable dumbass, who can't even tell his wife is cheating on him and leaking all their money. He heard while in medical school that Slowpoke is good for treating illness with its psychic powers (source- the rumor mill, made of other students). Because he's too much of an idiot to figure out trade evolutions, he couldn't evolve Slowpoke into a Slowking. Slowbro is cheerful and helpful, but kinda dumb, and definitely useless in medical situations.

Lheureux- M Alolan Meowth. The only winner in the story, a task he succeeds at by putting the Bovarys in serious debt. A Meowth was the only Pokemon that made any sense. He mostly sulks around, playing with whatever coins his Trainer happens to drop. I chose Alolan Meowth because you're telling me this man wouldn't have a Dark-type? Speaking of...

Rodolphe: F Liepard and M Murkrow. This guy's just an asshole. He's affair number two, and leads Emma along until he realizes that she's a human with flaws. Liepard is his main Pokemon- a former show mon who looks pretty and fierce, but doesn't battle well. Murkrow is used for delivering letters and packages.

Homais: M Loudred. These two literally have the same personality. Loudred agrees with everything Homais says. Even if you can't understand him, he makes sure everyone in Yonville can hear his approval. Kinda like Slowbro, but Slowbro is benign while this guy can break windows.

Leon: M Vulpix -> Ninetales. Affair number 1. He was hard to pick a Pokemon for. But I was thinking of Fire-types (because of a certain Galarian champion) and selected for Vulpix. This man believes he's a romantic, but is actually rather self-absorbed. He still manages to treat Vulpix well. There's a point where he nopes off to another town, where he comes across a Fire Stone. By the time he comes back into the story, Vulpix has evolved. He is furiously protective of his Trainer.

Hippolyte: M Bonsly -> Sudowoodo. Not a major character, but I LOVE therapy Pokemon. In the actual book, Hippolyte is subject to a surgery to cure club foot, despite being able to walk fine. It goes wonky and he loses his leg. It is shortly after this that he encounters Bonsly. With love and care, it becomes Sudowoodo. Sudowoodo serves as a makeshift cane, helping his Trainer get around.

Beggar: M Gastly. Also not a major character, but I wanted to give him a Ghost-type to sing creepy songs with.

[jjammy-skies]

Ppl are heavily recommending scavengers reign and I fully have to agree that it is so so 100% worth the watch it actually changed me as a person. I have NOT seen enough people give explicit enough warnings about the gore and death in it (including towards animals/animal adjacent creatures). I say this as someone who's never gotten uncomfortable with animated gore, I was genuinely triggered by the details of a few scenes. There are also incredibly realistic depictions of some forms of abuse and mental breakdowns/mind breaks. This is not to say it's bad at all, it's so so beautiful and the way it animates these things is immaculate. It handles all of its topics with such precision and care and it's just so good. Just please go into it with the expectation that it WILL make you more than a little uncomfortable and prepare accordingly. If you don't end up that upset, at least you were prepared for it if you did. Be safe while watching I love you all mwa mwa.

[saintsenara]

Riddle’s extremely fearful and aggressive reaction to Dumbledore when he thinks he’s a doctor (and the fact that he assumes this at all and believes he is being lied to) has some pretty dark implications (which of course no one follows up on). Do you have thoughts?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

and yes - this has occurred to me too... which means that my thoughts come with a trigger warning for the sexual abuse of a child, and are under the cut.

the relevant scene in canon is, of course, this:

“I am Professor Dumbledore.” “Professor?” repeated Riddle. He looked wary. “Is that like doctor? What are you here for? Did she get you in to have a look at me?”  He was pointing at the door through which Mrs. Cole had just left. “No, no,” said Dumbledore, smiling.  “I don’t believe you,” said Riddle. “She wants me looked at, doesn’t she? Tell the truth!”  He spoke the last three words with a ringing force that was almost shocking. It was a command, and it sounded as though he had given it many times before. His eyes had widened and he was glaring at Dumbledore, who made no response except to continue smiling pleasantly. After a few seconds Riddle stopped glaring, though he looked, if anything, warier still. “Who are you?” “I have told you. My name is Professor Dumbledore and I work at a school called Hogwarts. I have come to offer you a place at my school - your new school, if you would like to come.”  Riddle’s reaction to this was most surprising. He leapt from the bed and backed away from Dumbledore, looking furious.  “You can’t kid me! The asylum, that’s where you’re from, isn’t it? ‘Professor,’ yes, of course - well, I’m not going, see? That old cat’s the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they’ll tell you!”

the surface-level reading of this scene - which is clearly what the text wants us to go for - is that riddle thinks he's about to be institutionalised for being "mad" - and, specifically, that he thinks that what dumbledore has been told is his "madness" is actually his magic.

