studying political science means every day i go online and see people spouting off nonsense and people believing them

“Nine would have treated Martha better than Ten did”

I need to talk about this argument that never seems to stop circulating.

Note: Not a venomous/anti post. There’s more than enough of that across fandom spaces as is, and this is supposed to be a place for ✨sweet, blissful escapism✨

When making this argument, people seem to envision a scenario in which Nine never met Rose.

While I can appreciate a good hypothetical, recognizing Rose's significance to the Doctor (Nine and Ten) is essential to understanding why things with Martha played out the way they did in the first place.

In the third series, the Doctor is grieving. This grief is deliberately threaded into nearly every script, whether spoken aloud or not (and these are just a few examples):

He's burning in Rose’s wake the entire time Martha travels with him, which is why it’s so frequently called upon: It’s 100% deliberate in framing his grief. He grieved as Nine too, of course— having been fresh on the heels of the Time War — but then he met Rose, which changed everything.

Back then, he was still a rude, traumatized pain in the ass, but we watch Rose soften more of those jagged edges with every episode as they grow closer; as he lets his guard down and forms a deep connection with her.

He falls in love (against his better judgment) and it's game over.

And yes: provided S1E1 had been titled 'Martha', one can realistically assume things might have unfolded similarly to how they did with Rose. However, it wouldn’t have been that way just because the Doctor was Nine and “Nine was different” — it would be because he wasn’t already in love with someone else. The same can't be said for the start of S3.

Think of it like this: if Rose AND Martha had been in that cellar — if Nine had taken both of them along with him in S1 — we’d eventually be looking at the most melodramatic love triangle ever, what with him living in close quarters with two brilliant, gorgeous, compassionate young women... But Doctor Who is plenty “soap opera” as is with just one woman in the TARDIS.

(I certainly wouldn’t object to reading that fic, though)

Now, regarding the unrequited elephant in the room…

His inability to be romantic with Martha isn’t because he thinks her lesser, nor is it for lack of compatibility. It isn't because Rose is any better than her. It certainly isn’t just because he’s Ten.

It’s really only for one reason, which can't be denied — and now I’m a broken record:

He is still in love with Rose.

(cut from a tenrosedaily gif)

Nine is Ten, and Ten is only such a mess in S3 because he’s just lost the love of his life. Martha merely got caught in the crosshairs of a volatile Time Lord in mourning, and yes — it sucks. Absolutely.

But it also feels dismissive to chalk Ten and Martha’s relationship up to little more than some sort of mindless dance of pining, jealousy, and toxicity.

Ten trusted Martha with his life over and over again — and hers, with him. He constantly praised her brilliance, happily carting her around time and space with no intention of letting her go. In the BBC’s extended universe of novels/comics/cartoons/etc, there’s so much depth to their relationship: love and trust and trauma and sacrifice. They had their own special bond as mates, their own complexities — so it’s a bummer that it's forever overshadowed by the other things.

I’m not denying that there was a lot of stuff that sucked/was for sure toxic about Ten's S3 behavior, but so many of the things I've seen him catching flak for can be directly attributed to being A Clueless Fucking Alien Idiot (not a trait that’s unique to Ten) — as well as his flat-out obliviousness to Martha’s feelings.

So yes, I agree: if Rose never existed, he would have treated Martha differently as Nine. He also would have treated her differently as Ten. Certainly.

But Rose did exist, and when discussing canon, it matters.

“He tells me that he absolutely, 100% loves Rose... He tells me how my daughter; my wonderful, beautiful, clever little girl saved him from himself before… And he says that’s all because of me! I made her into the Rose Tyler that saved him.”

-Jackie Tyler, Flight Into Hull!

Martha got the short end of the stick in S3. She came round at the wrong place and time, but that doesn't mean it was all bad. It doesn't mean the Doctor didn’t adore her. It certainly doesn't mean the time they spent together was wasted or worthless. They were brilliant!

Sure, he could be a twat, but let it be known that he was a twat with Rose as well, both as Nine and Ten. I’m sure Tentoo can be plenty infuriating, too. So while I'll defend Ten (and Tentoo) into the ground forever and ever and ever, I'll concede that he's fucked up.

The Doctor is a certified Pain In The Ass. It’s one of the things I love so much about this character — dynamics.

But never forget that Martha was goddamn tough as nails and overcame every bit of it. She moved on with her life, and the Doctor moved on with his. One can only pray that, when they inevitably drag her back onto the show (which feels inevitable if I'm honest), we see at once that she's been living her best life for all these years.

Horse Girl “Movement”

I’m just gonna toss my two cents in on this while it’s still a hot topic instead of taking over other people’s posts with my opinions. I think SSE, the company behind the game, made a horrendous mistake in how they’re managing and marketing this “movement” of theirs. I can understand where they’re coming from and I think I understand their general intentions.

Like I get it, “horse girl” especially in North America (though depends on where you’re from) tends to be used negatively and especially for bullying. It wasn’t a huge deal where I’m from since it’s way more rural here so kinda more normal but I’ve always had the impression it kinda implied you were weird or strange bare minimum and I’ve heard some awful stuff from friends about how it’s viewed elsewhere. So I think it’s fair for SSE to think “oh hey we’re a huge horse game that could influence people to look at this more positively and make people feel better about this.”

Problem is, they used probably the worst ever wording for their hashtag and whoever was responsible for replying to concerns on instagram was really ignorant at best and just downright inconsiderate of actual minority groups that face oppression and go through the process of reclaiming slurs. I agree with folks saying “redefining” is a better word to use, it’s at least not feeling like you’re ripping off far more serious and important movements and pretending yours is on the same level as them. Like absolutely bullying sucks but I don’t think any “horse girl” has been explicitly targeted in a systemic way for just liking horses. I have seen other things like people commenting it’s also something that might be related to neurodivergence and I’d agree, I think talking about that would be a really interesting and good topic to discuss. However, the way I think this is coming off from SSE’s side is more of a loosey goosey “uwu we’re gonna post some positive stuff about horsey girls and anti bullying advice that doesn’t do anything.”

And I absolutely hope I’m wrong, I want to be wrong about that but at the end of the day, there’s so little you can do about bullying or supply advice for bullying. You can attempt to ignore bullies, you can talk to someone of authority like a teacher if you’re in school but if you’re an adult or online? You’re kinda screwed, you just block and report if you gotta and try to move on, don’t interact. Honestly, I think the main thing that helps against bullies is just having a support group of some kind and unfortunately if you’re already the odd one out because of something like being a horse girl, you’re just kinda screwed. A lot of times, people won’t do anything about bullying because they either don’t want to get bullied or don’t want to get hurt themselves, or worse, they just don’t care.

So I don’t have any real hope for this “movement” they’re trying to do. I think it’s just going to be a weak attempt to try and uplift their female playerbase, score some brownie points and hand out some likely ineffective anti-bullying advice. Maybe they’ll tell people to be nicer to horse girls too. Again, I hope I’m wrong but SSE hasn’t had the best track record when it comes to making a stand on anything and this comes off as more of a marketing ploy to rope people into the game or just push harder on their female playerbase that they’re hashtag relatable, hashtag we’re with you, hashatag something something girlboss.

So yeah, I’m pretty salty about it and I usually keep rants off my blog but this has affected more than me, it’s hurt my friends, it’s hurt me, and I’m kinda pissed about how inconsiderate it is to minority groups and on top of that, another nail in the coffin showing how little SSE cares about anyone else in their community who isn’t cis female. Like this isn’t a one off thing, these kinds of lack of consideration moments have been sprinkled throughout my time playing and following SSO.

Like I’ve said multiple times, I’m all for SSE being supportive of girls, women, anyone who identifies as female. I want to see them do more positive female orientated things and I think this was an attempt but an incredibly poorly conceived one at best. What I want to see is more showcases of female creators, equestrians, ect. SSE is in a unique situation where they could very easily shine more light on the game design process for young girls and women. They could talk more about behind the scenes, they could showcase more of their female devs, artists and writers (they already do but what about showing them go through their work process if they’re okay with that?) They could even do events around getting girls into game design. But what do they do? Continue to spout about how hashtag feminist they are by marketing towards girls instead of actually producing content that feels like it’s really uplifting female players. It’s not an easy line to distinguish but I gotta say I feel like 8 times out of 10 they’re on the wrong side of it.

And at the end of all of this, it just wraps straight back around to the problem of SSE doesn’t care about players who aren’t cis female. I’m not saying everyone in the company doesn’t but the face of the company and perhaps the marketing and social media teams feel like they don’t. The external elements of this game and franchise don’t care about us, they don’t care about gender queer, trans, nonbinary, gender non-conforming players. They don’t care about actually showing gender equality in their game, about making it so young girls see that they are on equal footing as boys and no better or less. Or about making an actual difference in showcasing how it’s normal to be outside the gender norm even if you identify with your assigned birth gender. And maybe that’s okay if you’re a little company still just trying to make the next Barbie game and fade into the background. 

But it’s 2022, gonna be 2023 before we know it and gender diversity is a huge topic now. We are moving faster and faster towards widely recognizing genders other than female and male and if SSE wants to actually be inclusive, they’ll start doing that too. It’s reasonable for them to put more effort into anything female over male or other gender queer content but it’s no excuse to either leave it on the sidelines, limit it to pride month or push it to locked areas the player may never see or only see once and then abandon. And most importantly, there are games with make your own characters or player blank slates that are more gender progressive than SSE is attempting to be right now. I love the look of the new models but I am hating how limiting they are gender wise. I want a nonbinary character, I want to have the option to be a gender nonconforming butch coded woman instead of the only one in the game being A VILLAIN. And maybe I can’t have a character that looks like she’s in her late 20′s like me but I don’t understand why I can’t have a gender neutral one or why I can’t play as a male when even most indie games that don’t have premade characters let me.

 SSE needs to grow the hell up and take a long hard look at what’s going on outside their little bubble because even though we’re a minority, a lot of long time queer and male players are getting real sick of this treatment. I don’t enjoy seeing my friends drop like flies off the game that brought us together. I don’t want to drop it myself because continued lack of respect on topics like these. Maybe it feels like an overreaction to people who are part of the target audience but after a while this stuff builds up both in SSO and outside it. I’m just sick of seeing piss poor gender representation and I want to finally say something and try to do something about it.

I love reading your worldbuilding posts! It’s so fun to have that extra context for the story. Your recent post about sub-circling got me thinking about the issues trans-oriented subs might run into trying to join something that is designated Strictly For Subs in such a deeply-rooted biological and cultural way. I guess I wanted to poke you for your thoughts on like, HOW ingrained in biology and instincts that kind of thing is, bc I think it’d be kinda fun to examine the particular nuances of that kind of inter- and intrapersonal conflict 🤔 It also got me wondering if there would be any anti-trans orientation movements who see that as like a predatory endangerment to sub spaces? I guess I’m just recreating terfs tho lmao. Er sorry if that’s too heavy or invasive of a topic? You can feel free not to answer that one 😵‍💫

Also not related, but it was such a treat seeing Aizawa in your recent chapter and I love how you write him! I was curious if you were ever thinking about writing an erasermic fic in this verse, since their relationship is so unique for your au! 💓

ahhhh thank you!! i usually dislike worldbuilding bc it feels so overwhelming, but i’m having fun with it here so far

i….actually had not thought about trans rights vs the sub-circle tho, THAT’S a thought. i will say chapter 8 of Free Falling will have a little bit about sub circles in it, and i did include a line where someone asks twice (trans switch, bio dom in this au) if he’s going to stay. twice declines, but the offer is there. HOWEVER, that is the league and not society at large, so in a less trans-accepting space it would probably be different.

i haven’t written about it directly (and probably won’t, tbh? at least, i have no plans to rn, never say never), but i DO imagine there are both run of the mill transphobes and a terf-adjacent group in this ‘verse. hm. like actual terfs they’d probably be very “submissive rights” but be so transphobic that it loops back around to oppression.

i’ve done a fair amount of waffling on how biologically ingrained stuff is, because on the one hand it’s fun if the answer is “very,” but on the other hand, i’m trans and i’m wary of bioessentialism.

so my current stance is that it’s not as biologically ingrained as subspace/domspace itself, but it’s still important for things like social development. think of it as a kid growing up isolated from their peer group for whatever reason. they’re probably going to have trouble connecting with people their own age, they might pick up some strange habits, they’ll likely have gaps in their knowledge like not knowing pop culture. but overall (assuming nothing else bad happened), they’ll be okay, physically and mentally. not to trivialize that experience as i’m sure it’s very difficult, but there’s nothing life-threatening about it. and like i mentioned, a sub circle takes some level of intention; it’s not something you can trip into or be forced into against your will like subspace.

that said, it is Very culturally important. not something enforced, but if you told someone you never had a circle as an adult they’d probably give you a “wtf” look. a lot of the importance comes from the defensive aspect and how dangerous it can be to break a circle up. they’re respected because not respecting them is a good way to get attacked.

so anyway all of this is very long-winded and a bit stream-of-consciousness, but in conclusion i don’t think most people would welcome a trans sub/switch into a circle. like women’s bathrooms, except there’s no cultural expectation of politeness/not rocking the boat (also since when are women’s bathrooms some super culturally important place….but i digress). i feel like a trans sub would also have a lot of internalized Feelings about it even if they were allowed to join bc of all the messaging about how a dom near a sub circle is the Worst Thing Ever.

…..and now i’m thinking that would be fun to write. hm. back burner.

but!! yes!!! very cool questions defo a lot of food for thought. and to answer your last question about erasermic—i definitely want to write about them in this au!! i don’t have any specific ideas at the moment but i do adore their relationship and i very much want to delve into it. since they’ve adopted hitoshi i could also explore what raising a teenager in this world looks like….very fun

with all this recent stuff that’s just happened, this guilty feeling of mine has come out, and I just gotta ask...

is it bad to read noncon and stuff? gosh, with any other friend, I’d talk about how this kind of writing is weird, even just the fluff kind of stories, but they don’t know im reading noncon like every day and all this shit. i feel kind of guilty but i just love reading this kind of stuff and i... ajdjdkgkgg

when I found your account like two weeks ago it was genuinely the best thing that could’ve happened (though i ended up locking my liked posts and blogs im following from view HAHA)

and idk but I love your blog so much HELP

Not at all!! Literally, I have discussed this with my psychiatrist, who actively encourages it and taught me a lot about how beneficial it can be.

That's the thing about antis, any mental health professional will tell you this sort of thing is fine. People like it for a wide variety of reasons and all of them are totally valid.

The only times an adult person should not be exposed to this content/avoid consuming it is if they have any mental health issues that might inhibit their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or very recently traumatized individuals, who may retraumatize themselves and be prone to erratic behaviors.

On the latter, it is actually surprisingly common for recent rape victims to seek out dangerous situations with the subconscious intent of being assaulted a second time - this is especially likely in women who are raised in misogynistic environments, because they often feel their trauma is not "valid" enough and subconsciously seek out the situation a second time to feel validated in victimhood, often seeking one even more dangerous than the initial one. Thus, these people should seek professional help and be assured they are in a healthy state before consuming content like this.

However, adults who do not fall under these categories are fine. Fiction can actually help prevent you from subconsciously seeking out abusers in real life. Many people with csa or other sexual assault trauma often feel drawn to abusers because it provides familiarity, or because they do not feel comfortable with people who do not abuse them. Fiction can sort of scratch that itch for those behaviors, and when that hunger is satiated, we are better able to recognize and evaluate the behaviors of real life people and avoid abusers.

Time to overshare, me personally it's partially a religious trauma thing. I live in a very conservative area and went to church and church school every day for 18 years, we were heavily indoctrinated with misogynistic ideology and taught to behave a certain way, which is why I now fetishize it so heavily - it feels "right" to be looked down on as inferior for my sex. It's probably one of the most problematic fetishes I discuss/write here, so I feel I can take this opportunity to explain how it helps. I used to have a lot of internalized misogyny and behaviors/views that reflected that. I've found that fetishizing it actually helps reduce that a lot - the more I fetishized it, the more ridiculous it feels to think some men actually feel that way irl, and feel much less self loathing over being female, which is an actual problem I used to have.

Tl;dr: it's not bad at all, and can be very good.

Submission

Hey there, long time no see!

I've been dipping in and out of Tumblr the last couple of weeks and have been keeping up with all your interesting discussions with anons (sorry, stalkerish I know, but I find it both insightful and entertaining.) I couldn't help but notice @just-a-poor-boy-queen posted about our good old friend on Instagram spouting her usual bullshit, only this time she apparently has proof that her claims are real from Lying Ass Jerkoff , sorry, Lesley Ann Jones' latest book. According to her, as you already know, she claims that Lesley denounces Jim and Freddie's relationship and Jim apparently confessed to her that he never loved Freddie, that he used him for fame, etc. etc.

Which is...very interesting. Because LAJ's biography, Bohemian Rhapsody, claims the exact opposite.

While I was out in town today, I visited my local bookstore and unintentionally stumbled across the book in the biography section. My first instinct was to ignore it - I know for a fact it's trash - but curiosity got the better of me and I ended up having a flip through.

First off, the amount of stuff she gets wrong is hilarious. Some of them were minute errors, others the average Queen fan could tell you is fake. I'm pretty sure she talked about Freddie taking Princess Diana out in drag and the party with the midgets carrying bowls of cocaine on their heads, which we know never happened. There was also a picture of Freddie and Mary (one where Freddie is leaning on Mary while she's smoking a cigarette,) that was captioned "the happy couple relaxing together," which made me laugh out loud because it was allegedly taken in 1975 when Freddie was dating David behind Mary's back. Relationship goals, ammirite?

And don't get me started on the Barbara stuff, I stg, LAJ seems low-key obsessed with her.

Anyway, I ended up skipping to the end where she talks about Jim; she does indeed claim that she stayed with him in Carlow (not sure what year,) and that she interviewed him while she was there. This is what she had to say:

On Jim's motivation for writing M&M: (Jones) "Jim Hutton later explained that it was anger, not money, that prompted him to write his memoir. He wanted the world to know the truth, and could see no other way."

(Jones) "There is no doubt that Jim, the bereft lover, embarked upon his selective 1994 biography with the intention of creating a tender tribute to an adored partner. This was blurred by a co-writer who dwelled more on sensational aspects of the relationship, as well as on intimate details of Freddie's final days."

(Jones) "Given Jim's Catholic background, and the fact that his mother was still alive when he published, it must have taken immense courage to write the book."

About the GL boys being erased by Jim Beach: (Jim) "I think Jim Beach was angry that my book ruined the myth of Freddie. All it did was return him to his original status of a human being. It told the truth. Beach wanted fans to believe that sweet Mary Austin was the love of Freddie's life, and what a great, tragic, romantic tale it all was."

(Jones) "Jim was consequently banished from the Queen camp." (She goes on to explain it's likely because everyone was grieving, but I don't buy it.)

(Jones) "Freddie's will raised countless questions, some of which would never be resolved." (I thought this was interesting, given that I've seen speculation that Freddie might have been influenced over what to put in his will before.)

On Dave Clark: (Jones) "The press reported that Dave Clark had said he was the only person in the bedroom when Freddie died. 'He was not the only person in the room,' Jim stated. 'But it was quoted all over the place.' The error must have been perturbed the sensitive and caring Clark, for on his birthday, Jim received a beautiful card from him. 'The inscription he wrote inside read "you were there.' " (Jim goes on to recount the exact same version of events written in Mercury & Me about Freddie's death. He speaks highly of Clark, saying he was brilliant when Freddie was ill and would sit with him for hours. Jim seems more angry at the press spreading lies than at Dave himself. I've seen people argue that Dave was the one spreading the rumours to the paper or he did nothing to refute them, but who knows, perhaps he was a victim of the tabloids too.)

Phoebe testifying to Jim's character: (Phoebe) "Those concerned have to live with themselves. Mary once said of Jim that he had 'a very vivid imagination.' I knew Jim a very long time, and never knew him to be anything other than totally honest. Jim's conscience, like mine, will always be clear." (Given how Phoebe now makes a point of saying that Jim "exaggerated" stuff in his book, I find this a tad hypocritical. Still, I appreciate him sticking up for Jim and saying that those who are trying to change Freddie's legacy will have to live with that on their conscience. Also, fuck you Mary, if you did say that about Jim.)

On Jim's love for Freddie: (Jones) "There are still times when I can be pottering around in the garden, and Freddie's facial expression when he died will come into my mind," he told me in Ireland, "I can blank out what happened consciously but not subconsciously. It is impossible to forget. I learned so much from him, not least a positive outlook. Freddie's attitude was always, 'But you can, don't you see? You can do it. Put your mind to it, you'll see what you can do' That was one of the loveliest things about him."

(Jones) "During the time I spent with Jim in picturesque County Carlow, there was no doubt that the love Jim claimed to have felt for Freddie was genuine. He was a warm and decent man who was content with his lot. He was eternally grateful, he told me, for having experienced the superstar lifestyle through Freddie."

(Jones) "Jim would never truly recover from the loss."

I took screenshots of all the quotes above, which I'm happy to submit if anyone is interested. I would love to have seen what else she said about Jim, but taking pictures of book pages in the middle of a shop isn't the best look, so I kept it brief. 

So, overall, Lesley seems to have a very high opinion of Jim, and believed the love between he and Freddie was genuine. Which is quite surprising, given that she downplays all of Freddie's other relationships with men in favour of promoting his fictional "romance" with Miss Valentin. Of course, this could all be complete bullshit and she never met Jim at all, but if she is telling the truth for once in her life, then she's one of few biographers who was very much supportive of Jimercury.

As one of the anons correctly stated, we have two possible scenarios.

A) If crazy lady is telling the truth, and Jones does make all these negative claims about Jim in her new book, then she was either lying in Bohemian Rhapsody or she's lying now in her latest cash cow. In this scenario, she's a liar either way. But tell us something we don't know.

B) Crazy Lady is pretending to have read the book, or read it and was angry there was nothing bad about Jim, and is fabricating quotes to suit her anti-Jim agenda, knowing her thick-as-bricks followers will just take her word for it and not bother looking for evidence. This is the most likely scenario. 

I know most people with a brain know not to trust the word of either of these women, but I thought it would be fun to dismantle some of Insta lady's claims regardless, in case there was anyone out there having doubts.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

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

Hi there! It's good to see you again.

This...is a lot to think about lol. Since LAJ is such a liar, it's hard to believe she really sat down with Jim, or that most of what she said was from primary sources. However, it is strange that she spoke so highly of Jim given...everything else she's ever said lol. The quotes above do fit with what other people have said about Jim and Garden Lodge as a whole, though. It's very strange because it's either she decided to be factual with this, or lie about getting these quotes but decide to stick up for Jim, anyway. Weird, weird, weird.

It's really hard to know who's lying in the new book, LAJ or the hater lady. They're both so unreliable. It does seem too convenient that what LAJ supposedly says lines up with the hater lady rhetoric, but idk. Apparently LAJ blocked the hater lady on twitter, too lmao. So maybe it's the hater lady who's lying? But I can believe LAJ suddenly changing her tune, too.

I don't know. Thank you for sharing this information. I have more questions than answers now lol but still

I’m a girl (18 now) who got exposed/addicted to pornography at a really young age, and I wanted to share my specific story on this blog so that the platform can get it out there.

Under the cut is my full story, and it’s a little long winded, so if you don’t want to read the whole thing, I bolded in purple the general topic/idea of that section. Just look for whichever of those interests you and the section will be about that. The first and last paragraph are good for context and end goal, though.

Thank you.

I don't fully remember my first exposure to porn. I know I was in third grade (6-7 yrs old, I had skipped a grade). The reason I had wanted to share my story, in fact, is because I don't see many stories with circumstances similar to mine. Most I see have at least one of the following 'modifiers', for want of a better word. Most I see have at least one of the following 'modifiers', for want of a better word. Most I see have at least one of the following 'modifiers', for want of a better word. 1. The person is a victim of CSA/grooming. 2. The person was at a generally pubescent age (~11-14). And/or 3. The person experienced porn as a quick disturbance. To be clear, these stories are as valid and important as mine, and I simply think more perspectives make evidence of the effects of porn more airtight. I've never been the victim of SA, harassment, or grooming, ever in my life. My story shows the effects of exclusively porn.

The first memory I can recall about this was actually the first time I got caught. I was 6 yrs old, and very into video games,so on this day, I was playing a 3D porn game on my crappy hand-me-down laptop. I kind of knew that what I was doing wasn't acceptable, so I was sitting in my room in the corner as far from my door as possible. My mom walked in so I just slammed the laptop shut because I wasn't that good at hiding things. My mom obviously asked what I was doing, and I tried to keep her from looking, but it was right there when she reopened it. This is where the battle of it begins.

From ages 6-14 I don't have a good timeline of events but a few pop out that exemplify the severity of the issue. These are very probably out of order.

I got an iPod Touch for Christmas (~6-7), and every night I would watch porn on it until they caught on. I literally still remember some names of the sites, most that don't even exist anymore. My parents have always been amazingly caring. I couldn't ask for more. During the earlier ages (~6-8) I was put with a child therapist for fear of a deeper issue. My parents started either taking technology away in the night and/or setting restrictions on the internet. Unfortunately, between my slight tech-savvy, and my crazed addiction at this point, this wasn't a solution.

The addiction got DEEP. It warped my brain. When I had no technology, I used everything I could find.

Whenever I had access to less restricted internet, I used it. Once I asked my older cousin to use her iPod and watched it on there.(she noticed and told my mom. I remember my mom had asked me "Is there anything you need to tell me?", and I knew what she meant, but I just said "nope!" and walked away. At one point my dad's work provided him with a Blackberry, and I asked him could I play one of the built in little games. Once I had it, I watched porn. (when I gave it back to him he pressed the "back" button, and I was caught.)

I used Youtube. This was when YouTube was way less moderated (back when the app was a little old timey TV). I learned I could look up "striptease" and "nip-slip" and other stuff like that, finding more soft-core videos that could suffice when the internet in general was locked down.

I straight-up found out ways to disable the restrictions. Once I found out my mom's PIN for the controls, I went and disabled them, but changed the PIN so it would look like they were still on, and so that she couldn’t access and re-enable them. (I made it 7399. Spells "sexy". My mind was a mess.)