[he is also clearly meant to be read as panicking a little bit that he's fucked around torturing his fellow children and is now about to find out...]

that riddle accepts he's a wizard so easily - and that he is so reassured by dumbledore agreeing that he's not mad - is something the text wants us to read as sinister. him immediately describing himself as "special" is set up as a precursor to the adult voldemort's delusions of grandeur - which the entire arc of the series, ending in his death as an ordinary man, is designed to undermine.

but i've always disliked this reading. the eleven-year-old riddle - a magical child raised around non-magical people - is objectively correct to describe his powers as "special" [in that they make him identifiably different from the crowd] within the context in which he lives. the word choice is nowhere near as deep as dumbledore decides - he's clearly known since he was very young that he's a wizard, but he didn't have the precise language to describe this fundamental part of himself until dumbledore offered it; prior to that, "special" is a perfectly reasonable alternative term.

and, in always knowing that he's a wizard, he also knows that he doesn't have a mental illness - but he must also know that this is something it's near impossible for him to prove.

in the real world, if i spoke to a patient who told me:

“I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to.”

then i would be correct to describe them as experiencing psychosis. and i might - depending on their other symptoms - have reasonable cause to admit them [voluntarily or not] for psychiatric treatment.

riddle is - of course - demonstrably not psychotic. but it's not unreasonable that mrs cole would assume he is - the world she lives in, as a muggle [even if she's a religious one], is one in which people do not possess the ability to move objects or control animals with their minds, and if one of her charges is convinced that he can, then she's justified in seeking medical intervention.

[that psychiatric treatment in the 1930s can be described without exaggeration as inhumane is another matter...]

which is to say, i think we can easily suppose that mrs cole has - prior to dumbledore's arrival - succeeded in having riddle "looked at", and that the idea that he's mentally ill and should be committed to an asylum has been mentioned before. i think most of us would be instinctively [and angrily] wary of doctors if this happened to us, regardless of how nice the doctors in question were.

and maybe that's all there is to it.

and maybe it isn't...

in the doylist text, the eleven-year-old riddle's personality is the way it is because he's the villain of the series. where harry is preternaturally capable, even as a child, of all the things the series defines as admirable - above all, enduring difficulty without complaint - riddle is preternaturally incapable of them. he's meant to come across as unambiguously sinister - and the fact that the text repeatedly emphasises that he has control over his unpleasant traits invites us to view him as someone who is acting with full agency. that he lives in an orphanage is a trope which the text uses, like a campy horror film might, predominately to underscore how creepy he is - and the text, in keeping with its general lack of interest in states and their institutions, never really prompts us to interrogate the impact of his childhood upon the course his life takes.

[this is despite the fact that voldemort's reliving of the night he killed the potters in deathly hallows is an incredibly accurate depiction of ptsd...]

but it's also the case that the eleven-year-old riddle's behaviour and personality fits a pattern we might expect to see in a child who is being abused, sexually or otherwise:

he's aggressive, he has a hair-trigger temper, and he becomes distressed even by behaviour - such as dumbledore speaking mildly and calmly - which would not ordinarily be expected to provoke such a reaction.

his broader emotional state is fractious. his mood changes sharply, he seems to feel emotions very profoundly, he struggles to control his emotional response to things, he's extremely easily irritated, he's attention-seeking - and he particularly seeks negative attention, and he's very highly-strung. his admission in deathly hallows that he feels calm before he kills - or before he otherwise eradicates a threat or a problem - comes with the flip-side that he's someone who appears, when things aren't going well or he finds himself in a situation which he can't control, to become quite anxious. which is a trauma response.