My parents bought a book called "The Classical Tradition". I'm just learning now as I'm looking it up that it was a Harvard Reference Library book (probably why it was so damn thick) about ancient Greek and Roman culture. I didn't know that. I had realized that sprinkled throughout the book there were pages that were more glossy than the rest, which you could see from the sides of the pages (the book was HUGE). These were the photo paper, which had the classical paintings and sculptures. And because these had nudity (Think "The Birth of Venus" type) I would regularly flip through this book when I needed a "fix". Absurd.

My parents got me an American Girl book that was made to ease worries about the developmental years. The pages on breast development / the anatomy of the vagina were what I looked at the most. When my parents had gotten me the child therapist, there was the logical fear that I might have been molested. The therapist gave me a book where there was a page with two cartoon mice, a boy and a girl. They were wearing swimwear/underwear and the point of that was "anywhere the clothing is covering is somewhere that adults can't touch you without telling.” They might as well have been stick figures, there was NO detail. But since they were in ‘underwear’ I'd always look at that page a lot. Anything barely vaguely sexual.

During this part of my life, I got no real pleasure out of this, I was just obsessed. For the first year I even watched it on mute out of fear of being caught. The lowest point during this period was when I very unfortunately filmed a video of me touching myself. I got nothing out of it and had no intent on ever sending or posting it. I was just emulating what I had been seeing. I deleted it the next day. I was 9 then.

From puberty until now (11-18) is when my sexuality was shaped by it. The addiction was far more controllable, I could spend a couple weeks to a couple months without it, but I'd always come back. Because it was now tied to my body. And while my need for it to be constant was gone, now I had to deal with the tolerance issue.

Over time what I watched became more and more depraved. I had the personal preference of hating anything amateur, because of the low quality, so I managed to avoid anything obviously non-consensual or involving visibly underaged girls, but that doesn't really mean much with the stuff the studios were putting out. During the middle points it got REALLY violent and disturbing. Bordering on torture (extreme kink) and even bodily deformation. As a young woman, I couldn't really tolerate any of the role based Kinks (father-daughter, babysitter, schoolgirl), so more extreme for me meant more extreme acts. Just absolute destruction of women's bodies for the purposes of sex. I moved away from that when tumblr banned porn and I started using reddit for it, and also during that time I was realizing how fucked up of an addiction that this was, even before I found feminism/anti-porn. I actively started trying to quit it, for good. But I always went back.

One big effect is heavy confusion with my sexual orientation. A lot of people face this, but the addition of porn for me really throws things off. Like: Am I bi, and a form of comphet/denial/inexperience keeps me from seeing women in a romantic way? Is it a mix of that and porn? (relatively likely) Or am I just straight, and the porn has completley shaped my mind (likely). 90% of the time I watched solo female content or lesbian content, and could only stand to watch certain specific forms if it included men at all. In real life I find a fair amount of men attractive but their bodies in a sexual sense are tolerable at best, but usually cringe inducing. l've never been attracted to a woman romantically, but exclusively women's bodies are sexual to me. It feels like everything in my brain that I would have been able to use in order to figure myself out has been permanently overwritten with incorrect information. Because of porn.

I've still got it bad. Every once in a while, I’ll read something vaguely sexual, or see a woman in a risque photo, and then the seed is planted. I'll always say "I'm not going to do it, I always feel disgusting after, it’s not even really enjoyable at this point, I can do better than this”. I always give in the end of the night. I'm 7 days off of it. I've been on this earth for 18 years. 12 of those years I've been cripplingly addicted to pornography. Two thirds of my life, and for as long as I can remember. I can never undo it. Just like an alcoholic will always be an alcoholic, only able to achieve remission, I will always be a porn addict. I have to be careful. But I have to hope for the future. And with finding the community that is speaking the truth about this, I'm heartened to do better. To no longer be held down by an addiction to consuming my own oppression.

different subject that’s heavy on my mind rn but since i’m already being harsh let’s get into it. i wish it wasn’t automatically presumed to be some kind of truscum attitude when someone tries to express that different parts of The Trans Community have like, different needs and different risk levels and different experiences and that we have the ability to talk over each other, harm each other, etc... like when i put it that way people generally are like ‘of course that’s true!’ but is it ever really understood in practice? a number of people (not a large enough number, but still) are able to loosely understand ‘you can be trans and transphobic’ when it’s applied to the matter of transmisogyny but when a trans person tries to express distrust of or frustration with afab nb people due to how common it is that that category of person will, despite being trans/nb, espouse bioessentialist, anti-medical-transition, radfem-adjacent if not outright cryptoterf rhetoric, suddenly ‘trans people can be transphobic’ gets applied to... the person with a complaint about transphobia. 

because he’s clearly an evil truscum man! regardless of if the person making the complaint is a trans man or trans woman, oops, lol. he’s a bad person who is attacking and invalidating and totally hatecriming the heckin’ valid, equally at-risk transgender identity of “an afab woman who isn’t a woman except when she pointedly categorizes themself as a woman because being afab makes them a woman who is ‘politically aligned’ with women but she’s not an icky unwoke cis woman because they don’t like being forced into womanhood although Really When You Think About It 🤔 all women are dysphoric because obviously the pathologized medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in transgender people is something that equally applies to cis women just default existing under patriarchy 🤔, and no, equating these things totally does not imply anything reductive about or add a bizarre moral dimension to the idea of being transgender, whaaaaat, this woman who isn’t a woman doesn’t think there’s anything immoral or cowardly or misogynist or delusional about being transgender, they would never say that because THEY’RE transgender, except when she feels it’s important (constantly) to make clear that she’s Still A Woman Deep Down Inherently Despite Not Identifying As One, and none of this ever has any effect on how they treat the concept, socially and politically, of people who actually wholly identify with (and possibly medically transition to) a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, be it ‘the opposite gender’ or abstaining from binary gender altogether or ‘politically aligning’ with the ‘opposite’ gender from their asab. never ever!”

and like maybe that sounds like a completely absurd and hateful strawman to you! but in that case you’re either like, lucky, or optimistic, or ignorant. i’m literally not looking at random nb people and declaring that in My Truscum Opinion they’re ‘really a woman’ just because they’re not medically transitioning or meeting some arbitrary standard of mine. i am looking at self-identified afab nb people, who most often use she/they because, y’know, words mean things, especially pronouns, so people who are willingly ‘aligned with womanhood’ typically intentionally use she/her (sorry that i guess that’s another truscum take now!!! that pronouns mean things!!! the bigender transmasc who deliberately uses exclusively he/him wants it to invoke a perception he’s comfortable with!), who actively say the things listed above (in a non-sarcastic manner). 

like, the line between a person who says “i don’t claim to really not be my asab because i know no one would ever perceive me as anything else” because theyve internalized a defeatist attitude due to societal transphobia, and a person who says that because they... genuinely believe it’s impossible/ridiculous/an imposition to truly be transgender (in the traditional trans sense, beyond a vague nb disidentification with gender) and are actively contributing to the former person’s self loathing... is hard to define from a distance! i think plenty of people who are, in a sense, ‘tentative’ or like ‘playing close to home’ so to speak in their identity are ‘genuinely trans’ (whatever that may mean) and just going through a process. they might arrive at a different identity or might just eventually stop saying/believing defeatist stuff, who knows. but there are enough people saying it for the latter reason, or at least not caring if they sound that way, that it’s like, dangerous. it is actively incredibly harmful to other trans people. and it’s fucking ridiculous that it’s so difficult to criticize because you’ll always get the defense of “umm but i’m literally trans” and/or “well i’m just talking about ME, this doesn’t apply to other trans people” when it’s an attitude that very clearly seeps into their politics and the way they discuss gender.

because it’s just incredibly common for afab nb people (most typically those that go by she/they! since i’m aware that uh, i am also afab nb, but we clearly are extremely different, so that’s the best categorization i’ve got) to discuss gender in moralized terms, with the excuse of patriarchy/misogyny existing, which of course adds another difficult dimension to trying to criticize this because it gets the response of “don’t act like misandry is real” (it’s not, but being a dick still is) and “boohoo, let women complain about their oppressors” (this goes beyond ‘complaining’). a deliberate revocation of empathy/sympathy/compassion from men and projection of inherently malicious/brutish/cruel intent onto men (not solely in the justified generalizations ‘men suck/are dangerous’, but in specific interactions too) underpin a whole fucking lot of popular posts/discussions online, whether they’re political or casual/social, and it absolutely influences how people conceptualize and feel about transness. 

because ‘maleness is evil’ is still shitty politics even when you’ve slightly reframed it from the terf ‘trans women are evil because they’re Really Men and can never escape being horrific soulless brutes just as women can never escape being fragile morally superior flowers’ to the tumblr shethey “trans women who are out to me/unclockable are tolerable i guess because they’re women and women are good; anyone i personally presume to be a cis man, though, is still automatically evil, and saying trans men are Just As Bad is progressive of me, and it’s totally unrelated and apolitical that i think we should expand the concept of afab lesbianism so broadly that you can now be basically indistinguishable from trans men on literally every single level except for a declaration of ‘but i would never claim to be a man because i’m secure in the Innate Womanhood of the body i was born into, even as i medically alter that body because it causes me great gendered discomfort.’ none of this at all indicates that i feel there’s an immense moral/political gap between being an afab nb lesbian vs a straight trans man! it says nothing at all about my concept of ‘maleness’ and there’s no way this rhetoric bleeds into my perception of trans women and no way loudly talking about all this could keep trans people around me self-loathing and closeted, because i’m Literally Trans and Not A Terf!”

again, if that sounds like a hateful strawman, sorry but it’s not. i guess i’m supposed to be like ‘all of the many people ive seen saying these shitty things is an evil outlier who Doesn’t Count, and it’s not fair to the broad identity of afab shethey to not believe that every person who doesn’t outright say terfy enough things is a perfectly earnest valid accepting trans person who’s beyond criticism’ but like. this cannot be about broad validation. this can’t be about discarding all the bad apples as not really part of the group. we can’t be walking on eggshells to coddle what are essentially, in the end, Cis Feelings, because in the best cases this kind of rhetoric comes from naive people who are early and uncertain in their gender journey or whatever and are in the process of unraveling internalized transphobia, and in the easily observable worst cases these people are very literally redefining shit so that ‘actually all afab women are trans, spiritually, all afabs have dysphoria, we are all Equally oppressed by Males uh i mean cis men <3’ because, let’s be honest, they know that the moment they call themselves trans they get to say whatever they want about gender no matter how harmful it is to the rest of us. and those ideas spread like wildfire through the afab shethey “woman that’s not a woman” community that frankly greatly outnumbers other types of trans people online, because many of those people just do not have the experiences that lead you to really understand this shit and have to push back against concepts of gender that actively harm you as a trans person.

like that’s all i want to be able to say, is Things Are Different For Different Groups. and a willful ignorance of these differences leads to bad rhetoric controlling the overall discourse which gets people hurt. and even when concepts arise from it that seem positive and helpful and inclusive, in practice or in origin those ideas can still be upholding shit that gets other people hurt. like, i don’t doubt that many people are very straightforwardly happy and comfortable with an identity like ‘afab nb lesbian on testosterone’ and it would be ridiculous and hypocritical for me, ‘afab nb who wants to pass as a guy so he can comfortably wear skirts again,’ to act like that’s something that can’t or shouldn’t exist. it’s not about the identity itself, it’s about the politics that are popular within its community, and how the use of identities as moral labels with like, fucking pokemon type interactions for oppression effectiveness which directly informs the moral correctness of your every opinion and your very existence, is a shitty practice that gets people hurt and leads us to revoke empathy from each other.

like. sorry this is all over the place and long and probably still sounds evil because i haven’t thought through and disclaimered every single statement. but i’m like exhausted from living with this self-conscious guilt that maybe i’ve turned into a horrible evil truscum misogynist etc etc due to feeling upset by this seemingly inescapable approach to gender in lgbt/online circles that like, actively harms me, because when i vent with my friends all the stuff i’ve tried to explain here gets condensed down to referencing ‘she/theys’ as a category and that feels mean and generalizing and i genuinely dislike generalizations but the dread i feel about that category gets proven right way too often. it’s just like. this is not truscum this is not misgendering this is not misogyny. this is not about me decreeing that all transmascs have to be manly enough or dysphoric enough and all nbs have to be neatly agender and androgynous or something, i’m especially not saying that nb gender isn’t real lmao or even that it’s automatically wrong to partially identify with your asab; this is not me saying you can only medically transition for specific traditional reasons or that you don’t get a say on anything if you aren’t medically transitioning for whatever reason, now or ever. i just. want to be allowed to be frank about how... when there’s different experiences in a community we should like. acknowledge those differences and be willing to say that sometimes people don’t know what they’re talking about or that what they’re saying is harmful. without the primary concern being whether people will feel invalidated by being told so. because these are like, real issues, that are more important than politely including everyone, because that method is just getting vulnerable people drowned out constantly.

Thanks for asking! I realize I never elaborated on the Jet/Zuko parallels so here goes.

Season one Zuko/Jet are both extremists, though on opposite sides of the war. Zuko will stop at nothing to capture the Avatar. Jet will stop at nothing to rid the world of the Fire Nation. Zuko is the fallen prince, while Jet is the war orphan, both trying to restore what they’ve lost. And both have significant interactions with Katara.