he's extremely isolated. the text presents the fact that he has no friends as a deliberate choice - "lord voldemort has never had a friend, nor do i believe that he has ever wanted one" - and his relationship with everyone else he ever meets, including his fellow orphans, is defined by the text as exclusively involving him controlling, manipulating, and punishing them. or: he is always the more powerful person in the pairing. but this need for control can be read as self-protective just as easily as it can be read as sinister. there are hints in canon that riddle is not just some malevolent force in the orphanage preying on mild-mannered innocents. for example, billy stubbs, the owner of the rabbit he kills, is targeted by riddle as revenge: “Billy Stubbs’s rabbit... well, Tom said he didn’t do it and I don’t see how he could have done, but even so, it didn’t hang itself from the rafters, did it? [...] But I’m jiggered if I know how he got up there to do it. All I know is he and Billy had argued the day before." on the rare occasions billy turns up in fics, he's usually - i find - written very like neville - sweet and guileless and a bit pathetic. but the alternative reading - especially when we take into account that riddle attacks the rabbit rather than billy himself - is that billy is someone he would be afraid to physically confront. indeed, it's striking that voldemort - at all stages of his life - is described as being quite physically fragile. not only is he very thin, but he's always cold and his heartbeat is described several times in canon as irregular. i think this is supposed to be a comment on the physical changes he undergoes the more horcruxes he makes - although the idea that the soul would affect the heart doesn't actually align with how the series understands the soul to relate to the body - but it can also be interpreted perfectly legitimately as something he was experiencing prior to splitting his soul. i am committed to the headcanon that riddle was quite a sickly child - and that this is one of the things which drives his fear of death - and i'm also committed to the idea that his obsession with magic is because the enormity of his magical power makes up for his physical lack. he can defeat - and humiliate and frighten and remove the threat of - billy or dennis [or even an adult man?] with magic. without it, if they were to physically overpower him, then he wouldn't be able to throw them off.

he is extremely nervous about being alone in a room with dumbledore - someone he doesn't know, and who he assumes is connected to a profession [and, maybe, who knows any other doctors he's been previously made to see...] of which he is frightened.

he doesn't trust or confide in anyone - which, as a child, means particularly that he doesn't trust or confide in adults in positions of responsibility. he's clearly uneasy with the idea of finding himself in the subordinate position in an adult-child relationship when dumbledore offers to take him shopping for school supplies - potentially because he's worried that dumbledore will try and dictate or restrict what he's allowed to buy unless he behaves in a certain way... and i am always very struck that dumbledore says in half-blood prince: "He was very guarded with me; he felt, I am sure, that in the thrill of discovering his true identity he had told me a little too much. He was careful never to reveal as much again." this is presented in the text as evidence that dumbledore is the only person of whom voldemort is afraid - by which the text means that voldemort acknowledges that dumbledore knows that an ordinary man, mortal and unimpressive, lurks behind the mask of unassailable power he has created for himself; and which the text thinks is a good thing. but we can also read it as a self-protective act on riddle's part. in his excitement, he offers dumbledore information [that he is known to be a liar, that he is in trouble a lot, that mrs cole dislikes him and is disinclined to believe anything he says] which would give dumbledore - or anyone in a similar position of power and presumed respectability - cover to abuse him, safe in the knowledge that he would be unlikely to be believed if he reported it.

he doesn't appear to feel safe in the orphanage and he's frequently absent from it - by his own admission, he spends a huge amount of time wandering around london on his own, which may even involve him staying away for several days at a time. nobody appears to notice or care about this.

he's very independent - which the text again presents as evidence of his deliberate self-isolation and rejection of the bonds of love and friendship - and his independence is unusual for a child his age [i.e. that he is capable of doing all his own shopping for school].

his knowledge of violence - i.e. how he designs the trip to the cave to be maximally psychologically devastating for dennis and amy and devoid of repercussions for himself - is also more advanced and methodical than would be expected in a child of his age. again, the text uses this to emphasise how inextricable the child-voldemort is from his adult self - and also, to some extent, to underscore the intellectual brilliance [his magic is also more advanced than is normal for a child] which his narrative archetype [the exceptional villain who is defeated by the everyman hero] requires. but we can also read it as evidence of his own victimisation. a common sign that a child is being sexually abused is that they display a knowledge of sexual behaviour which is more advanced than is reasonable for a child of their age - for example, knowing in detail how a sex act is performed, or fluently using sexual slang which they have no chance of knowing either from age-appropriate settings like school-based sex education or conversations with a parent or trusted adult, or from the sort of enthusiastic hoarding of rude words and phrases all children enjoy as they grow up. riddle's precise, clinical knowledge of how to manipulate, frighten, torture, and control can be seen as something similar. if he can - at eleven or younger - methodically break down another child until they're "never quite right" again, then this is because he's learned how to from someone.

he keeps secrets. and he also goes out of his way to extract them. his grooming of ginny in chamber of secrets - he manipulates her into confiding things she wants to keep to herself, promises he won't tell anyone, and then uses the threat that he will to get her to do his bidding - is an absolutely textbook example of how abusers use the idea of secrecy to control their victims. it doesn't make his abuse of ginny any less inexcusable if we assume he learns this from being on the other side of things.

dumbledore understands his little cache of objects as trophies he's taken from victims - and the text takes the view that dumbledore is correct in this assessment. that hoarding trophies is something widely associated with serial killers means that this is yet another thing which underlines how creepy - and how like his adult self - the child-voldemort is. but it's also the case that the adult - and teenage - voldemort places a lot of emphasis on gift-giving as part of his control over other people. the two most obvious examples in canon are wormtail being given his shiny hand as a reward for helping voldemort get his body back, and slughorn being buttered up with crystallised pineapple before voldemort asks him about horcruxes. the text thinks this is sinister - and one of the reasons it does this is because gift-giving is a grooming tactic. the text also clearly thinks this isn't behaviour voldemort has learned from the other side. and yet a common sign that a child is being abused is if they have possessions it doesn't make sense for them to own [i.e. a child from a low-income background who is suddenly decked in designer clothes] and which they can't or won't explain how they came by. riddle's cache isn't luxurious - although he's so poor that a yoyo or a mouth organ probably is a luxury to him - but there's also nothing in canon which precludes the objects being presents, rather than stolen goods. if the spell dumbledore uses to make the box rattle is caused by a statement which is both relatively ambiguous and dependent on dumbledore's subjective personal morality - is there anything in this room he's acquired through nefarious means? - then the spell would still work as it does in canon if riddle was an abuse victim given the objects as "rewards". dumbledore's tendency to locate right and wrong in the individual and dumbledore's belief that good people should steadfastly endure misery means he can be written entirely canon-coherently as someone who would think a victim who appeared to collude in their own abuse - such as a victim who "offered" a sexual act because their abuser promised them something if they did - was behaving consensually, manipulatively, and nefariously. and it's worth noting that when riddle doesn't know what dumbledore has done to make the box rattle, he is "unnerved". when he realises dumbledore thinks he's stolen the objects - and that he has no interest in forcing him to admit this aloud - he is "unabashed". perhaps because he's just received proof that an experience he doesn't want to talk about is still secret...

on the other hand, the objects could indeed be stolen - because petty criminality and anti-social behaviour, especially in pre-teen children, is also a sign of abuse.

he can be extremely obsequious - when dumbledore tells him to watch how he speaks he becomes "unrecognisably polite", he ruthlessly flatters slughorn, and he is cringingly deferential to hepzibah smith. the text understands this as evidence that his apparent charm is only superficial - another trait associated in the popular imagination with serial killers [and it's striking that so much about the young voldemort - handsome, charming, seemingly quiet and polite, true evil lurking underneath the mask - is exactly like the pop-culture persona which has been created for ted bundy...]. voldemort himself agrees that his charm is performative in chamber of secrets: “If I say it myself, Harry, I’ve always been able to charm the people I needed. So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted." but his obsequiousness is also a fawn response - a way of minimising a threat by attempting to please the person issuing it. he becomes "unrecognisably polite" - after all - in response to this: Dumbledore raised his eyebrows. “If, as I take it, you are accepting your place at Hogwarts - ” “Of course I am!” “Then you will address me as ‘Professor’ or ‘sir.’ ”  Riddle’s expression hardened for the most fleeting moment before he said, in an unrecognisably polite voice, “I’m sorry, sir. I meant - please, Professor, could you show me - ?”  riddle could reasonably interpret what dumbledore says here as a threat to prevent him attending hogwarts - even though dumbledore evidently doesn't mean it in this way - and he switches to being fawning because this is something he really doesn't want to happen...

do i think that any of this is what the text was actually going for? no. and nor do i think that reading riddle as a victim of abuse excuses the violence which the adult voldemort goes on to perpetuate.

but i think it is a reading of his characterisation which is both canon-plausible and interesting - a strange, sickly child with a reputation for cruelty and dishonesty being abused by the respectable doctor who is constantly called in to treat his coughs and wheezes, who buys him little presents and charms him into telling him secrets, who then [to paraphrase the teenage voldemort] feeds him a few secrets of his own, safe in the knowledge that nobody will ever believe him if he tries to get help.

and i also think this a reading which is sincerely important.

a significant contributor to the prevalence of child abuse - no matter what exact form this abuse takes - is that we are culturally conditioned to imagine that both the abuser and the victim will look and behave in a certain way if the abuse is "real".