Focusing on book one first, I’ve already written about how Jet manipulates Katara, which makes it worse not only because she did have romantic feelings for him, but because she was totally taken in by his whole freedom fighter thing. He also manipulates Aang and tries to manipulate Sokka, but Katara was the main one who felt betrayed by him. Katara has such a big heart and fighting spirit but at this point in the story she is fairly naive, and it shows here. She probably never considered before this episode that somebody fighting on the right side could be a bad person.

I also looked up the mouth wheat thing because I’ve seen it a lot in anime for similar “tough guy” characters and as that other post I reblogged said, it is a stand-in for cigarettes. I also found out that it’s supposed to represent a banchou, which is a juvenile delinquent gang-leader. And Jet is the leader of a bunch of feral kids, although they are ostensibly revolutionaries. Longshot, Smellerbee, and the Duke do seem like they have good intentions, and they often call Jet out on his behavior.

I also think there’s a comparison/foil with Katara’s interactions with Zuko in book one, which revolve around the necklace and his attempted kidnapping of her. Zuko tries to manipulate Katara using her mother’s necklace but is not very good at it. Not necessarily because he has any moral compunctions but because he’s just not that socially adept. He is most often the victim of his father and sister’s manipulations and the few times he tries to copy them he fails ridiculously, because he is incredibly literal-minded. He’s blunt and often fails to understand things that aren’t directly spelled out. He is not a manipulator.

I’ve also seen people compare Jet flooding the Fire Nation village to Zuko burning down Kyoshi Island, in order to make Zuko look worse, but as I’ve said before, Zuko burning down Kyoshi Island was not intentional, it was something that happened as a result of reckless firebending. That doesn’t make it any less bad, but it seems like it’s been popular recently to add this to the list of things that make Zuko “problematic,” so much so that I actually forgot that scene and was surprised when I rewatched the scene recently and discovered it wasn’t the intentional razing of the village that some people on tumblr make it out to be. Zuko’s fault there was simply not caring about the collateral damage in his pursuit of Aang. He wasn’t intentionally trying to burn down the village. Plus, if we were being honest, all the gaang would cause destruction wherever they went given how much bending they do. That’s not something the show dwells on, though, the way that superhero movies don’t dwell on New York getting destroyed for the hundredth time (unless it’s a deconstruction of the genre).

What Jet does is much more deliberate. He’s aware that what he tricks Katara and Aang into doing will cause the deaths of innocents, and dismisses Smellerbee when she tells him so, and he’s aware that the gaang will not approve of his actions enough to hide it from them. There’s also an interesting elemental parallel/foil, Jet destroys a village with water and Zuko destroys one with fire - foreshadowing that water can also be destructive? Hama, anyone? Robert Frost said it. 

I think I know enough of hate to say that for destruction ice is also great, and would suffice.

Anyway.

Book two, the Jet/Zuko parallels/foils are much more explicit, and highlighted by the fact that they actually meet in book two. Zuko’s on redemption road, although he doesn’t know it yet. Jet explicitly states that he wants redemption, although he’s still doing the same things he was doing before. He enlists Zuko in helping him steal stuff because he thinks he’s entitled to it, and I guess you can argue about whether it was justified, since the captain was treating the refugees unfairly, but Jet mostly seems interested in stealing food for himself and his group. To be fair, Prince “ew, poor people” Zuko doesn’t exactly have egalitarian motives, either, which is why helping Jet steal food is a regression in his arc. It’s him donning the Blue Spirit identity (although without the mask) once more because he’s trying to get closer to the material life that he lost. It’s also hilarious that when Jet asks Zuko to do this, Zuko’s dumb ass is like “well, Uncle did tell me to make friends.” Sometimes I wonder who was more naive, book one Katara or book two Zuko. Iroh is like “god, I leave him alone for five minutes and he joins a gang.”

When Jet keeps pressing Zuko about joining the Freedom Fighters, Zuko says no. Again, not for any moral reasons, but because he knows that if Jet keeps pressing, he might find out who Zuko really is. Zuko is honest with Jet when he says “I don’t think you want me in your group.” Not for good reasons, again, but the claim that Zuko somehow manipulated Jet is absolutely wrong. Jet was the one who approached Zuko and made assumptions and got pushy when Zuko said no.

Jet does genuinely want and try to change, but his major temptation is finding out that Iroh is a firebender, which he finds out right after he gets pissed that Zuko rejected him so I do think that was part of his motivation for going after them, considering how pushy Jet acted with the gaang when they rebuffed him. Jet, of course, fails the test, although what happens to him certainly isn’t his fault, even if he did make mistakes. It’s a tragedy that in the end, the choice to turn his life around was taken from him, and he was betrayed by the people who he thought were the good guys. This also highlights the theme that sometimes people on the “good” side can be not nice people, which in turn paves the way for Zuko’s redemption and the wider theme that it is actions that matter the most, not which nation you are from. Separation is an illusion, folks.

Zuko’s test happens first when he attempts to steal Appa, the last time he dons the Blue Spirit mask, and then in “The Crossroads of Destiny.” Unlike Jet, Zuko doesn’t know he’s being tested, he doesn’t know he needs to change, although Iroh keeps telling him he does. The change happens in Zuko without him realizing it.

Katara tries to heal Jet, and Jet dies. Katara almost heals Zuko, and Zuko betrays her. And this time Aang is the one who almost dies, who Katara has to heal. This certainly contributes to Katara’s mistrust of Zuko later on, all three of these events tied together. And all three boys are people she has romantic tension with.

Which brings me to another reason I dislike Jet, or rather, what he is meant to be in Katara’s story. Many people have pointed out that Katara is romantically attracted to Jet, and his superficial resemblance both to the “bad boy” trope, and to Zuko. There’s a reason Zutara shippers make this comparison, although I believe its purpose in the narrative was actually to be anti Zutara and provide support for Kataang, but because the writers really didn’t know how to write Kataang properly, it ends up as the opposite.

Recently I saw a post by a popular blog that was anti Zutara that cited Jet as an example of Katara having “low standards.” And like, I can’t entirely blame the post for its misogyny (Katara is FOURTEEN) because this is what the writers want us to think. Katara’s attraction to Jet is very much playing on the “girl develops a crush on the jerk who doesn’t care about her” stereotype. This is, subtly, one of the ways that the show punishes Katara for not returning Aang’s crush. Interestingly, in this episode Aang doesn’t get jealous of Jet at all, and doesn’t even notice Katara’s attraction, but that’s because Aang in this episode is also still naive and in his early stages of his attraction to Katara, and also thinks Jet is super cool. Sokka instantly hates Jet, though. And Sokka is right, but he also has flavors of the over-protective big brother. I do remember that this episode left a sour taste in my mouth because of the (thankfully downplayed) implications that Katara is a silly girl who falls for the “wrong” types of guys because women don’t know what they want and need a man to help them “discover” their feelings. I also think this is meant to be subtextual in Katara making the hat for Jet which Aang ends up wearing, because Aang is the “good guy” who really does care about Katara, you see? Thanks show, I hate it. To be fair, I blame the writers for this, not Aang. Aang is just having fun hanging out in a treehouse and gets to wear a cool homemade hat. It’s the writers who put this weird misogynistic pressure on Katara.

It’s funny though when people compare Zuko to Jet in order to prove Zutara wrong, because when you compare the two, Zuko is the one who ends up looking better, the one who works hard to repair his damaged relationship with Katara, who genuinely did change. The one whose life she could save after he had done the work to save himself.

Why I’m a Leftist

I know I’m probably just some dude who reblogs cool stuff to most of my followers but I’ve got a nice long story/rant about my political beliefs here that I’ve been wanting to write for awhile

I am a leftist first and foremost because I value human life. Everyone matters. No person is inherently more important than another person. Everyone has inherent rights that should not be infringed. People who infringe on other’s rights are morally wrong to do so. In essence my leftism is based on doing what is right. Obviously everyone has their own opinion on what is right but what is vitally important is knowing why your moral code is right. This is why so many people become liberals or conservatives or otherwise rather than leftists. They simply do not know enough about how the world works. There are a lot of reasons they don’t know, not the least of which is intentional covering up history and preventing education. I don’t believe people who aren’t leftists are stupid, but I do believe leftists know more. It’s kinda fucked up but it’s the only way you can explain inconsistencies in other’s values.

My path to leftism was full of cringe. When i was 7 years old Al Gore was running against George Bush for president. I did not know enough to have a real opinion on it but I am happy to say that I wanted Al Gore to win. This thought was based on very little if any logical reason. I basically flipped a coin in my head I think. Or maybe there was some outside influence that I wasn’t aware of, like my older sister who I looked up to might have said she liked Al gore. Either way, from then on I was in favor of democrats and did not like George Bush. When 9/11 happened I remembered thinking how dumb it was that people lined up around the block to get gas. Even as a child I knew that some buildings going down wasn’t going to end the great nation of the United States. In general I thought the United States was a great country. I knew from movies and tv as well as elementary school history that the United States was the most powerful country in the world. 

I recall in Sixth grade my teacher mentioned she liked George Bush because he was against gay marriage. Somehow at the time my opinion was the opposite despite being raised Catholic. I believed in god until I graduated high school and suddenly my desire to be religious slipped away and so did my belief. I do not consider this a great loss. 

Sometime in middle school or early high school I had solidified my opinion that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was pointless and George Bush was a bad president. I was heavily influenced by movies and somewhat by video games that had imparted plenty of anti-war messages. Talks with my dad about nuclear missiles, watching History channel shows about world war 2, and playing Metal Gear Solid which had explicit nuclear disarmament messages, all informed me on the horrors of war. This was not enough to make me totally anti-military. In high school I wanted to join the military because I thought it was an easy way to get life experience and eventually pay for college. I was attracted to the Marines because of how cool movies like The Rock and video games like Call of Duty made it seem to be a Marine. I thought they were the best of the best. I was simultaneously against war, against veteran worship, and very pro-military. I was indoctrinated by years of government propaganda but also disillusioned by all forms of media including the book All Quiet on the Western Front which was about a soldier becoming disillusioned by witnessing horrors of war and the negative impact it had on everyone in his country. I spoke with a recruiter during my senior year and expressed my desire to be a Marine but I told him I wanted to wait a year after high school so I could get physically fit enough. The recruiter did not care that I was underweight and out of shape. He didn’t even care that I was very enthusiastic about joining, he was still putting on his best salesman demeanor which made me incredibly uneasy. The experience is supposed to pressure people into signing up on the spot, I think they even had forms for me to sign (i can’t really remember though) but I was not ready and was aware enough how I was being manipulated although not entirely cognizant. After that I no longer wanted to be in the military.

I also have to point out that I grew up in an unstable household. My parents were both loving but they were flawed and made mistakes and had problems. My dad was a typical Gen x man’s man. A little bit too emotionally repressed, but actually really good with kids when it came to play time and still is. He worked a lot because my mother couldn’t. My mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as long as I can remember. Her medical bills related to her problems combined with other financially bad decisions by my parents caused my home life to be fraught. I lived in varying degrees of poverty until my parents separated and me and my siblings moved with my mother to her parents’ house away from my father. Prior to moving though, we endured great financial difficulty. We were unable to afford school lunches but could not apply for free or reduced lunches because technically my father made a lot of money, however it was all garnished for medical bills. My father always tells about how he bought a car that had hidden frame damage and when he attempted to sue the dealership for selling a bad car he lost and was garnished for that as well. Despite making over 25 dollars an hour in 1999, my father could not afford school lunches for three kids and couldn’t afford to pay the gas bill. Without going into too much more detail, life sucked and continued to suck until I graduated, at least financially. I still found plenty of joy and it wasn’t always that bad. We still found ways to have good things like video games and we could always rewatch old movies but there’s a lot of psychic weight that comes with being that poor as a child and I’m sure it affects me and my ability to empathize with others who in bad conditions. 

So i watched a lot of movies and documentaries, read a lot of books growing up, discovered internet forums at the age of 11, played video games, moved to a town that had a very large Hispanic population, and I even grew up poor. All of this life experience turned me into a very average liberal upon graduating high school. I was a very optimistic 18 year old. I thought science could save the world. If I was 18 today I would be an average redditor stereotype probably. The point here though is I still wasn’t a leftist. Only vaguely progressive and full of optimism. This is when I got sucked into the anti-feminist pipeline.

I can’t remember what exactly what I had going on in my life but I remember it was around the time of Gamergate. Everyone on the internet, celebrities, and pop culture were saying “if you believe in equality between genders you’re a feminist” an did not like that. And there was a ton of people online to tell me I was right in not liking that. They all said feminism was not necessary anymore because legally you couldn’t discriminate against women and I agreed. Gamergate made it worse for reasons too complicated to get into in this already long post but suffice it say I was “pro Gamergate.” This put me at odds with my closes friends who thought feminism was great and had no qualms with it, and were already embracing the idea of being a “social justice warrior.” Despite reading all kinds of anti-feminist think pieces and reveling in the discourse, I was still very progressive and liberal minded person. Still thought the military was bad, that black people were discriminated against etc. But so many aspects of anti-feminism were appealing to me as a white guy who tried their hardest to do what they’re told is right, had low self esteem, undiagnosed adhd and depression, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism was. Two things got me out of anti-feminism though. The first and most important thing was having friends who were patient with me about it. I didn’t reveal how into anti-feminism I was because I was ashamed but they could sense it and pushed back when they could. The second thing that got me out of it was actually finding feminists online and reading what they had to say, staying away from poorly written clickbait articles that fueled misogynist tirades against feminism. After reading and learning from feminists it finally clicked. Our society is patriarchal and that affects how people interact with each other regardless of what is legal. Many of the complaints of anti-feminism talk about how men have it in society, so how can society be patriarchal. It’s because of patriarchy that men are put in bad positions. Some of the more self aware anti-feminists had retorts against these ideas but they were emotionally charged. There’s still some anti-feminists I have respect for because of how well prepared and logical they were when it came to disputing feminism. But when it came down to the fundamental tenants of feminsim all they could respond with was anger or outright denial of reality. (If you’re like I was and don’t understand how anyone can thing modern feminism is good please feel free to ask me more, I just can’t get into specifics in this long ass post) Anyways, once you understand patriarchy and how it affects an individuals actions then you can start seeing how other institutions and cultural norms can affect an individual. This is basically fundamentals of leftism. I’d say about 90% of my path to leftism was just naturally absorbing cultural and historical information through consumption of media. The most conservative people I know are people who haven’t read very many books or seen very many movies. I’m not saying watching Austin Powers at the age of 10 will make everyone a leftist but constantly recontextualizing the world by learning something new, even if you learned it from some dumb comedy movie, can give you better grounding in a shared reality.  Don’t know how to end this but I want to say when I was a teenager I thought “communism is good in theory but it doesn’t work in practice” and I had almost no historical basis for it other than the vague notion that USSR = bad despite having consumed a massive amount of media. None of it taught me what communism actually was, I didn’t know who Karl Marx was, and I had no clue why communism in the USSR failed. You can know a lot without knowing the truth so if you’re struggling with a loved one who is mind poisoned by conservative keep in mind that they know a lot but they’re missing something important to give clarity. 

This has been my Ted Talk

*anon who said that I agree with you on that post*

I’m pretty sure that a lot of girls who are currently very into gender ideology and liberal feminism would definitely agree with most or at least a lot of radfem ideas that are not about trans people. And of course this doesn’t mean that we should just let everyone call themselves a radfem but it would be Better if we had people who agree with Some radfem ideas and still believe in gender, than have people who not only are knee deep in queer theory but also are Convinced that every single thing radfems say is dangerous and evil and they should be against it by principle. In the first situation there would at least be Some progress. We should be more realistic about the way we approach things and understand that an “all or nothing” behaviour regarding people who are learning about radical feminism is directly harming our goals.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to write this response. And thank you especially for the following: “see how each of you use different buzzwords to mean the same thing and will keep stubbornly doing so even when it prevents effective communication within the well-intentioned people within each side”. You were absolutely right about the language thing you said at the beginning of the response. My intentions weren’t bad but things like that are exactly what prevents the “constructive discussions” I mentioned I wanted to happen, from actually happening. It was a wakeup call because it’s so easy to call out behaviours I myself perpetuate, and I’m sure many others can say the same thing. As much as people (certainly including me) don’t want to admit it, the “us vs them” mentality is strong and even if we Do have good intentions, we can get carried away. Taking time to review how we think/talk about radical feminism is important because as much as I or anyone else believe we’re in the right side of things, insensitive behaviour and a dismissal for “the other side” are still so common.

I'm assuming you're both the same anon, sorry if you're not.

I agree with you, though. While I understand the concerns on the watering down radical feminism too, it is true that having an absolutist stance on certain things does nothing to foster communication and cooperation (things that are vital for building an effective political movement!) I care less about whether or not someone who believes X or Y is allowed to call herself a radfem than I care about "what is her stance on [insert issue]?"

It's the same thing as with the debates about separatism. I don't care at all whether a woman with a boyfriend is can be a radical feminist or not. I care about that woman's political stances, her actions in real life. Some people might say that, idk, Gail Dines is not a radical feminist because she has a husband (idk if she considers herself that, tho, but she is associated with radical feminist thought) but who she's married to doesn't negate all her invaluable contributions to anti-porn activism.

(no, I'm not at all an anti-separatist and I fully support women being separatists I understand why some are/want to be. And more power to you! What I was addressing is the argument that women who aren't can't be proper radical feminists.)

What's at the core of this issue is whether or not a person can agree partially with an ideology or not, if you must commit 100% to it or if you can agree with what X group thinks about [issue] but also about what Y group thinks about [other issue]. I think it's valuable to be able to find common ground with different viewpoints within reason. To me, feminism is more an action than an identity. So I don't care whether someone is a Pure 100% Perfect Radfem (there's no such thing tbh, we all do stuff that others might classify and 'not feminist' that's a bit inevitable when you live in a patriarchal system, doesn't mean we can't also take part in actions that are feminist because our 'not feminist' actions taint us. They don't.) I care about what stances people have and whether we can work together on a feminist issue or talk about feminist theory without yelling at each other. People with different stances on what the concept of gender means can also believe in the importance of talking about sex-based oppression and i want us to talk about it, whether that can be called "being a radfem" or not.

It’s International Fanworks Day and also the 30th and final post in this series. If you follow my tumblr, you know that my true fandom isn’t buddy cops or Highlander or any of those things. No, my true fandom is...

WANK

No matter which bitchy piece of fujo-course nonsense you’re looking at on tumblr, no matter which debate about WNGWJLEO or women in slash or fanfiction vs. media you're reblogging, your grandma was having that fight in a zine somewhere in 1985 and at Escapade in the 90s.

Here’s a vid review from 2002:

"History Repeating," [...] was an Amanda vid. In-fucking-credible. Who knew? Who knew I could like Amanda? Who knew there were fresh HL clips I hadn't seen a thousand times before in HL vids? (Of course, as someone pointed out, she had her own spin-off.) This rocked--sharp, fast cutting and pretty, pretty shots, with a hot bisexy vibe running through it. And, you know, people like to say that there's all this self-hating misogyny in fans--you know, that women hate shows about women, hate women characters breaking up the OTP, etc. But when you see a femme-centric vid like this bring down the house, you really have to wonder. Is it misogyny, really, or is just that we usually see a bunch of crap representations of women in media and resist them?

So on the theme of There Is Nothing New Under The Sun, here is a selection of past Escapade panels on gender, representation, and problematicness:

1993 - Anti-Feminism in Slash Fandom (Or, how 'it was never this good with a woman' syndrome... where are the women, and why do we care?)

1995 - Why Lesbians Read Slash - (What's the attraction? Why do they care? Why do they write it?)

1996 - Character Bisexuality: Convenient fiction or character trait? (Is this a good compromise between "We're not gay, we just love each other" and "I was gay all along and just faking it with women"? Or is this too easy? Special mention for the stereotypical bisexual villian who's evil, sexy, and can come on to everyone.)

1996 - Female Heroes: Female Empowerment, or male power in women's bodies? (Give a woman a gun and make her really tough. Wow, cool! yes, or no? Are we celebrating women, or are we merely putting breasts on male action heroes? Heroines under discussion may include (but not be limited to) Sara Connor, Ripley, Vasquez, Thelma & Louise.)

1997 - Gender Astigmatism (The Gender Continuum: in what we read, in what we write, and what we are, there is always a connection with a point on the gender continuum. How do our definitions of "feminine" and "masculine" influence our creativity? Where do bisexual characters fit in? (besides there, you dirty-minded person!)

1998 - Xena: Does Girl-Slash Get Us Going? (Xena is the first show with a feminine couple to be really popular. What kind of slash fans are interested? Does gender orientation matter? Or do slash fans love slashy couples regardless of their gender? Can m/m fans be 'converted' to f/f fans?)

1998 - Bastards & the Women Who Love Them (When Methos says, "you live to serve me," any normal '90s woman says, "I don't think so!... or does she? A happy contemplation on the virtues of handsome thugs.)

1998 - Slash: a Continuation of Women's Writing, led by Constance Penley (In case you didn't know, in her recent book NASA/TREK (yes, the slash is intentional), she addressed slash as a continuum of women's writing, combining women's romance, and the male quest romance. Join her for a discussion of slash -- where it was, where it is, where it might be going.)

1998 - The Trauma of Slash Fans in Het Fandoms (Or, what to do when find women doing all that cool, tough-guy stuff you love.)

1999 - Male Slash Fans - Welcome Voice, or Infringement? (Slash is written by women for women — or is it? The Internet has attracted new fans, including the "male slash fan". Who is he? What does he think of what "we" do? Do we care?)

2002 - Femslash (General discussion on female/female slash fiction. If Buffy wanted something cold and hard between her legs, why didn't she just choose silicon?)

2003 - Slash: Feminist political act or really good porn?

2005 - Where have all the lesbians gone? (When some slash lists explicitly state m/m only, where do you go for femslash? Are there any hot femslash couples? Pimp your femslash fandom here, or bemoan the lack of strung female characters in the current conservative social climate.)

2007 - Femslash: The Other Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name (Femslash. It's a work that makes some of our hearts leap for joy and inspires complete and total disinterset—or even dislike and disdain—in others. Where can we find the good stuff? What makes it good? And what's up with the haters?)

2007 - SGA: The Women of Atlantis (What do we like about how the women of SGA are written and portrayed, and what makes us wince? What do we think about how their issues are being woven into the show's narrative?)

2008 - Gay is Not Slash (...even though slash is sometimes gay. The current argument about m/m romances by women as taking recognition *away* from male gay writers, depends on m/m writing being intended as gay lit. And slash, for one, isn't, even if there can be overlap. What overlaps? What doesn't? What examples do fans like?

2009 - Female Character Stories: Halfamoon, Full Moon or Just Moony (F/f slash, and other stories centered on female characters, are gaining visibility in fandom. Are there things fens will write about women that we won't about men? (Given MPreg, *are* there?) Should f/f be like m/m, or is it unavoidably different?)

2011 - My ***** is Not Ideologically Driven, But is it Homophobic (Slash fandom often sees itself as a mostly liberal community. IDIC, right? But recently there's been a slash backlash: it's anti-feminist, a 'symptom' of internalized misogyny. We're 'erasing' the women characters after all. Is slash homophobic? Does slash fandom appropriate gay culture? Is it awesome and ennobling as it makes us happy in our panties, or is all that self-hatred bubbling just beneath the surface of our porn?)

2012 - Natural Woman (We've lamented the lack of strong, believable female characters (who dress appropriately). But now we have them: Gemma Teller and Audrey Parker; Salt and Haywire; we've got Bechdel-passing women who look like they can throw a punch. Still, most of them are in the sci-fi or action genre, so are we really seeing progress? And what are we doing with them, as fans?)

2012 - Don't Call It a Bromance (It's Just Canon) (TPTB are increasingly aware of slash, and bromance is regular fare on TV canon these days. Does overt bromance make the fic and art hotter or just vanilla? Is there an anti-slash backlash in our shows? Is the emphasis on men's relationships making women disappear? Inquiring minds want to know. If you have answers, theories, or just want to squee, join in the fun!)

2014 - (The End of?) Ladybashing in Slashfic (Slashfic used to regularly feature bashing of female characters. Now, blatant bashing seems less fashionable. If you recognize this trend, let's talk! Were most ladybashing fics ones for juggernaut pairings in megafandoms, or were they everywhere? What's causing the change: more women in leading roles/ensemble casts, fic writers being more conscious to avoid bashing ladies even if they're not their favorites, more willingness to blame show writers' bad writing (instead of the character being just bad/evil/stupid) for bad female characters, or something else entirely?)

2015 - Fifty Shades of Fandom (Fifty Shades of Grey has become the representation of fan fiction in mainstream culture. It’s bad fan fiction, and it’s being used to ridicule women while making millions off women readers and viewers. Can we connect with these women: proto-fans who would love to read, and maybe write, great fan fiction if they found it? Can we use the FSoG phenomenon to expand our community? Does keeping our doors closed and our mouths shut perpetuate both monetization of our fan culture and misogynist scorn?)

2016 - Who Are We? (How do we define ourselves in this age of so many OT3s and team orgy pairings? Does m/m/f count as "slash"? Is slash-only space slipping away? (And would that be bad?) Do m/m and f/f belong together more than they do with m/f? Is "Media Fandom" a valid term any longer? Who are we if we start shipping het?)

2016 - Ladies Loving Ladies. (There would seem to be enough queer women in fandom to write/want more f/f. Do lesbians write f/f, m/m? Both? Do straight women? Or are we still missing the iconic female characters and relationships that create a great slash fandom? Did they figure out the answer to this question at TGIF/F and if so, what is it?)

2016 - By Us For Us (Fic, even kinky slash, is practically mainstream these days. The ebook revolution puts publishing within reach of almost anyone. Sundance hits have been filmed on iPhones. So why aren't fangirls making more media? Or is it happening right under our noses? Is this a place where our women's gift economy does our community a disservice? Discuss what's out there, what we'd like to see, and what's holding us back.)