and this means, all too often, that we take child abuse more seriously when the victim is "sympathetic" - when they're from a stable home, and their family are respectable, and they do well in school, and they're polite and sweet, and they look innocent, and they behave perfectly appropriately for their age, and nobody would ever dare to say that they come across as older than they are, and they're white, and they don't have a history of lying, and they don't have a history of attention-seeking, and they don't have a criminal record, and they're not abusive themselves, and there's absolutely no way of suggesting that they colluded in their abuse, and the perpetrator was someone who looks like a child abuser.

someone who is creepy, low-status, ugly, unpopular. someone who everyone can tell is socially abnormal, someone who nobody would ever intentionally permit to be around their children. not someone who is charming, well-respected, attractive, rich, popular, trustworthy. not someone who has a loving family and a happy home. not someone we might be friends with.

but many perpetrators of child abuse are these second group of people. and many victims of child abuse are "unsympathetic", when their social positions and reputations are compared to their abusers' own.

they lie. they steal. they're attention-seeking. they're vindictive. they have trouble distinguishing between imagination and reality. they're violent. they're bullies. they hurt animals. they abuse other children. they take drugs. they're mentally-ill. they come from broken homes. they're in the care of the state. they're dirty. they're poor. they're odd. they're behind at school and badly-behaved in the classroom. they do things which allow their abuse to be dismissed as something they brought upon themselves - they speak or dress in certain ways, they pose provocatively in pictures and post them on the internet, they are known to be sexually active outside of the context of their abuse, they lie about being over the age of consent, they engage in sexual behaviour with an adult abuser in a way which appears [even though it isn't, and there's never a circumstance in which it will be] to be consensual or for their own personal gain, they are flattered by the attention they receive from someone who is important or attractive grooming them, they have complicated - and not always wholly negative - feelings towards their abusers.

and they are still - unequivocally - victims, and what happens to them is still - unequivocally - abuse.

tom riddle is an unsympathetic victim - not only of any potential abuse, but also of the horrors of his life which are explicit on the canon page: that he is raised in an orphanage; that he is grieving; that he knows nothing about his family; that he is thought to be mad.

the absence of any institutional response to his childhood experiences - dumbledore, by his own admission, discloses nothing about riddle to his fellow teachers - is a flaw repeated again and again in the worldbuilding of the harry potter series.

hogwarts - and the wizarding [and muggle] state more broadly - doesn't intervene in any case of neglect or abuse, from harry to snape to voldemort's own parents. the series' individualistic morality means that we aren't supposed to interrogate these collective failings. and the series' black-and-white view of good and evil - and its general belief that violence is fine if the person it happens to "deserves" it - means that it has no interest in examining the ways that poverty, isolation, and neglect are risk factors; that straightforwardly unpleasant people can still be victims; that victims can go on to become perpetrators without their victimhood ceasing to matter; and that the abuse of children usually takes place not in silence and secrecy, concealed in ways which make it fine for adults not to notice it and not to intervene, but in plain sight.

this is knowledge it never hurts to refresh. thinking about lord voldemort's childhood might be an usual way of doing so... but it is an effective one nonetheless...

[meret118]

Reading this reminded me of this old article:

[kurishiri]

ikémen villains content warning list .ᐟ

this is a work-in-progress compilation of complete content warnings per route (because ikévil tends to underwarn a bit maybe to avoid spoilers) that will be updated as we go. please let me know if I missed anything, regardless if it says ‘work in progress’ or not, or pitch in with warnings. ♡ and ↻ are appreciated!

some of the ikévil routes contain sensitive themes that may be triggering. so please remember to take care of yourself while reading 🫶

GENERAL ༉‧₊˚. 🕊️

canon-typical violence, (minor but named) character death, depictions of murder.

WILLIAM REX ༉‧₊˚. 🍓 —— work in progress !!

near death experience, drug abuse, sexual coercion (not by love interest), corruption, romanticization of death.

HARRISON GRAY ༉‧₊˚. 🦊

corruption of the police and higher-ups, mentions of human trafficking, coercion to commit crimes, mentions of kidnapping.

LIAM EVANS ༉‧₊˚. 🐈

attempted suicide, suicide and suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, implied self-harm, mentions of child abuse (physical and emotional), fire, severe burn wounds, human trafficking, mental breakdowns.

ELBERT GREETIA ༉‧₊˚. 🍎

objectification both by and against love interest, mentions of sexual assault or rape (not by love interest), domestic abuse, attempted child sexual assault, pedophilia, obsessive and possessive behavior, stalkerish behavior, grooming, non-consensual touching, depicted suicide, self-harm, mental breakdowns, character death of a somewhat major and named side character, mentions of animal death, kidnapping, mentions of human trafficking.

ALFONS SYLVATICA ༉‧₊˚. 🪞

description of children’s corpses, depression, mortality, attempted suicide, near death experience, mental manipulation (?), dub-con: having sexual intercourse while one has “consented” in an intoxicated state or under the influence of a curse, non-con, mentions of drug abuse and the effects of drugs, mentions of child abuse, implied animal death.

(fyi if you’re curious about alfons but are not comfortable with these themes, i have a semi-detailed summary of his character as gleaned from his route here.)

ELLIS TWILIGHT ༉‧₊˚. ⛓️ —— warnings provided by @myusuchaa !!

romanticization of murder and death, family murder and death, suppressed emotions, emotional disconnect, people pleasing, attempted kidnapping, negative treatment of disabilities, coercion, child trafficking, gang activity.

ROGER BAREL ༉‧₊˚. 🍻 —— work in progress !!

a loott of alcohol consumption, drug usage or abuse (recreational drug use), cult activity, near/death experience of a side character, dub-con, self-harm especially in the past.

[novy2sirius]

᭓ ྀུ༺ a degree theory by nikola stojanovic

please read before proceeding

important note: this is not my info. this is all from nikola stojanovic’s theory on degrees in astrology. he has books on it that i think you can find online and download for free

trigger warnings: murder, car crashes, sex, and suicide

sign degrees

zero degrees: 0°

the same characteristics as the sign it’s already placed in. example - aries venus at 0° is purely an aries venus, obviously aside from the house energy

aries degrees: 1°, 13°, and 25°

beginnings, leadership, taking action, fighting spirit, not giving oneself up to fate, struggle, war, abuse, labor, diligence, etc

taurus degrees: 2°, 14°, and 26°

food, money, stability, earth, luxuries, sound of voice, singing voice, etc

gemini degrees: 3°, 15°, and 27°

communication, self-expression, technology, books, siblings, neighbors, etc

cancer degrees: 4°, 16°, and 28°

home, traditions, nurture, loyalty, faith, mother, the ocean/water, etc

leo degrees: 5°, 17°, and 29°

life, children, attention, fame, creativity, strength, happiness, light, etc

virgo degrees: 6° and 18°

improvement, health, to diminish, routine, animals, acts of service, etc

libra degrees: 7° and 19°

harmony/fairness, charm, beauty, law, music, art, dancing, pleasures, etc

scorpio degrees: 8° and 20°

death, major transformation, wealth, jealousy, sex, secrecy, taxes, etc

sagittarius degrees: 9° and 21°

wisdom, abundance, college, travel, photography, success, beliefs, etc

capricorn degrees: 10° and 22°

hard work, fear, public attention, karma, father, boss, isolation, history, etc

aquarius degrees: 11° and 23°

unexpected experiences, technology, friendships, networking, divorce, etc

pisces degrees: 12° and 24°

spirituality, escapism, dreams, illusion, the sea, mysteries, the hidden, etc

special degree meanings

supreme power: 2°

this degree is often found in the charts of people with remarkable achievements, who had extreme power, and who were highly respected according to nikola’s research

eroticism/a fun life: 5°

many sex symbols like marilyn monroe have this in their chart. nikola believed this was the best degree in general as well. he thought it indicated lots of fun and pleasure in one’s life

suicide/divorce: 11° and 23°

according to nikola the aquarius degrees (11 and 23) both indicate divorce occurring when placed in prominent positions in the chart. 11 is the only one indicating suicide though

car accidents: 15°

nikola believed that when this degree was connected to 8th house or scorpio placements it could indicate getting into car crashes

pure evil: 18°

nikola believed that this degree indicated a negative destiny for someone. he thought it was the worst degree you could have in your chart, based on his research he thought it was solely about facing hardships and nothing more. he also believed it could indicate being an evil person with no good intentions

to kill or be killed: 22°

just as the title reads, nikola believed this degree indicates being killed or being a killer. another thing he believed it could indicate was abandonment in the area of life it’s placed

clairvoyance: 29°

nikola believed this degree indicates someone that has very good intuition and can make accurate predictions about the outcomes of events

my opinion on astrology degrees

i personally don’t believe in nikola’s theory 100%, although i do think there’s accuracy to the signs being associated with specific degrees. i have always had stronger belief in my numerstrology degree theory than anything when it comes to this subject though. i definitely do not believe 18° is fully negative like he claims since the universe is yin yang so there’s always both positive and negative ways things can manifest. these are just my thoughts though

do you believe nikola’s degree theory? comment below!