2017 - LGBTQIA+ in Slash Fandom (Queer fans have always been here. In a subculture often defined as "for" straight women, what do we as fans have to say about non-straight, non-cis, and non-conventional sexuality and gender in fanfiction, in fandom, and in the larger culture?)

2018 - Confronting the Tensions Between Slash and Queer Representation (Slash fandom thrives on homoerotic subtext. Many queer fans are unwilling to settle for this quasi-representation. Part of every slash fandom seems loudly invested in their ship becoming canon. Some are queer fans who want actual textual representation in their favorite shows, and some are fans using queer politics to fight ship wars. Then the “slash is not activism” posts make the rounds. Is slash activism? Is advocating for slash ships in canon the same thing as advocating for queer representation?)

2018 - Representing Slashers (What does "representation" in the media mean to us? We know what more gay or POC representation means, but what about slash fandom, which is largely female and focused on bodies that don't resemble our own? Would better female characters in media better represent us? Or male characters written for a female audience? Come talk about the intersection of slash, personal identity, and media representation.)

2018 - Anonymity in Slash Fandom: Choosing to Hide (Why do the majority of slash fans hide their hobby? Is it fear of blackmail? Embarrassment? Fear of losing employment? How does this affect your happiness? How does this affect your security? What would an ideal world look like? Who would/have you told about your interest in slash? Who would you never, ever, tell?)

2019 - Fandom Post-Slash? (In an era of "ships" and #pairing #tags on Tumblr and AO3, has the "slash" label lost its meaning? Same-gender pairings are as popular as ever and fans still ID pairings with a virgule between the names, but how many fans still call m/m and f/f slash or femslash? How many fans identify as "slashers?" Het and slash were opposing binaries which few fans crossed. Are these barriers breaking down? What purpose has the term "slash" served? Has fandom moved

past it and, if so, what does that mean?)

I appreciate the response. Yeah, among other adjustments, had the plot been handled a little differently, I feel like Sam’s relationship with her parents could have evolved into something like that of Danny and Jazz and their parents. And don’t get me wrong; I still like Sam, too.

(In reference to this post and follow-up ask.)

Good to hear from you again 😊

I think there were a lot of things across the board that could have been tweaked or edited to improve the integrity of the series.  If I had to boil down the problem with DP to a single point I’d probably say it’s that the most interesting parts of the show are the characters/world/implications but the writers (or some of them anyway - I suspect there might have been some conflict between Hartman, the lead writers and the execs’) wanted certain plots, aesops and gags, and chose to brute-force them in regardless of whether they actually worked with what was already there.  Basically, it lacks consistency and internal logic.

For Sam in particular I think there are a few things that could have been handled better:

First one’s more a general complaint at the show and might light a fire under my notes but heck lets go there anyway but the writing has kind of a sexist bent that really doesn’t fit the characters or need to be there. Considering how much Danny and Jack are shown to love and respect Maddie and Jazz there’s no way they’d call their involvement in Genius Magazine “the swimsuit edition”.  Paulina might be traditionally feminine but “She surrendered her individuality for a boy! I’m so proud of her!” is not a line that any human girl in the history of human girls would say unironically.  There’s also a few too many jokes that basically boil down to “male character is emasculated/ vulnerable/ likes feminine-coded things, hyuk hyuk hyuk”.

I’m bringing this up not just because they’re gross cheap gags but because for Sam specifically, this pervasive low-key contempt for women and femininity in the writing, especially the tendency to portray almost every non-sympathetic girl her age as one-note, brainless boy-crazy cliches that she can’t connect with, really does not help her character.  I would have loved to see more genuine interaction between Sam and the other girls, even if it most of it was Kim Possible-Bonnie Rockwaller style antagonistic rapport.  We could have seen her develop some kind of tenuous connection with one of the A-listers, or even just have a secondary-female-character to be cordial towards - kind of like Mikey is for Danny and Tucker.  Hold up, outside of Valerie, Star and Paulina are there any named secondary girls at Casper High?  Sam doesn’t seem to have a single female friend in the show and considering how vocally judgemental she is, it can almost read like she’s rejecting them outright for being girls, which really undercuts attempts to make her seem feminist. (I mentioned it in a past tag but this feels like an early-2000s-male-writer mistake of equating Female Empowerment™ with the ability to tear down other women and belittle traditional femininity - which isn’t so much Feminism as it is Internalised Misogyny.)  Even just mixing up the pairings to put her with Star instead of Kwan in Lucky in Love would have helped.

I’d have also liked to see more awareness of and consistency in the conflict between her activism and her wealth.  It kind of undercuts the significance of her activism when you realise that she’s wealthy enough to make these choices with little cost to herself; it’s much easier to go vegan or buy renewable/ recyclable /sustainable /fair-trade when price isn’t an issue, especially if you also have serving staff to offset the time cost.  Once you notice this it makes her activism feel more tokenistic, and also like she doesn’t really understand her own privilege when she tries to push her agendas onto the school/ her classmates without considering why they mightn’t be able to do so as easily.  It’s also weird because the source of her family’s wealth is a cellophane-toothpick-wrapper (i.e. something that basically produces litter) but she still seems very comfortable enjoying the material benefits despite her pro-eco anti-consumerism sentiments.  It’s bizarre that she’s more concerned with the social consequence of ‘fake friends’ than the ethics of capitalism.  It can come off a bit “do as I say, not as I do”. 

It would have been nice for the show to give more screen time to reinforcing that Sam is aware of that conflict and is making an active effort to hold to her principles even at the cost of personal comfort; maybe showing some unease at the source of her wealth, trying to live below her means and only spend up on ethical/ eco-friendly/ sustainable products, op-shopping or hand-making her goth accessories, going out of her way to re-use or re-purpose things even if buying a new one would be ‘better’, actually showing or referencing her doing substantial hands-on activities (e.g. going off-screen or taking the boys to do tree-planting, litter pickups, soup kitchens, animal-shelter work etc).  Just something to help make it clearer that she genuinely cares and isn’t just doing the low-mess lip-service activities because she enjoys indulging in the image of Wokeness™.

These things would have helped regardless of how her family was written but let’s hop back on topic and talk about them.  I don’t have any prescriptive preference but let’s spitball a few different options and how they could have played:

#1 Sam’s parents don’t respect her interests and want her to fit a mold

In this case I’d make it that they don’t really pay attention or show much caring for who Sam really is as a person; their image of and interactions with her are more of a fantasised version of the ‘perfect’ daughter they want, they make very little effort to encourage her actual interests and are perhaps restrictive about what they let her do in the few moments when they do bother paying close attention (you might compare to some versions of Tim Drake’s Parents from DC Comics).  Classist, overly image-conscious, snobby and superficial.  

This would be the most sympathetic portrayal of her character without changing it very far from how it is in DP canon - helping contextualise why Sam is so fiercely defensive of her autonomy, why she pushes so hard when trying to get her opinions across and why she’s so judgemental of rich people and disdainful towards classic femininity - even possibly explaining her more hypocritical/ manipulative/ entitled traits as learned behaviours.  It would also give her more legitimate reason to be less empathetic towards others - after all even if they have struggles and family troubles it’s still better than what she’s dealing with (Danny’s parents may not be attentive but hey, at least they love him for himself, right?)

For this version I’d probably put her arc around growing past the “suffering olympics” model of viewing other people’s pain, but also in her finding family in Danny/Tucker/her Grandmother’s circle of connections, learning how to have healthy power-balance and communication in her relationships with others (aka: getting over her hypocrisy and realising that assertiveness is about communicating that “I matter, and so do you”) and pulling away from her parents’ influence - maybe even living with Ida a lot of the time.

#2 Sam’s parents are well-intentioned but overbearing

For this one, Sam’s parents would genuinely want the best for her… only they have an overly old-fashioned and restrictive view of what “the best” is and are a bit set-in-their-ways.  They’d probably view “hippies” and “goth” stuff as “dangerously rebellious hooligan-activities” and likely to be somewhat patronising about Sam’s passion for it being “just a phase”.   They’d be worried about her hanging around “the Fenton Kid” and “the Foley Kid” both because Danny’s parents are kind of irresponsible screwballs about safety but also because they put a lot of value in image due to their belief in social connections being the way to get ahead.  Them pushing Sam towards classic femininity and specific activities would be less about disrespecting her identity and more about their overly narrow view of “success” and worrying that she’s going to end up losing valuable opportunities and “wasting her life” if she keeps on down her current path.

This would still give Sam more sympathetic context for her views on femininity and pushiness about self-expression. 

Personally I think the arc I’d like to see here is one themed around responsible/considerate assertiveness and valuing alternative perspectives.  Sam coming to realise her own hypocrisy - that she can’t push her views onto others while complaining about her parents doing the same - developing more sympathy for Danny as she realises that he’s in a similar position with Jack’s insistence that he’ll inherent Fentonworks and his parents’ narrow-mindedness about ghosts, interacting with other girls and seeing their perspective, learning how to assert her opinion while making allowances for others’ (maybe an alternative version where she connects with Star in Lucky in Love and, after Aragon’s defeat in Beauty Marked, Sam still says she personally thinks it’s dumb but then steps down and lets Star win because she understands that Star values it), and getting her Grandma’s help in convincing her parents to widen their perspective while still responding to their concerns.

(This one has the overall kindest message and I think I like it best).

#3 Sam’s parents are trying and Sam’s actually the problem 

This one is the one that’s the least sympathetic to Sam.  Her parents still don’t get the Goth/Activist thing and they have some concerns about safety but they understand that it makes her happy and they’re okay with it so long as she’s not getting into trouble or mixing up with anyone that could hurt her.  Them pushing her towards more feminine/optimistic things is less pushing and more trying to encourage some hobbies that offer a bit more common ground.  They might have reservations, and they might not always have time, but they would like to be part of their daughter’s life… except for the problem that Sam has wrapped herself up in a teen-drama persecution complex and got it into her head that they “won’t accept her” are “pushing her to be someone else” and “don’t understand” so there’s no point even trying to explain or connect.  In this one Ida isn’t taking sides on purpose but she ends up accidentally enabling Sam a little because Sam reminds her of her younger days and she likes spoiling her granddaughter (and doesn’t much care for her daughter-in-law).

In this case Sam’s flaws would be framed much more as flaws born of her making superficial snap judgements, thinking she knows better and being too proud to admit she’s wrong.  There would definitely be moments of her coming across as an entitled, privileged holier-than-thou brat who invents problems because she likes feeling sorry for herself, especially early in her arc.

This version of the story would go the hardest on Sam with the general lesson being “you need to respect that other people are people who have their own problems, feelings and needs that are as real and valid as yours”.  She’d still have good qualities and Danny and Tucker would still obviously like and value her but there’d also be times of strain where they don’t want to hurt her feelings but are clearly getting worn out with the nonsense.  At its worst, maybe a “you’re like mustard. Great in small quantities, but a lot of you is…a lot” type confrontation.

I’d also give the secondary cast the most fleshing out, agency and sympathetic-ness here, and have beats where Sam has to realise that they’re lot more complex than her 2D stereotyped view of them and are dealing with actual serious problems to which hers are largely non-issues by comparison.  I’d probably play Dash and Paulina similar to in the fic Alibi (go read it, it’s good) - Dash being gay and performing aggression because toxic masculinity, insecurity, and being terrified of anyone outside the A-listers finding out (still not okay that he’s a bully but at least more understandable), while Paulina is hiding high emotional perceptiveness behind her pretty face and deliberately bearding for him to keep bigoted parents/ teachers off his back.  I’d also probably have a subplot in an alternate Life Lessons where Sam follows Valerie around because jealous/possessive and, like Danny, ends up realising that she’s working two jobs to help her Dad with their financial problems.  Basically she’d be getting hit with the Reality Stick a lot.

There’d also be more instances of Sam getting directly called out by the other girls. Fleshing them out as people and showing that their dislike is less superficiality and more because she unfairly judges and antagonises them all the time.  Giving them more agency in Beauty Marked and have them be direct about “we know you’re just here to be smug about how much ‘Better’ you are but have you considered that we’re doing this for ourselves and actually enjoy it?”.  Having Paulina be less “tee hee I am indeed a Witch” in Parental Bonding and more “Ugh fine, fine, I don’t really like him that much but you were being so obviously Jealous and Judge-y and I figured if I played a little you might actually step up.  But fine, if you’re sure.  Here’s your necklace back, I’ll let your dorky ‘friend’ down tomorrow.  But pro-tip?  You like someone you gotta go for it - otherwise don’t complain when your boy-toy gets taken by someone who actually means it.”  (Still petty, but emotionally intelligent pettiness, which… not really much better, but at least more interesting.)  A lot more of Sam realising that she’s not a particularly good feminist and that she’s no more entitled to Danny’s affections than anyone else.

To be honest, while I could say the most about this version and there’s a lot of potential drama there it’s the one I like the least because it means canonising my least favourite proto-abusive bad-faith narcissistic reading of Sam, casting her as an almost-villain and essentially punishing her over and over until she character develops into a decent human being.  Sure it’s an important message about how you treat others but it’s not a very nice or kind story and while there might be the odd fic that makes it cathartic I can’t say I’m a huge fan.

Again, if I had to pick, I’d probably go with something like #2. 

But there we go.  Another thrilling instalment in the “overly long posts about Sam Manson” saga.  

Hope you enjoyed it and thanks for stopping by!

blog rules   //    ♔

♔  ( intro )     Hello, anybody that may be reading this! My name is Marcel, and I’m just a guy that loves both Sebastian Smythe and torturing peoples existence with his shenanigans. Half a joke, half not. I have been role playing Sebastian for over three years now and have come back to love my boy again after a long time of taking a break from the RPC, and my previous blog was bcingnicesucks. I am in the PST time zone, if that means anything to you. I love making new roleplay partners and meeting new friends through this hobby, so please always feel free to reach out to me and say hi! I can be bad at initiating first interactions but I still want them to happen trust me! I look forward to writing with you. 

♔  ( selectivity/follows )     I am private and highly selective purely for the fact that I am particular about what I want to write and keeping my number of partners minimal to an extent makes me able to put all my energy and heart into every plot I write with you. If I follow you, it means I want to write with you. I only interact with mutuals. I don’t care how pretty your blog looks or what kind of icon you use. I could honestly care less. I just care about your writing and the dynamic we plot out for our characters. I don’t roleplay with people who use huge gifs just because of clutter reasons but anything else goes (icons, gif icons, no icon or gif at all, smallish gifs, etc.). If we are mutuals though, feel free to bug me anytime any day for all the plotting. I am such a slut for plotting and adding depth to the dynamic our muses have. I obviously am a bit bias to glee characters but I adore universe-colliding as well as OC’s and will be posting various AU’s for Sebastian over time. I also love glee characters that are highly off-grid from the canon glee plot. I’m not completely anti-following other Sebastian’s (I’ve written and been close with Sebastian’s in the past) but I don’t really make an effort to do that. 

♔  ( writing )     Roleplay is meant to be fun! It’s all fun and games! So let’s have fun! I don’t like petty stuff if there’s no reason for it, ngl. I am not triggered by any subject when it comes to writing so come at me with whatever. I like to write long things and short things-- but I really do prefer something somewhat in-depth overtime. If you get frustrated with long replies though, I’m probably not the right writing partner for you. I never expect you to match the length at all, as long as you give me a little bit of something to work with, my love for lengthy writing is purely just something I enjoy to do so that the universe in which Sebastian exists in is prominent and vibrant in my head. I will never judge you for lack of writing or long replies as long as it’s not like a one-liner reply to my two paragraph reply. Do what you can! Express yourself! I don’t care about grammar being perfect either, that’s an unrealistic expectation considering not everybody is the best with grammar and some people come from different first languages. 

♔  ( content )     The mun is 18+, and Sebastian is lowkey a hoe, so in no way will this blog be free of NSFW content. I used to be fine with interacting with minors so long as it wasn’t shippy or anything but now I”m kinda even uncomfortable with knowing a minor could be seeing NSFW content on their dash coming from my blog so I highly prefer things to stay 18+ around here. Sebastian has a dark character background, meaning their may be mention of child abuse, death and more on this blog. I will tag everything I post accordingly always. If there’s something specific you’d like tagged that you see, hit me up. I can accommodate to that. 

♔  ( activity )     My activity varies from what’s going on in my life but I intend to stay active as I can always. September-December I will be doing an internship with Disney so I may be a bit busier than usual meaning my activity might be spottier as far as actual replies but I’ll stay active on the dash and you can always feel free to remind me of replying. I don’t like to be harassed but I do lose threads sometimes so I appreciate your reminder if you give it. 

♔  ( portrayal )     Seeing as there was literally never a specification for Sebastian’s sexuality in the duration of the show, I have always imagined him to be bisexual. This being said, I play Sebastian as being interested in both men and women with a stronger interest in men. Sebastian is a human and there is a reason for every negative thing he may do, but Glee is a campy show and role play is fiction-- meaning my Sebastian is a dick. Yes, Sebastian is a good person but he can also be a bad person. He is a learning human and he is a pest, I will not lie. If you are offended with anything Sebastian says or does to your muse, then you can let me know but this is a warning now that if you’re highly sensitive or offended by characters who like to fuck things up a bit then I don’t recommend writing with me haha. 

♔  ( shipping )     I am so easy to ship with I’m not gonna lie. Sebastian is different story but as far as I go you can ALWAYS come to me with your ship ideas or needs. I love to ship unexpected or strange pairings and I get so excited about ships. I prefer to go hardcore with ships, and what I mean by this is when I have a ship with you I will make it my upmost effort to make it unique for the both of us and mainly prioritize just having fun! 

♔  ( stealing )     Yes, a lot of roleplayers have some similar headcanons if they roleplay the same character, but I have a very specific headcanon childhood and story line for Sebastian so I can tell if you stole specific details. I would never assume someone of copying if I didn’t feel confident in it, because again, from personal experience headcanons can definitely be the same between two people without intention of stealing them. If something is not credited on the things I post, that means I made it. All icons are made by scratch by me. 

1) I don't really have any opinion on MeToo other than nice if it works but as far as I know it's a binary issue with the whole oppression aspect. It's my friend who's into that stuff and wants to punish evil-doers and all that jazz while she can. So when these random guys targeted me and started following me around and do the occasional butt grab and weird panting in my ear while looming over me she sees this as a prime opportunity to implement her newfound power. But based on the

2) “compliments” they were panting into my ear and that nonbinary isn’t really a thing and I go around tits present and I presume they were straight so even if they didn’t tell me they thought I was a woman I assume they were aiming all this to a woman in their minds. So it’d be misdirected misogyny or something like that. Kind of when people think I’m a foreigner because I was given an exotic name but it’s not actual xenophobia because I’m not a foreigner. But anyway it’d be co-opting

3) women’s experiences because misogyny is meant for them. If they would’ve somehow guessed I’m nonbinary then I could’ve said it’s transphobia or whatever the word is for nonbinary people or maybe exorsexism if I had corrected them and as nonbinary isn’t a thing they probably wouldn’t have believed that. But as they probably thought I was a woman it had a misogynist intent and a non-woman can’t experience misogyny even when I was harassed it wasn’t about me and I can’t make women’s

4) issues my issues. So if it gets reported everybody will view it as misogyny and I end up leeching on women’s work to end harassment towards them unless I correct it by outing myself. I mean if a man is mistaken as a woman and harassed based on that they can’t say it was meant for them so why should I be allowed some special treatment just because I happen to look like a woman to everybody? It’s my problem I should solve by myself and not use it to make issues that aren’t about me literally

5) about me. There are lots of actual women who get harassed without me barging in to mess it up for them just because I pass as a woman and could go on forever wondering is all harassment I ever face really about people aiming it to me as a “woman” or me as a person they don’t like or respect. Statistics say it’s the former but I’m not going to stick around to ask when people start groping me so I aim to respect women and stay in my lane and stay out of their business both good and bad.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I’m going to start with the part that I at least can find vaguely humorous: you have here sent an ask saying that an issue is binary, to a blog whose URL is literally ‘we don’t care about your binary’.

Oppressive binaries are generally false ones constructed to condense the oppressive structure into a nice straightforward us vs them situation. This is useful for the oppressors, not least because it makes everyone who doesn’t actually fit the Designated Oppressed Group question their own experiences no end, and it splinters various marginalised groups because they don’t see the common roots to their marginalisation.

The binary is false. Gender is not a binary. Neither, shockingly, is gendered oppression. And I pointed out yesterday that there are several systems interlocking within the realm of gender-related oppression.

The idea that gendered oppression is a binary issue relies either on subsuming everything bad that happens to non-cis people under misogyny (and a lot of it does overlap, not least because of ‘misdirected misogyny’ and the fact that, thanks to the oppressive group doing their best to model ‘them’ as a single cohesive group, anyone who isn’t a cis man is likely to get boxed into ‘woman’ at some point, but misogyny does not explain everything that trans, NB and genderqueer people face!), or denying that anyone who isn’t a woman could ever be oppressed for something related to gender.

That, as Lune pointed out yesterday, is gender reductionism. It focuses on a specific identitarian distinction (between ‘man’ and ‘woman’) without any actual regard for the lived experiences of non-cis people. As such, it is not a functional model for explaining the marginalisation of non-cis people.

Of course, how much of that I can really explain to you I do have to question, given your statement that ‘nonbinary isn’t really a thing’.

Please think about who you sent this to and why you worded it that way, anon. What is prompting you to ask a group of people who consider themselves nonbinary for advice, when you apparently don’t even believe that ‘nonbinary’ is a thing someone can be? Hell, what’s prompting you to identify with the label if you don’t believe it exists?

I’d wager that someone else’s words are coming out of your mouth there. Do think about why you’re letting those words do that. Why are you holding onto that version of the world? What’s it offering you apart from invalidation, dismissal and erasure?

but it’s not actual xenophobia because I’m not a foreigner

You know, I’d be inclined to say it is? It’s a negative reaction to something perceived as being From Elsewhere, so the people having the reaction are definitely, you know, xenophobic? Even if they happen to be wrong about the thing being From Elsewhere?

And if this is meant to be a parallel to your experiences of misdirected misogyny: you’re pulling a complicated mental runaround here that would imply that bigotry is not real when directed at you because you’re not the Target Group, and that said bigotry is directed at you because you are mistakenly assumed to be the Target Group.

Taken together? Those two things would suggest that the people who harassed you, even though they presumably harassed you because they assumed you were a woman, aren’t actually misogynistic, because it can’t be misogyny if it happens to you.

Does that make sense to you? Does that sound like a sensible way to model oppressive systems? Because to me it does not.

If they would’ve somehow guessed I’m nonbinary then I could’ve said it’s transphobia or whatever the word is for nonbinary people or maybe exorsexism if I had corrected them and as nonbinary isn’t a thing they probably wouldn’t have believed that.

I mean… it was transantagonistic anyway because they assumed your gender based on cissexist criteria? Oppressive systems overlap! I’m going to have to repeat that a great many times, I suspect!

And again with the ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’. What is it, to you, anon? And whose definition are you actually working off?

I can’t make women’s issues my issues

… more than one group of people can have the same issue? Oppression is not as binary as a lot of analysis would make it. 

(And I know we love the binary analysis because it makes things so simple and easy to understand, and if we try to analyse things in a less binary way things get incredibly complicated. But if our theory is not complicated, it will be wrong. And that is worse.)

You’re talking about a kind of harassment that serves to reinforce power. Misogynistic social structures are a major power dynamic where that kind of harassment is used to reinforce that power, but it is not by any means the only one.

Again: yes, absolutely, be aware of who’s being disproportionately affected, be aware of why you’re being targeted, none of that is bad practice exactly, but this is about an incident in which you, you specifically, were harassed, correct?

Whose experience is that if not yours, anon? Who is actually the target of this harassment that was directed at you if not you?

I’m also going to point you to the last point described in this post, the Mistaken Identity Argument. Please have a read through of that post, and take a good long hard think about what it might imply about NB people as a group and their experiences that you’re so willing to deny your own experiences this way.

(Exclusionary rhetoric is often recycled. Yes, that post is from a ways back in the anti-ace discourse, comparing it to the exclusion of bi people. The underlying principles will likely hold true across a great many other cases. And you really are repeating the Mistaken Identity Argument damn near word for word here.)

So if it gets reported everybody will view it as misogyny and I end up leeching on women’s work to end harassment towards them unless I correct it by outing myself.

This is honestly a fascinating (if disturbing) thing to read, because… well, surely, if your experience is misdirected misogyny, and gets reported and understood to be a misogynistic attack, then it being reported will in fact help women work towards ending harassment motivated by misogyny? How is it ‘leeching’ when it’s helping women get where they want to get?

The only explanation that’s actually occurring to me is that you think it would somehow be inappropriate for the success of one group to have beneficial effects for another group (in this example, it’d be somehow inappropriate for efforts to reduce harassment towards women to also reduce harassment directed at you). Which… what even. Curb cutter effect, for one, and for two, oppression overlaps. That is the way of things in this bastard society.

I mean if a man is mistaken as a woman and harassed based on that they can’t say it was meant for them so why should I be allowed some special treatment just because I happen to look like a woman to everybody?

It would be an attack motivated by misogyny directed at someone who is not a woman. It would be harassment, and the man in question would be well within their right to be upset and distressed over being harassed.

I’m not sure what this was meant to clarify. Yes, the man is not necessarily an intended target of misogyny. But if they got taken for a woman and harassed over it, then it’s still that man who has been harassed. It might not have been ‘meant for them’ in the sense that they’re not actually a woman, but someone decided that they were an appropriate target and harassed them because of it. It’s still wrong even if it’s ‘misdirected’ misogyny. That goes under the same principles that any other case of non-women being on the receiving end of misogyny-motivated harassment would.

(Also: you realise that there are men in the world who go through harassment for exactly the same reason you did? There are trans men who haven’t, can’t or won’t transition in a way that gets them read consistently as men?)

There are lots of actual women who get harassed without me barging in to mess it up for them

And how, precisely, are you messing things up for them? Are you forwarding any kind of argument or politics that contradicts the aim of ‘reduce misogynistic harassment’? Sure, having to contend with an understanding of oppression that isn’t binary means more headwork, but if we don’t do that headwork, we’re going to be working from a bunch of faulty premises. Unless you’re also going to start arguing that non-cis people don’t experience any kind of independent oppression, that shouldn’t be all that controversial a statement.

Statistics say it’s the former

I’m not going to argue with you about why you think you’re being targeted, but my inner scientist will never shut up if I don’t address this: of course the bloody statistics say you’re being targeted for being read as a women when most of them don’t even account for the existence of nonbinary people.

How many official documents have you come across that have options beyond ‘man’ and ‘woman’? Society is exorsexist, folks! And outside the realm of assorted alphabet soup communities, most statistics won’t go any further than the official documents.

So like. Yeah, women are disproportionately chosen as targets of harassment. But let’s not get too wrapped up in what statistics that don’t even acknowledge the existence of NB people say about our experiences, mmkay?

Now, for the record: please understand that what you’ve plated up here displays a great deal of exorsexism. There’s the blatant ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’, for starters. Quite frankly, there’s fuck all we can do to explain exorsexism or anything else to you if that’s the stage you’re operating at. I can go on all I like about how NB people specifically face forced invisibility and denial of identity, how this serves to splinter marginalised communities and play them off against each other, how modelling gendered oppression as being about man vs woman disservices NB people specifically, but if you can still find it in you to respond to that with ‘nonbinary isn’t a thing’, then… what the fuck are you expecting from us?

Then there’s your incredibly binary-centred understanding of oppression. This blog spends a lot of time on the subject of how binary-centric privilege politics fail NB people, and here you are, just… plating up more of the same. Why? What are you expecting us to say in response to this anyway?

Further: other NB people in the world have experienced harassment. A fair few of us have experienced it while closeted and pretending to be women, or just straight up being misgendered as women. When you say that misogynistic harassment couldn’t possibly matter when it happens to you because you’re not a woman? You’re telling one hell of a lot of other NB people that you don’t think we’re allowed to be angry or upset about the harassment that happened to us, because that also happened while we were being misgendered as women.

And I’m going to get very serious for a moment here: what you’re doing - distancing what happened from yourself, giving every excuse you can think of as to why it wasn’t actually bad, why it didn’t actually matter - is classic trauma survivor mentality.

It’s a survival tactic, it’s the kind of thing that keeps us alive when we have nowhere else to go. When you’re making it about your experience of having a certain marginalised identity the way you’ve done, it has splash damage. It’s a mental framework designed to endure, not to improve.

I don’t know if that’s what going on with you. I don’t know a great deal at all about your situation. I can’t do more than offer ideas.

And based on the fact that basically everything I’ve said here is the same stuff I said yesterday, at greater length, I can only assume that you’re not hugely open to taking in those ideas at present. That’s for you to deal with in your own time, you’re the only person who can live your life. I don’t know what you’re expecting us to offer you when you can’t even do us the courtesy of believing that maybe we do in fact exist as NB people.

So I’m going to return to yesterday’s questions that you never answered: do you honestly believe that it’s okay that you were harassed because it was by mistake? Do you honestly think that your harasser should get away with doing what they did because they did it making incorrect assumptions about you?

I’m not asking for some defeatist blather as to why you aren’t allowed to have an opinion on your own life and experiences because someone else was transantagonistic and exorsexist on top of being misogynistic and misgendered you. I’m asking do you honestly believe that what happened was okay and should be dismissed?

- Cade

Facebook Insomnia 7.25.2021 1. I am still sad to conceptualize life in terms of fiction and the condition of fiction rather than Christianity undivided.   Today I had a lot of images of Japan in my mind.  I heard the phrase 'Japanese Breakfast' which is the rock-star name of the author of 'Crying at H-Mart' a famous book. I remembered someone who once dated someone who became my enemy. This person I respected I now realize and I am happy that I didn't say anything excessively stupid that would have implied I look down on her, saw her as easy, saw her as 'material to work on,' someone to have a plan for etc.   I asked her once for help getting someone to interview at Deloitte for consulting only this person was in Accounting. I never really saw this person as in my league or anything to me except as a 'Curriculum Developer' I guess I outranked her and so wasn't shy of talking to / with her in official functions.   Later we drank together and I said a few random things like that I stress- / binge-eat apples, like 5 apples a night. My friend once did a funny imitation of her that in retrospect sounded a little like my Taiwanese ex-girlfriend's imitation of Kaori Mochida from Every Little Thing; the funny thing I now realize is that he too had lingering affection for her despite everything.  I feel he became anti-Korean racist and I don't know where he is now but in retrospect he definitely never crossed a line with her that I know of except for asking questions I would never ask.  He called her by her Asian name which was something I never did in those days feeling it pretentious.   'The mysterious maiden of the Moon...' - It's a line from Yi Kwangsu's 'The Soil' in which a married man is comparing his wife with someone else like his former student.  In good Korean custom since his former student once had a puppy-crush on him and gave him some corn, when her husband finds out, he kicks her to death in her pregnant stomach and this is why I oppose many things in principle such as tribalism, marriage, and for all intent and purposes the nuclear family. Yi Kwangsu is a problematic figure and as a Christian or aspiring Christian / 'Christianist' I don't recommend it.  It has incredibly exquisite descriptions of women that could make you brain-dead.  Yi Kwangsu also supposed Japan's occupation of Korea so that to this day talking about Yi Kwangsu can get you crucified.   I also seem to recall something like '_ _-ya, you got run over by a train you one-legged prostitute; now you have to love your husband even more.'  But I don't remember the context. Ironically or not 'The Soil' is the title of a Knut Hamsun novel the author of which supported Hitler; I do not.   I wonder where she is now. This person got shot at a lot and I regret adding to her burdens with my sin-eater-type confessions or just shooting my mouth off when stuff happened.  I had a crush on someone else and started saying I was sad I lost my virginity in college; IDK why I said anything. This person also had high alcohol-tolerance - extremely high for a female Asian - and although I could also drink a lot I always did bad self-destructive things. In the Middle Ages one form of 'trial by ordeal' was to reach your hand in to boiling water to pull out a pearl and if the boiled skin healed well you were exonerated or sth.   She must be 'somebody's everything; my impossible girl.'  IDK why she talked to me and I made fun of her and all my fictionalized versions of her and theories of her were derogations.   Like me she played the piano. She once said '_ _ is popular' which was a burn I appreciate since I'm anti-popularity and anti-personality-cults. She went to a school part of which is Victoria College where a literary critic I admire(d) taught for many years. I am stuck in America, hounded by Satan through the personages of my Maoist biological family and 'family tree' of America torn between past and future, un-death and life; due in large part to my excessive tendency to defend myself, to lash out, to wash my hands on the outside without cleaning my 'interior mentality' to paraphrase the 'Da Xue,' or to blaspheme the Spirit in some respects, I feel. I regret talking about her and at the same time why would I talk about lesser maidens? IDK what her favorite piano-piece was as I never endeavored to enage her in discourse about art or aesthetics given she is not a 'kisaeng' or 'geisha' and I am not a museum-curator or whatever.  Other people would be like 'Oh!  You lke the Grande Valse Brilliante; I know you spent the summer of 2003 teaching yourself repeat-notes.'   Everyone wants to drag everyone in to their mud or graves these days.  Am reminded of Endo Shusaku's 'Silence' about why Jesuits would apostasize in medieval Japan.  His conclusion was that the 'swamp of Japan' was too full of sensualism, the Portuguese Jesuit wanted a Japanese mistress or wife.  I once yelled 'swamp f-ggot' at someone due to their tendency to emotionalize and 'contextualize' everything which was an underhanded way of trying to make me change my sex as well.  In an effort to mitigate some of the tempting evil pornographic things I said about KR over the years I said a few more but this is a person, whose name means 'Pearl' as in 'the pearl of great price for which oe sold everything else.'  It is said that AAPI Twitter, America, house-slave Am-Kor own-goal Korean self-exploitation honor-killing squadsters, etc. want to these people in the trash. I found my Gideon Kor-Eng NT Psalms with the 'victory song' that sounds like Mandarin in its Revelation, that I had worried I'd lost.  That might be the 'most grateful' thing that 'happened.' I also remembered what my Mandarin name used to be though I had many in different classes I took. I was going to say many things, but in the end: the mystery of Charity.

*

I never considered the full implications of socialism or mental socialism till today.  I assumed that it was valid mitigation.  Some are born rich, some are born poor, it's wrong to let the latter starve on principle alone.   I don't even know how to say this.  I remember during the Iraq War being struck by how much the government - like my mom - was asking outsiders for advice about how to fight.  Dick Cheney got in trouble.  Years later I was skeptical of the F-35 because a lot of idiots with no skin in the game wanted to build it here or there. Wisconsin wanted to build the 'Littoral Combat Ship' which who cares. It made people worse and worse. The only thing is, the CCP - who ultimately serve I dare not even say whom, but clearly not the ghosts of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin or perhaps even Mao Zedong - figured out awesome killer ways to troll Republicans like Scott Walker w/ their 'FoxConn Fallujah hokey-pokey' whereby they got an avowed capitalist to promise socialists something that actually came from-post-hyper-anti-socialist hyper-capitalists with a plan to kill all white people or something. My father used to talk about the University of Chicago School of Economics all the time and it made me sulkily ask myself why 'Poor Dad' is talking so much about stuff that supposedly makes people billionaires while Jacob's English major dad is Bloomberg's 'chief of staff.'   I say again it's just like Biden saying all the right stuff, 'knee on the neck of the American soul, bone of our bone, winter of peril, hey dumbfuck, articulate, they're killing people.' Writing grant-proposals to the government to fund private research in to brain-injury that is itself applied by the government to veterans sent to get brain-damaged by a government that said good things and did retarded things based on their readings of the good things they said a bit like Karenin in 'Anna Karenina.'   I remember when George W. Bush said 'I'm the decider.'  I once told my dad to get out of my face so he got really sloshed up and vapored, 'I'm in your face!'  I'm not even saying that to defame someone but welcome to reality. Every so often every male seems to try to man up then they defend themselves like, 'No that is not the way in which I meant that I was manning up.'  You could call this 'self-draft-dodging.' It's ancient history but if I had been wiser I would have tried to predict the future for myself rather than visualize it as an abstract spectatorial notion.  At day's end mental socialists can literally not understand why it is wrong to steal.  Stealing is compulsory under socialism - I again come back to 'Pearl' since her ex-suitor and I used to reflect on how Korean collectivism drove people into themselves.  Similarly mental socialists cannot but hoard 'capabilities' so that in the end they'll falsify anything, steal anything; the only limit I guess is living with themselves.

I keep giving myself to fantasy and coping of all kinds like a 'mental Changrae Lee novel, mental David Guterson novel,' or ultimately Vergil (Virgil).  There has to be a new music, a new dream, something, a new city, though it is odd to think about pre-Christian times and a legend of what came before Rome in a Christian moment amid realignment in 'late Roman history.' My favorite YAL book still perhaps is 'The Giver' since it deals with the uses of history, with abortion, and with escape or exile.   I was going to say a while back something about 'Light in August' which relates to escape - as well to complacence - and to interracial relationships, pregnancy, the right to live.  I was in Minneapolis but mind was on Japan, on all these swords, not the Olympics but histories of swords and strange armor, halberds.  There was a huge sword called a 'field sword' in translation. I don't even want to see these people again; I sincerely pray the Japanese Prime Minister, the men and women of their armed forces, Tokyo's apparently amazing counter-terrorism and response capabilities for NBC / WMD / etc. attacks since the Aum Shinrikyo Sarin subway attacks and maybe their counter-nuclear or ability to respond after a nuclear blast will be enough.  People in America are trying to live by a little of the old, a little of the new, but it seems utterly impossible. When people abuse me I get really dreamy.  I read Virgil in high school; I was thinking of 'post-Covid YAL' or so in which people are just on the run, harrowing themselves, not even nostalgic for Babylon or anything in it.  It is almost like 'the meaning of the soul.'  I realized that in addition to new churches and new government laws Covid will engender new birth-defects and there will have to be new medicine.  Japan is a country that I said bad things about especially when in Korea but she never did anything bad to me - I remember playing 'Final Fantasy' and thinking someone out there loves me; they made an investment in children worldwide.  The only thing is I'm too old for such adventures and I fall apart quickly. All these birds in Japan, colors of red - people get obsessed with the Otherness of Japan and want to abnegate Belial-like (a demon or fallen angel of sensualism, to my understanding).  

I took so many notes and voice-notes yesterday that I devoutly hope my visions will pass to someone.  The future is going to be so beautiful for somebody but I have lost so much faith in my ability to mitigate or restrain evil.  Those who I had thought were simply stupid but were diabolically opposed to my existence - whom I did not wish to understand and whom I had 'fancied' I could placate or appease through offerings - turned out to be radically evil, unconditionally evil.  I feel that my father (biological) would steal my soul if he could; would eat it in a way.  My mom is always sitting on the porch and gives a look of hope like I could change her mind but it'll never happen.  I want to kill myself; I think things worldwide will get worse before they get better; I don't trust Biden or anyone who says the right things without showing exactly what they are doing.  Christians seem so petty sometimes like melanin, hairy legs, in Japan this therefore that, Native American Indian manhood rituals.   I just want to know which pastor has the 'batting average' I can believe in but it has to be John MacArthur doesn't it?